Did Jesus commit suicide?

[iam1me]

Suicide, by definition, is the intended and purposeful act of killing oneself. The desired end result is death as one is intending and purposefully ending one's life.

The first sentence is correct. The second is your own fiction. The definition says nothing of the individual's desire or end result. It is merely a matter of whether one intentionally acted to kill themselves - which Christ did.

So that doesn't address what I said. I'm not jumping to an unjustified conclusion just because you can't form a rebuttal.

The rebuttal is that you are jumping to unjustified conclusions. Little needs to be said beyond pointing that out. Until you can back up your claims there is no need to seriously entertain them.

Second, we know it isn't a distinct testimony as it seemingly, and really logically, is using older sources in order to create a new story. We can be certain it's using older sources because of the composition of it, which makes this clear, but also because of the date in which it was written. It is too late to be first hand, so thus it logically has to be at least a second hand story.

Just because it may or may not draw upon older sources (a mere hypothesis) that doesn't in anyway shape or form invalidate us from noting that it is in fact a distinct testimony. It differs from the Synoptic Gospels, does it not? That makes it distinct. Indeed, it is the most distinct of the Gospels. You really need to learn to use a dictionary.

John also contradicts the Synoptic Gospels at times, so we can logically assume that one or the other is wrong. They also hold differing theological views which are opposed. We have everything pointing to the fact that some of this stuff is made up. More so, from a historical perspective, and this is what the Jesus Seminar did, as have many others have done, since the quote is singly attested to, the likely hood it is authentic, simply based on how history is done, is rather low. It also contains high Christology, which we see developing later on, and is distinctly different from our earlier sources. Studying the development of theology, we know that something like this develops from a simplified version to more complex. So again, we can say that it most likely isn't from Jesus.

Some degree of difference between the testimonies is expected if indeed these were true events. People remember things differently, had a different view of things at the time, and emphasized different things in their retelling. Rather, everything being exactly the same would be suspicious and evidence that these testimonies were false.

Additionally, the fact that Jesus chose to die is attested to in the Synoptic Gospels as well. Here's a great passage from Matthew for instance:

Matthew 26:52-54 “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”
​

Jesus could have called on God to defend him if he so pleased. He chose not to that the scriptures might be fulfilled. He chose to die. So attempting to isolate and eliminate John from the equation won't really help you.

Finally, no one was writing down direct quotes from Jesus. That wasn't how historians did it at that time. They created the speeches later on, and that leads to some mighty problems. Since all writers are biased, that is going to show up in those speeches. But more so, the Gospels weren't written as history today. They were written as largely theology, they were written as literally, the Good News. So the purpose of what the author is doing from the beginning is to spread theology, which we see in the verses you took out of context.

They recorded what they recalled, or which was handed down to them from those who heard it. There's room for error of course - but it's a mighty big jump to go from they might have not captured it word for word to saying that they made it up. That's not a logical position to take - it's simply a defiant position to refuse a conclusion you don't like but which is inevitable.

The whole thing is talking about how Jesus is the ideal leader, the good shepherd. That a good shepherd will lay down their lives for their flocks, which is what Jesus says in the preceding verse.

Appealing to a general theme doesn't negate what is actually said. You have failed to show why what the text says is wrong or should be interpreted differently.

If the end goal wasn't death, then it can't be suicide. You are trying to make up a new definition for suicide. I'm not dancing around anything. You're literally redefining what suicide means in almost every post.

See the beginning of my reply - it is you who are trying to add their own private qualifications to the definition of suicide. There is nothing in the definition of suicide that requires death to be the end goal. The only thing required is that one intentionally seek to end their life. The purpose/reason behind doing so is irrelevant.

Have you read the full passage? Just read the verses preceding it. He specifically likens himself to a shepherd of a flock (such as a flock of sheep). If you know anything about a shepherd, that is a very risky position. We see that continually throughout the Bible. As a shepherd, you would be armed in order to protect your flock from many dangers. It is a very risky position. And Jesus is placing himself there. He is literally saying, I'm the shepherd, the ideal leader. And he's saying, I will lay down my life to save my flock. He's not saying he will kill himself, but he will allow himself to be killed if that means saving his flock. That isn't suicide as it is not an intentional and purposeful taking of one's life. The desire, as we both agree, isn't death.

Of course I've read it - and he repeatedly makes the point that he lays down his life. That is his intention, his role. He isn't talking about being at risk of losing his life - he is emphatic that he will do so. You are trying to read something into the text that isn't there.

How did I try to make this about me? I'm a Trinitarian. You don't need John to show argue for the Trinity. A better argument would be to look at Paul's framework that is then built off of until we get the polished Trinitarian view later on. And Paul was just borrowing from a binitarian view that was present within Judaism.

Well for starters you jumped in all offended to a post that wasn't even addressed to you. You made it about you. But putting that asside, neither John nor Paul were Trinitarian or Binitarian as you say. Rather, both the Gospel of John and Paul's epistles are filled with verses that are completely contradictory to the Trinity. They clearly did not view Jesus as God Almighty. If you'd like to dig into this subject more, start a thread on the topic and send me a link. It's a bit off-topic for this thread.

1 Corinthians 15:27-28 For he “has put everything under his feet.”c]">[c] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
​

So Martin Luther King Jr. committed suicide? So did Malcolm X? Both of them knew there was a threat on their lives. Malcolm X talked of this a number of times, and even narrowly escaped a few attempts. He could have ran away. He had people who tried to dissuade him. But he continued on, knowing full well what was going to happen.

They risked their lives but did not intentionally seek to die. It was an acceptable risk. That is distinct from Christ - who intentionally handed himself over to be crucified in order to fulfill the scriptures rather than run or fight (and he had the power to as he himself attests).

Jesus didn't take any additional actions to lead to his death. He simply didn't run away or shrink away in fear. If we look at people who have sacrificed them, they generally have a way out. They could run away and hide. But to do such destroys the mission they are on.

It was more than that - he intentionally laid down his life. That was his role. That's why he rebuked Peter who tried to dissuade him. That's why he rebuked the disciples when they took up swords to defend him - telling them that he could ask his Father who would send legions of angels to him if he so desired. But he did not because then he could not fulfill the scriptures. He chose to die.

That's not really how a debate works. You presented an idea, one that is against the consensus among experts. You have the burden of proof then to show why your interpretation is right. Not the other way around. You whole argument rests on a fuzzy idea of suicide, and the one line that Jesus says he has the power to lay down his life, that no one can take it. He never says, I'm the only one who can kill me. He doesn't say he is looking to die, or he is intentionally and purposefully looking for a way to take his own life. He never says his desire is to die. He says that he has the power to lay down his life.

If we look up what laying down one's life means, according to the dictionary, it mean's to die for a good cause. An example given of this idiom is: "heroes who laid down their lives to preserve our nation" (coming from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. When a soldier goes out to fight for my country, and they lay down their lives to protect our freedom, I don't say they committed suicide. They also could have ran away. But they made the choice to take their lives in their own hands, and lay it down for what they believe is a good cause. That's a sacrifice, not a suicide.

Except they don't, as has been explained quite a bit.

I haven't said anything that goes against consensus concerning Jesus' rebuke of Peter. However, even if I had, the scriptures are right there for you to read - plain as day.

Feel free to lookup commentaries if you don't feel up to the task, however:

Passion Foretold. Peter Rebuked. Commentary - The Fourfold Gospel
33 But he turning about, and seeing his disciples. a turned, b rebuked Peter, and saith, {a said} unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art a stumbling-block unto me: for thou mindest not the things of God, but the things that be of men. [Jesus withdrew from Peter and turned back to his disciples. By the confession of the truth Simon had just won his promised foundation. But when he now turned aside to speak the language of the tempter, Peter receives the name Satan, as if he were the very devil himself. Peter presented the same temptation with which the devil once called forth a similar rebuke from Christ ( Matthew 4:10 ). He was unconsciously trying to dissuade Jesus from the death on which the salvation of the world depended, and this was working into Satan's hand. Peter did not mind or think about the Messiah's kingdom as divinely conceived and revealed in the Scriptures.]
​

To repeat the commentary: " He was unconsciously trying to dissuade Jesus from the death on which the salvation of the world depended, and this was working into Satan's hand."

 

[LightofTruth]

I believe that is a false interpretation. Jesus does not say He was commanded in those verses.

He most certainly did!

Joh 10:18 no one doth take it from me, but I lay it down of myself; authority I have to lay it down, and authority I have again to take it; this command I received from my Father.' YLT

"he did it in obedience to his Father."--Joseph Benson

"This commandment received I, viz., at the Incarnation: the commandment to die and rise again. Comp. Joh_4:34, Joh_5:30, Joh_6:38." --Cambridge Bible

"This commandment — to “lay down His - life, that He might take it again.”" -- Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

"I received from my Father (elabon para tou patros mou). Second aorist active indicative of lambanō. He always follows the Father’s command (entolē) in all things (Joh_12:49.; Joh_14:31). So now he is doing the Father’s will about his death and resurrection." --Robertson's Word Pictures

"the Syriac, Arabic, and Persic versions read, "because this commandment have I received of my Father": this is a reason why he so readily exerted his power, both in laying down his life, and taking it again, because it was his Father's command and will, and which he received from him," --John Gill

"We should be on our guard against the mistake which is often made of understanding this commandment of the laying down the life only; it clearly extends also to the taking it again." -Ellicott's Commentary

"And this, saith he, is the will of my Father, that which my Father hath given me commission to do, and for which he hath sent me into the world: and thus he declareth his death to be a fulfilling of his Father’s purpose, and an act of obedience to his Father’s will; and indeed, in his obedience in the thing lay much of the virtue of his death." --Poole

"He did it in obedience to his Father." Joseph Parker


"This commandment have I received from my Father. He recalls our attention to the eternal purpose of the Father, in order to inform us that He had such care about our salvation, that he dedicated to us his only-begotten Son" --Calvin

"ταύτην τὴν ἐντολήν κτλ. This was the Father’s commandment, viz. that He should die and rise again. See further on 12:49 for the Father’s ἐντολή addressed to Christ" --ICC Commentary

 

[LightofTruth]

Joh 10:18 no one doth take it from me, but I lay it down of myself; authority I have to lay it down, and authority I have again to take it; this command I received from my Father.' (YLT)

Anyone can easily see that the authority Jesus had to lay down his life and to take it back again was commanded from his Father..

In other words, the Father commanded Jesus to lay down his life so that he might take it back again. And therefore Jesus had that authority to do so. Jesus always did the will of his Father.

 

[sojourner]

The CDC doesn't define suicide, nor are you in a position to arbitrarily extend it with your emotional judgements. We have reached an impasse I'm afraid; you can't discuss the matter objectively.

Apparently, you can't discuss it factually. The CDC does have criteria for determining suicide; I provided the link. Did you miss it or ignore it? At any rate, as I've asserted before, suicide must be self-inflicted. Crucifixion isn't suicide -- it's state execution. Your argument fails.

 

[amatuerscholar]

The first sentence is correct. The second is your own fiction. The definition says nothing of the individual's desire or end result. It is merely a matter of whether one intentionally acted to kill themselves - which Christ did.

If you intend to die, you must have a desire to die. Here's the definition for desire: DESIRE stresses the strength of feeling and often implies strong intention or aim. So the whole idea of having a desire to die means that one would have the intention to die. So the second sentence is literally just describing what the word desire means. Also, you never have shown that Jesus intentionally acted to kill himself. Your original quote was just talking about how Jesus said no one has the power to take his life, but that he has the power to choose to lay it down. That isn't saying he's doing anything to intentionally act in a way to kill himself.

Really, if we go back to your original argument, the easiest rebuttal is that Jesus was wrong when he said no one could take his life. Him making one statement that is distanced from his death doesn't equate to suicide.

The rebuttal is that you are jumping to unjustified conclusions. Little needs to be said beyond pointing that out. Until you can back up your claims there is no need to seriously entertain them.

That's literally not a rebuttal. I backed up my claims, I explained my position. You've never shown that my conclusion is unjustified. But if we're going that way, my rebuttal to your entire argument is that it is an unjustified conclusion. And with that, I really don't need to do anything else.

Just because it may or may not draw upon older sources (a mere hypothesis) that doesn't in anyway shape or form invalidate us from noting that it is in fact a distinct testimony. It differs from the Synoptic Gospels, does it not? That makes it distinct. Indeed, it is the most distinct of the Gospels. You really need to learn to use a dictionary.

So your last sentence here is just an ad homniem. So it really is irrelevant, especially since my first comment in this post shows that you're literally ignoring the dictionary when it comes to the definition of desire. As for the other part, not a mere hypothesis. I explained why we can know that it is based off of older sources. Because we can see it in the composition of the work, and because of it's late date. That's why the consensus among scholars is that it is based off of older sources. I also explained why this matters.

It does differ from the Synoptics, but that doesn't make it a testimony, as a testimony is given by an eye witness. The author was not an eye witness. So it may be distinct, but it's not a distinct testimony, as by definition, a testimony is done by an eye witness. Which makes it even more ironic that you add an ad homniem to your comment here.

Some degree of difference between the testimonies is expected if indeed these were true events. People remember things differently, had a different view of things at the time, and emphasized different things in their retelling. Rather, everything being exactly the same would be suspicious and evidence that these testimonies were false.

Additionally, the fact that Jesus chose to die is attested to in the Synoptic Gospels as well. Here's a great passage from Matthew for instance:

Matthew 26:52-54 “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”
​

Jesus could have called on God to defend him if he so pleased. He chose not to that the scriptures might be fulfilled. He chose to die. So attempting to isolate and eliminate John from the equation won't really help you.

Not testimonies, see above. None of them are eye witnesses. They are second hand accounts at best. More so, Matthew isn't saying Jesus chose to die. If Jesus wanted to die, he could have told the soldier to kill him right there, or to allow the disciples to start a fight where he most likely would be killed. But I will finish up with your argument, you're jumping to an unjustified conclusion.

They recorded what they recalled, or which was handed down to them from those who heard it. There's room for error of course - but it's a mighty big jump to go from they might have not captured it word for word to saying that they made it up. That's not a logical position to take - it's simply a defiant position to refuse a conclusion you don't like but which is inevitable.

Nope. None of the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses. So those who heard Jesus weren't the ones writing down anything. More so, as a historian, I can tell you that historians know that when we are looking at speeches in ancient works, virtually none are dictations of that speech. They are created, and often only portray a gist, or even are completely made up in order to point out theology. This isn't an illogical position, it is literally the position historians take.

Appealing to a general theme doesn't negate what is actually said. You have failed to show why what the text says is wrong or should be interpreted differently.

Appealing to a general theme tells you what is being talked about. You haven't shown why my interpretation is wrong, so there really is no need for me to expand on it.

See the beginning of my reply - it is you who are trying to add their own private qualifications to the definition of suicide. There is nothing in the definition of suicide that requires death to be the end goal. The only thing required is that one intentionally seek to end their life. The purpose/reason behind doing so is irrelevant.

I will also refer you back to the beginning, where I showed why you were wrong about the definitions. More to, seeking to end one's life is seeking death. Death is literally the end goal when one seeks to end their life. I don't see how you can argue something else.

Of course I've read it - and he repeatedly makes the point that he lays down his life. That is his intention, his role. He isn't talking about being at risk of losing his life - he is emphatic that he will do so. You are trying to read something into the text that isn't there.

I don't think you've read it, as he isn't repeatedly making that point. So I would argue that you don't know if I'm reading something that isn't there because you don't know what the text means.

Well for starters you jumped in all offended to a post that wasn't even addressed to you. You made it about you. But putting that asside, neither John nor Paul were Trinitarian or Binitarian as you say. Rather, both the Gospel of John and Paul's epistles are filled with verses that are completely contradictory to the Trinity. They clearly did not view Jesus as God Almighty. If you'd like to dig into this subject more, start a thread on the topic and send me a link. It's a bit off-topic for this thread.

First, I wasn't offended. You weren't addressing me, but this is a larger discussion that just you and me, and I saw a point in which you were wrong, so I decided to correct you. Putting that aside, Paul may not have been Trinitarian, but he was Binitarian. As in, he saw God coming in different forms. He talks of Jesus as the Prophets spoke of the spirit of God. John calls Jesus logos, which is we look at Philo, we see that again, it's really a way to see the spirit of God. Paul speaks of Jesus in the language of Wisdom, which was another facet of God. Judaism at that time had a binitarian view, and Paul just incorporates Jesus into that.

​

They risked their lives but did not intentionally seek to die. It was an acceptable risk. That is distinct from Christ - who intentionally handed himself over to be crucified in order to fulfill the scriptures rather than run or fight (and he had the power to as he himself attests).

Did Jesus hand himself over? Seems to me that he was handed over by others, as the Gospels literally say. If he was handing himself over, Judas wouldn't have had to turn him over. Also, Malcolm X and MLK could have also ran away or fought differently, as they attested to.

It was more than that - he intentionally laid down his life. That was his role. That's why he rebuked Peter who tried to dissuade him. That's why he rebuked the disciples when they took up swords to defend him - telling them that he could ask his Father who would send legions of angels to him if he so desired. But he did not because then he could not fulfill the scriptures. He chose to die.

Same thing could be said for Malcolm X and MLK. Malcolm X especially could have ran away as many were rebuking him for continuing when it was clear that he would be killed. Yet he did nothing to stop it and laid down his life.

I haven't said anything that goes against consensus concerning Jesus' rebuke of Peter. However, even if I had, the scriptures are right there for you to read - plain as day.

Feel free to lookup commentaries if you don't feel up to the task, however:

Passion Foretold. Peter Rebuked. Commentary - The Fourfold Gospel
33 But he turning about, and seeing his disciples. a turned, b rebuked Peter, and saith, {a said} unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art a stumbling-block unto me: for thou mindest not the things of God, but the things that be of men. [Jesus withdrew from Peter and turned back to his disciples. By the confession of the truth Simon had just won his promised foundation. But when he now turned aside to speak the language of the tempter, Peter receives the name Satan, as if he were the very devil himself. Peter presented the same temptation with which the devil once called forth a similar rebuke from Christ ( Matthew 4:10 ). He was unconsciously trying to dissuade Jesus from the death on which the salvation of the world depended, and this was working into Satan's hand. Peter did not mind or think about the Messiah's kingdom as divinely conceived and revealed in the Scriptures.]
​

To repeat the commentary: " He was unconsciously trying to dissuade Jesus from the death on which the salvation of the world depended, and this was working into Satan's hand."

So where did I say anything about you going against the consensus with Peter? Seems like you're moving the goal posts. I said your initial argument was against the consensus. So you have the burden of proof. So I find it quite funny that you go off on something else.

More so, The Fourfold Gospel does not show what the consensus today is. Scholarship has moved by leaps and bounds since it was written over a hundred years ago, by someone who was part of a minority denomination.

 

[Cooky]

What about Jesus' own words on the subject? That no one takes his life, but that he lays it down of his own accord?

Jesus could have defended himself if he so chose. Note what he says to his disciples who raised swords to defend him:

Matthew 26:52-54 “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”
​

It is not that Jesus foresaw an inescapable future, but that he actively chose that path to fulfill the prophecies.

There is a stark difference between sacrifice and suicide. Your thread title should read: Did Jesus Sacrifice Himself

...It's different than suicide. That's why there are two words.

 

[iam1me]

There is a stark difference between sacrifice and suicide. Your thread title should read: Did Jesus Sacrifice Himself

...It's different than suicide. That's why there are two words.

They aren't mutually exclusive words. There's no question that he sacrificed himself from a scriptural perspective. The interesting question is does his sacrifice also qualify as suicide, and what are the potential theological ramifications if so

 

[iam1me]

If you intend to die, you must have a desire to die.

Non sequitor. You can intend to do something you don't desire to do. Hence I intentionally pay my rent every month even though I don't want to. I get up and go to work in the morning even though I don't want to. etc. Intent and desire are two distinct notions, and they need not agree.

Really, if we go back to your original argument, the easiest rebuttal is that Jesus was wrong when he said no one could take his life. Him making one statement that is distanced from his death doesn't equate to suicide.

You could reject Christ's words and the scriptures, but then you are stepping outside the bounds of this debate which is intentionally under the Biblical Debates category. If you start trying to address any and every conspiracy theory under the sun, you aren't going to have a meaningful discussion.

That's literally not a rebuttal. I backed up my claims, I explained my position. You've never shown that my conclusion is unjustified. But if we're going that way, my rebuttal to your entire argument is that it is an unjustified conclusion. And with that, I really don't need to do anything else.

No you didn't back up your claims - which is precisely the problem. Nothing in the passage leads us to your conclusion. Non sequitur.

So your last sentence here is just an ad homniem. So it really is irrelevant, especially since my first comment in this post shows that you're literally ignoring the dictionary when it comes to the definition of desire. As for the other part, not a mere hypothesis. I explained why we can know that it is based off of older sources. Because we can see it in the composition of the work, and because of it's late date. That's why the consensus among scholars is that it is based off of older sources. I also explained why this matters.

It's not ad hominem - it is the entire crux of the problem with your positions. You don't know how to use a dictionary, or go out of your way to avoid using it properly. As with your first comment, you keep adding your own private, incoherent qualifications to terms that aren't found in the dictionary.

It does differ from the Synoptics, but that doesn't make it a testimony, as a testimony is given by an eye witness. The author was not an eye witness. So it may be distinct, but it's not a distinct testimony, as by definition, a testimony is done by an eye witness. Which makes it even more ironic that you add an ad homniem to your comment here.

Never said it was necessarily given by eye witnesses - that's not really relevant to it being a distinct testimony. You falsely assume that if it wasn't an eye witness testimony that his source had to be the exact same as the Synoptics - which is an unjustified assumption.

Not testimonies, see above. None of them are eye witnesses. They are second hand accounts at best. More so, Matthew isn't saying Jesus chose to die. If Jesus wanted to die, he could have told the soldier to kill him right there, or to allow the disciples to start a fight where he most likely would be killed. But I will finish up with your argument, you're jumping to an unjustified conclusion.

Your position is more of a tantrum than a logical argument: "let's throw out the scriptures because they don't agree with me!" That passage quite clearly shows that Jesus did choose to die. He was fully capable of not dying - he explicitly chose the path the results in his death so that he could fulfill the scriptures, so that he could carry out God's will and die on the cross.

Nope. None of the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses. So those who heard Jesus weren't the ones writing down anything. More so, as a historian, I can tell you that historians know that when we are looking at speeches in ancient works, virtually none are dictations of that speech. They are created, and often only portray a gist, or even are completely made up in order to point out theology. This isn't an illogical position, it is literally the position historians take.

No one's asserting that someone sat their and dictated Christ's words as he spoke them. A moot point.

Appealing to a general theme tells you what is being talked about. You haven't shown why my interpretation is wrong, so there really is no need for me to expand on it.
I will also refer you back to the beginning, where I showed why you were wrong about the definitions. More to, seeking to end one's life is seeking death. Death is literally the end goal when one seeks to end their life. I don't see how you can argue something else.

General themes don't negate the specifics that are actually stated. It's not a logical interpretation - it's an attempt to ignore what is actually stated.

I don't think you've read it, as he isn't repeatedly making that point. So I would argue that you don't know if I'm reading something that isn't there because you don't know what the text means.

He is repeatedly making that point. Go back and re-read it.

First, I wasn't offended. You weren't addressing me, but this is a larger discussion that just you and me, and I saw a point in which you were wrong, so I decided to correct you. Putting that aside, Paul may not have been Trinitarian, but he was Binitarian. As in, he saw God coming in different forms. He talks of Jesus as the Prophets spoke of the spirit of God. John calls Jesus logos, which is we look at Philo, we see that again, it's really a way to see the spirit of God. Paul speaks of Jesus in the language of Wisdom, which was another facet of God. Judaism at that time had a binitarian view, and Paul just incorporates Jesus into that.

Paul did not have a Binitarian view. He didn't view Jesus as God Almighty, as the passage I quoted demonstrates - and there are plenty more where that came from.

​

Did Jesus hand himself over? Seems to me that he was handed over by others, as the Gospels literally say. If he was handing himself over, Judas wouldn't have had to turn him over. Also, Malcolm X and MLK could have also ran away or fought differently, as they attested to.

Judas betrayed his location, but Jesus let him. He could have ran away. He could have fought. He could have called on God to defend him. Instead he explicitly let himself be taken away in order to fulfill God's will.

And no - Malcolm X and MLK didn't hand themselves over to be killed. It was never their intention to die. Your inability to see the distinction here is a testament to your willful ignorance.

So where did I say anything about you going against the consensus with Peter? Seems like you're moving the goal posts. I said your initial argument was against the consensus. So you have the burden of proof. So I find it quite funny that you go off on something else.

Re-read the thread, that's what you were talking about when you said I was going against the consensus of the experts.

More so, The Fourfold Gospel does not show what the consensus today is. Scholarship has moved by leaps and bounds since it was written over a hundred years ago, by someone who was part of a minority denomination.

You are welcome to reference what you suppose to be the consensus interpretation on the passage. Your lack of such a reference suggests you don't actually know what you are talking about and just want to reject the logical conclusion.

 

[dfnj]

So then, Jesus intentionally ended his own life - laying it down of his own accord. This would seem to fit the standard definition of suicide to me, but perhaps I am missing something.
Thoughts? I'd especially love to hear the Catholic opinion on this.

It's easy to start a religion. All you have to do is die and come back to life again 3 days later.

If Jesus is God, you can't kill God, so no harm no foul. I think when people concentrate all their Jesus energy on the resurrection then they are missing the true teachings of Christ. Salvation doesn't come from what the Apostles alleged claim Jesus said or the Apostles interpretation of what Jesus said. People are fans of the Apostles. People are fans of the Bible. People idolize scripture. People treat the words in the Bible like little idols with very little or no meaning. People are fans of Jesus the same way they are fans of an NFL football team. Fandom is not spirituality.

The Beatitudes are a much closer approximation of what I think Jesus was probably showing as a path to salvation. If you really study the Beatitudes very closely what Jesus was advocating I think had more to do with the present than the afterlife. But the Apostles had very strong views and interpretations of what Jesus had said. I find it just fascinating and important that Jesus was not promoting loyalty and obedience to authority. Jesus was not trying to promote a particular type or form of government as in monarchy. I think authoritarianism was added to scriptures hundreds of years later. I think the Beatitudes are the closest thing to true Christianity while everything else are ideas of other people who contributed or translated to the content of the Bible.

³Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.
⁴Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
⁵Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the Earth.
⁶Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
⁷Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
⁸Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
⁹Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called children of God.
¹⁰Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.
¹¹Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.
¹²Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

For example, peacemakers do not get to make peace in the afterlife. The peacemakers exist now while a person making peace is alive! I think the Beatitudes are much more important than anything having to do with the way Jesus died. But people are just way too obsessed with passion of Christ. I think the death cult aspect of Christianity is probably a real psychological problem. People obsessed with death do not know what it means to live. Christ taught a way of being (while being alive) and not a way of dying.

When I was a teenager and first started studying Christ I was actually shocked the Beatitudes were not more important than the Crucifixion.

The other thing about the teachings of Jesus in the Beatitudes is not only was it not about loyalty and obedience to God, but also, is the implicit egalitarian nature of the message. There's no chosen people mentioned. Everyone who exhibits the Beatitudes will experience blessings from God. This is a very egalitarian idea and very far away from the idea of authoritarianism and monarchy.

 

[amatuerscholar]

Non sequitor. You can intend to do something you don't desire to do. Hence I intentionally pay my rent every month even though I don't want to. I get up and go to work in the morning even though I don't want to. etc. Intent and desire are two distinct notions, and they need not agree.

I don't think non sequitor means what you think it means. Unless you're assuming that by taking me out of context, you can create a non sequitor, but that doesn't really work. But lets look at our handy dandy dictionary. What does desire mean? DESIRE, WISH, WANT, CRAVE, COVET mean to have a longing for. DESIRE stresses the strength of feeling and often implies strong intention or aim. So literally, desire implies intention. Desire implies an intent. Not all that distinct. Also, intentionally, that word, is different from intent or intention. But I can change what you said, so I desire to pay my rent, so that I can continue living where I do, while I don't want to spend the money. Really it still works. You're intentionally paying your rent, going to work, etc. because of the end result is something you desire.

You could reject Christ's words and the scriptures, but then you are stepping outside the bounds of this debate which is intentionally under the Biblical Debates category. If you start trying to address any and every conspiracy theory under the sun, you aren't going to have a meaningful discussion.

I'm not rejecting Christ's words. I'm saying that you need to show that they mean what you say they mean. Also, it is no secret that the Bible at times is wrong. Paul says Jesus is wrong when it comes to divorce. That isn't stepping out of the bounds, because Biblical Debates does stress that you need to see the Bible as literally the word of God, nor do you have to find it fallible. You're making up things here in order to avoid having to support your claim.

I'm not even purporting a conspiracy theory. I'm saying that you need to defend your position. You have to show that he intentionally acted in a way to kill himself. You haven't shown that, and really, I can simply say that he was wrong in the quote you said, and that would be a fair rebuttal, as you haven't shown that Jesus did anything except make one statement, which you took out of context.

No you didn't back up your claims - which is precisely the problem. Nothing in the passage leads us to your conclusion. Non sequitur.

That statement again. I don't think it means what you think it means. I gave you more than a paragraph explaining the context of the passage, and the meaning. You haven't shown why I was wrong. At this point, I think the reason you are avoiding addressing it is because you can't actually form a rebuttal. So on this point, I won't debate anymore until you actually offer a rebuttal.

It's not ad hominem - it is the entire crux of the problem with your positions. You don't know how to use a dictionary, or go out of your way to avoid using it properly. As with your first comment, you keep adding your own private, incoherent qualifications to terms that aren't found in the dictionary.

It certainly is an ad hominem. You're attacking me, instead of what I said. You're trying to disregard what I said by attacking me. The whole, you don't know how to use a dictionary is an attack, and a rather weird one since I've quoted from the dictionary multiple times. Yet you never address those points. More so, the dictionary isn't the end all be all. That and words can have many different meanings. So, to claim that your meaning is the only legitimate meaning, and everything else is just making things up is dishonest and wrong.

Never said it was necessarily given by eye witnesses - that's not really relevant to it being a distinct testimony. You falsely assume that if it wasn't an eye witness testimony that his source had to be the exact same as the Synoptics - which is an unjustified assumption.

First, the dictionary definition of testimony says that it is given by an eye witness. So it literally is relevant. And I'm using the dictionary as you hold so high up. Second, I'm not assuming that the Gospel of John used the same sources as the Synoptics. The Synoptics don't even all use the same sources, so your assumption about me is unjustified.

Your position is more of a tantrum than a logical argument: "let's throw out the scriptures because they don't agree with me!" That passage quite clearly shows that Jesus did choose to die. He was fully capable of not dying - he explicitly chose the path the results in his death so that he could fulfill the scriptures, so that he could carry out God's will and die on the cross.

And another ad hominem. I never said to throw out scripture. More so, the passage only shows that Jesus chose to allow himself to be handed over, and most likely because he didn't want a full out brawl to happen. He tells Peter to put his sword back or he will die by the sword, and that doesn't help anyone. Now, if Jesus really wanted to die, he could have just handed himself over instead of having Judas do it.

No one's asserting that someone sat their and dictated Christ's words as he spoke them. A moot point.

Then why did you disagree with me on this before? I was literally addressing a point you made, and then defended. So not a moot point as I was literally providing a rebuttal. And really, I had already said the same thing before and you disagreed with it.

General themes don't negate the specifics that are actually stated. It's not a logical interpretation - it's an attempt to ignore what is actually stated.

Then show why it's not logical. Show why it's wrong. I'm guessing you can't, and honestly, I'm not going to waste more time on this unless you can offer a rebuttal.

He is repeatedly making that point. Go back and re-read it.

Show it then. Defend your position. I'm saying he doesn't do that. I've broken the chapter down a number of times, and have shown that he isn't making that point over and over again. If I'm wrong, show it.

Paul did not have a Binitarian view. He didn't view Jesus as God Almighty, as the passage I quoted demonstrates - and there are plenty more where that came from.

That's not what a binitarian view would be. It's not even what the Trinitarian view would be. I explained how Paul was a binitarian, in that he sees God as having different facets, such as the Spirit of God, and Wisdom, which are God, but also different from God. Paul uses that language for Jesus as well.

​

Judas betrayed his location, but Jesus let him. He could have ran away. He could have fought. He could have called on God to defend him. Instead he explicitly let himself be taken away in order to fulfill God's will.

And no - Malcolm X and MLK didn't hand themselves over to be killed. It was never their intention to die. Your inability to see the distinction here is a testament to your willful ignorance.

Judas betrayed Jesus. You can't betray someone who allows you to do something. More so, if Jesus wanted to be killed, he could have walked up to any Roman soldier and offered himself up. He didn't do that. And again, Malcolm X and MLK could have ran away. They could have hid, and in fact, they were encouraged to do so. They could have fought. But they didn't. I honestly think you know much about either figure, because especially with Malcolm X, he did lay down his life. He knew that he was going to be killed. There were multiple attempts on his life. It wasn't if he was going to die, it was a matter of when, and he knew that. Yet he did nothing to change that.

Also, I didn't say Jesus's intention was to die. I said the exact opposite. I also didn't say that Jesus handed himself over. I stated that he only allowed it when there was no other choice. So maybe read what I said instead of insulting me and making things up.

Re-read the thread, that's what you were talking about when you said I was going against the consensus of the experts.

That was not what I was talking about. I never said anything about Peter. I didn't say that Jesus didn't rebuke Peter or anything like that. I said that the passage as a whole, that Jesus did that so he could choose to die or whatever was twisting the passage, and that in order for you to offer that interpretation, you must actually put forth an argument as the burden of proof is on you. Yes, Peter was trying to protect Jesus, by basically telling him to knock it off, but Jesus rebuking that doesn't equate to Jesus having the intention to die.

You are welcome to reference what you suppose to be the consensus interpretation on the passage. Your lack of such a reference suggests you don't actually know what you are talking about and just want to reject the logical conclusion.

Again, you have the burden of proof, and I'd suggest you actually defend your original position before trying to throw in a bunch of passages that have nothing to do with John. Also, me not providing a source doesn't suggest anything besides I felt no reason to as I wasn't talking about the idea you were. You put a major focus on Peter, I couldn't care less about Peter here. If you want a consensus view though, you can pick up Bart Ehrman's Peter Paul and Mary, which is a popular work by Ehrman that basically simplifies what the consensus of scholars accept about those three figures. If you want a more in depth look, you can look at the New Jerome Commentary, or a more scholarly work, the Anchor Bible Commentary on Matthew.

 

[columbus]

You can't resurrect someone who is alive. He had to really suffer and die first. You don't get to brush over that part.

I'm not brushing over. That's what religious people do when their preferred beliefs are obviously irrational.

They redefine death. Jesus didn't die, if He reappeared a day and a half later. His corpse may have been reanimated, but that's not the same thing.
Yes, He suffered for a couple of days. But I've known lots of people who suffered far worse for much longer. And their death was permanent.

But no. Jesus didn't die. His body might have. But that's not the same thing. And frankly, the ability Christians have for insisting on things that are obviously wrong is why I don't trust them on more nuanced concepts.
Tom

 

[iam1me]

I'm not brushing over. That's what religious people do when their preferred beliefs are obviously irrational.

They redefine death. Jesus didn't die, if He reappeared a day and a half later. His corpse may have been reanimated, but that's not the same thing.
Yes, He suffered for a couple of days. But I've known lots of people who suffered far worse for much longer. And their death was permanent.

But no. Jesus didn't die. His body might have. But that's not the same thing. And frankly, the ability Christians have for insisting on things that are obviously wrong is why I don't trust them on more nuanced concepts.
Tom

You are brushing over AND redefining things. Nothing about the definition of death requires that one remain dead - that's your own personal fiction.

 

[iam1me]

I don't think non sequitor means what you think it means. Unless you're assuming that by taking me out of context, you can create a non sequitor, but that doesn't really work. But lets look at our handy dandy dictionary. What does desire mean? DESIRE, WISH, WANT, CRAVE, COVET mean to have a longing for. DESIRE stresses the strength of feeling and often implies strong intention or aim. So literally, desire implies intention. Desire implies an intent. Not all that distinct. Also, intentionally, that word, is different from intent or intention. But I can change what you said, so I desire to pay my rent, so that I can continue living where I do, while I don't want to spend the money. Really it still works. You're intentionally paying your rent, going to work, etc. because of the end result is something you desire.

Desire does not imply intent. Here's the definition:

verb (used with object), de·sired, de·sir·ing.
1 to wish or long for; crave; want.
2 to express a wish to obtain; ask for; request:
​

Wanting something is not the same thing as intending something. One does not imply the other - as I have provided examples for. Nor, again, are they synonyms. It is simply erroneous for you to say that desire implies intent or visa versa. Non sequitur.

Additionally, your attempt at a counter-example doesn't work to show this either. In the first place, you are assuming there is a desire to continue living where I do - which is wrong. In my case, for instance, I'm very much looking forward to moving as soon as my lease is up. I'm contractually obligated to pay my rent - that's the primary reason I do it. However, even if I did want to continue living where I do, that would still not mean that I want to pay rent. Paying rent would merely be the unpleasant consequence of carrying out my actual desire: to continue living where I do. There is no wish, longing, or craving to pay my rent. To the contrary, my desire would be to own a place where I don't have to pay monthly rent.

I'm not even purporting a conspiracy theory. I'm saying that you need to defend your position. You have to show that he intentionally acted in a way to kill himself. You haven't shown that, and really, I can simply say that he was wrong in the quote you said, and that would be a fair rebuttal, as you haven't shown that Jesus did anything except make one statement, which you took out of context.

I've done that several times over. He himself is very explicit about it in word and action. John is the most explicit about it, but the Synoptic Gospels also say as much. It's been shown over and over - the problem isn't on my side. The problem is that you are willfully ignorant.

That statement again. I don't think it means what you think it means. I gave you more than a paragraph explaining the context of the passage, and the meaning. You haven't shown why I was wrong. At this point, I think the reason you are avoiding addressing it is because you can't actually form a rebuttal. So on this point, I won't debate anymore until you actually offer a rebuttal.

I've given you the rebuttal: you are simply ignoring what is actually said in that passage. Willful ignorance.

It certainly is an ad hominem. You're attacking me, instead of what I said. You're trying to disregard what I said by attacking me.

I'm attacking what you've said: the errors you keep repeating by ignoring the text (whether the dictionary or scripture) and instead making up your own private qualifications.

I never said to throw out scripture. More so, the passage only shows that Jesus chose to allow himself to be handed over, and most likely because he didn't want a full out brawl to happen. He tells Peter to put his sword back or he will die by the sword, and that doesn't help anyone. Now, if Jesus really wanted to die, he could have just handed himself over instead of having Judas do it.

You don't have to say the words to do it in action - as you so clearly are. Jesus explains that he could call down angels to his defense if he wished - but then he couldn't fulfill scripture, his true intent. Let me repost the relevant passage - though you will continue to be willfully ignorant despite the evidence in the front of your face.

Matthew 26:53-54 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”
​

Then why did you disagree with me on this before?

I never disagreed with you on this point.

Show it then. Defend your position. I'm saying he doesn't do that. I've broken the chapter down a number of times, and have shown that he isn't making that point over and over again. If I'm wrong, show it.

John 10:1-21
“Very truly I tell you Pharisees, anyone who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber. 2 The one who enters by the gate is the shepherd of the sheep. 3 The gatekeeper opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. 5 But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger’s voice.” 6 Jesus used this figure of speech, but the Pharisees did not understand what he was telling them.

7 Therefore Jesus said again, “Very truly I tell you, I am the gate for the sheep. 8 All who have come before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep have not listened to them. 9 I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved.a]">[a] They will come in and go out, and find pasture. 10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.

11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12 The hired hand is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. 13 The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.

14 “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. 17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”

19 The Jews who heard these words were again divided. 20 Many of them said, “He is demon-possessed and raving mad. Why listen to him?”

21 But others said, “These are not the sayings of a man possessed by a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?”​

First off, it is clear from what he says in this passage that he is not simply speaking generically of being a good shepherd, he is speaking of being THE Good Shepherd -of his unique role. In v9 he speaks of being the gate of salvation. In v16 he is very clearly speaking of the Gentiles (the sheep from another sheep pen). This is followed by v17 about him laying down his life - only to take it up again. If he were speaking generically of risking his life, it wouldn't make sense to talk of taking up his life again. He is very clearly referring to his death and resurrection.

Your appeal to ONLY looking at the general theme of being a shepherd is an attempt to ignore what is actually said here.

That's not what a binitarian view would be. It's not even what the Trinitarian view would be. I explained how Paul was a binitarian, in that he sees God as having different facets, such as the Spirit of God, and Wisdom, which are God, but also different from God. Paul uses that language for Jesus as well.

The verse I quoted clearly shows that Paul does NOT have a Trinitarian/Binitarian view. In that verse and all throughout his epistles he draws a distinction between Jesus and God. He doesn't view Jesus as being God - he is distinct and subordinate to God.

Romans 8:34 Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us.

Judas betrayed Jesus. You can't betray someone who allows you to do something.

Matthew 26:50 Jesus replied, “Do what you came for, friend.”

More so, if Jesus wanted to be killed, he could have walked up to any Roman soldier and offered himself up. He didn't do that. And again, Malcolm X and MLK could have ran away. They could have hid, and in fact, they were encouraged to do so.

Jesus wanted to fulfill scripture - which prescribed various things about his death. He needed to be betrayed, he needed to be rejected, he needed to hang on a tree (crucifixion), etc.

Malcom X and MLK couldn't have ran away from their deaths. They were assassinated. Nor did they hand themselves over to the KKK to do it. I don't know why you have such a hard time grasping this simple distinction. They risked their lives - they didn't hand them over. There's a difference.

Also, I didn't say Jesus's intention was to die. I said the exact opposite. I also didn't say that Jesus handed himself over. I stated that he only allowed it when there was no other choice. So maybe read what I said instead of insulting me and making things up.

I didn't assert you said those things - if you did you would be correct. Instead you have closed your eyes and wander in willful ignorance of what the scriptures state.

That was not what I was talking about. I never said anything about Peter. I didn't say that Jesus didn't rebuke Peter or anything like that. I said that the passage as a whole, that Jesus did that so he could choose to die or whatever was twisting the passage, and that in order for you to offer that interpretation, you must actually put forth an argument as the burden of proof is on you. Yes, Peter was trying to protect Jesus, by basically telling him to knock it off, but Jesus rebuking that doesn't equate to Jesus having the intention to die.

You were referring to the passage where Peter is rebuked and my analysis of that passage. You think that what I said about him rebuking Peter because he was tempting him against dying was wrong and against what the "experts" have all said on the subject. I've provided commentary to the contrary. You rejected that commentary so I asked you to please provide commentary from your the "experts" that you refer to. Instead of doing so you start trying to walk back your statements - which isn't fooling anyone. I've provided the scripture and outside commentary backing up my position. The burden of proof now rests with you.

 

[Cooky]

They aren't mutually exclusive words.

Yes they are.

It seems like you *want* it to have been suicide, but it wouldn't be the first time. The Albigenses, a heretical Christian sect, firmly believed that suicide was a holy thing to do.

..."The Albigenses believed that liberation of the soul from its captivity in the body is the true end of our being. To attain this, suicide is commendable; it was customary among them in the form of the endura (starvation)."
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Albigenses

 

[iam1me]

Yes they are.

They aren't. If you think they are mutually exclusive, then show how the definitions of the two terms are contradictory such that both can't simultaneously apply.

It seems like you *want* it to have been suicide, but it wouldn't be the first time. The Albigenses, a heretical Christian sect, firmly believed that suicide was a holy thing to do.

..."The Albigenses believed that liberation of the soul from its captivity in the body is the true end of our being. To attain this, suicide is commendable; it was customary among them in the form of the endura (starvation)."
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Albigenses

False. I want to be correct in how I use terms. Words have standardized meanings - you should be aware of what you say. Especially terms that have theological ramifications.

 

[Cooky]

They aren't. If you think they are mutually exclusive, then show how the definitions of the two terms are contradictory such that both can't simultaneously apply.

Simple... You will *never* find language relating to suicide as being for God. That language is specifically reserved, and exclusively for sacrifice... This is irrefutable.

...And Jesus is known as the Lamb. The "sacrificial" lamb.

"Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world."

John 1:29
John 1:36.

 

[oldbadger]

This is under the Biblical Debates section, so we are debating this from a primarily scriptural perspective.

From a primarily scripture perspective (the synoptic gospel accounts), Jesus may not have died at all. Either he survived the cross or he never got executed at all.

 

[iam1me]

Simple... You will *never* find language relating to suicide as being for God. That language is specifically reserved, and exclusively for sacrifice... This is irrefutable.

...And Jesus is known as the Lamb. The "sacrificial" lamb.

"Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world."

John 1:29
John 1:36.

You don't find the word "Trinity" in scripture either - will you therefore reject the doctrine?

Not finding specific words being used doesn't mean that they aren't applicable.

 

[iam1me]

From a primarily scripture perspective (the synoptic gospel accounts), Jesus may not have died at all. Either he survived the cross or he never got executed at all.

From a scripture perspective he was crucified and resurrected. What you meant to say was "from a primarily secular perspective..."

 

[amatuerscholar]

Desire does not imply intent. Here's the definition:.

First, I'm doing this in two posts. This really is mainly sillyness. The next post will be just a discussion of John 10.

So I guess we can just ignore all the other definitions because they don't agree with you right? Just ignore everything that disagrees. I mean, it's not like I quoted the definition of desire or anything. But just ignore that.

And again, you have no idea what non sequitur means. Just throwing it out isn't an argument.

As for my counter example. I didn't assume you want to continue living where you do. I assumed you desired to continue living in a sheltered place as opposed to being homeless. That was the point. You intentionally pay your rent because you desire to live in a sheltered place, as opposed to living on the street. You don't pay your rent simply because you entered into a contract. You can break that contract at any time and live on the street if you didn't want a sheltered place to live.

I've done that several.

More logical fallacies. Here's the bottom of it though. You took a quote from John out of context, then said it meant something. I offered a rebuttal, which looked at it in context, and looked at where it was drawing inspiration, and instead of addressing it, you've ran away from it because I don't think you can actually provide any argument for your position. So you can keep saying you did something, but all you've really done is ignore my rebuttal by making one excuse after another.

I've given you the rebuttae.

More logical fallacies. Show me the rebuttal though. Show the rebuttal to my interpretation of the verse. Oh yeah, it was it doesn't count.

I'm attacking what you've said:.

You said I didn't know how to use a dictionary. Don't lie. I've even quoted the dictionary, and because it's not the small portion of the definition you want, you ignore it and make up more excuses and insults.

You don't have to .

I guess you know me better than I do. Okay. Being crucified and dying for our sins isn't part of the scripture, so how is him dying supposedly fulfilling that? You really need to stop using the term willfully ignorant as well. Don't devolve this into some childish conversation where instead of actually defending your position, you insult others. Lets be mature about this.

​

I never disagreed with you on this point.

Yeah you did. Why lie about it? I said that they were testimonies, and that historians know that speeches like this simply are made up by the authors. They may contain the gist of a real speech, or often, they are created in order to tell theology. Your response was: "Some degree of difference between the testimonies is expected if indeed these were true events. People remember things differently, had a different view of things at the time, and emphasized different things in their retelling. Rather, everything being exactly the same would be suspicious and evidence that these testimonies were false."

So yes, you disagreed with me. I explained how historians look at speeches like this, and you were no, it's just how people remember things, which is wrong.

The verse I quoted clearly shows that Paul d.

Trinitarian is different from binitarian. What you showed is that Paul saw Jesus as being distinct from God. That doesn't negate a binitarian view, which I already explained. You are focusing so much on the idea of the Trinitarian view of a later time that you ignore what I'm saying, which is dealing with a binitarian view, which you haven't addressed. And no, saying God and Jesus are different doesn't get to it at all, because the binitarian view of Jews has nothing to do with Jesus, but with other facets of God such as Wisdom and the Spirit of God.

Matthew 26:50 Jesus replied, “Do what you came for, friend.”

Are you saying it's not a betrayal then? Because friends can't betray you? Even though it's always called a betrayal?

Jesus wanted to fulfill scripture - which prescribed various things about his death. He needed to be betrayed, he needed to be rejected, he needed to hang on a tree (crucifixion), etc.

Malcom X and MLK couldn't have ran away from their deaths. They were assassinated. Nor did they hand themselves over to the KKK to do it. I don't know why you have such a hard time grasping this simple distinction. They risked their lives - they didn't hand them over. There's a difference.

What scripture is Jesus fulfilling? There is no scripture that says the Messiah will die. That specifically goes against the idea of the Messiah. So what scripture? Where is it said that he will be betrayed or rejected, or hung from a tree? Scripture says none of that.

The KKK didn't kill either of them. But who did Jesus hand himself over to? The Jewish authorities, who didn't kill him. So that isn't a good argument on your side. More so, specifically looking at Malcolm X, he knew people were attempting to kill him. He knew this because he had received death threats, and there was a number of attempts on his life. So it wasn't a secret people were trying to kill him, and he knew who was trying to kill him. All he had to do, and this was suggested to him by many people, was to board a plane, and fly away and shut up. That's what his murderers wanted. Really, it was as simple as leaving and just being quite. He knew he could run away and not be murdered. He knew that by staying and continuing to speak was going to get him killed. He says so himself. But instead of running away, he faced his foes, and that caused his death.

I didn't assert you said those things -.

Then what you said previously about MLK and Malcolm X really amounted to nothing.

You were referring to the passag.

I provided a number of sources. Why are you lying? They were literally given right after the part you quoted. This is what I said, "If you want a consensus view though, you can pick up Bart Ehrman's Peter Paul and Mary, which is a popular work by Ehrman that basically simplifies what the consensus of scholars accept about those three figures. If you want a more in depth look, you can look at the New Jerome Commentary, or a more scholarly work, the Anchor Bible Commentary on Matthew."

I don't get why you would lie about something like that when it's so easy to see you're being dishonest.

Now, here's the thing again. I don't care about Peter here. You keep bringing Peter up and saying Jesus rebuked him. Of course he did. I didn't say he didn't. I was arguing against the rest of your interpretation of the passage. If you're only saying that Peter was rebuked because he kept butting in. Fine. But you're not saying that. You're saying that Jesus rebuked him because Jesus wanted to commit suicide, which I find to be a load of bs, which I've been pretty clear about.