It is possible that Jesus sinned.

[nash8]

2. Does this mean that Ps 22 is also mistranslated, or is Jesus simply not quoting it?

In Psalm 22, David has actually done wrong and is calling on God. The word he uses is from the base “azab” to loosen, relinquish, and permit. Christians have added “forsake” (Strong’s for instance) but it doesn’t actually mean that, which is shown by the next few words meaning “distance from,” – not forsaken, or abandoned. Because of his deeds, YHVH has loosed him, permitted the space to sin.
Jesus has done no sin and has no need to ask, - Why have you forsaken me? And as I have shown - he doesn’t.

Such as Psalm 22:16 – pointing at “pierced” hands and feet – Unfortunately for them it doesn’t actually say that
"k'ari b'yadai v'raglai" - "Like a lion (they) are at my hands and feet." The disputed word here is "k'ari" which is spelled kaph - aleph - resh - yud. Ari is a lion, and that "kaph" before it means "like" or "as."
And they know it is actually “lion” – look at - 22:21 Save me from the lion's mouth:
*
Then on to 22:18 – pointing to the casting lots for his clothes – again however – that was standard practice, with the clothing of criminals, for thousands of years.
As you can see when you actually break them down they are not the same – and Psalm 22 is not a foretelling of Jesus. Just as Isaiah (for instance) – isn’t about Jesus - but about Isaiah’s son Emmanuel, when you actually look at the language and the whole story.
*
And Why would Jesus say this below – BEFORE he went to the cross?
Mat 26:53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
Mat 26:54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?
Or this –
Mat 26:1 And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished all these sayings, he said unto his disciples,
Mat 26:2 Ye know that after two days is the feast of the Passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified.
He was not abandoned at the last minute, he was doing what he was sent to do.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

If Jesus was biologically related to Mary then that must mean he sinned, he would of inherited sin from her. How can an imperfect person produce a perfect child? It doesn't fit with other scripture.
I know someone is going to tell me "it was a miracle" but it's all about proving it right?

 

[Ouroboros]

nash8,

Thanks for the information. Very interesting.

 

[CMike]

He didn't say all of Psalm 22, according to the gospels. But the intended audience would have picked up on the reference and would have known Psalm 22. Which is the whole point of including it in the story.

What intended audience?

He was complaining and whinning.

True great jews professed the greatness of G-D and said the Hear O'Israel prayer upon dying.

None of them to my knowledge were complaining to G-D.

Besides he supposedly sacrificed himself, so he should have been happy to be executed. That was the point, wasn't it?

And if it wasn't the point and he was upset that he was forsaken, then he didn't sacrifice himself, and that kind of blows the he died for you theory, doesn't it?

 

[idav]

What intended audience?

He was complaining and whinning.

True great jews professed the greatness of G-D and said the Hear O'Israel prayer upon dying.

None of them to my knowledge were complaining to G-D.

Besides he supposedly sacrificed himself, so he should have been happy to be executed. That was the point, wasn't it?

And if it wasn't the point and he was upset that he was forsaken, then he didn't sacrifice himself, and that kind of blows the he died for you theory, doesn't it?

Jesus often quoted from scriptures which to him w as whatever books he had of the OT. He was obviously quoting psalms and since many would recognize it. In context the psalm is reallly not a plea of dispair even though it starts with the forsaken bit.

 

[CMike]

Jesus often quoted from scriptures which to him w as whatever books he had of the OT. He was obviously quoting psalms and since many would recognize it. In context the psalm is reallly not a plea of dispair even though it starts with the forsaken bit.

What's the OT?

It ends with the forsaken bit as well as far as Psalms.

You can quote from anything. The Tanach had thousands upon thousands of thousands of passages.

I doubt he randomely selected a passage and started spouting it.

The jews who had faith in G-D picked another passage when their life was in danger or death was imminent.

That prayer is Hear O'Israel the L-rd is our G-D, the L-rd is One

 

[idav]

What's the OT?

It ends with the forsaken bit as well as far as Psalms.

You can quote from anything. The Tanach had thousands upon thousands of thousands of passages.

I doubt he randomely selected a passage and started spouting it.

The jews who had faith in G-D picked another passage when their life was in danger or death was imminent.

That prayer is Hear O'Israel the L-rd is our G-D, the L-rd is One

The psalm has reference to someone in suffering but also rejoicing for the future. I doubt he had time to recite the whole thing but he got the meaning. The writers must have picked it on purpose to make it as though jesus was fulfilling something more by the reference.

 

[Awoon]

Why would a writer put Aramaic/Greek words into Jesus' mouth dying on a cross, then have to translate/interpret into English what he said? "So that the scriptures might be fulfilled? Then why not do it for ALL his words? Or were the writers just fishing for sayings to put on Jesus' lips?

 

[sojourner]

If Jesus was biologically related to Mary then that must mean he sinned, he would of inherited sin from her. How can an imperfect person produce a perfect child? It doesn't fit with other scripture.
I know someone is going to tell me "it was a miracle" but it's all about proving it right?

It isn't about proof. it's about faith.

 

[sojourner]

What intended audience?

The intended audience of the gospels in which the statement is found. Mark and Matthew ae both written to primarily Jewish audiences.

He was complaining and whinning.

He was quoting Psalm 22.

True great jews professed the greatness of G-D and said the Hear O'Israel prayer upon dying.

"No true Scotsman..." I see.

None of them to my knowledge were complaining to G-D.

Were any of them crucified?

Besides he supposedly sacrificed himself, so he should have been happy to be executed. That was the point, wasn't it?

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the fear, pain, and suffering one undergoes in a Roman crucifixion.

And if it wasn't the point and he was upset that he was forsaken, then he didn't sacrifice himself, and that kind of blows the he died for you theory, doesn't it?

I don't think he was "upset that he was forsaken." And I don't buy into the Substitutionary Atonement nonsense.

But keep trying. So far, all you've managed to blow holes in are your own straw men...

 

[sojourner]

Why would a writer put Aramaic/Greek words into Jesus' mouth dying on a cross, then have to translate/interpret into English what he said? "So that the scriptures might be fulfilled?

Yup. The writer of Matthew was hoping to present Jesus as a fulfillment of scripture.

 

[CMike]

Yup. The writer of Matthew was hoping to present Jesus as a fulfillment of scripture.

The way you fulfill Torah law is by keeping the laws.

 

[Awoon]

The way you fulfill Torah law is by keeping the laws.

Can a non historical made up character keep any laws?

 

[nash8]

nash8,

Thanks for the information. Very interesting.

Very welcome.

What intended audience?

He was complaining and whinning.

True great jews professed the greatness of G-D and said the Hear O'Israel prayer upon dying.

None of them to my knowledge were complaining to G-D.

Besides he supposedly sacrificed himself, so he should have been happy to be executed. That was the point, wasn't it?

And if it wasn't the point and he was upset that he was forsaken, then he didn't sacrifice himself, and that kind of blows the he died for you theory, doesn't it?

There are some people that don't interpret the word in the Greek text as forsaken. It is more the sense of "God you placed me here for this purpose", as opposed to "why have you placed me here?"

And personally I don't follow the "he died for me theory". There is a lot of evidence that suggests that the atonement theory didn't come into the picture of Christianity until a much later date.

For that matter I don't think he died on the cross at all.

Why would a writer put Aramaic/Greek words into Jesus' mouth dying on a cross, then have to translate/interpret into English what he said? "So that the scriptures might be fulfilled? Then why not do it for ALL his words? Or were the writers just fishing for sayings to put on Jesus' lips?

Firstly, the writers of the NT most likely spoke Greek, so that would have been the most likely language they used, so they wouldn't be putting Aramaic/Greek words into his mouth, they would either be translating what he supposedly said on the cross into Greek, or they would have made the entire phrase up (in Greek) and portrayed that that is what he said.

The language of the words has nothing to do with "fulfilling scripture". Hello means the same thing in all languages, it just means that you addressing someone for the first time, in that particular setting or time period.

And in regard to the fullfillment of the prophecy, they kinda did do that. From what I gather that the fundamental basis of early Chrisitianity was that Jesus was the coming of the messiah as prophecized in some OT scriptures. It seems as though there was a lot of expectation of a Messiah during that time to overthrow Roman control of Judea.

Lastlly, they probably did fish for sayings to put on Jesus' lips, I have heard a lot of people that have far more knowledge on the subject than you or me state their belief that this is exactly what happened.

The intended audience of the gospels in which the statement is found. Mark and Matthew ae both written to primarily Jewish audiences.

I've heard exactly the opposite. Can you cite some information where the Gospels were written to a primarily Jewish audience? From what I've gathered it was written more to the hellenized audience, or at the least, Jews that would have been considered to be more affilliated with Greek culture and philosophy than of Jewish.

And I don't buy into the Substitutionary Atonement nonsense.

Me niether.

Yup. The writer of Matthew was hoping to present Jesus as a fulfillment of scripture.

Agreed, in certain aspects.

The way you fulfill Torah law is by keeping the laws.

So there is nothing in the Torah about where prophets prophecized about the coming of the Messiah?

Can a non historical made up character keep any laws?

He can if the "made up character" was loosely based on the life of a real person.

 

[sojourner]

I've heard exactly the opposite. Can you cite some information where the Gospels were written to a primarily Jewish audience? From what I've gathered it was written more to the hellenized audience, or at the least, Jews that would have been considered to be more affilliated with Greek culture and philosophy than of Jewish.

Matthew was written to Christians of Jewish descent, living in Gentile territory. They would have been well-versed in Torah, and would buy into a messiah that was the fulfillment of the Law. I'll look up the references I have, when I have more time.

 

[Awoon]

Yup. The writer of Matthew was hoping to present Jesus as a fulfillment of scripture.

Joe Blow could have done the same, correct?.

 

[roger1440]

The way you fulfill Torah law is by keeping the laws.

Yeah, what he said.
:clap

 

[roger1440]

The way you fulfill Torah law is by keeping the laws.

The fulfillment of the Law is to “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.” That is the message of the Torah and the message of Jesus. Once it is fulfilled it’s not done away with. When it is fulfilled our journey is over and we can rest. Our work is now done. “It is finished.” (John 19:30)

 

[CMike]

Matthew was written to Christians of Jewish descent, living in Gentile territory. They would have been well-versed in Torah, and would buy into a messiah that was the fulfillment of the Law. I'll look up the references I have, when I have more time.

Apparently not.

There is absolutely nothing in the Torah regarding the messiah "fulfilling the law".

The only way to fulfill the law is to keep the law.

 

[CMike]

The fulfillment of the Law is to “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.” That is the message of the Torah and the message of Jesus. Once it is fulfilled it’s not done away with. When it is fulfilled our journey is over and we can rest. Our work is now done. “It is finished.” (John 19:30)

The problem is that G-D disagrees.

He said not to add nor subtract from the commandments. (Deut 13:1)

So I guess you got to pick your god.