Jesus' Strange Request

[horizon_mj1]

1)They didn't know they were doing __________________________________________ .

2)Not knowing (answer to 1 above↑) deserves forgiveness because __________________________________________ .​

May I correct the way question 1 should have been asked to read appropriately; They didn't know ________________ they were doing; which the answer would be "what". Question 2 would properly read; Not knowing "why" forgiveness should be granted. Maybe God just thinks that maybe people should use the ability of thought before reacting to a situation which would cause a lot less problems in the world. Way too many people don't want to be responsible for their own choices which is IMO is extremely ridiculous.

 

[Skwim]

Yes it was. What kind of a person are you if you can not be responsible for your own actions?

Never said the person wasn't responsible, but not blameworthy to the extent that forgiveness should enter the picture.

May I correct the way question 1 should have been asked to read appropriately; They didn't know ________________ they were doing; which the answer would be "what".

This was a complete-the-sentence exercise. The "what" is what I'm looking for.

Question 2 would properly read; Not knowing "why" forgiveness should be granted.

This was a complete-the-sentence exercise.

 

[horizon_mj1]

I guess that I feel that if my actions rather maliciously intended or not cause a "bad" outcome that yes, it is noteworthy of apology. This is why (in the USA and I am sure other countries as well) manslaughter laws were integrated. Whoops I didn't mean too does not make the outcome any different, rather if the outcome was intended or not. Reasonable deduction allows for us to know if our actions were "proper" or not; if you take enough time to think before you act, you can logically deduce what the "proper" or "wanted" outcome is and act according.
Point in fact, IMO it is pride that would prevent an apology; in as the person is too prideful to admit doing something in which caused an unwanted outcome and which is in a sense of the same showing cowardice.

 

[Shiranui117]

Although a fairly reasonable answer, do you think people need forgiveness for their ignorance? Do honest mistakes qualify for forgiveness? If you happen to throw away a check that someone else happened to put in among papers that you were planning to throw away, does your action require forgiveness? To my way of thinking it does not. Same with those who were ignorant of the fact that Jesus was god. In their minds, those who scorned Jesus weren't rejecting and scorning god. At most, they were scorning an imposter of god, which would likely even happen today were someone to pop up and proclaim himself god.

So, to my mind, no one had done anything requiring forgiveness. However, had they acknowledged Jesus to be god, that would be a whole other story.

But harm was still done. Let's look at this scenario: I beat the ever-living heck out of you when I didn't recognize you, and then realize that, for instance, you're my best friend. I made an honest mistake, but still, wouldn't you be hurt (emotionally as well as physically of course) that I attacked you so savagely? Wouldn't you have a reason to be angry with me and to turn your back on me?

 

[Skwim]

But harm was still done. Let's look at this scenario: I beat the ever-living heck out of you when I didn't recognize you, and then realize that, for instance, you're my best friend. I made an honest mistake, but still, wouldn't you be hurt (emotionally as well as physically of course) that I attacked you so savagely? Wouldn't you have a reason to be angry with me and to turn your back on me?

I would be very angry with you. However, throwing out trash, like sentencing someone to a crucifixion, is a legitimate action (Pilate was given the power to do so or not). Beating the ever-living heck out of someone is not.

That said, you do present an interesting twist to the issue. One I'm going to think about.

 

[horizon_mj1]

You know what of Frubie King; I just couldn't stop thinking about this topic and think I can now better explain what I was trying to say a bit better. If you love someone and feel sorrowful for not being in a person's life (even if you had no control over the situation) when they may have needed you; this would be displaced UN-warranting of an apology situation. Your actions or lack of actions have no impact on the final outcome when in the previous scenarios this is not the case Have a good one oh Frubie King

 

[Brickjectivity]

Nope. Considering that those responsible for Jesus' death did exactly what Jesus and god had expected all along, AND Jesus' crucifixion, or at least some manner of death, was required so as to accomplish his mission, my question is "what is it that those responsible for his crucifixion don't know that deserves forgiveness?

You didn't ask that question until just now, but it is thought provoking. Jesus absence is required for his mission to be accomplished. His death is tangential, not central, to that. His death is the death of a martyr, someone dying to guarantee the truth of his convictions. To die that way a person must be misjudged, and it is this misjudgement that he prays will be forgiven. His resurrection proves his innocence. As you pointed out, the people that misjudged him were set up to fail in the matter. He prays for their forgiveness in the story, but in a larger sense is praying for 'Our' forgiveness, since we make the same bad judgements about other people all the time. He's also teaching us not to be so judgemental.

 

[Skwim]

"what is it that those responsible for his crucifixion don't know that deserves forgiveness?

You didn't ask that question until just now, but it is thought provoking.

Hmmm, let's see. In the OP I asked;

So just what is it that those responsible for his crucifixion don't know that deserves forgiveness?
​

Boy! Except for the two introductory words it sure looks the same to me.

Jesus absence is required for his mission to be accomplished. His death is tangential, not central, to that.

From post 6

1 Corinthians 15:3-43
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

1 Peter 3:18
18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;

Luke 24:44-46
44 Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then He opened their [a]minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day,

​

and from Got Questions Ministries

"Evidence affirms that the sinless Jesus bled and died on a cross. Most importantly, the Bible explains why Jesus’ death and resurrection provide the only entrance to heaven".
source​

 

[atanu]

Jesus was put on earth to save humanity

John 6 & 38-40
35 Jesus said to them . . .38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39 This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”

Luke 19:10
For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.”
​

Jesus knew this could only be accomplished by giving up his life; he predicted his death.

Matthew 20:17-19
17 Now Jesus was going up to Jerusalem. On the way, he took the Twelve aside and said to them, 18 “We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death 19 and will hand him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. On the third day he will be raised to life!”

Mark 10:32-34
32 They were on their way up to Jerusalem, with Jesus leading the way, and the disciples were astonished, while those who followed were afraid. Again he took the Twelve aside and told them what was going to happen to him. 33 “We are going up to Jerusalem,” he said, “and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, 34 who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise.”
​

However, at the moment of crucifixion Jesus says.

Luke 23:34
And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”
​

So just what is it that those responsible for his crucifixion don't know that deserves forgiveness?

After all, they're doing exactly what Jesus and god had expected all along. In fact, Jesus' crucifixion, or at least some manner of death, was required so as to accomplish his mission.

From the Hindu perspective, as long as one clings to the notion of doer-ship, the effects/fruits must be experienced. At the same time, painful result should not accrue merely for an action, since most hatred-full actions are undertaken under the ignorant premise of "I" and "Them" being separate.

IMO, both these aspects are reflected in the verses cited.YMMV.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Hmmm, let's see. In the OP I asked;

So just what is it that those responsible for his crucifixion don't know that deserves forgiveness?
​

Boy! Except for the two introductory words it sure looks the same to me.

Hmm. Overlooked it.

and from Got Questions Ministries

His death is not as important as his absence. I am ok with this understanding of the situation, and I've explained what I think. I also disagree with your linked source about why he died, and I think your linked source is not very good.

 

[Skwim]

His death is not as important as his absence. I am ok with this understanding of the situation, and I've explained what I think. I also disagree with your linked source about why he died, and I think your linked source is not very good.

I agree that, on the whole, the source is not a good one. However, when one considers what is said in 1 Corinthians it certainly looks like his death was necessary; that prior scriptures required or at least expected it.

1 Corinthians 15:3
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.
​

 

[Brickjectivity]

His death has meaning, but his absence is felt. The writers, including the writer of 1 Corinthians, feel this absence deeply. When they talk about 'Christ' dying for their sins, notice they don't say 'Jesus' died for their sins. They have to incorporate the word 'Christ' into it; because it carries the whole hope of Israel idea, lots of feeling like an arm is missing. The idea that Christ would leave was revolutionary. Anyone with sense would have expected a resurrected Christ to stay. An immortal Christ? Why would he leave? The 'Dying for sins' is a part of the conversation, but it isn't the main part; and it isn't the kind of sins that people do on purpose. Its a different concept of sin altogether than what you and I are used to. It encompasses numerous arguments about the welcoming of gentiles without physical circumcision. When he is on the cross and he says "Forgive them, because they don't know what they're doing" its more than just an event. Its about a lot of things, and it is meant to be an epiphany for the reader who has all of this knowledge about Jewish stuff crammed into their heads. Its not at all about covering black stuff with red stuff.

 

[Skwim]

His death has meaning, but his absence is felt.

Okay.

The writers, including the writer of 1 Corinthians, feel this absence deeply. When they talk about 'Christ' dying for their sins, notice they don't say 'Jesus' died for their sins. They have to incorporate the word 'Christ' into it; because it carries the whole hope of Israel idea, lots of feeling like an arm is missing.

"Originally, of course, “Jesus” had been his given name, meaning “Yahweh saves,” or “Yahweh will save” (see Matt. 1:21), while “Christ” was the Greek translation of the title “Messiah.” Some passages of the New Testament still used “Christ” as a title (e.g., Luke 24:26; II John 7), but it is evident from Paul’s usage that the title became simply a proper name very early. Most of the Gentiles took it to be a proper name, and it was as “Christians” that the early believers were labelled (Acts 11:26). In the most precise language, the term “Jesus” was reserved for the earthly career of the Lord; but it seems from liturgical sources that it may actually have been endowed with greater solemnity than the name “Christ.” Within a few years after the beginnings of the Christian movement, Jesus, Christ, Jesus Christ, and Christ Jesus could be used almost interchangeably, as the textual variants in the New Testament indicate. Only in modern times has it become customary to distinguish sharply among them for the sake of drawing a line between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith, and this only in certain circles. The theologians and people of many churches still use phrases like “the life of Christ,” because “Christ” is primarily a name. It is difficult to imagine how it could be otherwise when the Old Testament implications of the title have become a secondary consideration in its use—a process already evident within the New Testament.
source
​

So much for the idea that "'Christ' as a name that carries the whole hope of Israel idea."

The 'Dying for sins' is a part of the conversation, but it isn't the main part; and it isn't the kind of sins that people do on purpose. Its a different concept of sin altogether than what you and I are used to. It encompasses numerous arguments about the welcoming of gentiles without physical circumcision.

When he is on the cross and he says "Forgive them, because they don't know what they're doing" its more than just an event. Its about a lot of things, and it is meant to be an epiphany for the reader who has all of this knowledge about Jewish stuff crammed into their heads. Its not at all about covering black stuff with red stuff.

????

Whatever the Jewish case may have been, today the idea that Jesus (Christ, the Messiah) died for our sins seems to be a universal belief among Christians. A belief they obviously feel is grounded in scripture, and not as an incidental to any other purpose, but thee main reason he died.

 

[horizon_mj1]

I understand the argument that Jesus died for our sins, but to state it more properly didn't he die to allow us to ask for forgiveness of our sins?

 

[Skwim]

I understand the argument that Jesus died for our sins, but to state it more properly didn't he die to allow us to ask for forgiveness of our sins?

If having to ask for forgiveness is necessary, then I believe that would be the mechanics by which forgiveness is granted.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Only in modern times has it become customary to distinguish sharply among them for the sake of drawing a line between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith, and this only in certain circles. The theologians and people of many churches still use phrases like “the life of Christ,” because “Christ” is primarily a name.

The Britannica article you've sourced says in the last paragraph "Originally, of course, “Jesus” had been his given name, meaning “Yahweh saves,” or “Yahweh will save” (see Matt. 1:21), while “Christ” was the Greek translation of the title “Messiah.”...."but it is evident from Paul’s usage that the title became simply a proper name very early. Most of the Gentiles took it to be a proper name..."

' Christ was a loaded word for Paul to use, particularly in Jewish company. Jews died over that word. Let us suppose Paul at one time or another spoke to mixed company, Jews and Gentiles together. Gentiles may not have had a clue, but any Jew present would have read a lot more into 'Christ' than just a proper name. Its justified to suggest then that Paul did have a reason why he used the word Christ other than super imposing it as a proper name. You may recall a famous quotation where he says "To Jews I became a Jew and to Gentiles I become a Gentile." (1Corinthians 2:20) The word 'Christ' could have served double-duty when both groups were present, sailing over the heads of Gentiles but into the ears of Jews.

Saying the Christ had ascended into heaven, had died etc, was a hell of a lot different from saying 'Jesus died'. The article says Gentiles took it to mean a personal name, but that is irrelevant (to me). As far as Gentiles were concerned, Paul could have used the phrase "Shananana died for sins." and they would have thought that was Jesus name, too.

 

[Skwim]

The Britannica article you've sourced says in the last paragraph "Originally, of course, “Jesus” had been his given name, meaning “Yahweh saves,” or “Yahweh will save” (see Matt. 1:21), while “Christ” was the Greek translation of the title “Messiah.”...."but it is evident from Paul’s usage that the title became simply a proper name very early. Most of the Gentiles took it to be a proper name..."

Christ was a loaded word for Paul to use, particularly in Jewish company. Jews died over that word. In mixed company the Gentiles mentioned may not have had a clue, but any Jew present would have read a lot more than just a proper name. Its justified to suggest then that Paul did have a reason why he used the word Christ other than super imposing it as a proper name. You may recall a famous quotation where he says "To Jews I became a Jew and to Gentiles I become a Gentile." (1Corinthians 2:20) The word 'Christ' could have served double-duty when both groups were present, sailing over the heads of Gentiles but into the ears of Jews.

Saying the Christ had ascended into heaven, had died etc, was a hell of a lot different from saying 'Jesus died'. The article says Gentiles took it to mean a personal name, but that is irrelevant (to me). As far as Gentiles were concerned, Paul could have used the phrase "Shananana died for sins." and they would have thought that was Jesus name, too.

Sorry, but the Encyclopedia Britannica trumps your opinion.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Whatever the Jewish case may have been, today the idea that Jesus (Christ, the Messiah) died for our sins seems to be a universal belief among Christians. A belief they obviously feel is grounded in scripture, and not as an incidental to any other purpose, but thee main reason he died.

Sin is not a black powder or goo that God tele-ports from sinners backwards through time to Jesus upon the cross. We know where that point of view comes from; and we know that it is relatively new in the earth. We can trace its history even, roughly. We also have the NT books. We have the Dead Sea Scrolls, and we have the Qumran manuscripts and all kinds of archeological digs. We have writings from Ebionites, Gnostics and other critics of Paul. We have all sorts of ancient scrolls that were forgotten for centuries. We have internet! Of all things this is the time to be rethinking everything through carefully.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Sorry, but the Encyclopedia Britannica trumps your opinion.

They support my opinion. I objected to nothing. They play to my fiddle.

 

[horizon_mj1]

If having to ask for forgiveness is necessary, then I believe that would be the mechanics by which forgiveness is granted.

Agreed. So then if forgiveness is not sought, then forgiveness should not be granted right? In a scenario in which a person is not aware of doing wrong and this is brought to light, yet the want of forgiveness still is elusive, then maybe this would be a reason not to grant forgiveness. I can see quite clearly why you chose this topic and can see your point, but to do something (even without immediate knowledge of it being wrong) in which is considered "wrong" and even after the realization is there and to not feel any remorse IMO shows either complete ignorance or complete disregard for others; why should this be forgiven?