Jesus' Strange Request

[Skwim]

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.

 

[Pegg]

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.

this is a really good topic for discussion because it shows the extent of the forgiveness of God. Those who put Jesus to death would never have done so if they knew, or believed, that he really was sent by God... earlier Jesus had called the religious leaders "sons of the wicked one and you seek to do the desire of that one"
So he knew exactly what they would do to him because they were influenced by false beliefs and political/selfish motivations. And yet, those ones will still be granted forgiveness for their actions.

Jesus, like his Father Jehovah, was merciful and forgiving because they know that Satan the devil is a deceiver who manipulates the minds of men to believe they are actually doing a good deed when they are in-fact doing bad.

 

[Skwim]

this is a really good topic for discussion because it shows the extent of the forgiveness of God.

But they did exactly what god/Jesus wanted and expected. They did right. They did good. So what's to forgive?

Those who put Jesus to death would never have done so if they knew, or believed, that he really was sent by God.

So what? If they knew or believed he was sent by god then most likely they would have been his disciples or at least some kind of follower, and task of killing Jesus would have fallen to someone else.

 

[Quagmire]

And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”
[/INDENT]So just what is it that those responsible for his crucifixion don't know that deserves forgiveness?

I think he was just commenting on the human condition in general: "They don't know what they're doing".

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.

Wouldn't matter if it was expected or not. We would expect a thief to steal, a liar to lie, etc. That doesn't let them off the hook.

I think this explains it:

Matt. 18.7 "Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come!"
New International Version (©1984)

 

[Pegg]

But they did exactly what god/Jesus wanted and expected. They did right. They did good. So what's to forgive?

they did what God knew they would do... not what he 'wanted' them to do.

So what? If they knew or believed he was sent by god then most likely they would have been his disciples or at least some kind of follower, and task of killing Jesus would have fallen to someone else.

thats right... and the jewish nation would have been blessed rather then had their temple destroyed by the romans.

Things likely would have turned out differently. But alas, they didnt believe or want Jesus, rather they sought to have him destroyed and this put them out of favor with God.

 

[Skwim]

I think he was just commenting on the human condition in general: "They don't know what they're doing".



Wouldn't matter if it was expected or not. We would expect a thief to steal, a liar to lie, etc. That doesn't let them off the hook.

But there was no hook from which to let him off.

From Barnes' Notes on the Bible

"Father, forgive them - This is a fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah 53:12; "He made intercession for the transgressors." The prayer was offered for those who were guilty of putting him to death.
source
​

I think this explains it:

Matt. 18.7 "Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come!"
New International Version (©1984)

Not at all. I see it as irrelevant.

they did what God knew they would do... not what he 'wanted' them to do.

Sure they did, which is why the Bible says.

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​

 

[Madhuri]

That quote of Jesus is one that I actually really like.

It very strongly compliments Hindu teachings about ignorance being a sort of innocence. 'Sin' is an act made in ignorance, because most people do not realise the real implications of their actions. Jesus, being understanding, loving and merciful, realises this and asks God to please remember this.

Of course, from my Hindu perspective God already knows this and is why people are never condemned to eternal damnation for acting in ignorance.

 

[Bob Dixon]

That quote of Jesus is one that I actually really like.

It very strongly compliments Hindu teachings about ignorance being a sort of innocence. 'Sin' is an act made in ignorance, because most people do not realise the real implications of their actions. Jesus, being understanding, loving and merciful, realises this and asks God to please remember this.

Of course, from my Hindu perspective God already knows this and is why people are never condemned to eternal damnation for acting in ignorance.

God needs no reminder, of course. But humans do.
By having Jesus say this, the Gospel's author reminds the reader of this reality. Why Jesus said it may be unclear, but it is easier to determine why the author included this.

 

[Quagmire]

But there was no hook from which to let him off.

Beside the point: you were asking how something could be a transgression if it was expected. I was just trying to show that one (expectation) has nothing to do with the other (accountability).

From Barnes' Notes on the Bible

"Father, forgive them - This is a fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah 53:12; "He made intercession for the transgressors." The prayer was offered for those who were guilty of putting him to death.​

And. . . ? So a Presbyterian minister from the early 1800's had a different interpretation. What's your point?

source

Not at all. I see it as irrelevant.

Because. . .?

 

[fallingblood]

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.

Regardless of whether or not it was required, that does not mean that it is all good. This same thing can be found in the Old Testament, in which God commands the people to wipe out a city, yet they have to then sacrifice something to God, or repent. It still makes one impure, and thus needs to be forgiven, regardless of it being required.

A similar idea is the act of taking care of those who have passed away (at least in Jewish thought during the first century). One is expected to take care of those who have died, and there stipulations with that which are required. At the same by doing what is required, one is also made impure. Before entering the Temple, one had to go through a required purification process.

 

[Skwim]

Beside the point:

That's exactly the point. Jesus was asking god to forgive those who had him put to death (let them off the hook) when IMO there was nothing to forgive (the hook).

you were asking how something could be a transgression if it was expected.

That, AND why it needed to be forgiven---in that his death was not only desirable but necessary.

I was just trying to show that one (expectation) has nothing to do with the other (accountability).

And to a degree you would be correct; however, as I also said, god and Jesus required that he be put to death. Those who had Jesus put to death were doing exactly what both he and god wanted. For someone to do what you need them to hardly calls for forgiving them.

And. . . ? So a Presbyterian minister from the early 1800's had a different interpretation. What's your point?

A different interpretation from whom?

My point is that Christian theologians do consider that the prayer was aimed at those who had Jesus put to death.
From Wikipedia

"This first saying of Jesus on the cross is traditionally called "The Word of Forgiveness". It is theologically interpreted as Jesus' prayer for forgiveness for those who were crucifying him: the Roman soldiers, and apparently for all others who were involved in his crucifixion.[17][18][19][20]
​

The cited references are:

[17] Vernon K. Robbins in Literary studies in Luke-Acts by Richard P. Thompson (editor) 1998 ISBN 0-86554-563-4 pages 200-201

[18] Mercer dictionary of the Bible by Watson E. Mills, Roger Aubrey Bullard 1998 ISBN 0-86554-373-9 page 648

[19] Reading Luke-Acts: dynamics of Biblical narrative by William S. Kurz 1993 ISBN 0-664-25441-1 page 201

[20]Luke's presentation of Jesus: a Christology by de:Robert F. O'Toole 2004 ISBN 88-7653-625-6 page 215
​

All published within the last 20 years

 

[Quagmire]

That's exactly the point. Jesus was asking god to forgive those who had him put to death (let them off the hook) when IMO there was nothing to forgive (the hook).

That, AND why it needed to be forgiven---in that his death was not only desirable but necessary.

And I've answered that already.

And to a degree you would be correct; however, as I also said, god and Jesus required that he be put to death. Those who had Jesus put to death were doing exactly what both he and god wanted. For someone to do what you need them to hardly calls for forgiving them.

Already covered that too. You're only counter was to say---and without any explanation---that what I showed you was "irrelevant".

A different interpretation from whom?

From the one I offered.

My point is that Christian theologians do consider that the prayer was aimed at those who had Jesus put to death.

Well good for them. I'm not a Christian theologian. If you only wanted to hear from people who are, you should have said so and saved the rest of us some typing.

 

[Skwim]

And I've answered that already.

"Beside the point," is hardly a game winner.

Already covered that too. You're only counter was to say---and without any explanation---that what I showed you was "irrelevant".

How does one explain an irrelevancy except to say, it's irrelevant: it doesn't matter. But in as much as you feel it is relevant, how about showing its relevancy?

From the one I offered.

Ah Yes, your opinion: "I think he was just commenting on the human condition in general"
To tell the truth, I wasn't looking for RF opinions, but rather something more substantial, such as a good argument, or evidence, or conclusions from those far better versed in the matter than we mere posters.

Well good for them.

And I quite agree, "Good for them."

I'm not a Christian theologian. If you only wanted to hear from people who are, you should have said so and saved the rest of us some typing.

But I didn't want to only hear from theologians; although they are probably the best sources---got any that contradict those I presented? Moreover, I'm just as willing to read a well constructed argument, or any other evidnce people may come up with.

 

[Quagmire]

"Beside the point," is hardly a game winner.

"Beside the point" was only a small part of one of my answers to a subsequent post, not my original response.

Actually, if you put the "Beside the point" in context with the rest of the sentence you isolated it from it might make more sense to you.

How does one explain an irrelevancy except to say, it's irrelevant:

By either,

A: explaining why/how it's irrelevant.

or

B: Countering the previous explanation offered for it's relevancy.

it doesn't matter. But in as much as you feel it is relevant, how about showing its relevancy?

I already have. I'm waiting for you to either counter my points, or ask for clarification if you didn't get my points.

Here it is again: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3242606-post4.html

Ah Yes, your opinion: "I think he was just commenting on the human condition in general"
To tell the truth, I wasn't looking for RF opinions, but rather something more substantial, such as a good argument, or evidence, or conclusions from those far better versed in the matter than we mere posters.

I see. So you created a thread in RF, but you weren't actually looking for responses from RF members.

You realize, that's all you're likely to get here: responses from people who actually post here. What I mean is, if you're expecting responses from people who aren't members of the forums and don't post here, I think you're setting yourself up for failure. Just my opinion.

And I quite agree, "Good for them."

But I didn't want to only hear from theologians; although they are probably the best sources---got any that contradict those I presented? Moreover, I'm just as willing to read a well constructed argument, or any other evidnce people may come up with.

I know you're willing to read a well-constructed argument. What I'm waiting to see if you're capable of responding to one.

 

[Skwim]

"Beside the point" was only a small part of one of my answers to a subsequent post, not my original response.

Actually, if you put the "Beside the point" in context with the rest of the sentence you isolated it from it might make more sense to you.



By either,

A: explaining why/how it's irrelevant.

or

B: Countering the previous explanation offered for it's relevancy.

Okay, let me give it a shot. Let's see . . . .


I said
"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.

To which you replied
"Wouldn't matter if it was expected or not. We would expect a thief to steal, a liar to lie, etc. That doesn't let them off the hook.

I think this explains it:

Matt. 18.7 "Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come!"

To which I said
"Not at all. I see it as irrelevant."

I now see that further on (post 11) I actually did explain the irrelevancy.
"Jesus was asking god to forgive those who had him put to death (let them off the hook) when IMO there was nothing to forgive (the hook)."
I didn't, and don't, see your reply as establishing any hook. Hence, it doesn't matter.

I already have. I'm waiting for you to either counter my points, or ask for clarification if you didn't get my points.

Here it is again: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3242606-post4.html

And as I've just shown, your point was irrelevant. Unless, that is, you feel "Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come!" means doing the will of god and Jesus---making certain that Jesus died---is a sin. If not, I don't see how it applies.

I see. So you created a thread in RF, but you weren't actually looking for responses from RF members.

Sure. They can make a good argument, present evidence, cite authorities, or any combination of the three. All of which are common forms of participation.

I know you're willing to read a well-constructed argument. What I'm waiting to see if you're capable of responding to one.

Test me. Present a well-constructed argument; that is, one that's both valid and has true premises.

 

[Quagmire]

Okay, let me give it a shot. Let's see . . . .


I said
"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.

To which you replied
"Wouldn't matter if it was expected or not. We would expect a thief to steal, a liar to lie, etc. That doesn't let them off the hook.

I think this explains it:

Matt. 18.7 "Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come!"

To which I said
"Not at all. I see it as irrelevant."

I now see that further on (post 11) I actually did explain the irrelevancy.
"Jesus was asking god to forgive those who had him put to death (let them off the hook) when IMO there was nothing to forgive (the hook)."

That doesn't explain anything, you're just rephrasing your original argument.

I didn't, and don't, see your reply as establishing any hook. Hence, it doesn't matter.

What do you mean by "establishing a hook"?

And as I've just shown, your point was irrelevant.

You didn't show it, you just repeated the claim.

Unless, that is, you feel "Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come!" means doing the will of god and Jesus---making certain that Jesus died---is a sin. If not, I don't see how it applies.

How I feel about it it is besides the point, I'm just showing you what the verse says. And if you don't understand what it's saying I'll paraphrase it:

This: "Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come!"

means: "It's part of God's will that bad things should happen in the world, but just the same, woe to the person who causes them".

Sure. They can make a good argument, present evidence, cite authorities, or any combination of the three.

I'll pass that on to them. I'm sure they'll be thrilled.

All of which are common forms of participation.

Test me. Present a well-constructed argument; that is, one that's both valid and has true premises.

Deal with the argument I've already presented first.

 

[Skwim]

That doesn't explain anything, you're just rephrasing your original argument.

*sigh* If you don't see it then so be it.

What do you mean by "establishing a hook"?

The hook you said was there (post 4). "Wouldn't matter if it was expected or not. We would expect a thief to steal, a liar to lie, etc. That doesn't let them off the hook."

You didn't show it, you just repeated the claim.

And if you don't understand then you don't.

How I feel about it it is besides the point, I'm just showing you what the verse says. And if you don't understand what it's saying I'll paraphrase it:

This: "Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come!"

means: "It's part of God's will that bad things should happen in the world, but just the same, woe to the person who causes them".

So what?
The Crucifixion wasn't a bad thing, so I don't see how those who caused it could merit woe.

I'll pass that on to them. I'm sure they'll be thrilled.

Whatever peels your banana.

Deal with the argument I've already presented first.

I SAID,

A well-constructed argument; that is, one that's both valid and has true premises!!!!!!
​

You haven't presented anything close to an argument, much less a well constructed one.

Regardless of whether or not it was required, that does not mean that it is all good. This same thing can be found in the Old Testament, in which God commands the people to wipe out a city, yet they have to then sacrifice something to God, or repent. It still makes one impure, and thus needs to be forgiven, regardless of it being required.

A similar idea is the act of taking care of those who have passed away (at least in Jewish thought during the first century). One is expected to take care of those who have died, and there stipulations with that which are required. At the same by doing what is required, one is also made impure. Before entering the Temple, one had to go through a required purification process.

So, if it isn't all good, what is the downside of Jesus fulfilling his singular reason for existence: establishing a means of salvation for all humanity?

 

[Quagmire]

*sigh* If you don't see it then so be it.

Nah, I'm not letting you off the hook that easy this time.

The hook you said was there (post 4). "Wouldn't matter if it was expected or not. We would expect a thief to steal, a liar to lie, etc. That doesn't let them off the hook."

Yeah, it's a figure of speech. Not a very complicated one either. It mean "They would still be accountable", and I explained why they would be.

And if you don't understand then you don't.

Actually, I think I do: you never wanted to debate anything in this thread, you just wanted to post yet another "Here's why the Christian God sucks" thread with the usual unspoken proviso "and I only want to hear from people who think he sucks too. Anyone else will be subject to the usual head games".

That's OK, I'm still going to go along for the ride.

So what?
The Crucifixion wasn't a bad thing, so I don't see how those who caused it could merit woe.

Oh. Well, that explains a cpl things. See, I think most people would consider nailing someone to a crossbeam a bad thing, especially the guy being nailed.

Whatever peels your banana.

I SAID,

a well-constructed argument; that is, one that's both valid and has true premises!!!!!!​

OK, quick lesson in debating: when you're involved in a debate and someone offers a faulty argument, the thing to do is to SHOW how their argument is faulty.

If all you do is SAY their argument is faulty (or irrelevant) over and over, etc., people might get the impression that you only wanted to hear from people who agree with you. And how would that make you look?

​

You haven't presented anything close to an argument, much less a well constructed one.

Third time's a charm :

I think he was just commenting on the human condition in general: "They don't know what they're doing".



Wouldn't matter if it was expected or not. We would expect a thief to steal, a liar to lie, etc. That doesn't let them off the hook.

I think this explains it:

Matt. 18.7 "Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come!"
New International Version (©1984)

 

[Ingledsva]

...

And to a degree you would be correct; however, as I also said, god and Jesus required that he be put to death. Those who had Jesus put to death were doing exactly what both he and god wanted. For someone to do what you need them to hardly calls for forgiving them.

Indeed. And some theologians over the years have put that idea forward for Judas as well, as Jesus seems to be giving him a commission to bring this about.

 

[Brickjectivity]

And to a degree you would be correct; however, as I also said, god and Jesus required that he be put to death. Those who had Jesus put to death were doing exactly what both he and god wanted. For someone to do what you need them to hardly calls for forgiving them.

I'm not making an apology for Christianity and am just answering for your curiosity's sake. Jesus has at this point in the story already preached that "The Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins."(Matthew 9:6) Its reasonable to ask then "Why is he praying for someone to be forgiven if he is the Son of Man and can just forgive them himself?" This proves forgiveness doesn't work the way that altar-calls say that it does, that Jesus isn't the 'Son of Man' but a type of it. It exposes that prayers don't work the way that people think they do, since Jesus must provide a reason that the offense can be forgiven. The prayer is written down for people to read later, because its a lesson addressed to people who are busy doing good things for strangers who are ungrateful.

Rather than strange his request is a comment about the suffering that happens to us when we try to do the right thing. Why must we suffer for being good? Example: Why do we lose contracts when we refuse to pay kickbacks? People don't understand that kind of behavior, and they crucify you over it because they don't get it. More: Because I don't rob banks I must work day by day. Helping someone who has a flat tire costs me time, and people think I'm a fool for doing it. The tire makes my hands dirty, and I get sweaty. What do I get out of it? People who don't understand would say I get nothing out of it. Well, I can't really fault them for not grasping the return value.