Question on the death of Jesus

[Green Kepi]

Very nice!....you're thinking!

But I don't believe in the scapegoat theology.
That someone else died for your sake....doesn't mean you're not responsible
for whatever you say or do.

He didn't save anyone by His death.
It was His life and teachings...His parables...that save.

Without His word upon mind and heart....are you one of His?

Not much of a reason for Him to go thru all the pain of dying on the cross, if no one was saved by His death. If He wasn't resurrected, then what was the purpose of His "life, teachings, and parables...He'd have just been a great teacher....

 

[Sweetvoice]

If you try to teach a bird calculus, you'd likely be wasting your time.

I recall the bible speaks to there being (obviously??) things relating to God etc. that we simply can't understand. Even so, suppose we cloned your DNA and a baby was born via surrogate with your exact DNA. Could the argument be made that you and the baby are one? Just an illustration.

I suppose if you try to teach a bird calculus you could be an idiot.
And hey, I wasn't that one who claim god and jesus is one. I said, "some christians." I am not some.

 

[Thief]

Not much of a reason for Him to go thru all the pain of dying on the cross, if no one was saved by His death. If He wasn't resurrected, then what was the purpose of His "life, teachings, and parables...He'd have just been a great teacher....

There was nothing spiritual about dying on a cross.

The gospels have so much to offer in terms of living.
The parables are the instructions.
The miracles are the invitation.

True enough...if a Man of His ability failed to live on after death.....
the rest of us have little hope.

But I happen to believe in spiritual resurrection.

Flesh cannot inherit the kingdom.

 

[Pegg]

So then why does not Luke and John have Jesus calling attention to a "prophecy". Could it be that who ever wrote Matthew and Mark took various writings that they found in the Tanakh and worked it into their writings to make them more poignant?

If that detail was already covered by Mark and Matthew, why should John and Luke also have to mention it?

 

[esmith]

If that detail was already covered by Mark and Matthew, why should John and Luke also have to mention it?

Who says they knew it was already covered in Matthew and Mark? You are grasping at straws. Luke and John supposedly quote what Jesus said when he was crucified, yet their version totally differs from that of Matthew and Mark. When will Christians come to the realization that all that is written in the New Testament may or may not be true? There is already proof that passages and stories have been added well after the original writings.

 

[Green Kepi]

There was nothing spiritual about dying on a cross.

The gospels have so much to offer in terms of living.
The parables are the instructions.
The miracles are the invitation.

True enough...if a Man of His ability failed to live on after death.....
the rest of us have little hope.

But I happen to believe in spiritual resurrection.

Flesh cannot inherit the kingdom.

Since this is a Scriptural Debate Forum...I can only use Scripture to answer back at you and not my opinion...I’m not really sure of what point you are attempting to make…however, what Jesus achieved on the cross was to reconcile man to God by redemption through His blood for the forgiveness of sin. (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14; 1 Pet. 1:18, 19; 1 John 1:7). Doing this He justified man by His blood (Rom. 5:9).

He sanctified us (made us holy) with His own blood. (Heb. 13:12). And washed us in His blood from our sins (Rev. 1:5). In His dying He bare our sins in his own body on the tree that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes we were healed. (1 Pet 2:24). He also brought the Gentiles who were lost by His blood (Eph. 2:13).

He made Himself our peace, which made both Jew and Gentile one, and broke down the middle wall of partition between them (Eph. 2:14).

By dying He abolished, in His flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of two, both Jew and Gentile, one new man, so making peace; (Eph. 2:15).

He reconciled man back unto God in one body, both Jew and Gentile, by the cross, having slain the enmity between them (Eph. 2:16).
He confound the wise, destroy their wisdom, and brought to nothing the understanding of the prudent (1 Cor. 1:18, 19).

He blotted out the handwriting of ordinances (the Law) that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way (Col. 2:14).
He became dead to the law through His body, and married Himself to us who were raised from the dead, to bring fruit unto God (Rom.7:4).

He became the author and finisher of our faith (Heb 12:2).He died for all,that we who live should not henceforth live unto ourselves, but unto him which died for us, and rose from the dead. (2 Cor. 5:15)

"For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:" (1 Cor. 15:3, 4)

"For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living." (Rom. 14:9)

What could be more spiritual than all this?????

 

[Kathryn]

Comment on post #9 why Luke and John do not speak of this?

The four gospels overlap each other and describe many of the same scenarios from differing perspectives. That's actually a very cool thing about the gospels. Like four different witnesses to an event - we get four different perspectives.

It would be like four different bank employees describing a robbery to the police. Each person might have noticed some of the same details - height, what the guy said, etc. But then each person would also have noticed details that the other missed.

That's why police get statements from ALL witnesses, not just one. The differences don't necessarily discredit the other accounts - they just add more detail.

"He was about 6 feet tall and was wearing a red jacket."

"He was tall and wearing white tennis shoes."

Do these statements contradict each other? No, not at all.

 

[esmith]

Since this is a Scriptural Debate Forum...I can only use Scripture to answer back at you and not my opinion...

A debate forum allows you to express any opinion you want. You may put forth any idea that agrees or disagrees with any post to the forum.
a debate is a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints or opinions.

 

[esmith]

The four gospels overlap each other and describe many of the same scenarios from differing perspectives. That's actually a very cool thing about the gospels. Like four different witnesses to an event - we get four different perspectives.

It would be like four different bank employees describing a robbery to the police. Each person might have noticed some of the same details - height, what the guy said, etc. But then each person would also have noticed details that the other missed.

That's why police get statements from ALL witnesses, not just one. The differences don't necessarily discredit the other accounts - they just add more detail.

"He was about 6 feet tall and was wearing a red jacket."

"He was tall and wearing white tennis shoes."

Do these statements contradict each other? No, not at all.

So you say that Jesus said:
Matthew and Mark: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me";
Luke: "Father, forgive them:,for they do not know what they are doing", "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise", "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit"(then he died)
John: ""Woman here is your son" "Here is your mother", "I am thirsty, It is finished"(then he died)

Seems that these "witnesses" that knew every word that Jesus spoke, word for word, sure did get things wrong at the last. Are you maybe mistaken, could it be that words and deeds were taken out of context or totally fabricated ? Or, maybe a scribe decided something sounded more eloquent and changed things. I have a very hard time believing in what is written in the New Testament. However, I do believe that if you really have faith in your beliefs that is your prerogative. What I object to is some Christians telling me that I am wrong in not believing in Jesus. Maybe that is why I, at times, exhibit hostility toward those of various faiths that condemn me for my beliefs.

 

[userque]

I suppose if you try to teach a bird calculus you could be an idiot.
And hey, I wasn't that one who claim god and jesus is one. I said, "some christians." I am not some.

Yes, trying to teach a bird calculus is idiotic. However, extreme examples help to illustrate points. This point being that we ought not be shocked to learn that there are spiritual/heavenly/Godly things we simply are not equipped to comprehend. Somewhere in the bible, that fact is written.

I guess you misunderstood my post, as I am one who does believe that God and Jesus are "one."

But going outside of our discussion, I find it arrogant of "us" to believe (and demand from believers in things such as the trinity) that we ought have a complete understanding of God, whom we cannot "see." Even while, after many generations, we still can't "figure out" gravity, the causes of many illnesses, economic depressions, civil unrest, etc. and let alone how to cure them.

For a people to assert that believers in God/The-Trinity/Etc. ought be able to explain everything about it while these same people simultaneously acknowledge that that there are things that can be seen yet, are not themselves explained or understood by these same people is also idiotic.

 

[Pegg]

Who says they knew it was already covered in Matthew and Mark? You are grasping at straws. Luke and John supposedly quote what Jesus said when he was crucified, yet their version totally differs from that of Matthew and Mark. When will Christians come to the realization that all that is written in the New Testament may or may not be true? There is already proof that passages and stories have been added well after the original writings.

Jesus said more then 2 sentences and the only way to know all of what he did say is to read all of the 4 accounts. When you read all of them you get the full picture.

if you only read one and assume that it gives the full picture, then you are wrong.

 

[Luminous]

Who were you before you became alive, that is now afraid to go back to it again?

 

[Kathryn]

So you say that Jesus said:
Matthew and Mark: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me";
Luke: "Father, forgive them:,for they do not know what they are doing", "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise", "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit"(then he died)
John: ""Woman here is your son" "Here is your mother", "I am thirsty, It is finished"(then he died)

Seems that these "witnesses" that knew every word that Jesus spoke, word for word, sure did get things wrong at the last. Are you maybe mistaken, could it be that words and deeds were taken out of context or totally fabricated ? Or, maybe a scribe decided something sounded more eloquent and changed things. I have a very hard time believing in what is written in the New Testament. However, I do believe that if you really have faith in your beliefs that is your prerogative. What I object to is some Christians telling me that I am wrong in not believing in Jesus. Maybe that is why I, at times, exhibit hostility toward those of various faiths that condemn me for my beliefs.

Are you really not getting what I'm saying? Different witnesses hear and observe different facets of events. None of these authors said or implied "This is every word that Jesus said." In fact, considering the brevity of all the gospels, it's sort of ridiculous to assume that the writers are writing down everything Jesus said. Have you read the four gospels? I think that if you would do so, you would see that it's obvious that the stories are small snippets of the larger ministry of Jesus' life.

John 21:25

Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

 

[esmith]

Are you really not getting what I'm saying? Different witnesses hear and observe different facets of events. None of these authors said or implied "This is every word that Jesus said." In fact, considering the brevity of all the gospels, it's sort of ridiculous to assume that the writers are writing down everything Jesus said. Have you read the four gospels? I think that if you would do so, you would see that it's obvious that the stories are small snippets of the larger ministry of Jesus' life.

John 21:25

Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

Yes, I have read the New Testament and more than once and from three different "versions" of the bible In my opinion, there probably was a person called Jesus who traveled the area and taught/preached his version of the Hebrew Bible. That he caused a disruption during the Passover in Jerusalem and was put to death. His teachings were continued by persons who believed in his message. His message and deeds were transmitted by oral means and the stories grew as they passed from person to person. That the religion, pushed by Paul, eventually became the dominate religion in the surrounding areas.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The four gospels overlap each other and describe many of the same scenarios from differing perspectives. That's actually a very cool thing about the gospels. Like four different witnesses to an event - we get four different perspectives.

It would be like four different bank employees describing a robbery to the police. Each person might have noticed some of the same details - height, what the guy said, etc. But then each person would also have noticed details that the other missed.

That's why police get statements from ALL witnesses, not just one. The differences don't necessarily discredit the other accounts - they just add more detail.

"He was about 6 feet tall and was wearing a red jacket."

"He was tall and wearing white tennis shoes."

Do these statements contradict each other? No, not at all.

The police also tend to discredit (or at least consider less reliable) witness statements that aren't taken immediately after an incident. They also consider it suspicious when a group of witnesses recite the same story word-for-word. And they probably wouldn't trust any part of the story where the narrative implies that the "witness" wasn't even present for the events he describes.

However, I don't think the "witness" analogy is reflective of the Gospels. In the case of the Gospels, we're not talking about four individual, independent witnesses. We've got one group (the synoptic Gospels) that all draw from the same original material to some degree, so they're not independent. Heck - I'm not sure it's even justified to say that they're the creations of individual authors. For all we know, they could be the products of three groups, not three people.

Also, the other problem with your analogy is that the four accounts can't be reconciled into a non-contradictory whole... as illustrated by Dan Barker's Easter Challenge.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are you really not getting what I'm saying? Different witnesses hear and observe different facets of events. None of these authors said or implied "This is every word that Jesus said." In fact, considering the brevity of all the gospels, it's sort of ridiculous to assume that the writers are writing down everything Jesus said. Have you read the four gospels? I think that if you would do so, you would see that it's obvious that the stories are small snippets of the larger ministry of Jesus' life.

What did Jesus say as he died?

 

[jtartar]

In Matt 20:17-19 and Mark 10:32-34 Jesus says that he will be mocked and flogged and crucified. Yet when the time comes, Matt 27:46, Mark 15:34, he asks God why he has forsaken him. What is this, a oops moment? Did he finally realize that he got what he was asking for, but thought that God would intercede for him?

esmith,
Many Theologians believe that Jesus was asking this question as a statement also. He was probably meaning Why are you forsaking me?? The reason being, if god did not forsake Jesus, he could never die, so the reason God was forsaking Jesus was so he could provide the Ransom Sacrifice for any of mankind that believed in him, John 3:16, Acts 13:38,39.

 

[Thief]

Since this is a Scriptural Debate Forum...I can only use Scripture to answer back at you and not my opinion...I’m not really sure of what point you are attempting to make…however, what Jesus achieved on the cross was to reconcile man to God by redemption through His blood for the forgiveness of sin. (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14; 1 Pet. 1:18, 19; 1 John 1:7). Doing this He justified man by His blood (Rom. 5:9).

He sanctified us (made us holy) with His own blood. (Heb. 13:12). And washed us in His blood from our sins (Rev. 1:5). In His dying He bare our sins in his own body on the tree that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes we were healed. (1 Pet 2:24). He also brought the Gentiles who were lost by His blood (Eph. 2:13).

He made Himself our peace, which made both Jew and Gentile one, and broke down the middle wall of partition between them (Eph. 2:14).

By dying He abolished, in His flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of two, both Jew and Gentile, one new man, so making peace; (Eph. 2:15).

He reconciled man back unto God in one body, both Jew and Gentile, by the cross, having slain the enmity between them (Eph. 2:16).
He confound the wise, destroy their wisdom, and brought to nothing the understanding of the prudent (1 Cor. 1:18, 19).

He blotted out the handwriting of ordinances (the Law) that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way (Col. 2:14).
He became dead to the law through His body, and married Himself to us who were raised from the dead, to bring fruit unto God (Rom.7:4).

He became the author and finisher of our faith (Heb 12:2).He died for all,that we who live should not henceforth live unto ourselves, but unto him which died for us, and rose from the dead. (2 Cor. 5:15)

"For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:" (1 Cor. 15:3, 4)

"For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living." (Rom. 14:9)

What could be more spiritual than all this?????

And you quoted everyone but Him.

If you were more focused upon the parables....

 

[horizon_mj1]

"My God, my God, why have you foresaken me?" is the first line of Psalm 22.

Psalm 22 may be relevant for two reasons:

- its overall message is that God is with us even when things seem their worst.
- it has a passage that is echoed in the Gospel description of the events surrounding the crucifixion:



I've read that in that era, Psalms were known by their first line (like songs are known today), not by number, so Jesus saying "my God, my God, why have you foresaken me?" would've been equivalent to him saying "Remember Psalm 22!"

Now... whether it was to comfort the crowd or to call attention to a "prophecy"... that's a matter for debate.

But the short version: it's an allusion to Psalm 22.

Or maybe it was Jesus reminding people of the things he taught.

 

[Luminous]

What did Jesus say as he died?

DUH lol He said everything combined!!! lol silly they just forgot some of the parts, respectively.