Question on the death of Jesus

[horizon_mj1]

It still looks like the word 'fully' is being used incorrectly here. Without an explanation of this, the rest of your post can be disregarded as unsubstantiated assertion.

Maybe this was to be a statement on what we should try to be?

 

[outhouse]

At that moment in time, Jesus bore the sins of the world. Jesus is fully divine, but also fully human. His human death is imminent, He is in great pain, and He is bearing mankind's sin on His bloody shoulders. What makes Jesus so compelling is that He embraces human emotion - and this is His humanity showing. Surely a person, even the Son of God, can feel pain, fear, and grief as they die a painful and humiliating death.

I believe there in lies the problem.

jebus could be fully human and not divine at all and the story would play out identical.

and we all know ancient hebrews never exagerated anything at all

 

[Plato]

Well, it's too bad esmith doesn't want to discuss/ debate any more, because I learned a couple things from esmiths posts.
I learned that 'NRSV' stands for the Oxford Annotated Bible, from Oxford University in Britain, 1st published in the 1970's, and then published as the 'New Revised Standard Version' (NRSV) starting 1989 in 4 editions. (ok, maybe everyone knew this, but I'm used to the King James Version, the Catholic version etc.) With the 3rd edition starting in 2000, they made some big changes in the traditional translation of the Bible making it more ecumenical/ neutrel (the 4th edition came out in 2010). That, it is the Bible accepted by a majority of Protestant Churches, that it is respected by scholars. However that, Fundamentalist, Evangelical, and Catholic Christians do not like it (since 2000) (according to Wikipedia), as it's new translation removes references to Jesus from the Old Testament among other reasons. A lot of religious scholars also criticize it since 2000 for seeing the Bible as just 'history' and not 'religion'. There is also criticism that since 2000 in referring to the 'Old Testament' as the 'Hebrew Bible', Oxford gives the impression there are two competing 'Bibles' pitting Jew against Christian (also Wikipedia).

 

[horizon_mj1]

Well, it's too bad esmith doesn't want to discuss/ debate any more, because I learned a couple things from esmiths posts.
I learned that 'NRSV' stands for the Oxford Annotated Bible, from Oxford University in Britain, 1st published in the 1970's, and then published as the 'New Revised Standard Version' (NRSV) starting 1989 in 4 editions. (ok, maybe everyone knew this, but I'm used to the King James Version, the Catholic version etc.) With the 3rd edition starting in 2000, they made some big changes in the traditional translation of the Bible making it more ecumenical/ neutrel (the 4th edition came out in 2010). That, it is the Bible accepted by a majority of Protestant Churches, that it is respected by scholars. However that, Fundamentalist, Evangelical, and Catholic Christians do not like it (since 2000) (according to Wikipedia), as it's new translation removes references to Jesus from the Old Testament among other reasons. A lot of religious scholars also criticize it since 2000 for seeing the Bible as just 'history' and not 'religion'. There is also criticism that since 2000 in referring to the 'Old Testament' as the 'Hebrew Bible', Oxford gives the impression there are two competing 'Bibles' pitting Jew against Christian (also Wikipedia).

Two "series" of books to read are the Books of Enoch and the Forgotten Books of Eden. These are combined in a book "The Lost Books of the Bible"; I do not know the publisher off hand but can get the information later if interested. There is significant relevance to this book which includes Jesus as a child growing up.

 

[esmith]

Well, it's too bad esmith doesn't want to discuss/ debate any more, because I learned a couple things from esmiths posts.
I learned that 'NRSV' stands for the Oxford Annotated Bible, from Oxford University in Britain, 1st published in the 1970's, and then published as the 'New Revised Standard Version' (NRSV) starting 1989 in 4 editions. (ok, maybe everyone knew this, but I'm used to the King James Version, the Catholic version etc.) With the 3rd edition starting in 2000, they made some big changes in the traditional translation of the Bible making it more ecumenical/ neutrel (the 4th edition came out in 2010). That, it is the Bible accepted by a majority of Protestant Churches, that it is respected by scholars. However that, Fundamentalist, Evangelical, and Catholic Christians do not like it (since 2000) (according to Wikipedia), as it's new translation removes references to Jesus from the Old Testament among other reasons. A lot of religious scholars also criticize it since 2000 for seeing the Bible as just 'history' and not 'religion'. There is also criticism that since 2000 in referring to the 'Old Testament' as the 'Hebrew Bible', Oxford gives the impression there are two competing 'Bibles' pitting Jew against Christian (also Wikipedia).

I didn't say I wouldn't be open to discussing or debating all issues, just Psalm 22, it appeared from your opinion on this subject your mind is closed.
Why would you say that the NRSV is just a history book. The religious teaching are still present. Just because some Christians do not agree with it does not make it a non-religious bible. It also contains the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical book. See for definition of Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books
You do understand don't you that what you call the Old Testament is really the Tanakh or Hebrew Bible and was "adopted" by the Christian faith as part of their bible and for some unknown reason they changed the name to the Old Testament. However, I think that New Testament means the "New Law" whereas Old Testament means the "Old Law".
I do not believe that the NRSV is pitting those of the Jewish faith against those of the Christian faith. Do you really think that those of the Jewish faith would use the NRSV Bible as their holy book. I am not Jewish and I do not believe Jesus is who Christians believe he is, therefor I object to Christians transferring Jesus to the Tanakh/Hebrew/Old Testament Bible. However, I do read the New Testament, I just don't believe everything in it.
One must never close their mind. Also, where would I find the information to discuss debate the New Testament if I didn't have a copy of it. I have tried reading the New International Version study bible(NIV) but found it to be too slanted toward the belief in Jesus.

 

[filthy tugboat]

its pretty simple. As a fully devine beign, Jesus can exist within the paradox of being both fully devine and fully human.

So basically being fully divine entails the complete sense and being of human? But that doesn't make this being fully divine and fully human, it makes them fully divine. This is of course submitting that divinity entails the complete sense and being of humanity, something I have no reason to believe is true.

The reason the term fully is being used wrong is that being human is not the same as being divine, they are separate. Fully means completely, you cannot be completely one thing and simultaneously completely some other thing, that's nonsense.

So if divinity entails humanity then by being 'fully divine' you have the completeness of humanity, but by no means does this make you fully both because when you are fully human you cannot be divine as humanity does not entail divinity.

 

[Poisonshady313]

A response to the use of prooftexts from Psalm 22 from Messiahtruth.com


Psalm 22

The primary prooftexts involve verses 1 and 16.

Psalms 22:1 My G-d, my G-d, why hast thou forsaken me? Why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring? (KJV)​

This verse is quoted in Matthew and Mark:

Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My G-d, my G-d, why hast thou forsaken me? (KJV)

Mark 15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? Which is, being interpreted, My G-d, my G-d, why hast thou forsaken me? (KJV)​

Firstly, what Jesus says here is definitely Hebrew. "Lama" is one of the two Hebrew words which can be translated as the interrogative, "why?" Secondly, what he says here is categorically NOT a quote of Psalm 22:1. "Why have you forsaken me" is in Hebrew, "lama azavtani." That is a noteworthy difference from "lama sabachthani." What Jesus said on the cross is actually "why have you slaughtered me." Jesus, the man-god, savior of all mankind, cries out to the Lord, not knowing why this fate had befallen him.

Next verse in question:

Psalms 22:16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. (KJV)​

At first glance, we couldn't possibly find a verse that more loudly screamed of Christianity. It speaks of someone having his hands and feet pierced. Obviously, only one person in the history of the world has had their hands and feet pierced. (This is a prime example of how you need to first believe in Jesus before even the mistranslated representation of what King David wrote can be used as a "proof.") Secondly, what really went on during a crucifixion is that the wrists and ankles were pierced, not the hands and feet. This might seem like nitpicking to one who is not prepared to take this seriously, but it is a valid point nonetheless. Thirdly, we are dealing with a mistranslation. What you see for the word "pierced" is translated from the Hebrew "ka'ari," which means "like a lion." This word is used again in that very same Psalm:

Psalm 22:21 Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns. (KJV)​

Odd, that KJV would translate the very same word as "pierced" in verse 16, but as lion in verse 21. I suppose if the word really did mean "pierce" then verse 21 should read "Save me from the pierced mouth" but of course, that makes no sense.

Psalm 22:7 But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.​

So, Jesus, the god-man, is calling himself a worm? On the other hand, the worm reference is found elsewhere in Scripture:

Isaiah 41:14 Fear not, thou worm Jacob, and ye men of Israel; I will help thee, saith the LORD, and thy redeemer, the Holy One of Israel. (KJV)​

So, the Jewish people are likened to a worm, and the comparison here makes it much more likely that David was writing about the plight of the Jew. For some reason, Christians find it hard to believe that the Psalmist would be writing about his own people.

 

[Thief]

And all of this is actually moving to understanding?

A man dying on a cross speaks of being forsaken.......by whom?

God?....his friends?.....his family?.....his fellowman?....

Do you really think He was quoting someone else?...quoting scripture?.....
to the very end?

He was speaking of Himself.

 

[Muffled]

That is described in this way in the Baha'i Scriptures:

...they hanged Him on the cross, where He cried out, ‘O My beloved Lord, how long wilt Thou abandon Me to them? Lift Me up unto Thee, shelter Me close to Thee, make Me a dwelling by Thy throne of glory. Verily art Thou the Answerer of prayers, and Thou art the Clement, the Merciful. O My Lord! Verily this world with all its vastness can no longer contain Me, and I love this cross, out of love for Thy beauty, and yearning for Thy realm on high, and because of this fire, fanned by the gusts of Thy holiness, aflame within My heart. Help me, O Lord, to ascend unto Thee, sustain Me that I may reach unto Thy sacred Threshold, O My loving Lord! Verily Thou art the Merciful, the Possessor of great bounty! Verily Thou art the Generous! Verily Thou art the Compassionate! Verily Thou art the All-Knowing! There is none other God save Thee, the Mighty, the Powerful!’

-Selection of the Writings of Abdulbaha

That appears to be fanciful at best.

 

[Luminous]

So basically being fully divine entails the complete sense and being of human? But that doesn't make this being fully divine and fully human, it makes them fully divine. This is of course submitting that divinity entails the complete sense and being of humanity, something I have no reason to believe is true.

The reason the term fully is being used wrong is that being human is not the same as being divine, they are separate. Fully means completely, you cannot be completely one thing and simultaneously completely some other thing, that's nonsense.

So if divinity entails humanity then by being 'fully divine' you have the completeness of humanity, but by no means does this make you fully both because when you are fully human you cannot be divine as humanity does not entail divinity.

No. I meant to say, that in some people's minds: "As a fully devine beign, Jesus can exist within the paradox of being both fully devine and fully human." I don't know if Kathryn means that, but it's one way of looking at it.
In other words: Jesus is fully devine and all-powerful. thus He made himself fully human(maybe for only a while/or maybe while being fully devine also). This idea in no way sugests that being human is being devine, the suggestion is that being devine CAN mean being human(for a short time/ and or /while also being fully devine).
In another way: the word human and the word devine are in no way contradictory, depending on your definitions. AS in "fully green and fully a triangle"
In yet another way: devine can lead to human and back, but human can't lead to devine at all. "you can take a shower, and then stop takeing a shower, but the shower can't take you at all"
or maybe she does see it as you see it...being fully human means you are also fully devine...in that "a full triangle is also a full polygon". maybe humans are not full triangles.

 

[Muffled]

And all of this is actually moving to understanding?

A man dying on a cross speaks of being forsaken.......by whom?

God?....his friends?.....his family?.....his fellowman?....

Do you really think He was quoting someone else?...quoting scripture?.....
to the very end?

He was speaking of Himself.

Yes Ps 22 is a prayer to God and it is also prophecy.

Yes. The cross is His crowning achievemnet and the purpose for which He came. Quoting scripture that points to a fulfillment of prophecy continues to complete that purpose.

 

[horizon_mj1]

Really? Don't you think at that moment, maybe all applied?

 

[sniper762]

jesus was fully devine and fully mortal BUT not both at the same time.

when god sent his son (fully devine) to earth to be born (fully mortal), the plan was for jesus to live among men as a man until he returned to god (resurection) to be once again fully devine.

 

[horizon_mj1]

jesus was fully devine and fully mortal BUT not both at the same time.

when god sent his son (fully devine) to earth to be born (fully mortal), the plan was for jesus to live among men as a man until he returned to god (resurection) to be once again fully devine.

Show me where in science or scripture it states the impossibility of being both (Divine/mortal). :angel2:

 

[sniper762]

well, scripture says in many places that jesus is the "son of god" THATS FULLY DIVINE

it also says that he was "born" unto mary and is called "the son of man" THATS FULLY MORTAL

wright?

 

[horizon_mj1]

well, scripture says in many places that jesus is the "son of god" THATS FULLY DIVINE

it also says that he was "born" unto mary and is called "the son of man" THATS FULLY MORTAL

wright?

The only absolute proof to any of this is that there was in fact a Jesus. The stories applied have yet to be proven, would you not agree?

 

[Muffled]

A response to the use of prooftexts from Psalm 22 from Messiahtruth.com


Psalm 22

The primary prooftexts involve verses 1 and 16.

Psalms 22:1 My G-d, my G-d, why hast thou forsaken me? Why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring? (KJV)
​

This verse is quoted in Matthew and Mark:

Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My G-d, my G-d, why hast thou forsaken me? (KJV)

Mark 15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? Which is, being interpreted, My G-d, my G-d, why hast thou forsaken me? (KJV)
​

Firstly, what Jesus says here is definitely Hebrew. "Lama" is one of the two Hebrew words which can be translated as the interrogative, "why?" Secondly, what he says here is categorically NOT a quote of Psalm 22:1. "Why have you forsaken me" is in Hebrew, "lama azavtani." That is a noteworthy difference from "lama sabachthani." What Jesus said on the cross is actually "why have you slaughtered me." Jesus, the man-god, savior of all mankind, cries out to the Lord, not knowing why this fate had befallen him.

Next verse in question:

Psalms 22:16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. (KJV)
​

At first glance, we couldn't possibly find a verse that more loudly screamed of Christianity. It speaks of someone having his hands and feet pierced. Obviously, only one person in the history of the world has had their hands and feet pierced. (This is a prime example of how you need to first believe in Jesus before even the mistranslated representation of what King David wrote can be used as a "proof.") Secondly, what really went on during a crucifixion is that the wrists and ankles were pierced, not the hands and feet. This might seem like nitpicking to one who is not prepared to take this seriously, but it is a valid point nonetheless. Thirdly, we are dealing with a mistranslation. What you see for the word "pierced" is translated from the Hebrew "ka'ari," which means "like a lion." This word is used again in that very same Psalm:

Psalm 22:21 Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns. (KJV)
​

Odd, that KJV would translate the very same word as "pierced" in verse 16, but as lion in verse 21. I suppose if the word really did mean "pierce" then verse 21 should read "Save me from the pierced mouth" but of course, that makes no sense.

Psalm 22:7 But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.
​

So, Jesus, the god-man, is calling himself a worm? On the other hand, the worm reference is found elsewhere in Scripture:

Isaiah 41:14 Fear not, thou worm Jacob, and ye men of Israel; I will help thee, saith the LORD, and thy redeemer, the Holy One of Israel. (KJV)
​

So, the Jewish people are likened to a worm, and the comparison here makes it much more likely that David was writing about the plight of the Jew. For some reason, Christians find it hard to believe that the Psalmist would be writing about his own people.

I am sure that those who do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah of Israel would bend over backwards attempting to disprove fulfillment of prophecy.

There is no doubt that scholars theorize that He would be making an exact quote. However that is not neccessarily the case and the meaning is close enough. Matthew wasn't a Biblical scholar and might not even have known Hebrew very well since he was from Galilee where Aramaic is spoken. He wasn't even there. John and Mary were there. John was a Galileean also. Mary might have known Hebrew becasue it is theorized that she came from an ecclesiastical family because her sister was married to a man who served in the Temple. At any rate Jesus has no reason to make this statement other than to draw attention to the Biblical passage. Also one has to ask why Jesus suddenly reverted to Hebrew when his speaking language was Aramaic.

This is not consistent with scripture where Jesus already knows what will be done to him.

Someone forgot to tell Jesus that becuase He doesn't show Thomas his wrists when He reveals His resurrected body. John 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and see my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and put it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

Obviously "like a lion" does not fit. The sentence makes no sense unless a verb is there. The only active thing a lion does to human flesh is bite or claw. In either case the act is piercing the flesh. That looks like a good translation to me.

This passage is closer to the messianic passage in Isaiah: Isa. 53:3 He was despised, and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and as one from whom men hide their face he was despised; and we esteemed him not.

There is no comparative context that supports that David is writing about Jews in general.

I don't have a problem with that concept if it can be shown from context. Certainly Isa 41 is about the Jewish people. I don't have a problem with that.

I noticed that you managed to ignore this verse: Ps 22:18 They part my garments among them, And upon my vesture do they cast lots.

Lu 23:34 And Jesus said, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And parting his garments among them, they cast lots.

 

[sniper762]

as i said before, pro nor con can be "proven" as to the validity of the biblical contents.

its foolish to attempt to

pure "faith" is all that exists

 

[Luminous]

as i said before, pro nor con can be "proven" as to the validity of the biblical contents.

its foolish to attempt to

pure "faith" is all that exists

I agree. but wouldn't we rather be closer to the truth than further?

 

[sniper762]

the "truth" lies in the eyes of the beholder