[Replying to post 1 by dio9]
Jesus ended up believing he was betrayed by God, thus the realization from the cross. Jesus thought God would assume the throne if they cleansed the Temple, but God never intervenes, to Jesus' shock and dismay.
How can Jesus have been betrayed if he knew ?
Moderator: Moderators
-
ThePainefulTruth
- Sage
- Posts: 841
- Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 9:47 am
- Location: Arizona
Post #62
The following is a rebuttal to the statements made by shnarkle (post 59) related to my comments to JehovahsWitness.
The third and fourth chapters of Genesis informs us of the type of life Adam/Eve had (before and after their fall) and shows us that they weren't going to die, as long as, they obeyed God's instructions. This was due to their access to the tree of life (Gen. 3:2-3). Yet, when they disobeyed God, Adam/Eve were expelled from the garden and access to the tree of life was denied (Gen. 3:22-24). So, when Adam/Eve obeyed God they (technically) were immortal, because they didn't sin. But, when they did sin, immortality was lost and they now would die. The same type of principle would apply to the Christ, he didn't sin. Hence, he didn't earn "the wages of sin," which is death.
This is not an accurate claim and the idea that life expectancy was around 35-40 years old in the first century C.E. is due to a false understanding of averages. The article: Human life spans nearly constant for 2000 years (published in LiveScience) gives us an example of the problem of using averages for these types of statistics:
Discussions about life expectancy often involve how it has improved over time. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, life expectancy for men in 1907 was 45.6 years; by 1957 it rose to 66.4; in 2007 it reached 75.5. Unlike the most recent increase in life expectancy (which was attributable largely to a decline in half of the leading causes of death including heart disease, homicide, and influenza), the increase in life expectancy between 1907 and 2007 was largely due to a decreasing infant mortality rate, which was 9.99 percent in 1907; 2.63 percent in 1957; and 0.68 percent in 2007.
Hence, trusting averages for certain types of information can be deceiving. The infant (five and under) mortality rate during the first century C.E. was extremely high. We have data that claims the infant mortality rate around 1800 C.E. was over 40%. This reality would certainly affect the average age of life expectancy for human beings in a negative way, giving a false perception of the true facts.
Simple example: A 75 year old man dies and a 5 year boy dies. Hence, the life expectancy is 40 years (75 + 5 = 80 divided by 2 = 40)
The bible tells us that "the wages of sin" is death (Ezekiel 18:4, 20, Romans 6:23 and James 1:15. So, we pay for our own sins by dying. This is undeniable, nobody else pays for these sins. Therefore, since death is permanent, all who have died are lost.
However, the Christ, who was sinless, did not earn the wages of sin. But, he did earn the right to an immortal physical life, just like Adam/Eve and their descendants could have. So, the Christ (technically) earned immortality in the flesh by being sinless. But, the Christ gave up this reward and offered it up to God for mankind. God accepted this offering and was so pleased that He granted mankind the opportunity to be resurrected and to learn the true ways of God and be granted life in the ages to come.
The apostle Paul clearly outlines the importance of the resurrections in 1 Cor. 15. He also states that if the resurrection of the Christ didn't occur, then mankind's faith is futile and they are still in their sins or the wages of sin, which is death. This example clearly shows how valuable the Christ's resurrection was.
So, the theory that the Christ bore our sins (literally) is false. Because, if the Christ was guilty of sin (at his crucifixion), then his punishment was just. And, as Albert Barnes (1955) with his notes on 2 Cor. and Galatians observed that if it was deserved, there can hardly be merit in it for others…
Also, the theory of imputed sin is nonsense. The act of sin is an individual choice, which does not conform to God's standards. Therefore, an individual cannot be sinful by the act of another (Ezek. 18:20).
It is correct that eternal life is not the penalty for sin. This is derived from the false concept of heaven or hell. However, the concept of eternal separation from God and His family is real. This just shows that those who refuse the gift of God will just cease to exist. This is just showing mercy. The angels who sinned are in a different class, they have life inherent and cannot die (unless God decides to destroy them). This is why the bible states that the evil angels are in torment for eternity, but this is not the case for humans.
shnarkle wrote:Being sinless wouldn't result in immortality.
The third and fourth chapters of Genesis informs us of the type of life Adam/Eve had (before and after their fall) and shows us that they weren't going to die, as long as, they obeyed God's instructions. This was due to their access to the tree of life (Gen. 3:2-3). Yet, when they disobeyed God, Adam/Eve were expelled from the garden and access to the tree of life was denied (Gen. 3:22-24). So, when Adam/Eve obeyed God they (technically) were immortal, because they didn't sin. But, when they did sin, immortality was lost and they now would die. The same type of principle would apply to the Christ, he didn't sin. Hence, he didn't earn "the wages of sin," which is death.
shnarkle wrote:We know this because he had already reached the ripe old age of 33, and in those days he was no young buck anymore.
This is not an accurate claim and the idea that life expectancy was around 35-40 years old in the first century C.E. is due to a false understanding of averages. The article: Human life spans nearly constant for 2000 years (published in LiveScience) gives us an example of the problem of using averages for these types of statistics:
Discussions about life expectancy often involve how it has improved over time. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, life expectancy for men in 1907 was 45.6 years; by 1957 it rose to 66.4; in 2007 it reached 75.5. Unlike the most recent increase in life expectancy (which was attributable largely to a decline in half of the leading causes of death including heart disease, homicide, and influenza), the increase in life expectancy between 1907 and 2007 was largely due to a decreasing infant mortality rate, which was 9.99 percent in 1907; 2.63 percent in 1957; and 0.68 percent in 2007.
Hence, trusting averages for certain types of information can be deceiving. The infant (five and under) mortality rate during the first century C.E. was extremely high. We have data that claims the infant mortality rate around 1800 C.E. was over 40%. This reality would certainly affect the average age of life expectancy for human beings in a negative way, giving a false perception of the true facts.
Simple example: A 75 year old man dies and a 5 year boy dies. Hence, the life expectancy is 40 years (75 + 5 = 80 divided by 2 = 40)
shnarkle wrote:The resurrection isn't what pays the penalty for sin. It is his death that pays the penalty.
The bible tells us that "the wages of sin" is death (Ezekiel 18:4, 20, Romans 6:23 and James 1:15. So, we pay for our own sins by dying. This is undeniable, nobody else pays for these sins. Therefore, since death is permanent, all who have died are lost.
However, the Christ, who was sinless, did not earn the wages of sin. But, he did earn the right to an immortal physical life, just like Adam/Eve and their descendants could have. So, the Christ (technically) earned immortality in the flesh by being sinless. But, the Christ gave up this reward and offered it up to God for mankind. God accepted this offering and was so pleased that He granted mankind the opportunity to be resurrected and to learn the true ways of God and be granted life in the ages to come.
The apostle Paul clearly outlines the importance of the resurrections in 1 Cor. 15. He also states that if the resurrection of the Christ didn't occur, then mankind's faith is futile and they are still in their sins or the wages of sin, which is death. This example clearly shows how valuable the Christ's resurrection was.
So, the theory that the Christ bore our sins (literally) is false. Because, if the Christ was guilty of sin (at his crucifixion), then his punishment was just. And, as Albert Barnes (1955) with his notes on 2 Cor. and Galatians observed that if it was deserved, there can hardly be merit in it for others…
Also, the theory of imputed sin is nonsense. The act of sin is an individual choice, which does not conform to God's standards. Therefore, an individual cannot be sinful by the act of another (Ezek. 18:20).
shnarkle wrote:Some would even go so far as to say that the penalty is eternal separation from God which comes under the heading of the second resurrection unto damnation. Eternal life isn't the penalty for sin.
It is correct that eternal life is not the penalty for sin. This is derived from the false concept of heaven or hell. However, the concept of eternal separation from God and His family is real. This just shows that those who refuse the gift of God will just cease to exist. This is just showing mercy. The angels who sinned are in a different class, they have life inherent and cannot die (unless God decides to destroy them). This is why the bible states that the evil angels are in torment for eternity, but this is not the case for humans.
Re: How can Jesus have been betrayed if he knew ?
Post #63This is an interesting point, especially from the standpoint of those who claim that Jesus couldn't have been betrayed if he knew what his betrayer was doing all along. As some have already pointed out even when a spouse knows that their wife is cheating on him, this doesn't negate the fact that she has betrayed him.ThePainefulTruth wrote: [Replying to post 1 by dio9]
Jesus ended up believing he was betrayed by God, thus the realization from the cross. Jesus thought God would assume the throne if they cleansed the Temple, but God never intervenes, to Jesus' shock and dismay.
However, this isn't the case with Christ on the cross especially when it is intended and known beforehand. Jesus asks if it is possible for God's will to be manifested some other way. Seeing that there is no other way, he is resigned to his fate, but what is his fate? His fate is to take on the punishment for sin which is to be forsaken of God, and forsaken is not betrayed. He doesn't cry out "Why have you betrayed me?". He cries out "Why have you forsaken me"? He's also quoting from the Hebrew sacred scriptures which don't suggest betrayal, but the fulfillmelnt of prophecy.
Jesus taught to repent which was his way of teaching to cleanse one's own temple so that God could come to dwell in his people individually. On some level, an unrepentant Israel also meant to destroy the temple because a temple that is without God is inevitably going to be destroyed. The Temple in Jerusalem as well as what little remains is a testament to that fact.
These are quite brilliant illustrations of the two outcomes. The temple that is cleansed is fit for God to dwell in while the temple that is polluted is only fit for destruction and Christ came to show both. First he comes preaching repentance/the need for cleansing the temple, then when that message is rejected, he shows the necessity for destruction of a forsaken temple. His body hanging on a cross is that illustration.
When the author has Jesus say things like, "Into your hands I commend my spirit", or "It is finished" or equating "lifting up" in glory to the crucifixion, there is no shock or dismay being conveyed, but someone who is in complete control.
Post #65
[Replying to post 64 by shnarkle]
I particularly like this point you've made.;
"he came into the world for the expressed purpose of dying. He would have died regardless of whether he was crucified or not. He came in the likeness of sinful flesh which is subject to death."
He came into this life to be one of us. , saying implying God is one of us in him and through him , we in him everything a human is. Jesus was the perfect in imperfect humanity , the spirit in the material.
"
I particularly like this point you've made.;
"he came into the world for the expressed purpose of dying. He would have died regardless of whether he was crucified or not. He came in the likeness of sinful flesh which is subject to death."
He came into this life to be one of us. , saying implying God is one of us in him and through him , we in him everything a human is. Jesus was the perfect in imperfect humanity , the spirit in the material.
"
Post #66
Yes, the spirit manifested in, with, and through Christ, although not so much God as one of us, but Christ in us and we in Christ, the image of the divine. Christ became the son of man that we may become sons of God.dio9 wrote: [Replying to post 64 by shnarkle]
I particularly like this point you've made.;
"he came into the world for the expressed purpose of dying. He would have died regardless of whether he was crucified or not. He came in the likeness of sinful flesh which is subject to death."
He came into this life to be one of us. , saying implying God is one of us in him and through him , we in him everything a human is. Jesus was the perfect in imperfect humanity , the spirit in the material.
"
One has to consider what would have happened had Israel repented at hearing the gospel message. The kingdom would have come into existence which is still what the world is groaning for in anticipation. That's the first option, but the sorrows of messiah are all mentioned prior to the glory which suggests that the crucifixion was an integral part of the plan of salvation all along.
There may be a chaisma here in the proclamation of the gospel followed by the rejection which is equivalent to death, which is necessary for resurrection.
This may also fit in with Paul's idea of the flesh being unable to refrain from sin, or even his statements about the death of the body leading to eternal life in the spirit.
-
ThePainefulTruth
- Sage
- Posts: 841
- Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 9:47 am
- Location: Arizona
Re: How can Jesus have been betrayed if he knew ?
Post #67The whole point is that Jesus wasn't betrayed in the first place. God didn't show when Jesus cleansed the Temple, but God never intervenes, as all the revealed religions suppose. Jesus was set up for an impossible outcome because he'd been taught to believe in the power of faith by his religion. God didn't set him up, his religion did, a religion with a false god.shnarkle wrote:This is an interesting point, especially from the standpoint of those who claim that Jesus couldn't have been betrayed if he knew what his betrayer was doing all along. As some have already pointed out even when a spouse knows that their wife is cheating on him, this doesn't negate the fact that she has betrayed him.ThePainefulTruth wrote: [Replying to post 1 by dio9]
Jesus ended up believing he was betrayed by God, thus the realization from the cross. Jesus thought God would assume the throne if they cleansed the Temple, but God never intervenes, to Jesus' shock and dismay.
However, this isn't the case with Christ on the cross especially when it is intended and known beforehand. Jesus asks if it is possible for God's will to be manifested some other way. Seeing that there is no other way, he is resigned to his fate, but what is his fate? His fate is to take on the punishment for sin which is to be forsaken of God, and forsaken is not betrayed. He doesn't cry out "Why have you betrayed me?". He cries out "Why have you forsaken me"? He's also quoting from the Hebrew sacred scriptures which don't suggest betrayal, but the fulfillmelnt of prophecy.
Jesus taught to repent which was his way of teaching to cleanse one's own temple so that God could come to dwell in his people individually. On some level, an unrepentant Israel also meant to destroy the temple because a temple that is without God is inevitably going to be destroyed. The Temple in Jerusalem as well as what little remains is a testament to that fact.
These are quite brilliant illustrations of the two outcomes. The temple that is cleansed is fit for God to dwell in while the temple that is polluted is only fit for destruction and Christ came to show both. First he comes preaching repentance/the need for cleansing the temple, then when that message is rejected, he shows the necessity for destruction of a forsaken temple. His body hanging on a cross is that illustration.
When the author has Jesus say things like, "Into your hands I commend my spirit", or "It is finished" or equating "lifting up" in glory to the crucifixion, there is no shock or dismay being conveyed, but someone who is in complete control.
And you could say that Jesus had warning, from the Book of Job. Job was a perfect person (allegory invented by priests tired of being asked Why?), and sued God to explain Himself. But God said, in effect, it's none of your business what I do or why. Even that's hokum of course, God stays hidden no matter what. But Jesus should have realized from Job, that he couldn't manipulate God or otherwise stroke God or even earn God's cooperation into interacting in a certain way. He had to have known about Job, but he must have chosen to ignore it. Either way, he set himself up.
Re: How can Jesus have been betrayed if he knew ?
Post #69Of course, God never intervenes because God is the origin of existence. Therefore God can only exist in, with, and through existence itself. For God "to show" is to ignore the fact that God is not subject to observation in the first place. Jesus plainly pointed out that the only way God would "show" is through God's image. God is manifesting his will through Christ, therefore, Christ couldn't have been attempting to manipulate God. Christ was a willing participant in God's will and the texts plainly point this out.ThePainefulTruth wrote:The whole point is that Jesus wasn't betrayed in the first place. God didn't show when Jesus cleansed the Temple, but God never intervenes, as all the revealed religions suppose. Jesus was set up for an impossible outcome because he'd been taught to believe in the power of faith by his religion. God didn't set him up, his religion did, a religion with a false god.shnarkle wrote:This is an interesting point, especially from the standpoint of those who claim that Jesus couldn't have been betrayed if he knew what his betrayer was doing all along. As some have already pointed out even when a spouse knows that their wife is cheating on him, this doesn't negate the fact that she has betrayed him.ThePainefulTruth wrote: [Replying to post 1 by dio9]
Jesus ended up believing he was betrayed by God, thus the realization from the cross. Jesus thought God would assume the throne if they cleansed the Temple, but God never intervenes, to Jesus' shock and dismay.
However, this isn't the case with Christ on the cross especially when it is intended and known beforehand. Jesus asks if it is possible for God's will to be manifested some other way. Seeing that there is no other way, he is resigned to his fate, but what is his fate? His fate is to take on the punishment for sin which is to be forsaken of God, and forsaken is not betrayed. He doesn't cry out "Why have you betrayed me?". He cries out "Why have you forsaken me"? He's also quoting from the Hebrew sacred scriptures which don't suggest betrayal, but the fulfillmelnt of prophecy.
Jesus taught to repent which was his way of teaching to cleanse one's own temple so that God could come to dwell in his people individually. On some level, an unrepentant Israel also meant to destroy the temple because a temple that is without God is inevitably going to be destroyed. The Temple in Jerusalem as well as what little remains is a testament to that fact.
These are quite brilliant illustrations of the two outcomes. The temple that is cleansed is fit for God to dwell in while the temple that is polluted is only fit for destruction and Christ came to show both. First he comes preaching repentance/the need for cleansing the temple, then when that message is rejected, he shows the necessity for destruction of a forsaken temple. His body hanging on a cross is that illustration.
When the author has Jesus say things like, "Into your hands I commend my spirit", or "It is finished" or equating "lifting up" in glory to the crucifixion, there is no shock or dismay being conveyed, but someone who is in complete control.
And you could say that Jesus had warning, from the Book of Job. Job was a perfect person (allegory invented by priests tired of being asked Why?), and sued God to explain Himself. But God said, in effect, it's none of your business what I do or why. Even that's hokum of course, God stays hidden no matter what. But Jesus should have realized from Job, that he couldn't manipulate God or otherwise stroke God or even earn God's cooperation into interacting in a certain way. He had to have known about Job, but he must have chosen to ignore it. Either way, he set himself up.
Christs willing cooperation in his own death is claimed by Christ himself so your theory is a bit too far fetched even for the tin foil hat crowd to believe.
-
brianbbs67
- Guru
- Posts: 1871
- Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2017 12:07 am
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 2 times
Post #70
Aren't limits being placed on God by saying He can't do anything in the realm He created, without an intermediary?
God is limitless.
I have made many things in my life. I can influence or interact with all of them because i made them. Do I choose to is the question.
God is limitless.
I have made many things in my life. I can influence or interact with all of them because i made them. Do I choose to is the question.
