Christus Victor: Reason for the the Crucifixion

Originally posted by jmdewey60
There is a reason that he got that sort of treatment and that was he picked up the scroll and was saying things from it and he looks to have thrown in some other parts from the same section of Isaiah, that fit into his idea of what he was about.

What other bits did he "throw in"? Are you saying Jesus was a fake who was only force-fitting himself into the prophecies?

The reason they were offended was that he stopped short of anything that would identify the recipients of these blessings as being only the Jews.

Do you have anything at all to back this up? Any familiarity with the gospels shows that people's hatred of Jesus was largely due to his "blasphemy", equating himself with God and claiming to be the Messiah. The ruling elite didn't want him rocking the boat, even if it meant killing both him and Lazarus, on whose account many people were turning away from the ruling Jews and following Jesus. They were jealous and proud; it had nothing to do with Gentiles at this point. Jesus himself said he came to "the lost sheep of Israel", and it took quite some time after his resurrection and ascension before even Peter realized that the Gentiles were to be included.

The Jews were happy to proclaim a Messiah, as long as it was a person who was going to give them what they wanted, which was a world where the Jews reigned supreme.
He was not killed for claiming to be Messiah but for claiming to be the wrong sort of Messiah.
What I meant about adding parts from the same section of Isaiah, is that it is not a straight word for word correlation between it, and Luke. There are parts from two adjoining chapters. So he was reading, but jumped back and forth on the scroll to read it in an order which suited him. At first they thought him quite clever and eloquent and were happy. Then when he explained himself later, was when they got upset.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
The Jews were happy to proclaim a Messiah, as long as it was a person who was going to give them what they wanted, which was a world where the Jews reigned supreme.
He was not killed for claiming to be Messiah but for claiming to be the wrong sort of Messiah.
What I meant about adding parts from the same section of Isaiah, is that it is not a straight word for word correlation between it, and Luke. There are parts from two adjoining chapters. So he was reading, but jumped back and forth on the scroll to read it in an order which suited him. At first they thought him quite clever and eloquent and were happy. Then when he explained himself later, was when they got upset.

edit on 18-6-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

What are you talking about? You do realize that the Masoretic text did not exist in Jesus' day, right? So "word for word" is irrelevant; the closest we can get is our best text of the LXX, pending more info on the Dead Sea Scrolls.

You seem bent on making Jesus a liar and an impostor, and the Jews some kind of Nazi race. I won't even give that the dignity of a response.

reply to post by SaberTruth


I would say no to the part about making Jesus into a liar and impostor.
What I am saying is that Jesus did not come to revitalize the Old Testament religion.
Jesus came to give us a new religion and a new God.
Jesus is the Messiah of God, not the Messiah that was wanted by a people who had long been led astray.
Jesus came to guide them back into the fold and come back under the husbandry of the Father, but were willfully against it, and wanted to bend God to do what would please them.
We don't have that as the basis for our religion under our new Lord, who showed us how to follow the will of God, and not our own. We should not do the same as the Jews did (turning Gods head), and twist Jesus to fit some sort of mold spelled out in some dusty old book that the Jews wrote to glorify themselves. God gave us what was required for our salvation into a future age, and not someone to make things nicer in this one. There is a new paradigm, where we forsake things in this life, for the sake of the life to come.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
I would say no to the part about making Jesus into a liar and impostor.

Alright, but that is what is implied by your earlier statements. You might want to consider how you're coming across on that.

What I am saying is that Jesus did not come to revitalize the Old Testament religion.

Absolutely. He came to fulfill it, which of course has the result of making it no longer needed.

Jesus came to give us a new religion and a new God.

No. Neither. He came to reconcile God and man because only he was both; ref. Phil. 2:5-11--

Have the same attitude among yourselves that Anointed Jesus had: Though he didn't consider being in the form of God as something that didn't belong to him, he emptied himself anyway and took on the form of a slave, becoming human. And being formed as a person, he humbled himself; he heeded God to the point of death— even death on a cross! Therefore God made him great and honored him with the Name above all others, so that at the Name of Jesus every knee will bow— those in heaven and earth and under the earth— and every tongue will confess that Jesus the Anointed is the Master, to the honor of God the Father.

Jesus is the Messiah of God, not the Messiah that was wanted by a people who had long been led astray.

I've already addressed the point that there were two sets of prophecies about the Messiah. The people for the most part did expect him to be the conquering king of course, but this is not a "different Messiah" at all, just a misunderstanding of which set of prophecies applied at the time.

Jesus came to guide them back into the fold and come back under the husbandry of the Father, but were willfully against it, and wanted to bend God to do what would please them.

You have this view of all of Israel being completely disobedient, as if there were no godly Jews left. Jesus' rants were aimed not at the common people but at the leaders. What he came to do was to expose those leaders and restore "the lost sheep of Israel" as well as build his "church". Jesus had pity on people and their being "sheep without a shepherd", but you lump these poor ones together with their oppressors.

some dusty old book that the Jews wrote to glorify themselves.

I hope you're referring to the Talmud here, and not the Tanakh.

reply to post by SaberTruth

I hope you're referring to the Talmud here, and not the Tanakh.

Is that a book that Moses wrote after he went to heaven and it fell out of the sky, some time before Jesus, so we would know who he was? The Tanakh. Don't know that one. Is that the one that is holy above all things?
Just being a bit sarcastic, but, Wow. You are really into the Jewish thing. Well good luck with that. (more sarcasm) You do realise all that was superseded, right? Or you just want to cling on to that, for some reason. I would suggest you do a self examination and try to discover what it is that motivates you to be this fan type person, to look at a certain people that were, long ago, and use that to define who you are. You know, like having a soccer team you rut for and get all happy when they win? They lost, and get over it and get on with your life and stop dragging the bones around with you.

reply to post by jmdewey60


In that same exchange between Ya'hshuah and the Samaritan he makes explicit references to Jews practicing the worship of YHVH correctly, worshiping on Mount Moriah rather than Gerizim. Though of course he later says that the Father will no longer be worshiped in either place, but in spirit and truth. Most importantly, he says "salvation is of the Jews"

reply to post by jmdewey60


Of course the Jews were superseded! No one is arguing that. All those that truly followed the Father went with Ya'hshuah Moshiach. The Jews of today (aside from the Karaites) are the spiritual successors of the Pharisees.
The OT is still important, however. It chronicles mankind's and Israel's desperate struggle to reunite with the Father; the failings and pitfalls in such an endeavor, and most importantly they contain the testimony of the pre-existent Christ.

John 5:39 New King James Version (NKJV) 39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.

Yeah, dusty old book. Why don't you listen to Ya'hshuah Moshiach in context?

reply to post by kallisti36

he says "salvation is of the Jews"

That goes along with what Saber Truth said, which is he came first for the lost sheep of Israel. It was for the sake of the promises to their ancient ancestors that there would be a priesthood. That was the birthright handed down since Abraham. Jesus inherited the high priesthood as the head and representative of this race of people.
Jesus was a Jew, and since salvation came through this succession, and to him and came about through him, then he could say the, "Salvation is of the Jews." I would limit the meaning to that, which is he meant himself. He did make that connection at another time, to the lawyers, between himself and Abraham.
Jesus took the position of High Priest by driving out the merchants, and teaching from Solomon's porch, and the authorities were afraid to assert themselves over him in the presence of the people, I believe because the person holding the official title of High Priest had no legitimate claim to it but had it through political influence and purchase. Jesus took his place in the temple and was the God in that temple as long as he lived. When Jesus was crucified, they basically killed God.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Is that a book that Moses wrote after he went to heaven and it fell out of the sky, some time before Jesus, so we would know who he was?

What? Who claims such a thing, or is this just another straw man?

The Tanakh. Don't know that one. Is that the one that is holy above all things?

Not knowing what the Tanakh is (basically, the OT), tells me that you are speaking more from a position of bluster than knowledge. Anybody who wants to be taken seriously as some kind of Bible teacher or authority on it would at least know the terminology.

Just being a bit sarcastic

No kidding, I'd never have guessed.

You do realise all that was superseded, right? Or you just want to cling on to that, for some reason.

When did I ever suggest that Christians are still under the old law? In fact I emphasize that we are not. But this hardly means the OT is to be discarded, esp. when the NT quotes from it extensively and Jesus referred to it often as from God. His appeals to Genesis, Moses, and the prophets were for the purpose of proving his identity and legitimacy, so for Christians to be ignorant of the OT is to erase important aspects of history and context. If I'm "clinging" to anything, it's from the motive of knowledge and context.

I would suggest you do a self examination and try to discover what it is that motivates you to be this fan type person, to look at a certain people that were, long ago, and use that to define who you are. You know, like having a soccer team you rut for and get all happy when they win? They lost, and get over it and get on with your life and stop dragging the bones around with you.

And I would suggest that you step off the soapbox, sit down and read, and educate yourself on the vast and fascinating topic of all things Biblical. Remember the OP? At all? It's "reason for the crucifixion", NOT "any and all remotely Bible-related rants". You can dismiss the study of history as a dry and boring academic exercise, but you'll never impress anyone with your lack of it. You can prefer to view yourself, other people, or the Bible in some kind of isolated vacuum, but that isn't good enough for me. This is no game, mister. Read up.

reply to post by SaberTruth

Anybody who wants to be taken seriously as some kind of Bible teacher or authority on it would at least know the terminology.

Did you miss the part where I said I was being sarcastic?
So what are your qualifications and how did you come about this word?
I studied under an eminent Rabbi.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Did you miss the part where I said I was being sarcastic?

Did you miss the part where I replied to that with some sarcasm of my own?

So what are your qualifications and how did you come about this word? I studied under an imminent Rabbi.

Ah, the fallacy of appeal to authority. I'm assessing qualifications by what is written here, not by claiming some entitlement or credentials. If studying under an "imminent" [sic] Rabbi can somehow result in not being familiar with the term Tanakh, I'd be demanding my money back if I were you.

reply to post by SaberTruth

Ah, the fallacy of appeal to. . .

. . .personal attack?
So, you have no qualification.
You do not belong to the tradition that uses that term, so do not want to answer my question.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
. . .personal attack?
So, you have no qualification.
You do not belong to the tradition that uses that term, so do not want to answer my question.

Identifying a fallacy is not a fallacy.

And so, you too have no qualification, since as I already told you (thus answering your question) I'm basing it on what is seen in this thread. As I said, I have good reason to doubt the qualification of anyone claiming to have studied under an "imminent" [sic] Rabbi who doesn't know what the Tanakh is.

reply to post by SaberTruth

since as I already told you (thus answering your question)

My question was, "how did you come to learn that word?"

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by SaberTruth

 

since as I already told you (thus answering your question)

My question was, "how did you come to learn that word?"

That's a new question. But you keep ignoring mine: how can anyone who claims to have studied under any Rabbi at all (let alone an "imminent" one, which I keep putting in quotes because it doesn't mean what you think; there's a different word for that) not know the word Tanakh? Name this Rabbi so I can go look up his credentials.

reply to post by SaberTruth
I said three different times I was being sarcastic. You don't get that?
It's not a new question, look back at my posts.
And what are you jumping on about a misspelled word?
I didn't criticize you for your misspellings.
I think it is you just don't have any argument so you have to resort to personal attacks.
How about your substance?
And now you are calling me a liar about the quality of my Rabbi?
What is up with you?
Can't you make an actual argument?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by SaberTruth

 

I said three different times I was being sarcastic. You don't get that?

I mentioned sarcasm too, remember?

It's not a new question, look back at my posts.

I did. It is.

And what are you jumping on about a misspelled word?

Rabbinical students are usually above average in intelligence. Not only do they know what the Tanakh is, they also know that no person can be described as "imminent". It's another clue in your comments that I should take your claims of expertise with a grain of salt.

reply to post by SaberTruth

Did you miss the part where I said I was being sarcastic?
So what are your qualifications and how did you come about this word?
I studied under an eminent Rabbi.

I fixed the spelling, after you pointed it out.
I don't spend all day re-reading my posts and I miss a lot of mistakes.
I expect most people not to be so petty.
I still want to know your answer, about how you know that word.
Here is a link to my former Rabbi.
www.depauw.edu...
A very well respected expert in his field and why I was using the word, eminent, even though I did not go back and check the spelling, until you used it to denigrate a man not deserving of such scandalous treatment from petty nit-pickers with no substantial arguments.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
I fixed the spelling, after you pointed it out.
I don't spend all day re-reading my posts and I miss a lot of mistakes.

You kept repeating the mistake. You're just making excuses because you truly didn't know it was not the right word.

I expect most people not to be so petty.

Lol... petty. And I expect most people not to be so arrogant and try to pull rank because they're not only way off topic to the OP but have nothing to back it up.

I still want to know your answer, about how you know that word.

Study. Education. It's a very common word among people who study scripture. People who are only bluffing wouldn't know it.

..., until you used it to denigrate a man not deserving of such scandalous treatment from petty nit-pickers with no substantial arguments.

I did no such thing! It was YOU whose credentials I am challenging, not anyone else's. Enough.