The Crucifixion: A Medical Perspective

It is good to see "critical thinkers" are rejecting the made up nonsense per a human being god.

One can also see right through the made up fabrications of the non-thinkers and see that the non-pious reject the words of Jesus himself:

ebionite.com...

Perhaps more importantly is the fact that Yeshua referred to himself as a prophet, as seen in the words: "But Jesus said to them, ‘A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his own house’" (Matt 13:57 RSV). When conversing about his crucifixion, Yeshua again spoke of himself as a prophet, as seen where it is written: "Yes, today, tomorrow, and the next day I must proceed on my way. For it wouldn’t do for a prophet of God to be killed except in Jerusalem!" (Luke 13:33 NLT). Thus, Yeshua told his disciples and followers that he was a prophet.

The conclusive explanation of Jesus is that he says he was only a prophet. This doesn't even take much analytical thought.

Thus, these embellishers commit sin against the name of Jesus in the current day and age.

These are the same Pharisee type low realm types that wanted Jesus nailed to the tree.

reply to post by MagnumOpus


He also said He was a King, and a Priest.

He is a Prophet, He is a King, and He is a Priest after the order of Melchizedek.

reply to post by windword


I've already been in that position, I wasn't a born-again Christian until about a decade ago. Position always determines perspective, not vice versa.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

I've already been in that position, I wasn't a born-again Christian until about a decade ago. Position always determines perspective, not vice versa.

It seems to me, at this point, having struggled through months of reading and participating in these forums, then reading others' recommended sources, reading their entire posts, asking questions, buying books and devouring them, and learning SO MUCH in the process...

..and all of this activity AFTER having been raised in the Church of England, gone to college and studied Liberal Arts (humanities), and Social Work (human nature and behavior, particularly group dynamics), been a counselor, and from there teaching others,..raising two kids and surviving divorce, grief, loss, pain, and witnessing those in others...
as well as having studied philosophy, world religions, and having paranormal/spiritual experiences of my OWN (very convincing, those, though entirely subjective)

that
ACTIVE LISTENING
RESEARCH
OPEN-MINDEDNESS
ACCEPTANCE OF OTHERS' PERSPECTIVES
and an appreciation for
CULTURAL DIVERSITY (which means really trying to get to know why people's worldview is what it is)....

are absolutely critical for real growth. But perhaps most important of all....

is practice.

Someone who is only a few years into their career of "Apologetics" (a term I learned here, thanks! oh, and then went and researched what it is, its various "flavors" and techniques that are readily available for study online*) and refuses to look at anything except those "how-to" tipsheets and stick with the comfort zone of their selected edition of the Bible and the various linguistic sources that prop it up,

and takes a Hollywood version as accurate history....(What!??!!!) .....
well....and I mean this with all due respect for the efforts already extended...
would be wise to tread lightly until they really are ready to discuss things on a more mature level. They must keep practicing, keep looking, keep reading and digging....and see what a difference it can make. A comparative beginner who really wants to improve must not give up, or run off, by any means, or they will remain forever a novice. Be courageous and patient.

One does not become a "leader" without first having experience as a "learner." It is not something that just suddenly pops into your head after a crisis or accident or near-miss with catastrophe. Those are entry portals, yes, but they are more like having a map or menu given to you than going to the territory or eating the meal. The map is NOT the territory. The menu is NOT the meal.

I just had an "a ha!" revelation of my own. I want to thank everyone for your amalgamated contributions to my own perspective. While this forum is sometimes frustrating, maddening, and irksome, it has also contributed a great deal to my own personal quest to deny ignorance.

One of the most precious things about life, every morning that I wake up, is the excitement of knowing "today I have another opportunity to learn something new". So much to learn, so little time!!
Thanks, ATS!!

*Apologetics wikipedia entry(

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by windword

 

I've already been in that position, I wasn't a born-again Christian until about a decade ago. Position always determines perspective, not vice versa.

And I have been in yours.

It would be cool to be able to agree to disagree, as my position doesn't condemn your soul. But, your position goes above and beyond, projecting dire circumstances that shouldn't and needn't be applied to the teachings of Jesus.

I'm just godsmacked by the alienation and condemnation that some Christians hurl at us, that believe that Jesus taught, through his life, the way to god's kingdom is within us, rather than glorifying his death.

reply to post by MagnumOpus


He also said He was a King, and a Priest.

He is a Prophet, He is a King, and He is a Priest after the order of Melchizedek.

I can agree that Jesus was a prophet, if prophet means "leading the way"


When you bring in Melchizedek, you introduce a whole new ball of wax.

As I have understood, Melchizedek was one of the seven rays, or one of the "Seven Sacred Flames" that emanated from Lemuria, Mu, after the destruction of Atlantis. Enoch and Hermes Trismegistus may have also been rays, or they may have been one in the same.

There are many legends surrounding this story. They influenced Plato and possibly set the stage for Pythagoras and the mystery schools, that Jesus hails from.

perdurabo10.tripod.com...
www.wolflodge.org...

reply to post by NOTurTypical

He also said He was a King, and a Priest.

Jesus did not say that, at least where it was recorded.
The Book of Hebrews says Jesus was a priest of the order of Melchizedek.
Jesus was not in the habit of going around making claims about himself but relied more on his actions speaking for him, that he was sent by God.

reply to post by jmdewey60


He told Pilate His Kingdom is "not of this world". Only Kings claim to have Kingdoms. You're soo off scripturally it's pathetic. And if you knew a shred about the ordination of priests from the OT you'd understand the baptism by John in the Jordan river when Christ turned 30 and how that was necessary to "fulfill all righteousness".

reply to post by windword


Melchizedek was Noah's son Shem.

Melchizedek means "Lord of righteousness". It was the only other person in the Bible who was both a king and priest, a foreshadowed type of Christ.

reply to post by wildtimes

and takes a Hollywood version as accurate history...

Stop right there, another member said that. I know full well The Passion is extremely Catholic in nature.

Aren't you people listening to me, the OP of this thread? It's NOT about ME, it's all about Jesus. Either get on topic or I'll report your posts.

This isn't a thread about NOTurTypical. Go make one about me it you want me to get on the witness stand.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


That doesn't even make sense.

I thought scripture says that Jesus sits at god's right, and god sits on the center, main throne, calling the shots. God would be king of god's kingdom.

Secularly, if I hail from the kingdom of USA, I am not claiming to be king of the USA!

At any rate, we are all kings of our own, otherworldly kingdoms.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by windword

 

Melchizedek was Noah's son Shem.

Melchizedek means "Lord of righteousness". It was the only other person in the Bible who was both a king and priest, a foreshadowed type of Christ.

How can that account for the legends and the biblical references that Mechizedek was neither born nor died?

Hmmm, a soul is never born and never dies, could we be referring to reincarnation here?

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

That doesn't even make sense.

I thought scripture says that Jesus sits at god's right, and god sits on the center, main throne, calling the shots. God would be king of god's kingdom.

Secularly, if I hail from the kingdom of USA, I am not claiming to be king of the USA!

At any rate, we are all kings of our own, otherworldly kingdoms.

The "right hand" is a position of rank and authority, the "right hand of God". It's a deceleration of His authority. You guys should really study Hebraisms since the book wasn't written by Western minds but by Hebrews. Do you think "firstborn of many sons" means that He was born first in order? If so, why was David called the "firstborn" yet was the youngest of all Jesse's sons?

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by windword

 

Melchizedek was Noah's son Shem.

Melchizedek means "Lord of righteousness". It was the only other person in the Bible who was both a king and priest, a foreshadowed type of Christ.

How can that account for the legends and the biblical references that Mechizedek was neither born nor died?

Hmmm, a soul is never born and never dies, could we be referring to reincarnation here?

Where is the birth of Shem recorded? Where is his death recorded?

A mystery in the bible!?

Who is Melchizedek?

SHEM!

WHERE WE GET THE ANSWER:

Link.

Chazalic literature, specifically Targum Jonathan, Targum Yerushalmi, and the Babylonian Talmud, presents the name (מלכי־צדק) as a nickname title for Shem, the son of Noah.

Melcheizedek.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


A position of rank and authority doesn't make a person a king. It makes him more of a high priest or even a general, but not king of the "Kingdom of God."

Maybe he's king of the "Kingdom of Jesus." After all, he said, "In my father's house are many mansions..."

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

A position of rank and authority doesn't make a person a king. It makes him more of a high priest or even a general, but not king of the "Kingdom of God."

Maybe he's king of the "Kingdom of Jesus." After all, he said, "In my father's house are many mansions..."

No kings came from the tribe of Judah and priests from Levi. They NEVER intermingled except for 3 persons in the Bible, Jesus, Melchizedek, and one other "body".

STUDY "Hebraisms" it will shed a TON of light on the idioms used by the Hebrew authors of scripture.


John chapter 19:

7The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.

8When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was the more afraid;

9And went again into the judgment hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer.

10Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?

11Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

12And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.

13When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.

14And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!

15But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.

16Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.

17And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha:

18Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst.

19And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.

20This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.

21Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews.

22Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


From your first link.

This is the genealogy of Shem: Shem was one hundred years old,

I guess he was born, since he was 100 years old, and is said to have been Noah's son.

From your second link.

Second Book of Enoch
The Second Book of Enoch (also called "Slavonic Enoch") is apparently a Jewish sectarian work of the 1st century AD.[67] The last section of the work, the Exaltation of Melchizedek, tells how Melchizedek was born of a virgin, Sofonim (or Sopanima), the wife of Nir, a brother of Noah. The child came out from his mother after she had died and sat on the bed beside her corpse, already physically developed, clothed, speaking and blessing the Lord, and marked with the badge of priesthood. Forty days later, Melchizedek was taken by the archangel Gabriel (Michael in some manuscripts) to the Garden of Eden and was thus preserved from the Deluge without having to be in Noah's Ark

As you can see, even your own scholars disagree on the origins of Melchizedek.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


All this wall of scripture adds to the argument is that the Jews rejected Jesus as their king. Nothing more, nothing less.

reply to post by windword


Of course he was born and died, I said the Bible never records the dates of either. And the Bible always interprets the Bible, from cover to cover. You can deduce who Melchizedek was from Genesis.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

All this wall of scripture adds to the argument is that the Jews rejected Jesus as their king. Nothing more, nothing less.

And Jesus said they were "the blind leading the blind". Not a great reference for truth.