prayer in the garden and why have u forsaken me?
- From: man06 <bnh_2003@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 10:17:06 -0700 (PDT)
Index
JESUS DIDN’T INTEND TO DIE ON CROSS
SINS IN THE GARDEN
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?
Early Christianity was a mishmash of different ideas. Many believed
that Jesus was an apparition or a symbol and not a man and others
believed things similar to what modern Christians believed about him.
Then it is no surprise if the gospels then have contradictory
materials about Jesus. We will see that some traditions in the
gospels say he didn't intend to die on the cross and others say he
did.
Generally however, the gospels have to explain how Jesus could have
been crucified and be the son of God. Their answer is that he planned
to die on the cross and predicted it before it happened and said it
was necessary to ransom sinners and save them. This is a pack of
lies.
JESUS DIDN’T INTEND TO DIE ON CROSS
Jesus said the Old Testament prophecies spoke of him. But they never
predicted that the Messiah would die and rise again. Even Psalm 16
that is used to prove the resurrection was predicted never actually
speaks of a dead man returning to life but of a sick man getting
well. If there was a historical Jesus, he never expected to die on a
cross though he did expect to suffer greatly.
On the night he was arrested prior to his crucifixion, Jesus said that
God would send a legion of angels to rescue him from the cross if he
asked (Matthew 26:53). Christians say it implicitly means if it is
God’s will but since it is not God’s will and not Jesus’ they won’t be
asked for.
Prior to his arrest, Jesus told his apostles to sell what they had and
procure weapons. He was then shown two swords and said,
“Enough” (Luke 22:36-38). So, perhaps the enough meant “wise up I
don’t mean real swords” or he thought that two swords would be enough
to defend him. Perhaps he thought that only a couple were going to
arrest him. It would show he had no intention of dying.
Perhaps he wanted the disciples to be under-armed because he had a
team ready to pretend to be arresting him. He would go under cover.
Crucifixions would take place. Everybody would assume he was one of
the crucified. Then he would reappear again to implement the greatest
religious hoax of all time.
There were a lot of lies told decades later in the gospels about the
Jewish crowd forcing Pilate to kill him. This would suggest that this
scenario could well have been the right one.
Perhaps Jesus was claiming that God was going to magically enable his
men to destroy a cohort with two swords. That would be a sign of
mental disturbance or of over-confidence in his psychic abilities.
Christians say the two swords were required only as symbols of the
uselessness of earthly weapons.
But whatever, there is no evidence for the symbol interpretation of
the two swords. When Jesus could have been speaking literally that is
what he should be taken to be doing. Don’t see symbols where they
need not be. Jesus let them carry the swords and Peter even used his
on the high priest’s slave proving the literal interpretation. The
proper interpretation has Jesus deciding to go back on his promise to
let himself be arrested and put to death (Mark 10:34; 14:24). He
broke this promise when he asked God to save him in the Garden (Mark
14:36). It was still breaking his word though he instantly changed
his mind. Yet the gospels say he spoke as a prophet and predicted
that he would die on the cross and rise again. He had a lot of faith
in his ability to see the future hadn’t he? The fact that the Old
Testament considers the power to see the future and the will of God to
be the mark of a real messenger from God and the gospels give
prophecies that could be written after the event shows that the Old
Testament is being trampled upon and that there was no honesty or
divine inspiration in those gospels at all for proof of being made
before the event would be necessary to fit the strict Old Testament
standard. If Jesus approved the gospels he was a fake and an
antichrist.
Jesus told them first that when they were sent out by him they never
lacked anything and then he told them to sell their garments and buy
swords. Obviously, this means that they will have no problem getting
them so he wanted them to get literal swords. He also told them to
keep a tight hold on their purses and bags. It seems that Jesus was
planning to make his escape with his disciples or was planning to
disappear and leave them to face the mob. He felt that when the mob
saw that Jesus was not there the disciples would have been okay. The
swords were just a precaution in case two or three overzealous Jesus
haters would attack them and perhaps to deter such attacks as well.
Jesus said that in his mind he was willing to undergo the crucifixion
but that his flesh held him back (Matthew 26:41). If he sincerely
wanted to endure it he could have. This was a hypocritical lie. He
said that when Judas arrived with the band that he and his apostles
must escape (Matthew 26:46). Jesus had changed his mind and he wanted
to get away despite claiming that it had to happen as the scriptures
foretold. He was denying that the prophets were truly prophets. The
fact that he let his men carry weapons proves that his prayer in the
Garden was for salvation from crucifixion when he asked his Father to
take the cup away from him.
Top of the Document
SINS IN THE GARDEN
In the Garden of Gethsemane, just before he was arrested to be killed,
Jesus in agony at the thought of being crucified prayed, “Abba, [which
means] Father, everything is possible for You. Take away this cup
from Me; yet not what I will but what You [will]” (Mark 14:36).
If we want to see a sin in this we have to focus on the word yet. The
word yet shows that he was aware of having opposed God and was
repenting it or just meant, “I am asking this of you but it is your
decision”. But Jesus said that prayer was in essence, “Thy will be
done”. This translates as, “I ask this only if it is your will yet
your will be done.” But this is ridiculous. Also, if God told Jesus
he had to die on the cross, and Jesus said he did tell him and saw
that he would, then Jesus knew he had no right to pray for deliverance
from the cross and indeed there would be no point in it. If Jesus
prayed to avoid crucifixion then Jesus sinned. Jesus sinned and then
corrected himself. That is the understanding of the words.
Some say that Jesus prayed only that the cup of suffering would be
taken from him only if the suffering would make him sin against God.
But if the Bible says that Jesus could not sin and God could not drive
his own Son to sin what they say is unacceptable. And if Jesus’
prayer meant that, he would have been accusing God of not knowing what
he was doing.
Christians say that Jesus would not have gone back on his promise to
get crucified so “this cup” refers to the agony of fear and horror
that allegedly made him sweat blood there. This is false for a man
who could go for crucifixion could have borne the pain. Besides he
would still be putting a bit of rebellion in his prayer so the answer
does not help at all. The “yet” is still not accounted for in terms
of Jesus being the sinless Son of God. It cannot be.
Jesus asked for the cup to pass from him. A cup represented his shed
blood at the Last Supper it would be likely that this cup stands for
shed blood in the passion. A cup is for holding liquid. Luke says
that Jesus’ sweat was like blood for it was so plentiful not that it
was blood. The cup was the suffering of the cross as signified by the
blood.
It is thought that since Matthew and Mark say that Jesus prayed during
his heartbreaking sadness and sweat he meant the pain he was feeling
then. It was that he wanted to be delivered from. But he knew he
could not avoid the cross and it was it that was on his mind not the
pain in the garden. He didn’t suffer the agony in the garden just for
the heck of it. It was over the impending crucifixion. Why ask to be
delivered from pain when you know in a few hours you will have worse
to endure? Better to endure the lesser pain in the hope that it gives
you strength for later on.
In Luke 22, we see that Jesus prays for deliverance and then an angel
appears to console him and his anguish gets worse and his sweat
becomes like drops of blood. This shows that it was the crucifixion
Jesus was dreading and it was it he wanted to be rescued from. God
tried to help him with the anguish in the garden but Jesus couldn’t be
helped.
If Jesus meant the agony in the garden, God willed that Jesus should
suffer for his prayer was ignored. Despite the comfort of the angel,
Jesus was still suffering terribly and it got worse. If Jesus could
ask God to do what God never intended to do then he could ask him to
rescue him from impending execution though both had decreed that it
should happen. If Jesus wanted the crucifixion postponed then that
would have been a sin for it would have been better to get it over
with and it was still God’s will that he endure the cross.
Consider this, “Jesus might have been asking God to preserve him from
too much pain in the crucifixion instead of asking him to save him
from the crucifixion altogether.”
This doesn’t explain the yet either. There was still an element of
rebellion.
The “yet” proves that Jesus was not the Son of God and certainly was
not God.
Top of the Document
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?
“And they crucified Him; and they divided his garments, And at the
ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, Eloi, Eloi, lama
sabachthani? Which means, My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?
(Mark 15:24, 34).
This episode sticks in the mind of many a Bible reader simply because
it is so shocking and not what you would expect the very Son of God or
God incarnate to come out with. And the fact that it is a dying man
saying it makes it worse.
A good God would never forsake anyone especially the supposedly only
fully righteous man who ever lived. Jesus asserted that God was
always with him and would never desert him. For him to accuse God of
turning his back on him would mean that he was admitting that he was a
liar and that God was not good or that he wanted to insult God by
smearing him as unreliable and lazy and evil.
The Christians try to get out of the implications of Jesus’ outburst
by pointing out that what he said was the first line of Psalm 22. It
is claimed that since the Psalm ends with trust in God that it was no
insult against God for Jesus to use it. But if it starts with an
insult it is still an insult and there is no evidence that Jesus
recited the entire Psalm. Jesus would have chosen a better Psalm if
he desired to honour God. He could have paraphrased and said, “My
God, I feel abandoned by you”, which would not necessarily be saying
that he believed God abandoned him. Why quote this verse when better
ones are in the Psalm?
Go for the simplest and most straightforward interpretation. Jesus
was accusing God of abandoning him. When you have the most simple and
plain interpretation, it is only foolishness and obfuscation to go
looking for others.
It is argued that the Psalm is not one of despair. “When the composer
asks why God has forsaken him he only means he is wondering why God
has abandoned him to his foes and to suffering. He is supposed to
think that God has permitted this for a purpose so in leaving him at
their mercy he is really not abandoning him but is helping them as
best he can under the circumstances. He is only abandoning in a
sense. Jesus is just asking why he is suffering. It could be a
rhetorical question to make people wonder why God would make his son
suffer. The line poses no threat to orthodox Christianity”.
But the composer complained that God was not helping him and said God
was far from saving him and ignoring his prayers (Psalm 22:1,2). He
was refusing to believe that God was doing him a favour by letting his
enemies torment him. And the very fact that he was asking why it was
happening to him shows that he did not trust God. If he had he would
have been asking no questions. Then he changed his mind and decided
that God was right. But there is no evidence that Jesus did the same
even if he did commend his spirit to God.
Others say that Jesus did not mean it literally. If that is right
then he broke his commandment against saying prayers you don’t mean in
Matthew 6. He wouldn’t have said it if he didn’t mean it.
If Jesus was quoting the Psalm he was not the Son of God for he gave
into despair.
And if Jesus was not quoting the Psalm but just used his own words
that happened to match it we have the same bad implication. The Bible
does not say that Jesus was quoting the Psalm at all. When the Jews
said that he was calling Elijah he must have said something else that
proved he was not reciting the Psalm but his heart was breaking for he
was shouting that Elijah was not coming. They would not have sneered
like this about a real Psalm in public. They had to revere the
scriptures at least in front of the people. Elijah was to appear
before the end of the world and if Jesus were hoping to make the world
end and bring in the new kingdom of God by his death he would have
called on Elijah to come.
There is no evidence that since Jesus shouted in Aramaic about “Eli,
Eli” that this was misheard and thought to mean Elijah. The Jews were
not that stupid. They testified that Jesus wanted to be saved from
death by Elijah coming to take him down from the cross. They would
not let a man give him bad wine for they wanted to see if Elijah would
come (Mark 15:35,36). There must have been a drug in the wine so that
he would die quicker but they did not want that in case Elijah would
come and find him already dead.
It is significant that the note about the Psalm in the Amplified Bible
presumes that it is bold to say that Jesus recited this Psalm on the
cross.
A man who demanded to know why he had been crucified and not rescued
could not be the Son of God because he does not have much confidence
in God. He should have been making his peace with God instead of
asking stupid questions at such a sombre and solemn time.
He even shouted it out not caring what people made of it. It was
meant to pour scorn on his God. There is a sin called final
impenitence. It is dying in an attitude of hostility to God. Chances
are that Jesus died like that.
It is no answer to say that since Jesus was made guilty of our sins
that he was abandoned and hated by God for that is an unjust theory.
A just God could not accuse his Son of what he never did. It denies
that Jesus was sinless when he was able to become responsible for the
sins of others. And if he was God, God cannot abandon God.
It is no answer to say that Jesus did not know what he was saying for
the gospels say that he was lucid even to the very end. He told John
to look after his mother. Jesus did not blaspheme like that when he
endured the overpowering agony in the Garden.
Did God let darkness come over the mind of his Son so that he thought
he was abandoned? If he did he would not have let him say so. If
Jesus succumbed to the temptation to lose faith in God then we cannot
trust him as God’s revelation. The Son of God cannot die putting his
foot in it like many normal men wouldn’t.
Jesus said before he died that he would rise and reign in Heaven.
Some deny this on the basis that the gospels really meant that he gave
up on God on the cross. The gospels did mean that he lost his faith
in God and his belief that he could come back and be king in Heaven.
Jesus saying that he would have happy times does not mean that he
could not have times of despair until they happen.
Jesus Christ was not God or the Son of God. Many saints suffered
worse than Jesus did and didn’t abandon God.
Conclusion
Jesus Christ did not come to die on the cross. He prayed to escape
his death and he complained on the cross and insulted God when he
wasn’t rescued. The notion that he is our saviour who died for us is
nonsense.
.
- References:
- fristians denying hell in the beble
- From: man06
- TAQIYA LYING david wood AWLIYA PRETEND
- From: man06
- eat pig?
- From: man06
- some jews claimed isaac died for yor sins
- From: man06
- pauls silence
- From: man06
- fristians denying hell in the beble
- Prev by Date: Re: Three reasons to not call terrorism 'Islamic'
- Next by Date: NASA chief says agency's goal is Muslim outreach, forgets to mention space
- Previous by thread: pauls silence
- Next by thread: N.T. Wright’s The Resurrection of the Son of God
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
