Christus Victor: Reason for the the Crucifixion

reply to post by SaberTruth

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

You don't want to give it up, do you?
I told you four times, and now, five, I was being sarcastic.
I see people using the word on ATS to sound smart, and when you used it, supposedly being a Christian, I wanted you to explain what it was, which you did not. Most people get it wrong and you have not so far gotten it right, or explained how you came upon the word and adopted as your own, when it seems to me, you have no right to it.

reply to post by SaberTruth

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

I do it all the time, switching an i for an e, or an e for an i, when I am writing words. You are saying I am so ignorant that I don't know the difference between something which is superior, from something which is about to happen.
Well that is some real desperation on your part, getting that low, to try to put me down, when you should be coming up with some sort of counterargument.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
I do it all the time, switching an i for an e, or an e for an i, when I am writing words. You are saying I am so ignorant that I don't know the difference between something which is superior, from something which is about to happen.

You were told about it several times; this was not a case of typos or being unaware.

Well that is some real desperation on your part, getting that low, to try to put me down, when you should be coming up with some sort of counterargument.

You might consider dropping your own lousy attitude first, and then going back to the OP to remember what we're supposed to be talking about.

So do you have anything to add to the topic of the "reason for the crucifixion"?

reply to post by SaberTruth

You might consider dropping your own lousy attitude first, and then going back to the OP to remember what we're supposed to be talking about.

I don't have a lousy attitude.
I just want to discuss concepts, not this sort of intimidation tactics you engage in.
I quoted this from your post, and I will quote it again.

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

I am asking what you mean by this.
Also, how did you come across this terminology and why have you adopted it?
My point is this thing you are claiming to be the proof of the divinity of Jesus was probably not put together in its current form, untill after Jesus was walking around Judea.
There are places in the Gospels where it says that Jesus did such and such to fulfill the (fill in the blank) prophecy, when you can not find that prophecy in the canonical Old Testament. This idea that Jesus fulfilled the Law and Prophets is, in my opinion wrongly applied to what we understand as the Old Testament portion of the Bible. As an alternative explanation, I would think that there was probably an oral tradition, and extra-biblical writings that were current around the time of Christ. The Law Jesus fulfilled was, also in my opinion, the fundamental law, and not the statutory law.
So this goes back to my original posting on this thread, that the purpose of the Mission of Jesus was not to perfectly fulfill the demands of the Mosaic Law, other than the Death part. Jesus, knowing no sin and no transgression of natural law or the Law which governs the entire universe outside of this world. But he did break the defunct law, as declared by the Prophet John the Baptist. Jesus established by his death, the new covenant, written in his blood. This frees us from the things that are material, and what Paul spoke of as the planets and other celestial objects, which set dates for festivals and things.

Originally posted by jmdewey60

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

I am asking what you mean by this.

You called it a "dusty old book", and I asked you what book you were referring to. So tell me, finally: are you dissing the Bible or something else?

Also, how did you come across this terminology and why have you adopted it?

I can only guess that you're inferring I made it up, so here's a link: Tanakh.

My point is this thing you are claiming to be the proof of the divinity of Jesus was probably not put together in its current form, untill after Jesus was walking around Judea.

I won't bother asking for documentation to back up "probably", but instead will post this passage from the Tanakh (OT):

"Listen to me, Jacob, Israel, whom I have called: I am he; I am the first and I am the last. My own hand laid the foundations of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I summon them, they all stand up together. Come together, all of you, and listen: Which of the idols has foretold these things? The LORD's chosen ally will carry out his purpose against Babylon; his arm will be against the Babylonians. I, even I, have spoken; yes, I have called him. I will bring him, and he will succeed in his mission. Come near me and listen to this: From the first announcement I have not spoken in secret; at the time it happens, I am there. And now the Sovereign LORD has sent me, endowed with his Spirit." (Isaiah 48:12-16)

Some translations stop the quoting of God before that last sentence and resume it again after, but this is completely arbitrary and forces the reader to the translators' interpretation. There is nothing in the Hebrew text to show that it is Isaiah speaking at only that point. So here we see two divine personages; one is "the first and the last" and is sent by the other, "endowed with his Spirit" (which could be considered a third).

There are places in the Gospels where it says that Jesus did such and such to fulfill the (fill in the blank) prophecy, when you can not find that prophecy in the canonical Old Testament. This idea that Jesus fulfilled the Law and Prophets is, in my opinion wrongly applied to what we understand as the Old Testament portion of the Bible.

Cite some specifics so they can be looked up.

As an alternative explanation, I would think that there was probably an oral tradition, and extra-biblical writings that were current around the time of Christ. The Law Jesus fulfilled was, also in my opinion, the fundamental law, and not the statutory law.

There's "probably" again, and we need more than an opinion as to whether the Jews recognized any distinction between a "fundamental law" and the "statutory law".

But what has this to do with the OP about reasons for the crucifixion? If it's solely about one of my points (certainly not the totality of my argument), it seems to be straying far from the original context. I had said that Jesus could reconcile God and man because he was both, and if you deem it permissible to give opinions then surely you can allow them from others without a prolonged interrogation.

So this goes back to my original posting on this thread, that the purpose of the Mission of Jesus was not to perfectly fulfill the demands of the Mosaic Law, other than the Death part. Jesus, knowing no sin and no transgression of natural law or the Law which governs the entire universe outside of this world. But he did break the defunct law, as declared by the Prophet John the Baptist. Jesus established by his death, the new covenant, written in his blood. This frees us from the things that are material, and what Paul spoke of as the planets and other celestial objects, which set dates for festivals and things.

I believe he did in fact perfectly fulfill the demands of the Mosaic Law, but we completely agree on the rest of what you said here. I don't know how I gave any other impression.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by SaberTruth

we need more than an opinion as to whether the Jews recognized any distinction between a "fundamental law" and the "statutory law"

"The Jews"? What does their opinion have to do with anything?

reply to post by SaberTruth

Cite some specifics so they can be looked up.

Here's a couple. I know there are some others but I can't think of them right now.

When they had accomplished everything that was written about him, they took him down from the cross and placed him in a tomb.

he addressed them from the scriptures, explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and to rise from the dead,

Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains. Those who are inside the city must depart. Those who are out in the country must not enter it, because these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written.

for it is written, ‘He will command his angels concerning you, to protect you,’

Then Jesus took the twelve aside and said to them, “Look, we are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written about the Son of Man by the prophets will be accomplished.

The Son of Man will go as it is written about him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would be better for him if he had never been born.”

Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things written about himself in all the scriptures.

Now many have undertaken to compile an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us,

But Jesus was speaking about the temple of his body.So after he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the scripture and the saying that Jesus had spoken.

He came to a town called Nazareth and lived there. Then what had been spoken by the prophets was fulfilled, that Jesus would be called a Nazarene.

This fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet: “I will open my mouth in parables, I will announce what has been hidden from the foundation of the world.”

Day after day I sat teaching in the temple courts, yet you did not arrest me. But this has happened so that the scriptures of the prophets would be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples left him and fled.

“Brothers, the scripture had to be fulfilled that the Holy Spirit foretold through David concerning Judas – who became the guide for those who arrested Jesus – for he was counted as one of us and received a share in this ministry.”

But the things God foretold long ago through all the prophets – that his Christ would suffer – he has fulfilled in this way.

But this is to fulfill the scripture, ‘The one who eats my bread has turned against me.’

Not one of them was lost except the one destined for destruction, so that the scripture could be fulfilled.

They only give you so much time to edit your post, so here is a new post, to add another one (that I was trying to remember earlier) of these verses in the Gospels that refer to some sort of scripture, but not one from the Old Testament, at least as it stands today.

Then he opened their minds so they could understand the scriptures, and said to them, “Thus it stands written that the Christ would suffer and would rise from the dead on the third day,

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by SaberTruth

 

I can only guess that you're inferring I made it up,

You are obsessive, or just thick. Number six, I was being sarcastic. You seem to be clinging to this one little shred of vain hope for superiority over me.
It just makes you look like you are retarded.
Spouting off words you don't understand does not make you seem smart.
I'm not inferring you made it up.
Don't you have anything intelligent to say, other than this kindergarten mentality stuff?

"I am asking what you mean by this " is sarcasm? When are you NOT sarcastic? Is this all a joke to you?

Never mind, I was trying to have a serious discussion about the reason for the crucifixion.

PS: being too lazy to look up specific references as I asked, is yet another reason not to bother anymore. I did try.

reply to post by SaberTruth
Here is the part where I was being sarcastic,

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.

You jumped all over this because you were wishing I was not kidding when it looked like I was admitting that I did not know something. Well, I do and it annoys me when I see so-called Christians using this terminology, which I feel to be anti-Christian, meaning a way to avoid using the Christian term, Old Testament.
The Old Testament is called that, traditionally, for a reason, it is where the old covenant is found. The New Testament is where you find the new covenant. So making the Old Testament sacrosanct, instead of just a historical document, in my opinion takes away from the importance of Christ and his mission and his eternal status.

P.S. I am not lazy, and how do you know what I did or didn't do?

reply to post by SaberTruth
Would you please stop with the personal attacks?

reply to post by SaberTruth

Never mind, I was trying to have a serious discussion about the reason for the crucifixion.

Go ahead, I already said what my opinion is, that the Law killed Jesus, basically for being a human being born on this planet. He did not break the Eternal Law, but did break the Mosaic Law, and made it evident enough to witnesses, such as healing on the Sabbath, and allowing his disciples to harvest and process grain to eat on the Sabbath. There was also criticism of his disciples not maintaining the hygiene laws.
The writer of Hebrews said that Jesus died to protect us from the penalty of the old covenant.
I believe that Jesus protects us by demonstrating the injustice of that old system, where a perfectly good person would still be condemned to death under that system. Jesus instituted the new system and established it with his own blood. The blood of the innocent, who knew no sin.
Perhaps secondarily, Jesus submitting himself to this death takes away from Satan, his defense against his own pending death, where he could possibly have pointed out that Jesus, born under the curse given at the exit from Eden, was allowed to not suffer under it. Jesus showed there was no exemption or favoritism on God's part.