It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Not one of his bones will be broken"

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 03:32 AM
link   

So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first, and of the other who had been crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water. He who saw it has borne witness— his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth— that you also may believe.
For these things took place that the Scripture might be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken.” And again another Scripture says, “They will look on him whom they have pierced.”
-John 19:32-37


Pay attention to the underlined section.
The scriptures referring to the "unbroken bones" to are Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12 and Psalm 34:20

Exodus 12:46 and Numbers 9:12 both simply deal with how the Passover meat is to be eaten. It has nothing to do with the messiah or anything else. It is an instruction on how families are to eat the passover meal.
"It must be eaten inside one house; take none of the meat outside the house. Do not break any of the bones."

If the writer is actually comparing Jesus' unbroken legs to the ritual Passover meal, he would be likening a barbaric execution to the strict ritualistic preparation/consumption of the passover meal.

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Then we have Psalm 34:20, which refers to an actual human being and not a cooked meal.
If this is the "scripture" that the author of John was referring to, then it needs to be read it in context with the surrounding verses.

Upon reading Psalm 34, we see that Text basic theme is about how God saves the righteous...



The eyes of the LORD are on the righteous, and his ears are attentive to their cry;
The righteous cry out, and the LORD hears them; he delivers them from all their troubles.
The LORD is close to the brokenhearted and saves those who are crushed in spirit.
The righteous person may have many troubles, but the LORD delivers him from them all; he protects all his bones, not one of them will be broken.
The LORD will rescue his servants; no one who takes refuge in him will be condemned.



So the bit about the unbroken bones is not to be read in isolation. It is explicitly stated that all his bones would be protected, AND that God would deliver the person from all his troubles.

Therefore, it makes zero sense to believe that Gods servant underwent torture at the hands of his enemies, (contrary to Psalm 34 about God rescuing His servants) and then claiming that this scripture was fulfilled in Jesus' unbroken legs.
This puts christian theology in a tight spot because it not only refutes the statement in John, that Jesus unbroken bones fulfilled scripture, but also brings up the question- Did God did not rescue His servant, Jesus, as stated in Psalm 34:20??

Now, I know there are some who will try and muddle up this thread with unneeded scriptures used to support the crucifixion, instead of addressing whats being said here- that the scripture that was supposedly "fulfilled" through Jesus' unbroken legs point to Jesus being rescued... the opposite of a painful crucifixion.

If Psalms 34:20 indeed referred to Jesus, and if the bible is indeed infallible, then it means that Jesus cried out to God before his arrest and God heard him and rescued him.... with all bones unbroken, of course.

This leans closely towards the Islamic view on Jesus' crucifixion... that God will never let His servants suffer as horribly as Jesus and rescued him.


edit on 24-2-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 03:40 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 



If the writer is actually comparing Jesus' unbroken legs to the ritual Passover meal, he would be likening a barbaric execution to the strict ritualistic preparation/consumption of the passover meal.


Everything else in that ritual/feast types and foreshadows Christ anyways, so the same is true for the unbroken legs of the passover lamb. It pictures Christ without any bones broken many years later at Calvary. Everything points to Jesus in the OT, everything. Even the meanings of the genealogies in Genesis from Adam to Noah point to Christ and what He did for us.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 04:09 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 



This leans closely towards the Islamic view on Jesus' crucifixion... that God will never let His servants suffer as horribly as Jesus and rescued him.


Jesus came to die. His entire reason for coming here was for the entry, or "passion week". He came to die for the forgiveness of sins, and He said His Father's will was for everyone to believe in Him, to Trust in Him.

Matthew 26-32.


And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom. And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives. Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad. But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee.


And He tells them His Father's will:

John 6:28:29


Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.


Restates it another way in verses 39-40:


And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.


And third times a charm, verse 47:


Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.




Just like everything else in the OT, but specifically Moses and the brass serpent on a pole, everyone who looked to it was healed of the deadly snakebites and lived.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 04:11 AM
link   
John 6:51

"I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 04:12 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Exactly what I was going to say......good job....
2nd



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 04:20 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 




Everything else in that ritual/feast types and foreshadows Christ anyways, so the same is true for the unbroken legs of the passover lamb. It pictures Christ without any bones broken many years later at Calvary. Everything points to Jesus in the OT, everything. Even the meanings of the genealogies in Genesis from Adam to Noah point to Christ and what He did for us.


"Everything points to Jesus in the OT, everything"
It seems that way if you keep reading what you want into the bible. Its like pareidolia with scriptures.
But the actual text is there in print for anyone to read objectively.

From what I've gathered, The writer of John associates Jesus' unbroken bones at the crucifixion with previous OT scriptures involving unbroken bones. (the ones in Exodus/Numbers and Psalms)
I presented both those scriptures and showed that it doesn't add up.

The verses in Numbers/Exodus deal with unbroken bones in the passover meal.
Sure both Jesus' and the passover meal had "unbroken bones"... thats about the only similarity.
However, the passover meal was not all about the unbroken bones... there were several OTHER clauses, as outlined in Exodus 12:46....which cannot logically apply to Jesus.

Then the verses in Psalms deal with unbroken bones of a man who God rescued from trouble...NOT the unbroken bones of a man who God allowed to be scourged and tortured. Theres a big difference.
(I noticed you did not address Psalm 34:20. Is it that you dont believe that was the scripture that the writer of John was referring to?)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


I am not asking for the theology that you believe concerning the sacrifice and salvation.
I am looking at exploring the claims made in John 19, regarding the unbroken bones.


If Jesus came to die, then are you implying that Psalm 34 is invalid.... or are we to ignore it?
Are you implying that God will NOT rescue his servants? or that God will NOT deliver the righteous who cry out to him(like Jesus), as taught in Psalms 34?

You cant have it both ways. You cant both state that God will rescue His servants AND that God let Jesus suffer and die...contrary to Psalm 34

edit on 24-2-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-2-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 



If Jesus came to die, then are you implying that Psalm 34 is invalid.... or are we to ignore it?
Are you implying that God will NOT rescue his servants? or that God will NOT deliver the righteous who cry out to him(like Jesus), as taught in Psalms 34?


Jesus came to die, to shed His blood for our sins. God does rescue His servants, in this case His servant's mission was to die for man's sins. Jesus also knew what was about to happen to Him and He also cried out in the garden. He still went to the cross as the suffering servant. Good news is, He'll never be that again, He's returning in power and glory, as King.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 



From what I've gathered, The writer of John associates Jesus' unbroken bones at the crucifixion with previous OT scriptures involving unbroken bones. (the ones in Exodus/Numbers and Psalms)
I presented both those scriptures and showed that it doesn't add up.


Because the writer of John associates Christ with the Passover lamb, which for thousands of years could not have a bone broken in the feast. Everything parallels Christ:


"The idea behind all this was that just as the Israelites were redeemed from Egyptian slavery by an unblemished lamb, now men could be freed from slavery to sin by the Messiah, the Lamb of God."


Messiah in the Passover.


"And he said unto them, These are the words which I spoke unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me."

Luke 24:44



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 05:07 AM
link   
Hmm crazy secularist rant to me.
God has made a promise to rescue his people through Jesus the Messiah and is the Christ who according to scripture is God. The Trinity, unlike the Muslims who believe there god is one person who can not be spirit as well...Work that out I dare you
Jesus rescued humanity from everlasting destruction. Not from this world. Your WHOLE theology is backwards, your basic understanding of Christianity is blinded by your red mist.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 05:22 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



Jesus came to die, to shed His blood for our sins. God does rescue His servants, in this case His servant's mission was to die for man's sins. Jesus also knew what was about to happen to Him and He also cried out in the garden. He still went to the cross as the suffering servant. Good news is, He'll never be that again, He's returning in power and glory, as King.


Looks like you are trying to have your cake and eat it.
On one hand you agree with Psalm 34, and on the other, you say Jesus was an exception to getting rescued...because his purpose was to "die for mans sins".

Now, the part about Jesus being sent solely to die for mans sins is on shaky ground. But heres a way to test whether or not Jesus died for mans sins...

If dying for mans sins was Jesus' mission, then was there ANYBODY in the NT who, after witnessing the risen Jesus, ever state that Jesus died for their sins?
Did Jesus himself say he died for peoples sins?
The answer is NO.

The people who saw him were shocked, scared, amazed, joyous... but nobody ever stated any belief that Jesus died for their sins....nothing that even resembles the christian doctrine of sin sacrifice.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 05:29 AM
link   
reply to post by borntowatch
 



The Trinity, unlike the Muslims who believe there god is one person who can not be spirit as well...Work that out I dare you


The muslims dont believe that God is a "person". Don't know where you are getting this from.



Jesus rescued humanity from everlasting destruction. Not from this world. Your WHOLE theology is backwards, your basic understanding of Christianity is blinded by your red mist.


I understand Christianity through the words of Jesus, not man-made doctrines that you have injected into yourself.
Your understanding of Jesus is flawed because you have let the teachings of a certain "apostle", who never met Jesus, utterly blind you.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 05:38 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



Because the writer of John associates Christ with the Passover lamb, which for thousands of years could not have a bone broken in the feast. Everything parallels Christ:


"Everything parallels Christ"

Like I said earlier,
Sure, both Jesus' and the passover meal had "unbroken bones"... thats about the only similarity.
However, the passover meal was not all about the unbroken bones... there were several OTHER clauses, as outlined in Exodus 12....which cannot logically apply to Jesus.

Here are all the other clauses with regard to the passover meal.



-"These are the regulations for the Passover: "No foreigner is to eat of it.
-Any slave you have bought may eat of it after you have circumcised him, but a temporary resident and a hired worker may not eat of it.
-"It must be eaten inside one house; take none of the meat outside the house.
-Do not break any of the bones.
-The whole community of Israel must celebrate it.
-"An alien living among you who wants to celebrate the LORD's Passover must have all the males in his household circumcised; then he may take part like one born in the land.
-No uncircumcised male may eat of it.
-Tell the Israelites: `When any of you or your descendants are unclean because of a dead body or are away on a journey, they may still celebrate the LORD's Passover.
-They are to celebrate it on the fourteenth day of the second month at twilight. They are to eat the lamb, together with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.
-They must not leave any of it till morning or break any of its bones. When they celebrate the Passover, they must follow all the regulations.
-But if a man who is ceremonially clean and not on a journey fails to celebrate the Passover, that person must be cut off from his people because he did not present the LORD's offering at the appointed time. That man will bear the consequences of his sin.
-`An alien living among you who wants to celebrate the LORD's Passover must do so in accordance with its rules and regulations. You must have the same regulations for the alien and the native-born.'"



So tell me, apart from the "unbroken bones"... how many of these apply to Jesus?

Obviously, the writer of John read his own thing into Jesus' unbroken legs and decided to quote only the part about the passover meals bones.
edit on 24-2-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 





The verses in Numbers/Exodus deal with unbroken bones in the passover meal. Sure both Jesus' and the passover meal had "unbroken bones"...


The Passover meal was a celebration of deliverance the meal was a sacrificial meal. Christ was a sacrifice for the sins of man, this is the connection. Christ is also referred to as "The Lamb".

edit on 24-2-2012 by Iamschist because: added something



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 07:16 AM
link   
Jesus is the Lamb of God and his blood and flesh is the new covenant. He even said so in the last supper.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by borntowatch
 



The Trinity, unlike the Muslims who believe there god is one person who can not be spirit as well...Work that out I dare you


The muslims dont believe that God is a "person". Don't know where you are getting this from.



Jesus rescued humanity from everlasting destruction. Not from this world. Your WHOLE theology is backwards, your basic understanding of Christianity is blinded by your red mist.


I understand Christianity through the words of Jesus, not man-made doctrines that you have injected into yourself.
Your understanding of Jesus is flawed because you have let the teachings of a certain "apostle", who never met Jesus, utterly blind you.


Pray tell my learned *cough*cough* Muslim friend. In Jesus three year ministry how many Gentiles did he heel from illness.
Ignorance is not an excuse.
What do you make of THESE words of the Savior of Humanity. The Messiah Jesus
“And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.”

Tell me my dear Muslim friend is Jesus talking about spacemen from mars, turtles, swine.
Where are you at.
Yes Jesus talks about Gentiles, then heels them and sends the greatest most influential Jew of the time to call them to Himself. Paul the Pharisee.

You talk some ignorant stuff some times Scorpion
Lets repeat Jesus words from John 10:16./ Remember they ARE the words of Jesus.

“And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.”
Now argue with the words of Jesus, The SON of God, not some arab moon god worshiped by a few arab tribes.

The true Trinity God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, The True relational God that is Love.
The Muslim god can not be relational as it is just spirit.


Dont you get sick of being wrong and shown you are wrong all the time??
I am going to flag this thread just so others see how wrong you are on this.
edit on 24-2-2012 by borntowatch because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Now, the part about Jesus being sent solely to die for mans sins is on shaky ground. But heres a way to test whether or not Jesus died for mans sins...

If dying for mans sins was Jesus' mission, then was there ANYBODY in the NT who, after witnessing the risen Jesus, ever state that Jesus died for their sins?
Did Jesus himself say he died for peoples sins?
The answer is NO.

The people who saw him were shocked, scared, amazed, joyous... but nobody ever stated any belief that Jesus died for their sins....nothing that even resembles the christian doctrine of sin sacrifice.


You have no understanding of the mystery of the resurrection.

The crux of the Old Testament covenant was burnt animal/human sacrifice to the demon, YHWH in exchange for material wealth and earthly power.

Jesus Christ of the New Testament taught that we must renounce the flesh to become one with the Holy Spirit.
The whole point of communion is that body and blood shall be consumed, given up for Spirit to reign.

The purpose of His crucifiction was to exemplify abandonment of carnality. The point of His resurrection was to demonstrate the supremity of Spirit over the profanity of this aeon, the construct of Satan.

This is the true teaching of Christ.
edit on 24-2-2012 by 1nOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by borntowatch
 

Skorpians denial of Paul , formerly Saul just shows his ignorance to the word of God no matter how much scripture he can quote. If one thinks that the KJV bible did not come down to us exactly as God wanted then they have minimal faith.

There can be no doubt Saul was chosen by Jesus to bring the word to us and approved of by all the decipels both Peter and John speak of Paul in their writings , so if you throw out Paul you might as well throw out the whole Bible.

God uses whom ever He wants to do His will, Nebbacadezzer the King of Babylon to punish Israel . Then Cyrus of Persia to punish Babylon and so on and so on. There is nothing new under the sun, what has been will be , this of course until Christ returns. Peace



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by borntowatch
 




Ignorance is not an excuse......
You talk some ignorant crap some times Scorpion....
Dont you get sick of being wrong and shown you are wrong all the time??


Such grade school taunts are signs that I'm dealing with someone who is incapable of mature discussion. As for being "wrong", I'll admit I'm wrong when someone proves me wrong... using Jesus' words.... not some man-made doctrines or Pauline lies... which has been the case with Pauline Christians on this site ever since I started posting here.

As for John 10:16, I don't see what it has to to do with the very specific subject matter of the OP (regarding about the unbroken bones and fulfilled scripture.) Unless you can explain otherwise, I'm not going to be baited into derailing my own thread.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by 1nOne
 



You have no understanding of the mystery of the resurrection.

The crux of the Old Testament covenant was burnt animal/human sacrifice to the demon, YHWH in exchange for material wealth and earthly power.

Jesus Christ of the New Testament taught that we must renounce the flesh to become one with the Holy Spirit.
The whole point of communion is that body and blood shall be consumed, given up for Spirit to reign.

The purpose of His crucifiction was to exemplify abandonment of carnality. The point of His resurrection was to demonstrate the supremity of Spirit over the profanity of this aeon, the construct of Satan.

This is the true teaching of Christ.


I'm not sure what your background is, considering you called the God of the Old Testament a "demon".
I'm sure many christians would disagree with you.

Its clear your view is not like the typical christians, but the OP was clearly about a specific verses in relation to Christian doctrines....and was addressed to a rather specific group of christians.




top topics



 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join