What was/is Jesus?

Prelude first: (skip if you bore easily, my posts tend to stretch out more than necessary)
Some years ago, when I joined ATS and noticed it had a section for Faith and Spirituality in the off-topic portion of the forums (then called BelowTopSecret), I thought it'd be an awesome opportunity to finally put to rest so many of the niggling questions I had about christian doctrine from people who actually, actively CHOSE to be Christian (rather than being born with it), who I assumed would have more than just a working knowledge of Christianity.
Unfortunately, I was sorely disappointed, not because I didn't get answers (I did), not because they were from people who didn't know their religion properly (I have to admit, some of them did), but because the answers were so overcomplicated and bloated and unintuitive so removed from their scripture (while still using it) that they didn't satisfy me at all.
It was at that point that I realised that once you disregard Occam's Razor (which isn't so hard, I guess, it isn't ALWAYS right) you can literally create any explanation you like out of the given data set, so such questions are somewhat pointless.

BUT STILL!
This thread in this forum prompted me to write out a reply, before I realised that perhaps it deserved its own thread, one final hope, perhaps I'd get some answers.
Now if your answer based off "faith in your heart" or because you prayed and were answered directly (instead of inspired to go to specific passages in the Bible, I guess), that is totally valid, and I have no right to put that down at all, but that isn't what I'm looking for. While I realise that all of our understanding of the universe and how it works and what happens is based on (some small) implicit presumptions and axioms that we have to take "on faith", personally, I find that having "God did it" as the beginning and the end of the discussion (which I suppose technically it is, for a believer, but there are still more steps in between) a bit counter-intuitive in that it hides or makes meaningless the beauty of the system that God would have set in place.

Now, I'm obviously approaching this with a desire for understanding of the Christian perspective, but if you aren't a christian but want to treat this as a sort of logic game where you have to reach a conclusion based on all the input statements from the Bible, go ahead . If your answer is simply "Jesus didn't exist" or "The Bible has no divine inspiration", those are also valid viewpoints, but not really helpful in this discussion.

The Axioms - Stuff you may accept implicitly (most derived from the Bible, so basically meaning you accept that statement in the Bible, and then the rest of those follow from it):
1) The Bible is all literally true (and thus internally consistent)
2) The Bible is written by men who were inspired by God who transmitted parables, real events and theology (and thus internally consistent)
3) All the Bible is relevant and useful for gaining knowledge and understanding of important topics about God, Jesus, Salvation, etc.
4) Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of God
5) Jesus is God
6) Christianity is Monotheistic (i.e. There is only ONE God)

If you accept one but not the other, or if you have a different axiom, please do tell, so I can understand where you are coming from. For example, some may say that the Bible contains parables that are not literally true, or that it contains opinions of its writers that are not literally true, or it contains facts that some of the writers may have mixed up. However, whatever options you choose, They'd only be meaningful if they were INTERNALLY CONSISTENT. For example, if you say that one writer wrote one thing that was true, and another that wasn't true, or wrote one thing that was his own opinion, and one thing that was accepted fact, you'd have to throw away all of it, unless there were clear indications that one was one and the other was the other (indications other than simply "I don't like what he said here" or "It sounds wrong to me").

The Meat of this thread
Now, if you don't mind, I'd like to post a few Bible verses that portray a certain understanding of Jesus. If you disagree with this understanding, I'd appreciate it if you do more than simply post another verse that contradicts it. I'd REALLY be happy if you posted how the verse I posted AND the verse you posted both make sense and relate to each other.

Let me start off with Acts 2:22. Paul says:

Acts 2:22 (Young's Literal)
Men, Israelites! hear these words, Jesus the Nazarene, a man approved of God among you by mighty works, and wonders, and signs, that God did through him in the midst of you, according as also ye yourselves have known;

So Jesus Christ was a man APPROVED OF GOD by miracles that God DID THROUGH HIM. I would like to point out that in the greek, the word for "God" here is "Theos" and not "Pater", as it would be if the meaning was "The Father".

Another verse I'd like to mention is Luke 22:42, where Jesus says, while praying to God:

Luke 22:42 (Young's Literal)
'Father, if Thou be counselling to make this cup pass from me --; but, not my will, but Thine be done.'

This one using the word "Pater" for "Father", obviously, and showing that Jesus and God's "will" would not necessarily be the same (and in this case isn't).

The thread that got me writing this thread talked about how not even Jesus knew of the final hour, only the Father did. Some responded to that by explaining that this was only in his "limited human form" that he didn't know this (if this is your line, I would appreciate it if you could tell me if you got this idea from the Bible, and from where, because I couldn't find where the Bible made that distinction for that situation). I suppose this COULD be a valid argument, but would your fundamental will change, especially concerning something that was supposedly your entire purpose on earth?

In other parts of the Bible, Jesus speaks of the Father sent him, the Father is greater than him (as well as being greater than all), and in the Bible, in one of his final utterances before he died, he said "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" (again, the word being "Theos" in greek, but more importantly, the original word used in hebrew, 'Eli', also being shown).

Now Christians also say that Jesus was both fully man AND fully God, but this theory (called Hypostatic Union) came up and was formalised almost as late as the fourth century, and doesn't have any direct validation in the Bible (neither the expression "Fully man and Fully God" nor "hypostatic union" or "hypostasis" appear), but instead came about to answer the very question I am asking here.. unfortunately, it doesn't address the verses that seem to contradict this point. Also, I've heard christians say that the "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" thing is explained away with this understanding as well- that at that instant, all the "Godness" of Jesus left him, and he was purely and only a man. If this is your understanding as well, I would be very appreciative if you can explain to me who exactly THAT man was, who was completely devoid of the "Godness" that is supposed to be so intrinsic to the general understanding of the Christian Jesus.

As an aside, many Christians point to me how the Bible has Jesus saying "I and the Father are one" as proof he is God. I would like to post the whole statement by him in context, if I may:

John 10:25-30 (Young's Literal)
"I told you, and ye do not believe; the works that I do in the name of my Father, these testify concerning me; but ye do not believe, for ye are not of my sheep. According as I said to you: My sheep my voice do hear, and I know them, and they follow me, and life age-during I give to them, and they shall not perish -- to the age, and no one shall pluck them out of my hand; My Father, who hath given to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to pluck out of the hand of my Father; I and the Father are one."

It kinda gives a different meaning, then.

FINALLY, however, my search got me to a verse in the Bible where Jesus used both the term "Pater" (Father) and "Theos" (God), and sort of explained the relation and connection between the two:

John 20:17 (Young's Literal)
Be not touching me, for I have not yet ascended unto my Father; and be going on to my brethren, and say to them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and to my God, and to your God.'

And showed that it means the same thing. Pater is Theos, Theos is Pater - God is the Father, the Father is God, and thus Jesus is a/the Son of God. At least that is my understanding of it (the meaning of that term could perhaps be discussed in greater detail further in this thread).

Is yours different? Can you explain it through the Bible, WHILE incorporating these verses I showed as well?
I'd really like to hear what you have to say, then.

It'd be cool if we could have a person who was never exposed to christianity, but was taught ancient greek or something, and then handed them the Bible and asked, only from that, to explain all the points in summary, but I guess such a thing isn't really possible.
Or if somone went through the Bible statement by statement, and made a definitive fact from each statement, so it'd be fixed and comparable to the others....but again, that's probably too gargantuan a task, and isn't how the Bible works...

Jesus is an ideology. Christians will tell you, Jesus is the path, Jesus is the way. But there interpretation is retarded by the control constructs the go hand in hand with organised religion!

Oh i almost forgot he is also the Son of God............Just like all the rest of us.

Originally posted by andy06shake
Oh i almost forgot he is also the Son of God............Just like all the rest of us.

edit on 9-2-2013 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)

Yes, but Jesus was awakened to his true God-Self.
'Knowing' with our brain that we are all sons and daughters of God and thus made in His image is one thing,
actually believing it in your heart of hearts and living it is another.
That is why Jesus was here. To show us the God-Actualized self that we can become and how.

Jesus is a guy that hurt peoples' feelings for atleast 2500 years, for simply getting brutally tortured and executed. They asked who he was and out came his conviction " I am that I am"
Did he rise?
Arose did he?

reply to post by eleven44


"Yes, but Jesus was awakened to his true God-Self."

So was the Buddha!

'Knowing' with our brain that we are all sons and daughters of God and thus made in His image is one thing,
actually believing it in your heart of hearts and living it is another.

How so, please elaborate? Life is what you make it, you play with the hand of cards you're dealt. All i know is that i know nothing. Life could be a dream for all anybody knows, just a thought.

"That is why Jesus was here. To show us the God-Actualized self that we can become and how."

Thats your interpretation, there are others.

Well, first of all his name was not Jesus.

That's something the history books created.

Everybody should read.."And they called him Emmanuel" - Phoenix Journals by CGH.

His actual name Jmmanuel...if we can't get the bacis right, what can we get right?

It's an interesting exercise, babloyi, but I am unsure of the point of trying to understand Nicene Christianity by adopting the minority's, rather than the majority's, approach to understanding Christian Orthodoxy. Not even all Protestants restrict their scholarship to the canonical Bible. The largest Protestant denomination, the Anglican Communion, specifically advocates Reason and Tradition as complementary to the canon, following in that regard the older apostolic-succession churches from which Anglicanism springs.

It is not news that there are several coherent, but mutually incompatible, readings of the New Testament. Some of the christological heresies of the early church were not ridiculous, but closely reasoned, well supported alternative views of the Christian heritage. They didn't prevail, for a variety of reasons, and often not because they were "obviously wrong."

The immediate problem is that the Nicene reading is coherent. You may disagree with it, you may object to introducing non-Biblical concepts like kenosis to account for human traits in a divine being's incarnation; you may even take a unitarian (or Islamic) stance that the Biblical Jesus was a human teacher, period. All that could be argued coherently, too.

Coherence won't decide the issue.

On a few points arising:

Paul may well have not conceived of Jesus as God. There is nothing in the few pieces of him we have that indicate he ever retreated from his insistance that he was a Jew and a Pharisee. The Jewish God has no son and has no equal. If Paul preached otherwise to Jews, then they might well have stoned him where he stood. So, I think he didn't do that. Christians accept Paul's visionary supplements to Jesus' earthly teachings, basically Pharisaic doctrines about the end of days. They are not on the hook for the completeness of his theology or christology.

John is a running gun battle, verse-by-verse, alternating humanity and divinity. The Nicene is one approach to the problem (actually two, since the minority Oriental Orthodox have a very interesting "dialectic" resolution... they are Nicene, but dropped out of communion in the century afterwards).

Once you have said there is another reading of John, then what? Especially if you won't allow anything into the discussion except the canonical text.

"Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" is the opening verse of Psalm 22. As you note, even some devout Nicenes will try and make something else out of it (despite the text telling a joke about passer-by who heard Jesus say this, and tried to make something else out of it). OK, lucky break, the something else you have to bring in to understand what Jesus is saying here is itself in the Bible, just not in the New Testament part.

Do you seriously expect to get lucky on every interpretive question that comes up?

reply to post by babloyi

If you accept one but not the other, or if you have a different axiom, please do tell, so I can understand where you are coming from.

It's interesting you ask the question on the very day I clarify it within myself. Here is my answer. Where does seeking lead?

The answer is the same as the Christian reasoning of giving. Ultimately, there answer IS simple. Our reasoning of the answer is not yet complete. None of us know God. God is simply known to be there. We reveal the truth when we become it.

Originally posted by andy06shake
reply to post by eleven44

 

"Yes, but Jesus was awakened to his true God-Self."

So was the Buddha!

'Knowing' with our brain that we are all sons and daughters of God and thus made in His image is one thing,
actually believing it in your heart of hearts and living it is another.

How so, please elaborate? Life is what you make it, you play with the hand of cards you're dealt. All i know is that i know nothing. Life could be a dream for all anybody knows, just a thought.

"That is why Jesus was here. To show us the God-Actualized self that we can become and how."

Thats your interpretation, there are others.

edit on 9-2-2013 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)

I agree, Buddha was as well. Jesus was not the only, but he did come to serve and fulfill a different purpose than Buddha (so I believe.) We are all here to fulfill different purposes, but all serving the same picture. I do believe, however, that the original teachings of Jesus are very similar in nature to the teachings of Buddhism, and I do believe that Jesus may have studied with Buddhists and other religions/philosophies during his life, such as the Essene's.

'Knowing' with our brain that we are all sons and daughters of God and thus made in His image is one thing, actually believing it in your heart of hearts and living it is another.

I do not know how to elaborate on that. I don't believe Enlightenment is something than can accurately be elaborated upon. In fact, I believe true Enlightenment would be the opposite of elaboration: it is the absence of such need for classification. I am not claiming I have 'attained Enlightenment' (again, for it is not something to be attained. It is the natural state of being, our ego simply limits us to perceiving that.)
I definitely have not yet harnessed the true 'power' that figures such as Buddha and Jesus and others were able to realize into their lives.
(I think) I 'know' what I am talking about, and I actively and consciously strive to apply it to my daily life. I work on my physical, mental and spiritual body every day. But I am still very much ran by my 'ego.' And I think that that is okay. I believe I am meant to be participating and engaging in the current world we live in, instead of isolating myself from it through means of enlightenment. Or at least, that's what I tell myself.

I also agree life is what we make it. Our reality is determined by what we believe. These are all my 'opinions.' I am aware of that. But I believe there is Truth in this world, and I believe we have access to it.
I am not 'Christian,' but I do hope to become Christ-Like.
Jesus was a great great teacher. Too bad that, for the most part, 'Christians' can't seem to follow his teachings.

reply to post by babloyi


He was, if he truly existed, human. All too human.

He is now nothing more than an ideal.

Jesus was a man who realized the potential of humans and realized what he himself might be in relation to the universe and potentially its creator.

reply to post by babloyi

Genesis 1:3 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

John 8:12 When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."

Colossians 1:15
15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

Jesus is the light created in Genesis 1:3. If you can see that he is the light that was created in 1:3 then all of the passages make since. Jesus is special in the since that he was the first of all God's creation and was with the father from the beginning. He understands all things because he was taught directly by the father. He and his father are one, because the father loves the son and the son obeys the father.

I believe if you reread all the verses with this understanding then they all begin to make since without contradiction or need for any further special interpretation.

Originally posted by andy06shake
Jesus is an ideology. Christians will tell you, Jesus is the path, Jesus is the way. But there interpretation is retarded by the control constructs the go hand in hand with organised religion!

Oh i almost forgot he is also the Son of God............Just like all the rest of us.

edit on 9-2-2013 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)

Jesus was Source Entity in disquise; playing around.

reply to post by babloyi


Simply put, there are tons of verses in the NT that show Jesus was a man... appointed by God.


7During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission.
8Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered
9 and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him
10and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek.
-Hebrews 5:7-10

From this we see

a) Jesus had to pray to the "One who could save him from death"... showing that only God could have saved him from death. Jesus cannot be God.

b) Jesus was seeking a way out. Recall his prayer before his capture.... "Let this cup pass from me". He did not willingly surrender to the Jews to make his so called "sacrifice".

c) Jesus was heard, meaning he was saved from death. Which basically counters the claim about Jesus being dead for 3 days for three days. It cant be said that a man was saved from death AND was dead for 3 days.

d) Jesus had to learn obedience.
Does someone who is "fully man and fully God" need to learn obedience?

e) The promise of eternal salvation is for all who obey him... OBEY, not just believe he died on the cross for their sins. I also don't recall Jesus teaching people that they need to believe that he died for their sins to be saved. Not even AFTER his resurrection when his followers saw him. Why is that?

f) Jesus was designated by God to be a high priest in Melchizedeks order. Jesus was NOT God but instead was appointed by God.


I am copy pasting these points from an earlier thread I had made regarding those verses.

Hebrews 5:7-10... powerful verses that challenge many Christian doctrines

I have made several other threads outlining why Christian scriptures and Christian doctrines are not in line with each other. There are contradictions within Christian theology regarding the nature of Jesus. But Christians simply dismiss whats in their bibles and cling on to their doctrines.

Why do we feel the need to glorify one Man over the rest, Jesus in this instance?

The dude ate, crapped, copulated, slept and died just like all of us. In the exact same manner and fashion as any other Man. Yet somehow christianity still insiste's he died for all our sins???

People die every day, because of the sins of Man!

War, famine and greed have not changed in the past 2000 years, nether has human nature.

Entropy must increase!

Do you think Jesus understood thermodynamics 101?

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by babloyi

 

From this we see

a) Jesus had to pray to the "One who could save him from death"... showing that only God could have saved him from death. Jesus cannot be God.

Jesus came to teach men in a way that every man could understand, by living his entire human life as an example regardless of his abilities. That did not mean that he did not have the ability to do it himself. He wanted man to take their direction from God, not to rely on any human that might try to make themselves out to be God, as that had already been done and he was trying to correct it in his own way.

John 10:18

18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

b) Jesus was seeking a way out. Recall his prayer before his capture.... "Let this cup pass from me". He did not willingly surrender to the Jews to make his so called "sacrifice".

Jesus said he came to fulfill the scripture. Most everything that Jesus said and did in the garden of Gethsemane was already written in the Old Testament and Jesus fulfilled it, just like in Psalm 22 while he was dying on the cross. (The verses are somewhere in Psalm, I'll try to get you that exact scripture later.)

c) Jesus was heard, meaning he was saved from death. Which basically counters the claim about Jesus being dead for 3 days for three days. It cant be said that a man was saved from death AND was dead for 3 days.

Jesus died a human death, not a spiritual one. Jesus' human body was transformed into an "incorruptible" body and he used it to preach to the souls in prison as well as come back and speak to his disciples before he ascended to heaven.

d) Jesus had to learn obedience.
Does someone who is "fully man and fully God" need to learn obedience?

If you're human at all, you have to learn obedience. Jesus had to learn everything a human did. Before he was made a human, he didn't need to understand what the word "obedience" even meant.

e) The promise of eternal salvation is for all who obey him... OBEY, not just believe he died on the cross for their sins. I also don't recall Jesus teaching people that they need to believe that he died for their sins to be saved. Not even AFTER his resurrection when his followers saw him. Why is that?

To obey him meant to believe everything he spoke to them about.

Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mat 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

John 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

John 5:21-24

21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.

22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Luke 9:26;

For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, of him the Son of Man will be ashamed when He comes in His own glory, and in His Father’s, and of the holy angels.

Luke 21:33;

Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.

f) Jesus was designated by God to be a high priest in Melchizedeks order. Jesus was NOT God but instead was appointed by God.

Jesus was designated to be more than a high priest. His name was appointed above all names.

Philippians 2:9-10

9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

Here's a good commentary on how it was supposed to unfold. There is much more information given in the link than what I have posted.

Christ had to die “according to the Scriptures” – kata tas graphas. If He had died in the Garden of Gethsemane He would not have been the Saviour prophesied in the Old Testament Scriptures. He would have been an impostor, not the prophesied Saviour! He had to die kata tas graphas, “according to the Scriptures.” “The Scriptures” refers to the Old Testament, for the New Testament had not yet been written.

Just before Jesus entered Gethsemane he said, “This that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors” (Luke 22:37). He quoted Isaiah 53:12, saying that He must fulfill that verse, by being crucified between two thieves. If He had died in Gethsemane He would not have fulfilled Isaiah 53:12; He would not have died kata tas graphas, “according to the Scriptures,” He would not have been the Saviour prophesied by Isaiah!

Isaiah chapter 53 gives the fullest prophecy in the Old Testament of the crucifixion of Christ. Actually that passage begins with Isaiah 52:13 and goes on for 15 verses in the English Bible. It gives one prophecy after another concerning Christ’s crucifixion. Very few of those prophecies of His crucifixion would have been fulfilled if Jesus had died in Gethsemane. Isaiah 50:6, which told of His scourging, the shame and spitting, would not have been fulfilled. Psalm 22:16, which prophesied the piercing of His hands and feet, would not have been fulfilled, nor would Zechariah 12:10, “They shall look upon me whom they have pierced.” Psalm 22 also gives one prophecy after another that would not have been fulfilled if Jesus had died in Gethsemane. And many other Scriptures in the Old Testament would have gone unfulfilled if Jesus had died in the Garden.

No wonder that Jesus prayed in Gethsemane “with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared” (Hebrews 5:7). He feared that He would die there in the Garden, and not make it to the Cross the next day! He had to die kata tas graphas, “according to the Scriptures.” Christ fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies in minute detail when He was crucified. If He had died in Gethsemane none of these prophecies would have been fulfilled – and Christ would have been an impostor, not the Saviour of mankind foretold in the Scriptures. Christ would not have “died for our sins according to the scriptures” (I Corinthians 15:3). No wonder He prayed in Gethsemane, “Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me” (Luke 22:42).

www.rlhymersjr.com...

reply to post by babloyi


You wrote -

"The Axioms - Stuff you may accept implicitly (most derived from the Bible, so basically meaning you accept that statement in the Bible, and then the rest of those follow from it):
1) The Bible is all literally true (and thus internally consistent)
2) The Bible is written by men who were inspired by God who transmitted parables, real events and theology (and thus internally consistent)
3) All the Bible is relevant and useful for gaining knowledge and understanding of important topics about God, Jesus, Salvation, etc.
4) Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of God
5) Jesus is God
6) Christianity is Monotheistic (i.e. There is only ONE God)

If you accept one but not the other, or if you have a different axiom, please do tell, so I can understand where you are coming from.
….
"
…. I believe that God is bigger then the Bible…….why limit God to a book?

reply to post by Deetermined


Here is Isaiah 53:10

Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him
and cause him to suffer, 10 and though the LORD makes his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong
his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

Jesus pbuh will have offspring? And his days will be prolonged?
Makes sense if it happens the islamic way, raised up in heaven alive live a 'prolonged life' and in 2nd coming, get married and 'see his offspring' this is actually what muslims believe.
.
Isaiah 50 says this

When I came, why was there no one? 2 When I called, why was there no one to answer?
Was my arm too short to deliver you? Do I lack the strength to rescue you?
By a mere rebuke I dry up the sea, I turn rivers into a desert; their fish rot for lack of water and die of thirst. I clothe the heavens with darkness 3 and make sackcloth its covering.”
....
...
I offered my back to those who beat
me, my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard;
I did not hide my face from mocking and spitting. Because the Sovereign LORD helps me, I will not be disgraced. Therefore have I set my face like flint, and I know I will not be put to shame.
He who vindicates me is near.

it rather shows a trust in 'rescue' than resurrection.
.
Psalms 22

All who see me mock me; 7 they hurl insults, shaking their heads.
“He trusts in the LORD,” they say, 8 “let the LORD rescue him. Let him deliver him, since he delights in him.” Yet you brought me out of the womb; 9 you made me trust in you, even at my mother’s breast.
From birth I was cast on you; 10 from my mother’s womb you have been my God. Do not be far from me, 11 for trouble is near
and there is no one to help. Many bulls surround me; 12 strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.
Roaring lions that tear their prey 13 open their mouths wide against me.
I am poured out like water, 14 and all my bones are out of joint.
My heart has turned to wax; it has melted within me. My mouth is dried up like a potsherd, 15 and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth; you lay me in the dust of death. Dogs surround me, 16 a pack of villains encircles me;
they pierce my hands and my feet.
All my bones are on display; 17 people stare and gloat over me.
They divide my clothes among them 18 and cast lots for my garment. But you, LORD, do not be far from me. 19 You are my strength; come quickly to help me.
Deliver me from the sword, 20 my precious life from the power of the dogs.
Rescue me from the mouth of the
lions; 21 save me from the horns of the wild oxen.

people mocked him to get rescued and he put the whole trust in God.
.
In Zechariah 12:10 their is just mourning, it could be for someone presumed death, Jesus pbuh is addressed as 'pierced' not dead.
.
All the prophecies point to a rescue there is no rescue in raising a dead.

Originally posted by logical7
reply to post by Deetermined

 

Jesus pbuh will have offspring? And his days will be prolonged?

The verse is speaking about the spiritual seed of Jesus. Those who are "born again" are his offspring.

Jesus will come back to earth for a "prolonged" period of time to reign (1,000 years / the Millennium) before a new heaven/earth is brought down for him to spend eternity with his offspring.

it rather shows a trust in 'rescue' than resurrection.

Jesus showed that we will be rescued from a permanent death, not a human death in general. Study the difference between the first and second deaths.

All the prophecies point to a rescue there is no rescue in raising a dead.

That is exactly what rescue means. To raise the dead.

If we were to die, be put into a grave and not be raised again, that would be permanent death. That would not be a rescue. Jesus died to rescue us from a permanent spiritual death.