Religion Jesus could not be the SOG(Son of God)

[strongvoicesforward]

According to the BWOG (Biblical Word of God), Jesus does not qualify to be the SOG (Son of God). He could not and does not qualify as the savior.

Jesus shows no sign of perfection, he is hypocritical, weak, does not understand his own mission, is a bastard (said academically -- not pajoratively) of dubious origin, is not knowledgable of scripture, misleads and is deceptive, fails in prophesying, is not the rightful heir to the thrown of David/Heaven, and ultimately fails in his mission.

I`ll start with a simple illustration to begin the discussion that shows Jesus could not live up to some of the virtues we are often told to practice:

John 18:23 "If I said something wrong," Jesus replied, "testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?"

Why does Jesus object to being struck? Why didn`t he accept it happily and offer the other cheek to be struck? According to the Bible, we are encouraged to be strong and accept punishment as some kind of virtue -- and in fact offer ourselves up more for it as a way to let he who has harmed us become filled with disgrace. Talking back to the one who does you wrong would not be the most efficient way causing disgrace to take hold.

Doesn`t Jesus believe in the ?gGod breathed?h scriptures that He would know to tell us to turn the other cheek? Didn`t he come here to give us an example to follow with his life? Why doesn`t he just turn the other cheek? Does he want us imperfect beings do that which he is not even capable of?

Lam. 3:30 Let him offer his cheek to one who would strike him, and let him be filled with disgrace.

 

[No-name]

Obviously the verse must literally mean "turn the other cheek" and by asking the person to examine there action it is an "objection" and contradiction of scripture. (almost tantamount to a violent response?)

A swing and a miss! I really do suggest you buy that concordance or look at a free one on line. It will keep you from wasting time:
1. Reading things into the text that aren't there. (NIT)
2. Finding contradictions that don't exist. (CDTE)
3. PABM. Pointless Athiest Bible Misreadings.

 

[Revenant]

I'm just going to offer up one possible interpretation of the phrase 'turn the other cheek'. It could simply be a phrase of those times meaning 'do not retaliate'. I've also heard it interpreted as 'rolling with the punches', but that doesn't seem to make sense.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Turning the other cheek and asking for an explanation are not mutually exclusive, IMO.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

I'm just going to offer up one possible interpretation of the phrase 'turn the other cheek'. It could simply be a phrase of those times meaning 'do not retaliate'. I've also heard it interpreted as 'rolling with the punches', but that doesn't seem to make sense.

Thank you Revenant for honestly trying to explain it without running for cover as Sabro does between a dictionary that offers aid as a sanctuary with words of multiple meanings. He refuses to acknowledge the art of translating which is of catching the essence of what is being relayed.

I have already explained this several times, but I will do so again because it is at the beginning of the thread. Sabro, Bible translating committees have up to a hundred people on their boards and amongst them sometimes up to thousands of years of study and experience in ancient Biblical languages. If they felt the phrase or word warranted a different reading, then why didn`t they go with the one that relays the proper idea? You`re argument is with them on the matter, not me. Are you saying you know how it should be written and they do not?

Revenant, your possible meaning of it may or could have some merit. The only problem with that is the Bible is full of stories of retaliation. "Retaliation" also is a pretty clear word with a distinct meaning, and I think just by choosing to not retaliate would not necessary cause shame in the one who harmed you. What is important to cause shame in the phrase as it is written, is to offer yourself for further abuse and it is during this time of offering yourself to your abuser, he is afforded the chance to reflect on his action and bring him to being filled with "disgrace".

If I hit you and you remove yourself from the situation by not retaliating, then what would make me fill with disgrace? It is the "offering" of the second chance which brings the opportunity of the beligerant to be filled with "disgrace" and to protest it as Jesus did, he was appealing to reason to have it not visit upon him again. He wanted his abuser to reframe from hitting him. He was not offering his other cheek but seeking to defend it from further blows.

 

[No-name]

It could be one possible interpretation if true doesn't disqualify him as the Christ...he would still be living up to the virtues of his teachings. Also the disgrace phrase is often read as a prophetical hint of the crucifixion. When being beaten and savagely humiliated, rather than retaliate with a legion of Angels- he instead allowed himself to be murdered and forgave his murderers.

 

[Revenant]

If I hit you and you remove yourself from the situation by not retaliating, then what would fill me with disgrace? It is the "offering" of the second chance which brings the opportunity of the belligerant to be filled with "disgrace" and to protest it as Jesus did, he was appealing to reason to have it not visit upon him again. He wanted his abuser to refrain from hitting him. He was not offering his other cheek but seeking to defend it from further blows.

The bolded, can you be so sure of that? It seems to me there could quite possibly be a different intention based upon the circumstances. I can't quite put it into words now, as it is just 'something tugging at the back of my head' now.

Meanwhile, the high priest questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching.
"I have spoken openly to the world," Jesus replied. "I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret. Why question me? Ask those who heard me. Surely they know what I said."
When Jesus said this, one of the officials nearby struck him in the face. "Is this the way you answer the high priest?" he demanded.
"If I said something wrong," Jesus replied, "testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?"

 

[Maciamo]

Why does Jesus object to being struck? Why didn`t he accept it happily and offer the other cheek to be struck?

If Jesus is (the son of) God, then why does he care about being struck at all ? Some humans will tell you that pain is just an illusion. God shouldn't feel pain at all, as pain is just in the brain. Pain can be completely inhibited by electric impulses (using diodes) on the "pain part of the brain" (parietal lobe), or by the destruction or lobotomy of this area. I find it very weird that the son of an omnipotent god, who can perform miracles, should not have the power to inhibit its own pain.

Or was he concerned about his pride ? Why should god be worried about such lowly human concern ? It's not like God should care about its image towards humans, and worry that humans may not like him anymore.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Strongvoicesforward wrote: He wanted his abuser to refrain from hitting him. He was not offering his other cheek but seeking to defend it from further blows.

The bolded, can you be so sure of that? It seems to me there could quite possibly be a different intention based upon the circumstances. I can't quite put it into words now, as it is just 'something tugging at the back of my head' now.

We can never be sure 100% about anything. I am not sure if this whole world is an illusion of some sorts. But, what is most probable?

What is the most probable meaning of the phrase? Why would he seek to enter into a verbal jousting of questioning his abuser if he did not want to be hit again? Usually people ask for reasons for their abuse because they want an answer for something they feel was not justified. Jesus was doing just that. He wanted it to stop therefore, he asks his abuser to reflect on if what he did or said was something wrong or not deserving of being hit.

If his abuser does reflect on it and judges that it was wrong, then he may or may not become "filled with disgrace," but in that case, the means by which the disgrace comes about is not one of offering yourself for further abuse like Lamentations says, it would come about out of protest and defending yourself.

 

[No-name]

Maybe he was asking the question because he wanted the guy to think up an answer? It seems like a pretty socratic thing to do: consider your actions.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

I find it very weird that the son of an omnipotent god,...

Lots of strange and suspicious things in the stories surrounding Jesus.

Wasn`t Jesus omnipotent as it pertained to his mission? Surely he knew his mission here and surely he knew he would not be defeated and that he would in the end win out, right? Then, why should or would he even bother to care to ask his abuser for a reason?

In fact, why doesn`t he already even know why his abuser hit him? Being omnipotent he should either know, or being omnipotent and knowing that he is successful in his mission, he shouldn`t care about the strike to his face -- it is irrelevant. Why bring it up? Didn`t he know his mission was unfolding exactly the way it was intended to and that that strike on his face was the beginning of his physical abuse and ultimate death?

Why should he seek to question it or the tool (the abuser) of it? The abuser as the tool is an essential and necessary part to propel the plan. Asking it to cease or explain itself is showing either ignorance of its purpose or seeking to escape from that which he knows is unescapable because the outcome already exists in the future as a fatali accompli to an omnipotent God existing everywhere at all times.
Lots of strange and suspicious things in the stories surrounding Jesus.

Wasn`t Jesus omnipotent as it pertained to his mission? Surely he knew his mission here and surely he knew he would not be defeated and that he would in the end win out, right? Then, why should or would he even bother to care to ask his abuser for a reason?

Why should he seek to question it or the tool (the abuser) of it? The abuser as the tool is an essential and necessary part to propel the plan. Asking it to cease or explain itself is showing either ignorance of its purpose or seeking to escape from that which he knows is unescapable because the outcome already exists in the future as a fatali accompli to an omnipotent God existing everywhere at all times.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Maybe he was asking the question because he wanted the guy to think up an answer? It seems like a pretty socratic thing to do: consider your actions.

Maybe?! Or most probably? Don`t you have something to lead us to make us presume that that was his goal other than conjecture?

It is more honest Sabro to say, "I don`t know. It is probematic."

If such a road toward causing someone to becoming "full of disgrace" were the one put forth by the Bible, then why didn`t Lamentations say, "When thou are smitten, do not offer your other cheek, but question them as to the rightfulness of their actions so that they may consider them"?

Why doesn`t Jesus show us a good example of turning the other cheek when a clear cut opportunity to do so presents itself? Remember, we are told to use him as a model. So, is Lamentations worthless?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Turning the other cheek and asking for an explanation are not mutually exclusive, IMO.

The Lamentations verse tells us to do something in particular. It does not tell us to consider our options and then choose one.

 

[No-name]

I don't know, but it is absolutely not problematic. Problematic would have been a shuto zuki followed by a double spinning mawashi geri. (A knife hand strike followed by a double spinning roundhouse kick.)

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Originally Posted by John 18:19-23
Meanwhile, the high priest questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching.
"I have spoken openly to the world," Jesus replied. "I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret. Why question me? Ask those who heard me. Surely they know what I said."
When Jesus said this, one of the officials nearby struck him in the face. "Is this the way you answer the high priest?" he demanded.
"If I said something wrong," Jesus replied, "testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?"

Revenant, Jesus is lieing above. Perhaps that is why he was struck -- the high priestess knew it and answered his lie with a strike to the face to underscore it.

Jesus did not speak openly and did speak in secret. He spoke in ways to conceal his meanings and words from many. He spoke in strange parables so that others didn`t understand, and he purposely did so knowing others would not. It was his mode of operati to keep from being seen as an agitator and thus arrested much earlier than what he was.

Matt 13:10~11
The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?" He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.

Furthermore, he did not always teach at the temples and synogogues. He and his disciples were a wandering band of men, and he taught here and there throughout that land. Don`t you remember when Jesus fed everyone after they heard him speaking? He had his men make them sit in groups and provided enough food for all with the meager portions they had. Often people came up to him and he taught them at those times of opportunities.

Jesus tells the high priest to go ask those who heard him because he tells them that they would know what he said. How could they know what he said if he spoke in parables, and if those people in the temple or Synogogues were not the same people who he spoke to outside the Temple and Synogogue?

Now, some people who heard hin in the Temple and Synogogues may be able to relay what he said word per word -- but that does not equal "know." "Know" implies understanding. If someone speaks gibberish and the person hearing it has know idea as to the meaning of it, and then asked, "What did he say?" people most probably would answer, "I don`t know," or "I have no idea." They just wouldn`t repeat a dictation of what they heard because when people are asked to explain what they heard as an inquiry to meaning -- they seek understanding -- and if that understanding is not present, they answer, "I don't know."

He is being deceptive because he does not let the priests know that there are people who heard his teachings who were not in the Temples and Synogogues so how could all those who heard him proffer an answer to the High Priestess to vouch for Jesus as not saying anythng in secret?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

I don't know, but it is absolutely not problematic. Problematic would have been a shuto zuki followed by a double spinning mawashi geri. (A knife hand strike followed by a double spinning roundhouse kick.)

lol. See, I enjoy some nice witticism, too. But, I never was one to view the SOG as a Karate master. Please, don`t lose your "train of thought" on the topic matter.

 

[No-name]

"I don't know" doesn't mean it is problematic. I have no problem with it. I could have written "I don't know about that." I don't know what your point is, what you're trying to convey, what "particular" thing Lamentations is "telling" us to do. I don't know that this proves that Jesus is not the living savior.

 

[PRIZMATIC]

:note: In general that " to substitute a cheek " meant " to remain to a constant position " (to make a evoke( )), but somehow this sense has been lost and replaced with another - "restrained"... (so to me answered this question one priest...)
About that " the Son or not the Son " - the Bible, Zachariah, chapter 3. It is not necessary to forget, that Jesus is the phenomenon of "Light" in this world... "Light" before Lord... Also will judge this "Light" " the House of Lord "...
Before - "when we will not separate" the God from Lord God, until then all discussions on these themes will be "senseless"...:angel:

 

[No-name]

Always does not necessarily mean exclusively. It can also mean frequently. K-2! NIT,CDTE, PABM.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Always does not necessarily mean exclusively. It can also mean frequently. K-2! NIT,CDTE, PABM.

Sabro, you are reaching.

Sure, "always" can mean frequently when someone says something like, "I always think about you," but when Jesus uses it above to defend against a charge, it is meant to exclude any choice other than that which would cause his assertion to be true -- i.e. his accuser's assertion false.

If my wife asks me, "Did you put the newspaper on the toilet seat?" and I answered with, "No, I always put it on the kitchen counter," I am clearly excluding all possibilities so that her charge is not warranted.

Yes, always can be used in musing -- but when stressing a point to prove innocence or give information in a formal interrogation -- the word in most probable cases used by most reasonable people, takes on the stricter of the two meanings.

Are you going into the "that`s what it says, but not what it means" mode again?

Read the post in question above again with the underlined points and think about them and see how it causes the mind to go into rationalizing flips.