Zone1 Why was Jesus crucified?

[theHawk]

You just aren't used to someone thinking and considering variables before typing something. You have thus far not demonstrated any critical thinking about your request, so I'm left having to do all the thinking. Help a brother out -- let me know what the parameters of your request are, or I might give you one that is from over 2000 years ago, by way of the Aramaic

אֶשְׁתְּעֵי קְיָמָא דַייָ אֲמַר חֲבִיב כְּבַר לְאַבָּא לִי אַנְתְּ זַכָּאָה כְּאִלוּ יוֹמָא דֵין בְּרֵיתָךְ
I will tell of the covenant of the Lord. He said: “You are as dear to Me as a son to a father, pure as if this day I had created you.”

and you will have no way to critique that.

So is this wrong?

7 I will tell of the decree; The Lord said to me, "You are My son; this day have I begotten you

https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16223

 

[theHawk]

you claim fluency in several languages?----<<<THAT'S LOTS OF DISSEMBLING

^^ more tap dancing.

 

[rosends]

So is this wrong?

7 I will tell of the decree; The Lord said to me, "You are My son; this day have I begotten you

https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16223

I don't think "wrong" is a word one can use for that. It is limited and incomplete in certain ways, and more than others would include in other ways. That's the limitation of any translation. The Judaica Press is good but agendized and the same can be said for many other translations. When it comes to translations, it is important to know the priority and methodology of the translators. If someone were to study Hebrew, and then take an English verse and try to translate it TO Hebrew, he would not end up with the wording that is in the verse based on that translation.

Some suggested reading

Books: Machine translation of "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." to Russian and back

 

[irosie91]

^^ more tap dancing.

no-----a very reasonable observation regarding translations.
Are you willing to DIVULGE the languages in which you are fluent and
well read?

 

[Clyde 154]

Josephus wasn't born when Jesus was crucified. There were lots of itinerant preachers. Remember, Herod Antipas in the north ignored Jesus.

And? Born in 37 A.D. This stops this historian from presenting accurate history considering He lived during the same generation when the infant church was being established while a great many original disciples of Christ still lived, not to mention the Roman's that occupied Jerusalem while the church was being established.

What? So called historians that lived 1000s of years removed from the establishment of Christianity know more than one who had access to all the Roman Empire records during this time period. Josephus was engaged by the Roman Empire to record history...as per Josephus adopting the family name of the Roman Emperor (FLAVUIS)

And you cannot declare that Josephus supported Christianity, he was one of the leaders (A General) of the Jewish movement to combat the Roman Empire under the guise of Jewish prophecy being carried out, until he surrendered to the Roman Empire and was converted by the Empire to become an official Roman Historian. Josephus was an enemy of Christianity.......yet He made direct historical references to Jesus and His executioner (Pilate) in his record from "Antiquities of the Jews" in the late 1st century.

Who to believe.........one that lived history such as Josephus or those who attempt to redefine history 2000 years after the fact? Josephus is an independent confirmation of the "historicity" of a carpenter's son named Jesus Christ.

 

[irosie91]

And? Born in 37 A.D. This stops this historian from presenting accurate history considering He lived during the same generation when the infant church was being established while a great many original disciples of Christ still lived, not to mention the Roman's that occupied Jerusalem while the church was being established.

What? So called historians that lived 1000s of years removed from the establishment of Christianity know more than one who had access to all the Roman Empire records during this time period. Josephus was engaged by the Roman Empire to record history...as per Josephus adopting the family name of the Roman Emperor (FLAVUIS)

And you cannot declare that Josephus supported Christianity, he was one of the leaders (A General) of the Jewish movement to combat the Roman Empire under the guise of Jewish prophecy being carried out, until he surrendered to the Roman Empire and was converted by the Empire to become an official Roman Historian. Josephus was an enemy of Christianity.......yet He made direct historical references to Jesus and His executioner (Pilate) in his record from "Antiquities of the Jews" in the late 1st century.

Who to believe.........one that lived history such as Josephus or those who attempt to redefine history 2000 years after the fact? Josephus is an independent confirmation of the "historicity" of a carpenter's son named Jesus Christ.

so true---not much of a Jesus historicity------so scanty owing to its lack of importance that vatican officials tried to fix it up. At the time that Josephus WROTE his book---he was not only not a general or a leader amongst jews-----he was an OUTCAST to the
point of being threatened with death and remained a person of questionable
character for jews for more than 1000 years

 

[BreezeWood]

What historical record do you have?

So far you have provided ziltch.

the claim made by judas - for their silver ...

your c-bible claims jesus claimed to be a messiah - the only historical record of someone claiming such a claim was judas ... prove otherwise. a historical record, best in jesus's handwriting or some other form jesus used ...

 

[BreezeWood]

he ATTACKED ROMAN INTERESTS publically

never happened ... obviously a descendant pub of the trump era. 91.

- jesus taught liberation theology, self determination - scaring the jews and romans (christians) alike. they had to murder him, what would the children be thinking.

something different than servitude and denial.

 

[irosie91]

the claim made by judas - for their silver ...

your c-bible claims jesus claimed to be a messiah - the only historical record of someone claiming such a claim was judas ... prove otherwise. a historical record, best in jesus's handwriting or some other form jesus used ...

yeah right----what's putatively written by MATTHEW the shill for Rome TAX COLLECTOR

 

[irosie91]

never happened ... obviously a descendant pub of the trump era. 91.

- jesus taught liberation theology, self determination - scaring the jews and romans (christians) alike. they had to murder him, what would the children be thinking.

something different than servitude and denial.

Jesus said "I don't care what my mom, Mary says---I will not wash my hands before lunch"

 

[theHawk]

I don't think "wrong" is a word one can use for that. It is limited and incomplete in certain ways, and more than others would include in other ways. That's the limitation of any translation. The Judaica Press is good but agendized and the same can be said for many other translations. When it comes to translations, it is important to know the priority and methodology of the translators. If someone were to study Hebrew, and then take an English verse and try to translate it TO Hebrew, he would not end up with the wording that is in the verse based on that translation.

Some suggested reading

Books: Machine translation of "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." to Russian and back

Cool, then you agree it is God declaring he has a son, that he begot.

Along with 2 Sam 7:14 “I will be his father, and he will be my son“, there is no doubt God has one begotten son.

Because “some people” claim that there is no concept of ”God the Father”, or that he has a begotten son.

 

[BreezeWood]

Jesus said "I don't care what my mom, Mary says---I will not wash my hands before lunch"

... obviously a descendant pub of the trump era. 91.

''' is that descendant or deviant ... or, could it be - both.

jesus used only water from mountain streams cleansed by boulders and the temperature just above freezing ... than the dirty waters of the judain temples.

 

[BreezeWood]

yeah right----what's putatively written by MATTHEW the shill for Rome TAX COLLECTOR

one of those w/ moses living in torment for the forgeries and fallacies they knowingly wrote against the heavenly prescribed religion of antiquity granted a&e for their journey and self determination.

 

[rosends]

Cool, then you agree it is God declaring he has a son, that he begot.

In some sense. In an English statement, you can call someone "son" or "brother" and not actually mean a biological relationship. The simple use of an English word doesn't always capture meaning. If I said "He gave birth to the idea of computer networks -- he is the father of the internet" I still wouldn't mean anything biological; I would be speaking of a relationship. The bible uses language of physicality in many situations where it must be symbolic -- does God have a right hand or a finger or a back? No but to communicate something that can be related to, the text uses language that will trigger human understanding through connotative language.

Along with 2 Sam 7:14 “I will be his father, and he will be my son“, there is no doubt God has one begotten son.

Except what about all the other times "father/son" imagery is used for God and his relationship to others?

I Chronicles 22:9-10​

Behold, a son shall be born to you [David],...his name shall be Solomon....He shall build a house for My Name; he shall be a son to Me, and I will be a Father to him, and I will establish his royal throne in Israel forever.

Exodus 4:22​

And you shall say to Pharaoh: Thus says the L-rd: "Israel is My son, My firstborn."

Hosea 11:1​

When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son.

Because “some people” claim that there is no concept of ”God the Father”, or that he has a begotten son.

In Judaism there is a very important idea of God qua parent as one of the ways to understand our relationship to him. But there is no concept of physical siring any more than there is in a sentence like "Nikola Tesla is recognized as one of the fathers of modern electricity. "

Nikola Tesla: Father of Our Modern Energy Systems

Call 866-550-1550. Discover fascinating facts about Nikola Tesla, the groundbreaking pioneer who laid the groundwork for the way we use electricity today.

justenergy.com

I would suggest that you not try to either impute positions or restate my position as you don't seem to grasp my point. You should ask clarifying questions instead of presuming and therefore misrepresenting another's position.

 

[Clyde 154]

In some sense. In an English statement, you can call someone "son" or "brother" and not actually mean a biological relationship. The simple use of an English word doesn't always capture meaning. If I said "He gave birth to the idea of computer networks -- he is the father of the internet" I still wouldn't mean anything biological; I would be speaking of a relationship. The bible uses language of physicality in many situations where it must be symbolic -- does God have a right hand or a finger or a back? No but to communicate something that can be related to, the text uses language that will trigger human understanding through connotative language.

Except what about all the other times "father/son" imagery is used for God and his relationship to others?

I Chronicles 22:9-10​

Behold, a son shall be born to you [David],...his name shall be Solomon....He shall build a house for My Name; he shall be a son to Me, and I will be a Father to him, and I will establish his royal throne in Israel forever.

Exodus 4:22​

And you shall say to Pharaoh: Thus says the L-rd: "Israel is My son, My firstborn."

Hosea 11:1​

When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son.


In Judaism there is a very important idea of God qua parent as one of the ways to understand our relationship to him. But there is no concept of physical siring any more than there is in a sentence like "Nikola Tesla is recognized as one of the fathers of modern electricity. "

Nikola Tesla: Father of Our Modern Energy Systems

Call 866-550-1550. Discover fascinating facts about Nikola Tesla, the groundbreaking pioneer who laid the groundwork for the way we use electricity today.

justenergy.com

I would suggest that you not try to either impute positions or restate my position as you don't seem to grasp my point. You should ask clarifying questions instead of presuming and therefore misrepresenting another's position.

According to the revealed word of God (All scripture is inspired of God -- 2 Tim. 3:16)............Jesus' literal Father was the Holy Spirit of God.......there is no ambiguity in this revelation (Luke 1:35). There is quite a difference in calling someone somone son or brother, and actually being a direct descendent.

Some attempt to argue based upon a logical fallacy..............just because The president of the US has a son does not make the son a president. Reality: The presidency is an appointed office, not a biological office. Jesus is God........because His Father is God. He can be nothing else. The Jews knew that Jesus was claiming to be God because He claimed He is the Son of God (John 5:18)

 

[theHawk]

In some sense. In an English statement, you can call someone "son" or "brother" and not actually mean a biological relationship. The simple use of an English word doesn't always capture meaning. If I said "He gave birth to the idea of computer networks -- he is the father of the internet" I still wouldn't mean anything biological; I would be speaking of a relationship. The bible uses language of physicality in many situations where it must be symbolic -- does God have a right hand or a finger or a back? No but to communicate something that can be related to, the text uses language that will trigger human understanding through connotative language.

Except what about all the other times "father/son" imagery is used for God and his relationship to others?

I Chronicles 22:9-10​

Behold, a son shall be born to you [David],...his name shall be Solomon....He shall build a house for My Name; he shall be a son to Me, and I will be a Father to him, and I will establish his royal throne in Israel forever.

Exodus 4:22​

And you shall say to Pharaoh: Thus says the L-rd: "Israel is My son, My firstborn."

Hosea 11:1​

When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son.


In Judaism there is a very important idea of God qua parent as one of the ways to understand our relationship to him. But there is no concept of physical siring any more than there is in a sentence like "Nikola Tesla is recognized as one of the fathers of modern electricity. "

Nikola Tesla: Father of Our Modern Energy Systems

Call 866-550-1550. Discover fascinating facts about Nikola Tesla, the groundbreaking pioneer who laid the groundwork for the way we use electricity today.

justenergy.com

I would suggest that you not try to either impute positions or restate my position as you don't seem to grasp my point. You should ask clarifying questions instead of presuming and therefore misrepresenting another's position.

Yet the term “begotten” is not used in those cases. God did not father those children, men did.

 

[irosie91]

In some sense. In an English statement, you can call someone "son" or "brother" and not actually mean a biological relationship. The simple use of an English word doesn't always capture meaning. If I said "He gave birth to the idea of computer networks -- he is the father of the internet" I still wouldn't mean anything biological; I would be speaking of a relationship. The bible uses language of physicality in many situations where it must be symbolic -- does God have a right hand or a finger or a back? No but to communicate something that can be related to, the text uses language that will trigger human understanding through connotative language.

Except what about all the other times "father/son" imagery is used for God and his relationship to others?

I Chronicles 22:9-10​

Behold, a son shall be born to you [David],...his name shall be Solomon....He shall build a house for My Name; he shall be a son to Me, and I will be a Father to him, and I will establish his royal throne in Israel forever.

Exodus 4:22​

And you shall say to Pharaoh: Thus says the L-rd: "Israel is My son, My firstborn."

Hosea 11:1​

When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son.


In Judaism there is a very important idea of God qua parent as one of the ways to understand our relationship to him. But there is no concept of physical siring any more than there is in a sentence like "Nikola Tesla is recognized as one of the fathers of modern electricity. "

Nikola Tesla: Father of Our Modern Energy Systems

Call 866-550-1550. Discover fascinating facts about Nikola Tesla, the groundbreaking pioneer who laid the groundwork for the way we use electricity today.

justenergy.com

I would suggest that you not try to either impute positions or restate my position as you don't seem to grasp my point. You should ask clarifying questions instead of presuming and therefore misrepresenting another's position.

in my observation and experience----the use of the word AV and its permutations in Hebrew and Aramaic is ENDLESS. Anyone who insists that the word indicates a
BIOLOGICAL CONNECTION proves that he has ABSOLUTELY no experience with either
Aramaic or Hebrew

 

[rosends]

Yet the term “begotten” is not used in those cases. God did not father those children, men did.

That presents a bunch of different problems then. Here is the translation you used

"I will tell of the decree; The Lord said to me, "You are My son; this day have I begotten you."

First, Psalms 2:7 has a first and second person:

I (the speaker, David) will tell of the decree [by God]
The Lord said to me (the speaker, David)
"You are my son; this day I have begotten you"

If you want to see a biological and literal notion of "begotten" then you should also consider that the birthing happened ON THAT DAY so it cannot refer to anyone not born on that day. And, if you want to read it literally, it seems to mean that God birthed THE SPEAKER. Is that your understanding?

You are now focused on the verb "y'lee'd'teecha" from the verb y-l-d (to give birth).

Men can't give birth, so God would be saying that he is the MOTHER, not father. In biblical text, though, the word is used sometimes to indicate the father's involvement, but since it is used for both mother and father (it can't be literal birthing and) it doesn't make clear if God is the father or mother. Since it says elsewhere that God is father to a variety of people and things, that doesn't clarify the use in this case. So that's another problem.

Next, that verb doesn't just mean literally birthing (which is why it can refer to fathers). In Zephania 2:2, the same verb is used to indicate that laws are "born". A day "births" things in Proverbs 27:1. In Ecclesiastes 4:14, a man becomes poor (using the same verb for "becomes").

Take a look at Deut 2:18 -- in that verse, either a rock gave birth to the nation (literally?) or God, symbolized by the rock "begot" the nation -- same verb.

Isaiah 33:11, using that verb, someone literally birthed straw?
Isaiah 66:8 -- a nation is born using that word.

So the word can mean "biologically gave birth to" and also symbolically, "brought about" and it is used about a variety of "birthers" and "things being born."

In 2:7, you are trying to draw out a biological relationship because of the use of the word, but then are missing what the word is used for in a variety of biblical contexts so your interpretation is limited.

Remember when I gave you this translation?

"I will tell of the covenant of the Lord. He said: “You are as dear to Me as a son to a father, pure as if this day I had created you.” "

Now you can see why it might be more complete and useful for understanding than just using the Judaica Press one.

 

[rosends]

in my observation and experience----the use of the word AV and its permutations in Hebrew and Aramaic is ENDLESS. Anyone who insists that the word indicates a
BIOLOGICAL CONNECTION proves that he has ABSOLUTELY no experience with either
Aramaic or Hebrew

Sometimes it is more fun to lean into the limited understanding and see where it goes. If one claims AV points to a biological fatherhood, then all one needs to do is insist on consistency, and look in other cases where AV is used but it CAN'T be biological. Then ask about those cases.

 

[surada]

And? Born in 37 A.D. This stops this historian from presenting accurate history considering He lived during the same generation when the infant church was being established while a great many original disciples of Christ still lived, not to mention the Roman's that occupied Jerusalem while the church was being established.

What? So called historians that lived 1000s of years removed from the establishment of Christianity know more than one who had access to all the Roman Empire records during this time period. Josephus was engaged by the Roman Empire to record history...as per Josephus adopting the family name of the Roman Emperor (FLAVUIS)

And you cannot declare that Josephus supported Christianity, he was one of the leaders (A General) of the Jewish movement to combat the Roman Empire under the guise of Jewish prophecy being carried out, until he surrendered to the Roman Empire and was converted by the Empire to become an official Roman Historian. Josephus was an enemy of Christianity.......yet He made direct historical references to Jesus and His executioner (Pilate) in his record from "Antiquities of the Jews" in the late 1st century.

Who to believe.........one that lived history such as Josephus or those who attempt to redefine history 2000 years after the fact? Josephus is an independent confirmation of the "historicity" of a carpenter's son named Jesus Christ.

Yep.