The reason the Father loves Me is that I lay
down My life in order to take it up again.No one takes it from me, but I lay it
down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it
up again. This command I received from my Father." (John 10:17-18)
A very misleading statement from Jesus. The above saying could not have referred to
Jesus since, the synoptics make no mention of this. To go even deeper the
synoptics were written much earlier than John, and within the synoptics we read
a very interesting saying by Jesus which contradicts what John attributed to
him.
In any case, I must press on today and
tomorrow and the next day--for surely no prophet can die outside Jerusalem!
(Luke 13:33)
Did you catch the problem? Luke who wrote
much earlier than John tells us, according to the saying of Jesus, "no
prophet can die outside Jerusalem"
We know from the synoptics and John that
Jesus was a prophet. And to make things even worse for John, Jesus was
crucified outside Jerusalem. Which means, John's record of Jesus saying he came to lay down his life was a lie, since Luke tells us "no prophet can die
outside Jerusalem" this would mean Jesus was not crucified or killed. thus, he never laid down his life.
Who are we to trust when two authors
blatantly contradict each other? In fact, Luke goes to say his account are far
more detailed than anyone else.
1Inasmuch as
many have undertaken to draw up a narration concerning the things having been
accomplished among us, 2just as
those from the beginning
having been eyewitnesses and servants of the word delivered them to us, 3it seemed good also to me, having been
acquainted with all things carefully from the first, to write with method to
you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you
may know the certainty concerning the things which you were instructed. (Luke
1:1-4)
It gets worse. Luke writes in his version of the gospel that
Jesus prayed to God to be saved.
"Father, if you are willing, take this
cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done." (Luke 22:42)
Wait! John tells us Jesus said he came to lay
down his life. Luke on the other hand writing decades before John tell us,
Jesus prayed to God to be saved? It seems clear John inserted words in the
mouth of Jesus, possibly after reading Luke's account.
If Jesus really came to lay his life as
Christians believe, why then did he run away from the Jews when they were tried
to kill him (throwing stones at him)?
According to Matthew another author who wrote decades before John
records Jesus saying
But go and learn what this means: 'I desire
mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but
sinners." (Matthew 9:13)
Here we read, Jesus telling the Jews he
desires mercy not sacrifice. This would mean John's idea of Jesus sacrificing
himself, i.e. laying down his life was a lie and could not have been uttered by
him. Saying that the Jews never believed messiah was to be killed. Here's
another problem with John's account. According to John, Jesus said
"If I testify about myself, my testimony
is not true. (John 5:31)
If Jesus really said this, then John 10:17-18
should be dismissed. Jesus has put a
condition on himself to clarify if he speaks the truth. One way to find out is,
if Jesus testifies anything about himself then this testimony shouldn't be
accepted singularly. Rather if someone else also testifies for Jesus, then that
would be a valid testimony. So, who else testified what Jesus said regarding
laying down his life? Do you see the
problem and dilemma Johns account put Jesus in.
We conclude, Jesus did not say he came to lay
down his life, nor do we find anyone else testifying what Jesus said.
Case dismissed
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletehow can we use nt to prove that jesus did not want to die willingly or unwillingly .
ReplyDelete1. he tells judas that judas will be seated and RULING israel along with the others.
2. he goes around telling the "evil and adulterous genration" repent for the kingdom of god is nigh
3. he made false prophecy and thought he would be ruling very soon
QUOTE :
Some standing here (Peter, James and John) saw the power of the coming kingdom.
But there's really nothing in their transfiguration experience that suggests any "coming" of the kingdom, in even the loosest of senses. Yes, it was a display of Jesus' exaltation and even divinity; but that's not really at all what the "kingdom" was understood to consist of, either in early Jewish thought or elsewhere in the New Testament too — where it was primarily associated with the eschatological triumph of Israel and, later, the final judgment and so on.
In fact, this is made very clear in the parallel to Mark 8:38–9:1 in Matthew 16 itself:
27 “For the Son of Man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay everyone for what has been done. 28 Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
(We talked about this recently on AcademicBiblical, here.)
Peter writes about this event:
For we did not follow cleverly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.
There's actually something about this which makes it very hard to interpret the "coming" as a reference to the transfiguration itself. I have it in my notes somewhere; trying to find it. [Edit;] Okay, I found my notes on this. In a nutshell, "power and coming" in 2 Peter 1:16 likely represent two separate modes or bookends of Jesus' authority: his preternatural/miraculous power during the incarnation, and his return in power at the eschaton. Several things support this interpretation — including the author's denial that these constitute mythoi, myths or fables.
Afterlife punishment was commonly thought of by certain Greco-Roman critics as being one of these most egregious "myths" or falsehoods/superstitions; and so it's probably the association of Jesus' eschatological parousia with judgment/punishment (see Acts 10:42; Romans 2:16; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9 and any number of other texts) that the author has in mind here and seeks to defend. We might also connect the use of dynamis, "power," with "myths0", if this term evokes Jesus' life being permeated with miracles/supernatural events, in light of a Greco-Roman criticism of these as well.
By connecting these with his eyewitness, the author of 2 Peter is saying that his personal witness attests that Jesus was a genuinely powerful/preternatural figure — which also guarantees the truth of his return (see Acts 17:31).
Also, ironically, although people frequently appeal to 2 Peter 3 to support the "delayed parousia" interpretation too, a close reading of this suggests that it was very much affirming that the parousia was imminent within that generation.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/bjmpc0/is_matthew_2434_considered_a_failed_prophecy/emalfti/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=Christianity&utm_content=t1_ems4twp
and the last, HOW is it that prophet of god goes around TELLING the jews that they reject torah, they reject the prophets, they reject REPENTANCE would willingly want to DIE for their sins? this is a prophet going around CONDEMNING these people and Big cities, and imagine a VIOLENT destruction of these people, why is he "willing sacrifice" ? this idea of "willing sacrifice" was clearly INVETED later, in gospel of john it gets invented right from the BAPTISM!
AND it gets WORSE
ReplyDeletehow would a "rabbi" understand the teaching of ezekiel and other verses where god says he abhor human sacrifice and children should not atone for SINS of their parents via DEATH of children?