Crucifixion of Jesus

Caringheart wrote: islamispeace wrote: "Well, don't question God" OR "Don't think.  Just believe" OR "You need the holy spirit". "Well, don't question allah" or what Muhammad says allah said OR "Don't think.  Just believe" OR "You need Muhammad".

We have seen over and over again your failure to offer a rational answer to any of my questions.  The reason is clear.  Unlike my religion, which embraces and calls for us to use our common sense and rationality, your religion calls for you to not use your "human mind" to ponder the difficulties in your religion.  You will notice that I have never said that you need to think with more than just your "human mind".  Rather, it has been you who has told me that.  Why?  Because your religion is based on avoiding the difficult questions and simply believing what you have been told. 

Christianity must be the only religion which essentially states that in order to understand the religion, you must first believe in it!  After all, it is only after you believe that the "holy spirit" comes to you.     

islamispeace wrote: Caringheart wrote: islamispeace wrote: You didn't answer my question: Do you know what is the origin of the name "Yahweh"? I was waiting for you to share.  Well, if you were "waiting", then maybe you should say so instead of making me ask the question a second time! Anyway, see here: http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/08/the-bibles-yahweh-a-war-god-called-lord-of-armies-over-280-times-in-the-bible-and-lord-of-peace-just-once-i/ Here is an excerpt which deals specifically with the origins of the name "Yahweh": Yahweh originated from a war-god tradition.  Dr. Lloyd M. Barre writes: The earliest Yahwistic traditions reveal that Yahweh was a bedouin war god from the deserts of Edom and of the surrounding regions. His essentially warlike characteristics are demonstrated by his name, by cultic celebrations of his mighty deeds, and by his ark. Prof. Mark S. Smith notes on p.144 of The Origins of Biblical Monotheism that Yahweh was introduced to the Israelites as a �divine warrior [god] from the south.�  Indeed, �Yahweh and Baal co-existed and later competed as warrior-gods� (Ibid., p.33).  This motif continued in the Israelite tradition: the tribal warrior-god Yahweh went to war against competing gods and nations on behalf of Israel. Although Yahweh, the God the Israelites adopted, would one day become the supreme God of the land and eliminate his competition, initially he was just one of many competing �war and storm-gods;� as Prof. Erhard S. Gerstenberger writes on p.151 of Theologies of the Old Testament (emphasis added): Yahweh was not always God in Israel and at every social level.  Rather, initially he belongs only to the storm and war gods like Baal, Anath, Hadad, Resheph and Chemosh�His original homeland was the southern regions of present-day Palestine and Jordan.  Thus the regional and functional, cultural and social limitations of Yahweh should be beyond all doubt.  The elaboration of ideas about Yahweh, e.g. as a guarantor of fertility, personal good fortune, head of a pantheon, creator of the world, judge of the world, etc. is gradual and only fully unfolds in the exilic/post-exilic age, always in connection with social and historical changes. In other words, Yahweh started out as a �storm and war god,� and only later acquired other functions now commonly associated with God, including for example the ability to create.

Greetings islamispeace,

I've just been reading at the link you provided (not the loonwatch one, as I don't put much credence in anything that I read there, and I avoid it like the plague )
and checking on the reputation of the writer Lloyd M. Barre,
and consulting my Bibles,
and I must say that I am flummoxed.

I have been studying Psalm 82, Numbers 23-24, Deuteronomy16:18, and John 10;
in the formats of, the Restoration Study Bible which includes Strong's Hebrew and Greek concordances, the Geneva Bible, and the NLT;
and indeed I can understand why so much arguing goes on among the Jewish scholars in Yeshiva, over the understanding, meaning, interpretation, and application of their scriptures.

Here are the notes I took:

Numbers 23 - El and Yahweh - I must say I am entirely flummoxed
Numbers indeed seems to speak of more than one god

The trouble is... why did people believe Balaam?
the same as, why did they believe Muhammad?
In either case there is no proof that God spoke.
Why is there any reason to think that these are not mere men doing what they think is best for their people?
I have the same problem with this(Numbers) as I do with Muhammad... seems very self-serving... conquest oriented.
It seems to teach the same way Muhammad taught.

 Here is a people, like a lion.... become drunk on the blood of his victims. - Numbers 23
 ... drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs - Revelation 17:6


Then I went on to read through Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32, and things began to make more sense.

This is from the link you shared, (i.e., Lloyd M. Barre)

Psalm 82 is remarkable in that it has El "firing" all his sons and condemning them to mortality. Although this Psalm shares the same view of El and his sons, this tradition descends from northern tradition and in this respect differs from the Jerusalem tradition found in Deut 32:8-9. In Psalm 82, Yahweh is not explicitly mentioned even though Deut 32:8-9 would place him among the "sons of Elyon" (v. 6).

I disagree that Psalm 82 refers to 'sons' which are gods.  It is unclear what mighty ones means.  Leaders like the Pharaohs might have been considered 'mighty ones', as they perceived themselves to be like gods, or sons of gods.  So the wording or the concept may have carried with the Hebrews who had been in Egypt.  The passage may be meant to say, 'ye are men that will die the same as anybody else'. 

I could accept from Deuteronomy 32, that the Israelites at some point began to follow a war god(a false god - one that met the needs and justified their unjustifiable actions under the leadership of Joshua.).  I have always had trouble with the god of the old testament.  A separate (false)god known as Yahweh, as opposed to the other references to El in the scriptures would resolve this issue for me.  The people of Jacob (renamed Israel by Yahweh) following and belonging to Yahweh... this would explain alot.

Deuteronomy 32:6 however, in no way indicates Yahweh as 'among the sons of Elyon'.  Not that I am finding.

and this;

 Psalm 29 is remarkable in that while Yahweh appears here also as one of the sons of El, this psalm portrays a highly dynamic god who does not fit the profile of the subordinate god who ruled over a portion of his father's domain. Psalm 29 is much closer to Canaanite thought than to Deut 32:8-9 and Psalm 82. It appears that we have some variation with regard to the characteristics of El�s pantheon--one which shares many of the dynamic qualities of Canaanite myth (Psalm 29), while another that may be described as presenting the cosmic adminstrative rule of El by his sons.

Again, Psalm 29 does not indicate Yahweh as a 'son of El'

Psalm 82 is not necessarily referencing a pantheon of gods, but rather
'Elohim standeth in the congregation of the mighty ones' could merely have meant (when the Hebrew writers were writing), that El rules over the mighty of men... as mentioned earlier, as in Egypt, the Hebrews would have been trained to believe that the pharaohs were gods(i.e., mighty ones).
So I disagree with this writer's interpretation.

Yshwe(Christianity) is the polished up version of Judaism, and islam...

'all have gone astray'

6 All we, like sheep, have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

asalaam, I am rather exhausted now from that study.  Thanks for sharing, I feel that I learned alot.



Edited by Caringheart - 27 September 2014 at 10:47pm

I came across this, which I found amazing and disturbing, a thing which I had never picked up on before.   So I did some further study.

Exodus 6
Then Yahweh said unto Moses, Now shalt thou see what I will do to Pharaoh: for with a strong hand shall he let them go, and with a strong hand shall he drive them out of his land.

2 And Elohim spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am Yahweh:

3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of El Shaddai, but by my name Yahweh was I not known to them.

I wondered, is it possible that Moses followed a false god(YHWH)?

When I go to my Restoration Study Bible, to the Hebrew concordance this is what I find.

el - strength, mighty; especially the Almighty (but used also of any deity) - God

elohim - plural, gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used of the supreme God

Yahweh (Yhovah) - the self-existant, or eternal; Jewish national name of God

Shaddai - Almighty, thus,
El Shaddai - God Almighty

So it seems that among the Hebrews also, the supreme Creator had many names?

Adonai was another name for God


It still seems possible to me that Moses was called by a war god named Yahweh... a false god that led him by deception?

It is perhaps possible that this Yahweh was not the same 'God' that appeared to Abraham, though he claimed to be?

It would explain alot.

¹⁴ And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

It also shakes up the foundations of what all of us believe....
'and I shall raise up a prophet like unto Moses'?

Final thoughts:

So where did things go wrong?

As far as I can see things went wrong after the death of Moses... at the time when the people entered Canaan and spread death throughout the land.  I can not see where Moses did any wrong.  He seemed a true prophet of God. 

So did the people, when they ceased to have a good ruler to follow, once again go about their own wills as they had when Moses was gone on Mt. Sinai?  Carrying out the instruction of Moses to enter into the land of Canaan, in the way that they chose?  Did the Spirit of God leave them to the wiles of the devil once again when Moses died?

If I believe this, then I must believe that akin to the muslims, the hebrews simply had many names for the Creator(i.e., God).

Edited by Caringheart - 28 September 2014 at 9:13pm

facts facts facts

 

The Historical Evidence #1. Eyewitness Sources

There are many evidences from which one can argue for the historicity of Christ�s death by crucifixion, of which I will use only a few.  The first evidence for Jesus� crucifixion is from the testimony of eyewitness sources.  Many Muslims do not believe there is eyewitness material in the accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus.  In fact, one Muslim claims that �Not a single one of the Christians was a witness with them [the Jews]. Rather the apostles kept a distance through fear, and not one of them witnessed the crucifixion.�

This argument is largely based upon Matthew 26:56 which says, �Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.� Though the disciples forsook Jesus, some of them were still witnesses from a distance (Mark 14:54).  Also, there was an anonymous disciple whom Jesus, while on the cross, commanded to take care of Mary (John 19:26-27).  The Gospel of Luke reports that while Jesus was carrying the cross, �. . . there followed him a great company of people, and of women, which also bewailed and lamented him (Luke 23:27, emphasis mine).�  In addition to these people already mentioned the Gospels are scattered with references to Jewish leaders (Mt. 27:41; Mk. 15:31), Roman centurion (Mt. 27:54; Mk. 15:39; Lk. 23:47) and soldiers (Mt. 27:35; Mk. 15:24; Lk. 23:35; and John 19:18, 23) who all witnessed Jesus� crucifixion.  For Muslims to argue that the crucifixion is not historical simply does not square with the historical data because there were multitudes of witnesses to the fact that the Romans crucified Jesus.

#2. Medical Evidence

In light of the eyewitness evidence from the gospels, there is strong medical evidence that confirms the historicity of Christ�s death as presented in the Gospels.  Before examining the medical evidence, as a general point the Romans knew how to crucify their victims.  To suppose that the Romans would have allowed Jesus to escape the cross, is nonsensical.  The Romans knew how to kill someone and they knew when someone was dead. 

Concerning the specific medical evidence, the gospels report specific conditions that a crucified victim would have experienced.  First, in Jesus� pre-crucifixion experience in the Garden of Gethsemane, the Gospel of Luke reports that Jesus sweated �great drops of blood� (Luke 22:44).  According to Alexander Metherell an M.D. and Ph.D., �This is a known medical condition called hematidrosis.�  He later acknowledges that tremendous stress like the kind that Jesus suffered could have produced this effect. 

Second, Jesus� desire, while on the cross, to receive a drink confirms the fact that he likely was experiencing another known medical condition called hypovolemic shock, which would have been caused by his beating. According to Metherell, hypovolemic schock �. . . does four things. First, the heart races to try to pump blood that isn�t there; second, the blood pressure drops, causing fainting or collapse; third, the kidneys stop producing urine to maintain what volume is left; and fourth, the person becomes very thirsty as the body craves fluids to replace the lost blood volume.�

Third, the evidence from the spear thrust confirms the idea that Jesus did indeed die on the cross.  Concerning this Matherell states that hypovolemic shock causes a rapid heart beat which results in fluid around the heart called a pericardial effusion.  The Gospel of John testifies to this fact in John 19:34 which says, �. . . one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.� Metherell continues, �The spear apparently went through the right lung and into the heart, so when the spear was pulled out, some fluid � the pericardial effusion and the pleural effusion � came out.  This would have the appearance of a clear fluid like water.� Therefore, given the above specific medical evidence, the Journal of the American Medical Association is justified to conclude, �. . . interpretations based on the assumption that Jesus did not die on the cross appear to be at odds with modern medical knowledge.�