Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Bible Study Good Friday?

.
There were three hours of inky darkness during the Lord's crucifixion. What do you suppose went on in there? Well; I'll tell you what went on. God brutally thrashed the stuffings out of His own son.

†. Isa 52:14-15 . . there were many who were appalled at him-- his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness --thus will he sprinkle many nations

The Romans whipped the Lord to within an inch of his life, slapped him around, crowned him with thorns, and drove nails into his palms and his feet. But that was child's play compared to what God did. By the time those hours of darkness lifted; the Lord's own mother would have trouble recognizing him.

†. Luke 23:48 . .When all the people who had gathered to witness this sight saw what took place, they beat their breasts and went away.

Yes, of course they beat their breasts; you know why? Because they were having trouble catching their breath. The extent of the Lord's injuries were so horrific that they could scarcely tell he was the same man.

If the Bible's God would do that to a child of His own, think what He has in store for outsiders who poo-poo the importance of what took place there that day and mock His son and make remarks about him.

†. Heb 10:29-30 . .Think how much more terrible the punishment will be for those who have trampled on the Son of God and have treated the blood of the covenant as if it were common and unholy. Such people have insulted and enraged the Holy Spirit who brings God's mercy to his people. For we know the one who said: I will take vengeance. I will repay those who deserve it.

Well . . their punishment isn't all that hard to guess is it? Fair's fair. At the very least, they will be beaten and bloodied beyond recognition, same as he was.

Did the walker on water, the controller of weather, mender of paralysis and withered limbs, maker of wine from water; and raiser of the dead; feel any pain during his ordeal? Yes.

†. Isa 53:10 . . It was Yhvh's will to crush him and cause him to suffer (some versions say: put him to grief)

I should think that the word "suffer" says it all.

†. Acts 1:3 . . He showed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs

The Greek word for "passion" is pascho (pas'-kho) which means: to experience a sensation or impression (usually painful)

The below is an impassioned plea heard from the cross.

†. Matt 27:46 . . My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Here it is again; this time with some parts that were missing.

†. Ps 22:1 . . My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?

The Hebrew word for "roaring" is sheagah (sheh-aw-gaw') which means: a rumbling or moan.

In other words: people standing around the cross that day during those three hours of inky dark couldn't see anything, but they could sure hear: and what they heard were the dreadful cries of a man in extreme discomfort.

Buen Camino
/
 
God did not torment His Son. He gave His Son to be tormented and murdered that He might glorify Him with victory over death and the world. Read all of Psalm 22.
 
.
God did not torment His Son.
Pretty hard to believe; isn't it? that God would beat the tar out of His own son? Takes some getting used to.


Buen Camino
/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If the Gospel don't provide sure information concerning the detail of the Passion... then we can not be sure of the Passion itself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If the Gospel don't provide sure information concerning the detail of the Passion... then we can not be sure of the Passion itself.

Sure we can! We just can't be sure of the details. This means the details are not what is important in the Passion. However, once we accept the correct overarching theme, we can then begin to perceive details which support it.
 
If the Gospel, do not provide some details, then those ditails are secundary and irrelevants. But if the Word of God give us some ditails, those ditails can not be wrong. If we found contradictions in the Word of God, even in the acount of the Pasion, then we are in deep trouble. Mistakes, contradictions and falsity has no room in the Word of God. In special dont have room in the most important fundament of our faith and hope.
 
.
The Koran's Jesus didn't die on the cross.

The Women [4.157] . . And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.

The Bible's Jesus did die on the cross.

†. John 19:31-35 . . Now it was the day of preparation, and the next day was to be a special sabbath. Because the Jews did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe.

Since Jesus was somewhat elevated, (it's not stated exactly how high) the spear point would have entered his body at an upward angle. The text doesn't say which side was stabbed, but from John's description, and judging from the intent of the soldier to leave no doubt about Jesus' death, the heart side was very likely the side they cut into and the spear point entered just under his rib cage.

The heart is surrounded by a membrane called the pericardium. This membrane contains a serous matter or liquor resembling water, which prevents the surface of the heart from becoming dry by its continual motion. It was very likely this which was pierced and from which the water flowed. The point of the spear also seems to have reached one of the ventricles of the heart, and the blood, yet warm, rushed forth, either mingled with or followed by the liquor of the pericardium, so as to appear to John to be blood and water flowing together. Though not medically accurate in our day, John's calling the serous fluid "water" was accurate enough in his own day.

The Bible's Jesus was quite dead; and the Romans themselves certified his demise.

†. Mark 15:43-45 . . Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus' body. Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died. When he learned from the centurion that it was so, he gave the body to Joseph.

Buen Camino
/

Josh McDowell present a good defence of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. He contemplates all alternative hypotesis as Jesus entering coma, his body being stolen, the women mistaking the sepulcre and many more. Josh Mc Dowell present the defense base on the Gospels. He explain that each hypotisis is not possible because this or that detail we read in the Gospels. Webers Home is doing something similar. He argue that according to the Gospels jesus was stub with a spear. Then we can asure that Jesus was really killed, buried and resurrected. We can asure that because this or that detail found in the Gospels.

Details are very, very much, important. Detail are esentials and of extreme importance.
 
Sorry, actually we are in Bible Study
Can you explain how it works? What if somebody dont agree with some statements? Is it all about yes, yes, amen, yes amen?

Sorry again. I have been checking several theards and the most of them are debates. In fact, this Forum is described as for discussing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: debating

.
Zero debate in this forum guys
Webster's defines "discussion" as consideration of a question in open, and usually informal, debate

Webster's defines "debating" as to discuss a question by considering opposing arguments

Somebody really good with words, and a head on their shoulders, please explain to me how to tell the difference between discussing and debating because I'm having serious difficulty figuring this out.

Buen Camino
/
 
Re: debating

.
Webster's defines "discussion" as consideration of a question in open, and usually informal, debate

Webster's defines "debating" as to discuss a question by considering opposing arguments

Somebody really good with words, and a head on their shoulders, please explain to me how to tell the difference between discussing and debating because I'm having serious difficulty figuring this out.

Buen Camino
/

In spanish (my lenguague) is more clear:
Mr A and Mr B both agree on that it is necesary to do something, they both has the same goal wich is to get it done the best and easier way. What they do is to discus about how to do it. They may not agree on how, and they will found problems in each other proposal. but at the end of the day, thay both are happy to identify the complications of the own plans and ideas.

Next door there is Mr C and Mr D debating over X. Each one have diametral opinions about X, and each other is trying to prove himself right and the other wrong. There is litle chance for one accepting the other as right, and de debate is just a collection of argument on each side. But at the end of the day, they will not come to a concensus. They are not seeking the truth, but looking to impose the personal truth.
 
Re: debating

.
Webster's defines "discussion" as consideration of a question in open, and usually informal, debate

Webster's defines "debating" as to discuss a question by considering opposing arguments

Somebody really good with words, and a head on their shoulders, please explain to me how to tell the difference between discussing and debating because I'm having serious difficulty figuring this out.

Buen Camino
/
Nobody gets angry in discussion.... everyone is angry in debate.. Arguing with me falls under debate... :angel3
 
.
According to Acts 2:25-32 from the King James version and the Confraternity version; Jesus went to hell. However, those same versions also say at Luke 23:43 that Jesus was in paradise.

The discrepancy is due to the fact that the Greek word translated "hell" is ambiguous. In other words: haides has more than one meaning. It's primary meaning is just simply the invisible world of the dead; viz: the netherworld-- both hell and paradise. So then, Abraham and the rich man of Luke 16:19-31 were both in haides; only Abraham's section was quite a bit more comfy.

†. Matt 16:18 . . I will build my church, and the gates of haides will not overcome it.

In other words: the "gates" of haides correspond to a person's death, and haides itself is the netherworld. Both are powerless to put an end to the Lord's church. The proof of that is his own resurrection.

†. Acts 2:24 . .Whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that he should be held by it.

Buen Camino
/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
FAQ: According to Luke 23:39-43, Jesus went to paradise when he died. If that's true, then why did he tell Mary Magdalene at John 20:17 that he had not yet ascended to the Father?

For two good reasons.

(1) According to Acts 2:24-32, the paradise that Jesus went to wasn't up, it was down.

(2) Jesus had yet to ascend to his Father as a resurrected man; and according to 1Cor 15:35-54, a resurrected man is quite a bit different than a regular man.

Buen Camino
/
 
WED: Christ tried in the morning, hung on the cross from 9 am to just before sunset, and buried by sunset.
Wed at dusk to Thurs dusk - 1st night, 1st day
Thurs at dusk to Fri dusk - 2nd night, 2nd day
Fri at dusk to Sat at dusk - 3rd night, 3rd day
Arose sometime after dusk on Saturday (which makes it Sunday), which is when the 'day' (not a period of night, but the entire day) began by 'jewish' tradition.
 
.
Something that trips up people quite often is the mixing and mashing of days and feast dates. In other words: feast dates always commence at sundown; but days always begin at sunrise: and according to John 11:19, they are never longer than twelve hours. In other words: twenty-four hour days aren't scriptural; they're secular.

A gross error with a Saturday night resurrection is that according to Luke 24:46, Acts 10:39-41, and 1Cor 15:4, Jesus rose from the dead on a day rather than during a night.

In the very first chapter of the book of Genesis, the Bible's God defined day as when the sun is up, and defined night as when the sun is down. (Gen 1:3-5 and Gen 1:14-16)

Those definitions might seem superfluous; but in realty they are crucial to correctly piecing together the chronology of crucifixion week because Jesus timed his resurrection according to days and nights; not just days.

Let's say, hypothetically, that Jesus was buried on a Wednesday afternoon and rose on Saturday night after sundown. Would that work? No; because that chronology is over-budget on nights; viz: it would be Wed night, Thu night, Fri night, and Sat night-- one night too many.

Let's say, hypothetically, that New Testament days began at sundown. Would a Wednesday afternoon burial and a Saturday night resurrection work then? No; because that chronology would be over-budget on days; viz: Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday-- one day too many.

Buen Camino
/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top