Did Jesus die?
Lizzie and Yahya discuss whether Jesus died on the Cross? Yahya says that Jesus prayers were heard by God to save him from death (Hebrews 5: 7): Bible says no no no no no no no no NO.
To support the work of DCCI https://paypal.me/dcciministries0717
Find us on YouTube and Facebook.
The first impression of Paul on crucifixion is so genuinely humane: Crucifixion is a Stupidity of Triune God.
Paul has not minced his word when assessing a loss in crucifixion of Jesus: it is a Foolishness of God who yields to Satan.
Even Triune God is a surrendering failed deity.
The Father blinks when Satan bluffs him to sacrifice his son.
The Triune God grants a victory to Satan, forsaking his son, turning a deaf ear to his son’s crying prayer while both the devils and the demonic sinners danced around to kill him.
If Triune God can’t save his son, how could he afford to save the Trinitarians?
Euripides: Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad.
Recently, I happened to come across a site where there’s a good theological debate between a Jew and a group of the Trinitarians.
It is interesting that the Jewish man just points the most easiest and most basic principle of the OT system that is unbelievably made upside down by the errors of Trinitarian’s foolishness.
In a nutshell, there’s a similar *parable* of eating the sacrifice in the OT Bible, that the One who consumes (eats) the fats and flesh, as well as scents (smells) the aroma of the sacrificial animals (Sin Offering) is God Himself in order to be pleased and forgiving.
The Jewish repentants and Priests do not eat it at all.
Now, the foolish Trinitarians who don’t know the basic OT sacrificial system just make a silly error of turning the Forgiver (God) to the sinner (Christians) upside down, namely by a flawed Gospel’s parable of eating the flesh of a sacrificed Lamb (crucifixion of Jesus) by the sinners, not by God.
Is the sinner a God who eats the sacrifice? No.
Why would the silly Trinitarian sinners eat a sacrifice (Jesus) whose life (fats and flesh) is supposed to be offered and consumed by God?
Just as the Jewish sins do not get forgiven by God if they wrongly eat the Sin Offering, so the Trinitarian’s sins can’t either be forgiven if they eat Jesus’ flesh.
In the mindset of the Trinitarians, Jesus’ flesh is eaten by the Trinitarians, so that it is a Thanksgiving, not the Sin Offering.
Most Trinitarian debaters in the site just got stunned in silence and went away one by one due to an embarrassing fact that their Gospel has the basic OT sacrificial system upside down.
Moreover, the idea of ransom (substitution).
In the OT system, the ransom (substitution) is given to the one whose right is violated. Ransom can be in the form of money, livestock, field, and other valuable property.
But weirdly in the Gospel, the ransom is given upside-down by the sinless God to the sinners themselves, in order to be *eaten* by sinners themselves. Who paid whom?
Isn’t it so stupid?
Trinitarians also insist on the sacrilege or invalidation of basic ritual of Jewish Pesach (Passover) .
Now, two main features of Passover:
(i) Passover is not, and can’t, be a replacement for Sin Offering.
(ii) On the night of Passover, a Jew doesn’t drink the blood of the lamb.
If Jesus were a “Passover Lamb”, or his flesh acts somehow like the roasted lamb, now the big questions are:
(i) Does not Jesus also eat the Passover lamb? Yes.
If the lamb were to have a redeeming function, why does Jesus observe it? Is he sinful?
(ii) Do the Jews (and Trinitarians) ever drink the Lamb’s blood when eating the lamb’s flesh? No.
Jesus requires his followers to also drink the Lamb’s blood.
Thus, he can’t be a Passover.
(iii) Do the Jews (and Trinitarians) ever worship the slain Passover lamb? No.
In the Judaist theology, the Rabbis point to the use of “covering” upon both Adam and Eve with a “skin of animal” after they sinned and got naked in Eden, but yet their “outer covering” doesn’t further make their “inner sin” forgiven.
By same analogy, the Passover Lamb just “shields” or “cover up” the Jews from a wage of sin, i.e. death, whereas actually all Jewish sins remain intact.
That’s why furthermore the Jews make a clear differentiation between the Sin Offering (Chatat) and a Passover (Pesach).
Now, an interesting question by the naive Trinitarians: Why does John the Baptist say upon Jesus, that is, “behold the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world”? The answer is, for the Jews, the statement is just a kind of old Hebrew idiom or old Hebrew euphemism for a protection from the death penalty, but not for the forgiveness. Here is a proof:
– Nathan says to David how “God puts away thy sin”, but Nathan’s statement doesn’t mean that God forgives all David’s sins without performing a sacrifice. David’s sin of secretly marrying Uriah’s wife has a dire consequence that one of David’s sons fornicates with David’s wives in a public orgy.
2Sam 12
11 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give [them] unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.12 For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun. 13 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath *put away thy sin*, thou shalt not die.
– Jacob’s sins were taken away for his good works of destroying the idols.
Isa 27:9
By this therefore shall the iniquity of Jacob be purged; and this is all the fruit to *take away his sin*, when he maketh all the stones of the altar as chalkstones that are beaten in sunder, the groves and images shall not stand up.
Confession of the NT Bible on Isaiah 53: it is not about a slain Messiah.
The Jews and Moslem Dawagandists refer to the facts how the NT Bible itself “confesses” by showing a truth that the Messianic reading of Isaiah 53 was a later invention, and something new or unknown, at Jesus’ time.
Facts:
– In Matthew 16:22 Peter refuses to let Jesus slain by the Jews, by saying “This shall not be unto thee”. Peter didn’t *ever* know if the prophesy of Isaiah 53 is meant for his Messiah.
Mt 16:22 shows clearly that the Messianic interpretation of Isaiah 53 was totally unknown during Jesus’ days. There was no Jewish teaching whatsoever on Isaiah 53 that the Messiah was to die.
Mt 16:22
Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
– In John 12:34 the Jews do not *ever* know from their OT Bible (not even from Isaiah 53) that their Christ will somehow die.
Jn 12:34
The people answered him, We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth for ever: and how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? who is this Son of man?
– In Luke 24:44-46 the Disciples didn’t *ever* find any OT Bible verse (not even verses of Isaiah 53) where it may tell about the death and resurrection of the Christ on the 3rd Day, because indeed it doesn’t write such a thing at all.
Thus, Jesus ought to “open” their understanding (subjective interpretations) rather than showing or pointing to the real written texts. Yet Jesus didn’t specifically refer to Isaiah 53.
Lk 24
44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. 45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, 46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
– Paul also concurs on a point that the Jews never *ever* get taught by God and Prophets throughout the OT Bible (not even in Isaiah 53) to wait and have the slain Messiah, as in his letter 1 Corinthians 2:7-9, even further he termed the subjective interpretation of Christians as the invention of “Mystery”.
1Cor 2
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: 8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
– The Gentile also didn’t know if Isaiah 53 talked specifically about Messiah’s death, per Acts 8:29-32. So, no, the “slain Messiah” interpretation of Isaiah 53 was not ever known in those days of Acts.
Acts 8
29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. 30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? 31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. 32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: 33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. 34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
– Talmud Berakhot 5a interprets Isaiah 53 as the servant who studies the Bible, especially the Torah:
http://www.sefaria.org/Berakhot.5a
So too, Rava said that Rabbi Sehora said that Rabbi Huna said: Anyone in whom the Holy One, Blessed be He, delights, He oppresses him with suffering, as it is stated: “Yet in whom the Lord delights, He oppresses him with disease; to see if his soul would offer itself in guilt, that he might see his children, lengthen his days, and that the desire of the Lord might prosper by his hand” (Isaiah 53:10). This verse illustrates that in whomever God delights, he afflicts with illness.
I might have thought that God delights in him even if he does not accept his suffering with love. Therefore the verse teaches: “If his soul would offer itself in guilt.”
Just as a guilt-offering is brought knowingly, as it is one of the sacrifices offered willingly, without coercion, so too his suffering must be accepted knowingly.
And if one accepts that suffering with love, what is his reward? As the second part of the verse states: “That he might see his children, lengthen his days.”
Moreover, in addition to these earthly rewards, his Torah study will endure and his Torah study will be successful, as it is stated: “The purpose of the Lord,” the Torah, the revelation of God’s will, “might prosper by his hand.”
With regard to the acceptance of affliction with love and what exactly this entails, Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi and Rabbi Aha bar Ḥanina disagree. One of them said: Afflictions of love are any that do not cause dereliction in the study of Torah, i.e., any which do not afflict his body to the extent that he is unable to study Torah, as it is stated: “Happy is the man whom You afflict, Lord, and teach from Your Torah.”
Afflictions of love are when You “teach from Your Torah.”
That’s such an Eye-opening argument on Isaiah 53.
By same reason, actually the Jews didn’t ever find the idea of a “cut-off Messiah” from Daniel 9:26, nor from a slain fellow of Zech 13:7, nor as a pierced man of Zech. 12:10, let alone from a crying of forsaken one in Psalms 22:1.
All those subjective interpretations were unknown, just fantasies of the later Christians.