Why the Cross? Let's talk

[amgid]

arieh0310:

The subject is us, not Christ.

You have not understood the scripture. You must consider it in its full context, as I had given. He is comparing our experience with that of Christ. He is saying that this is how hard it was for Christ. You haven’t had it anywhere near as tough. I had quoted the proper context so that you would not misunderstand.

amgid

 

[arieh0310]

amgid:

He is comparing our experience with that of Christ.

And the experience is the Cross not Gethsemanie:

Heb. 12:2: looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.

 

[amgid]

arieh0310:

And the experience is the Cross not Gethsemanie:

No, the language is descriptive of the Gethsemane experience. “resisting unto blood;” “striving against sin;” “becoming weary in your mind”. All of this is descriptive of the Gethsemane experience. What happened in Gethsemane was a mental anguish, which was nevertheless so powerful that it had the physical effect of causing Him to sweat blood.

amgid

 

[tkdnick]

amgid:

No, the language is descriptive of the Gethsemane experience. “resisting unto blood;” “striving against sin;” “becoming weary in your mind”. All of this is descriptive of the Gethsemane experience. What happened in Gethsemane was a mental anguish, which was nevertheless so powerful that it had the physical effect of causing Him to sweat blood.

amgid

If you want to get really technical, medical professionals think what happened (can’t remember the medical term) is that he was so stressed that the capillaries near the surface of the skin opened enough to allow some blood to mix with His sweat.

 

[arieh0310]

amgid:

No, the language is descriptive of the Gethsemane experience. “resisting unto blood;” “striving against sin;” “becoming weary in your mind”. All of this is descriptive of the Gethsemane experience. What happened in Gethsemane was a mental anguish, which was nevertheless so powerful that it had the physical effect of causing Him to sweat blood.

No one disagrees that Christ was in anguish in the garden but our sins were not atoned there. When the KJV says that Christ endured contradition from sinners it is saying that Christ endured scorn and hostility from them, not that He atoned for our sins at Gethsemane. The Scriptures are filled with verses that state plainly that our sins were paid for on the Cross. If Luke 22 and Hebews 12 is the best the Mormon church has to offer then all you have is poor eisegesis.

 

[Tmaque]

arieh0310:

No one disagrees that Christ was in anguish in the garden but our sins were not atoned there. When the KJV says that Christ endured contradition from sinners it is saying that Christ endured scorn and hostility from them, not that He atoned for our sins at Gethsemane. The Scriptures are filled with verses that state plainly that our sins were paid for on the Cross. If Luke 22 and Hebews 12 is the best the Mormon church has to offer then all you have is poor eisegesis.

When I was LDS I never quite understood the powerful truth that Christ’s death was the fulfillment of all OT sacrifice. It was the FINAL sacrifice of the unblemished passover lamb. I think this mental disconnect in my mind, was created by virtue of the fact that I had been taught, and I believed, that the primary salvific action during the Passion was the agony in the garden.

I don’t recall any OT scriptures mentioning that the “mental anguish” of the annual passover lamb is somehow sufficient to atone for the people’s sins for the year. The slaughter of the lamb was the atoning act. With the slaughter the sins were forgiven, without the slaughter they were retained.

If Christ truly is the “Lamb of God”, if he is the fulfillment and culmination of OT sacrifice, then only his slaughter is salvific in a primary sense. Without it, there is no atonement. With it, there is atonement whether Christ suffered in the garden or not.

 

[tkdnick]

Tmaque:

When I was LDS I never quite understood the powerful truth that Christ’s death was the fulfillment of all OT sacrifice. It was the FINAL sacrifice of the unblemished passover lamb. I think this mental disconnect in my mind, was created by virtue of the fact that I had been taught, and I believed, that the primary salvific action during the Passion was the agony in the garden.

I don’t recall any OT scriptures mentioning that the “mental anguish” of the annual passover lamb is somehow sufficient to atone for the people’s sins for the year. The slaughter of the lamb was the atoning act. With the slaughter the sins were forgiven, without the slaughter they were retained.

If Christ truly is the “Lamb of God”, if he is the fulfillment and culmination of OT sacrifice, then only his slaughter is salvific in a primary sense. Without it, there is no atonement. With it, there is atonement whether Christ suffered in the garden or not.

Good point. Never even thought to bring that up!

 

[arieh0310]

Tmaque:

If Christ truly is the “Lamb of God”, if he is the fulfillment and culmination of OT sacrifice, then only his slaughter is salvific in a primary sense. Without it, there is no atonement. With it, there is atonement whether Christ suffered in the garden or not.

Exactly. I think it is pretty clear that the anguish that Christ suffered in Gethsemane was that He knew exactly how horrific the “cup” was that was about to be given to Him, not that He was mentally wrangling the sins of mankind.

 

[tkdnick]

Here’s another good Biblical quote:

“But he was pierced for our offenses, crushed for our sins, Upon him was the chastisement that makes us whole, by his stripes we were healed. We had all gone astray like sheep, each following his own way; But the Lord laid upon him the guilt of us all.” (Isaiah 53:5-6)

Jesus was neither pierced, crushed, nor received stripes in the garden. These were events in the process of His crucifixion (sp?).

 

[amgid]

arieh0310:

No one disagrees that Christ was in anguish in the garden but our sins were not atoned there.

It says that He “endured such contradictions of sinners against himself”. That is another way of saying that He took their sins upon Him, which is a description of the Atonement.

When the KJV says that Christ endured contradition from sinners it is saying that Christ endured scorn and hostility from them, …

No. You just don’t want to read the scripture the way it is written. It does not say that He “endured contradiction from sinners”. It says that He “endured such contradiction of sinners {all sinners} against himself”. There is a world of difference between the two readings. You are determined to close your eyes to the truth no matter what. Then it goes on to say, “lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds;” suggesting that this is something that He experienced in His mind and spirit, as well as in His body. He is saying that we have a much lesser ordeal to endure in resisting temptation, than Jesus did, therefore let us follow His example, and not yield under pressure. He "resisted unto blood, striving against sin. When you put all the bits of it together, instead of cutting bits out of it, as you insist in doing, it refers to Gethsemane, not the cross.

…not that He atoned for our sins at Gethsemane.

The Atonement was in part accomplished in Gethsemane. If He “endured the contradiction of sinners against Himself,” and if He "resisted unto blood, striving against sin, that means that the Atonement was in part fulfilled in Gethsemane.

The Scriptures are filled with verses that state plainly that our sins were paid for on the Cross.

I never disputed that. I gave you plenty of quotes from LDS scripture to confirm it.

If Luke 22 and Hebews 12 is the best the Mormon church has to offer then all you have is poor eisegesis.

One scripture would have been enough, I gave you two! Your determination to close your eyes to the truth will not make it go away.

amgid

 

[arieh0310]

amgid:

It says that He “endured such contradictions of sinners against himself”. That is another way of saying that He took their sins upon Him, which is a description of the Atonement.

The Greek word rendered “contradiction” in the KJV is “antilogia” which means “1) gainsaying (to declare to be untrue or invalid), or 2) opposition, rebellion”. The RSV renders the passage as: Consider him who endured from sinners such hostility against himself, so that you may not grow weary or fainthearted.

I don’t see Gethsemane, all sinners (or all sins), or the like in this passage. Seems to me that this passage is recounting the persecution He suffered from His tormenters during his passion. How can Christ receiving opposition from sinners be a description of an atonement at Gethsemane.

 

[Tmaque]

Amgid,

Let’s look at a few translations that we don’t have to re-translate into modern english.

*NAB
2: while keeping our eyes fixed on Jesus, the leader and perfecter of faith. For the sake of the joy that lay before him he endured the cross, despising its shame, and has taken his seat at the right of the throne of God.
3: Consider how he endured such opposition from sinners, in order that you may not grow weary and lose heart.
4: In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood.

RSV
2: looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.
3: Consider him who endured from sinners such hostility against himself, so that you may not grow weary or fainthearted.
4: In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood. *

Frankly, I don’t see how this says anything about the agony in the garden of Gethsemane. This is my understanding of what what Paul is saying:

Let’s look to Jesus as our example. He endured the cross and the shame of being crucified(which was the most shameful thing imaginable at the time). He also endured hostility and opposition from very sinful people. (he did it and so should you) Consider his example in your struggle against sin and realize that you have not had your blood shed(martyrdom) in your fight against sin like he has. At least not yet.

I think your faulty exegesis comes in part, from your reliance on the KJV. The KJV translation is 17th century english and is frankly, confusing to us in the 21st century. That’s why new translations come out. Languages change in 400 years, and words mean different things. However, the greek remains the same and is a very reliable source for modern language experts.

 

[amgid]

Tmaque:

Let’s look at a few translations that we don’t have to re-translate into modern english…

I don’t consider these translations to be more accurate than the KJV. The KJV is an extremely literal translation, meaning that it renders the text as precisely as possible close to the original text, no matter how ambiguous the original text might appear. It does not attempt to “interpret” for the reader how the original should read. These modern translations follow a completely different philosophy of translation. Where the text is not entirely clear, the translator(s) renders it as he thinks it should be understood, rather than giving a literal, exact, word for word translation of the original, thus preserving the original ambiguity as well. But who says that the translator has understood it correctly? I don’t want my scriptures to be translated in that way. I want to be able to read the scripture as closely as possible to the way it was originally written, and have the privilage of reading it the way I believe it should be read, rather than reading it skewed through the mind of the translator(s). Most modern translations have this fault. Older translations, of which the KJV is only one, were aware of that, and tried to make their translations as literal as possible, which is how I believe it should be done.

amgid

 

[Tmaque]

amgid:

I don’t consider these translations to be more accurate than the KJV. The KJV is an extremely literal translation, meaning that it renders the text as precisely as possible close to the original text, no matter how ambiguous the original text might appear. It does not attempt to “interpret” for the reader how the original should read. These modern translations follow a completely different philosophy of translation. Where the text is not entirely clear, the translator(s) renders it as he thinks it should be understood, rather than giving a literal, exact, word for word translation of the original, thus preserving the original ambiguity as well. But who says that the translator has understood it correctly? I don’t want my scriptures to be translated in that way. I want to be able to read the scripture as closely as possible to the way it was originally written, and have the privilage of reading it the way I believe it should be read, rather than reading it skewed through the mind of the translator(s). Most modern translations have this fault. Older translations, of which the KJV is only one, were aware of that, and tried to make their translations as literal as possible, which is how I believe it should be done.

amgid

Two things.

1. EVERY translation is skewed because if we translated the greek directly it would be nonsensical. Here’s a word for word translation of Hebrews 12:2-4:

2. From seeing into the of belief origin leader and maturer Jesus who instead of the before lying to him of joy endures cross of shame despising in right besides of the throne of the God has been seated.
3. Up account for the such having under remained by the missers into self contradiction that no you may be faltering to the souls of you out loosing
4. Not as yet unto blood you instead down stood toward the missing instead contending

Like I said, nonsensical.

The KJV is more literal than the versions I quoted in my previous post but it doesn’t convey the thought or the intent of the passage as well. I don’t know the idioms of ancient greek and I trust the experts of ancient greek to tell me what the intent is. For instance, if I wrote in my diary that it’s “raining cats and dogs”, some historian 2000 years from now would probably understand that I meant that it’s pouring rain outside. However, a layman would think that cats and dogs were really falling from the sky. We understand much more about ancient greek now than we did in the early 17th century so the new translations are much more reliable in conveying the intent of the author.

2. Even if you would like a more literal (word for word) translation why would you want it in 400 year old english? Why not use the New King James Version which is almost as literal but not burdened by word usage long since dead? Here’s the same passages in the NKJV:

2. looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
3 For consider Him who endured such hostility from sinners against Himself, lest you become weary and discouraged in your souls.
4 You have not yet resisted to bloodshed, striving against sin.

 

[Coder]

In think Jesus’ acceptance of the cross helps us to overcome fear. That is one aspect.

 

[amgid]

Tmaque:

Two things…

I don’t agree. Several attempts have been to “modernize” the KJV; but none of them has been satisfactory, none of them has been able to replace the KJV in the hearts and minds of those most familiar with it, and the LDS Church has not accepted any of them as being preferable or superior to the KJV. I agree with the Church’s assessment on that.

amgid

 

[catholic-rcia]

We spoke about the cross at our Bible study this week, here are the thoughts of all who were there.

In the garden as a man, Jesus, the only son of God felt our pain, our sorrow and our fears that our own sins will cause throughout the world, throughout time as we know it. When I am sad, when I feel pain, when I see another feel sorrow, lonely or lost I can draw strength from my Christ whom has felt and experience it all. He is my best friend as he knows what we have all been dealt, for me this is the place of the garden, where I find peace because Christ is with me in all things.

But to die for our sins was to come, “Father as a human he groaned, if you can take this cup from me…” but that was the human Jesus, He allowed this weakness to come upon Him for us, yet He was God the son. The devil watched and knew that he was not dealing with the children of God, rather the Son God, and the Son of God was doing this all for us, for us in Christ the devil was soon to be defeated.

He stood up in a pool of sweat and blood and was ready, as God was ready to take on the sins of the world, the cross upon His back, to take them down to the depths of death, to die with them in Him for us, so that we could be free from sin through him, because in our Baptism we are to die in Christ, with Christ, and in Him be risen to a life within the Trinity. Romans (6:4)

TMAQUE

“When I was LDS I never quite understood the powerful truth that Christ’s death was the fulfillment of all OT sacrifice. It was the FINAL sacrifice of the unblemished passover lamb. I think this mental disconnect in my mind, was created by virtue of the fact that I had been taught, and I believed, that the primary salvific action during the Passion was the agony in the garden.”

I don’t recall any OT scriptures mentioning that the “mental anguish” of the annual passover lamb is somehow sufficient to atone for the people’s sins for the year. The slaughter of the lamb was the atoning act. With the slaughter the sins were forgiven, without the slaughter they were retained.”

If Christ truly is the “Lamb of God”, if he is the fulfillment and culmination of OT sacrifice, then only his slaughter is salvific in a primary sense. Without it, there is no atonement. With it, there is atonement whether Christ suffered in the garden or not.”

“Exactly. I think it is pretty clear that the anguish that Christ suffered in Gethsemane was that He knew exactly how horrific the “cup” was that was about to be given to Him, not that He was mentally wrangling the sins of mankind.” ARIEH0310

On Good Friday is it no wonder that many cry? Thank God for the Crucifix in our Chapels, in our homes, in our hearts, the crosses we wear and the ones we are too afraid to face. On Good Friday we go to the Cross, we surrender to its awesome power. Easter for us is everything that shines in the shape of a Cross. One side is very dark and it offers a beam of light, the Christ given, the other side of the Cross lies heaven. The Cross of Christ is our porthole home.

Take away the power of the Cross, we would be tempted through our pride to try and go around it. Which one of us would find blessing in the Cross, without the cross in our lives? I find myself at my best standing underneath it, realizing who I really am, knowing who Christ is.

Coder
“I think Jesus’ acceptance of the cross helps us to overcome fear. That is one aspect.”

And a very good one. With Christ we live, Satan does not have the power of death over our hearts and minds. So many spend their lives acquiring and attaining as if their time is perceived as limited. They live in fear of death imminent. They miss all the good things that this life has to offer.

All the acquiring and attaining means nothing for these in the end, it is just sand and ashes. A drink that will never quench their thirst. But in Christ death is overcome for something much better, the love of God that will sustain us forever.

 

[Tmaque]

amgid:

Several attempts have been to “modernize” the KJV; but none of them has been satisfactory, none of them has been able to replace the KJV in the hearts and minds of those most familiar with it

I agree with that. People are uncomfortable moving away from the familiar, even if it’s not the best option. Most Biblical language scholars(those who understand the greek) say that the KJV is unsatisfactory for the modern reader. The fact that the LDS church leadership refuses to acknowledge that doesn’t surprise me in the least. I think they like the KJV because it is an easy translation to twist to fit LDS theology. However, at some point they will be forced to go to a different translation because modern english continues to evolve. I wonder what version they will choose. I’m curious why LDS don’t use the Septuagint, the same OT version that Jesus, the apostles, and the ECF used. It must be the “familiar” thing.

 

[arieh0310]

Tmaque:

I think they like the KJV because it is an easy translation to twist to fit LDS theology. However, at some point they will be forced to go to a different translation because modern english continues to evolve.

Yup, that is the only reason why they stick to this translation. Many words have changed their meaning since 1611, or even 1769. “Let” meant to hinder then; now it means to allow. “Suburbs” in the KJV means “open lands”. “Corn” then meant grain, not the crop grown today. “Botch” and “Blains” referred to inflammations. “Advertise” in Num 24:14 meant to “advise”. “Prevent” meant only to go before; now it can also mean to keep a thing from happening.

In some places the KJV is incorrect and has been corrected in modern translations: “Easter” in Acts 12 should be “Passover”; “Jesus” in Heb. 4 should be “Joshua” – “Jesus” is the Greek name for Joshua. “Firmament” in Gen. 1 should be “expanse” (for firmament would regard the heavens as being a solid vault above the earth). “Brass” is incorrect, since only “Bronze” and copper were available in Old Testament days (brass is an alloy of copper and zinc). “Wind” in John 3:8 should be translated “Spirit” (pnuema is so translated everywhere else in the Bible - there is another word for wind). “Made” in John 1:3 is better translated “came into being”; and “comprehended it not” in John 1:5 is “did not overtake it” in modern versions.

 

[majick275]

I think it more likely that the adherence to a known “incorrect translation” allows plausible deniability when scriptural contradictions are found.

They reference JST when it “corrects” things to support their doctrine yet they will not switch to it, claiming incompletion. (The RLDS use it though and since they have the copyright that might explain why Utah LDS don’t)