Every time I hear it I feel like a failure because I still hurt. Then I got to thinking, is that statement even true. Does God ever say anything like that? The closest I found was:. That verse is specifically talking about temptation and sin, not trials and not suffering.
revealing the bride of yahshua Manual
I am convinced that not only will God give us more than we can handle, but he does his best work there. And we are bad. But there is a God who can and will. We were crushed and overwhelmed beyond our ability to endure , and we thought we would never live through it. In fact, we expected to die. But as a result, we stopped relying on ourselves and learned to rely only on God, who raises the dead. And it has also been taught: The noble women in Jerusalem used to donate and bring it. If these did not donate it, who provided it? Yahshua, however, did not accept the drink [ Matthew ; Mark ; Luke ], and it must have made his pain even more acute.
Perhaps it was because he did not accept the narcotic that he died within such a short period of time. One should not confuse the "vinegar" which he later accepted as the narcotic offered at first. The vinegar was simply watered wine. After Yahshua refused the narcotic, his wrists would have been nailed to the yoke. No nails would have been placed in his feet. The Gospel of Peter verse 6 makes mention of the fact that when Yahshua was taken from the tree, they pulled the nails from his hands, but the feet were not mentioned.
As a matter of fact, the inclusion of "and feet" in the gospel narrative was not originally in the manuscript. It had been interpolated later by some Christian scribe to conform with execution on a Roman cross. Once the nails had been driven through his wrists, he would have been hoisted up the tree by ropes. The yoke would have been attached either by ropes or by nails to a living tree, and the accusation plaque attached to the tree above his head. While the Jewish "hanging" was generally a procedure that occurred only after death, the Alexandrian priesthood had adopted the methods of their predecessor Alexander Jannaeus, who had hanged alive eight hundred Pharisees.
The Qumran documents make it clear that the practice was clearly Alexandrian. The missing words prior to "formerly in Israel" are translated by scholars in contradictory ways: 1 "as was never done" and 2 "as was done". The controversy makes little difference to our present case. Whether Israel had always hanged their criminals alive makes little difference. The fact is Alexander Jannaeus, the hellenized leader of Israel during the first century B.
Even Josephus gives us the gruesome details. As stated numerous times already, this priesthood the Temple Cult was both illegitimate and corrupt. They had Hellenistic origins and were associated with the self-seeking Herodian dynasty. The temple itself had evolved into a corrupt financial institution, and the priesthood served as its bankers. It was not until the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C. The Sadducean mode of execution was, however, different. The Babylonian-Alexandrian priesthood ruling during the first century were, in fact, Edomites, appointed first by the Edomite King, Herod.
These Herodian appointed Alexandrian priests were Sadducees, and it was this group to which Alexander Janneus allied himself. The Pharisees of the first century B. Within the order of the language, another Qumran document, seems to imply that hanging convicted criminals on a tree while still alive was a fairly common practice, at least during the years prior to the rabbinic period after the destruction of Jerusalem.
But his body shall not stay overnight on the tree. Indeed you shall bury him on the same day.
- Account Options!
- Keep What Ya Got?
- Die wilde Jagd: Roman (German Edition)?
LXIV; G. The statement would seem to imply that this was the ordinary practice during the years the Alexandrian priesthood who were Sadducean ruled in Israel. Taken in conjunction with the Nahum Pesher quoted earlier, there seems to be enough evidence to at least suspect this to be a true statement. Fujita, A Crack in the Jar, p. On the evidence of two witnesses and on the evidence of three witnesses, he shall be put to death a reversal in wording here and they shall hang him on the tree. If a man committed a crime punishable by death and has run away unto the midst of the Gentiles i.
The Sadducean priesthood took full responsibility for the execution of Yahshua. The "crowd" of priests and Herodians who demanded Pilate condemn him, along with the witnesses the accusers, who would have been the priests themselves made a statement that reflects exactly upon whose shoulders the blame should rest. The Jewish euphemism demehem bam was used only by the judges in a capital case. It was designed to make them think about the responsibility they take upon themselves in rendering a verdict. It was well known that if the judges of Israel found one guilty of a capital crime, the verdict necessarily made them responsible for not only the blood of the accused but of the physical descendants that might have followed him had he been acquitted.
What is indicated more particularly by the expression, however, is the type of death the accused was to suffer. In the case of Yahshua, it was meant to infer that the judges themselves would take responsibility for his death. Anyone who was sentenced to death by stoning was also hanged.
While we presently view stoning as a barbaric and inhumane practice and cannot imagine that our Messiah might have been stoned, this mode of execution was entirely legal and accepted during the first century. The Pharisaic and Sadducean methods of stoning an individual were, however, entirely different. Whereas the Pharisees used only one large stone and threw the individual down from a great height, the Sadducees demanded the whole congregation of Israel have a part in putting the accused to death.
Each person passing by the execution site would have been required by law to pick up a stone and cast it at the accused, thus "casting out" that individual from the nation of Israel. It was a process similar to the placing of hands on the Sinbearer Goat to be "cast out" into the "wildern ess" as a "curse" of God. Since the Sadducean priesthood was the powerful sect during the lifetime of Yahshua, we must assume it would have been their law that carried the day. We shall examine the evidence in Scripture to determine whether or not Yahshua might have been stoned.
I make no assertion concerning this question. I merely list the facts below. The reader must weigh the evidence for himself. One of the prophecies that has been applied to "prove" the "crucifixion" of Yahshua by Christianity is Psalm Unfortunately, the etymology of that Psalm has never been properly examined.
They part my garments among them, and for my vestment they cast lots [Psalm ]. We have no problem with the "assembly of evil doers" nor the parting of the garments, but there is a very important discrepancy in wording here that has failed to receive close scrutiny. The word "pierced" does not mean "to pierce through". Anyone who has ever been slapped by a cat knows that the skin is not pierced through but literally pulled away. Again, crucifixion could not "pluck" into the flesh and tear it away.
Had the prophecy been meant to imply a puncturing of nail marks, the word daqar as used in Zechariah , "to stab or thrust through", would have been used instead.
Certainly, anyone who was stoned would receive wounds all over the body. It is interesting to note that the nailing of the feet is mentioned only once in the New Covenant in Luke ; however, on closer examination we learn that the words "and feet" have been interpolated from a late Greek manuscript. But it is the portion of the Psalm mentioned earlier that gives us the best evidence. The phrase would indicate that there is no flesh on his bones, that the skin had been removed from them.
The wording is used to indicate that the bones are bared and stare back at him. The fact is the scourging by either party either the sanhedrin or the Romans would have been injurious to his back , not the f ront, where he might look down and view his own bones. He would not have been able to see his back while hanging on the tree. Crucifixion, in no way, would cause bones to be so exposed as to be viewed by the victim himself.
The most important theological argument about the execution of Yahshua is the "blood" that he shed, yet crucifixion alone would not account for the amount of blood Christian traditions implies he would have shed. An iron spike was driven through the middle part of each wrist between the carpal bones. Kiehl, The Passion of Our Lord, p. Another Scripture used to imply a Roman crucifixion of Yahshua is Isaiah Two of these three words pierced, stripes are exactly the same Hebrew word, chabbuwrah [ chaburah ] and simply mean "a weal", or black and blue mark itself -- a bruise, that is, "the mark or print of blows in the skin, in which blood and humours [water] appear, spoken of the consequences of sin, and the sense of divine wrath" [ William Wilson, Old Testament Word Studies, p.
These words, which are indications of stoning, give clearer meaning to 1 John It was necessary that Yahshua be "bruised", and it was Yahvah's purpose to "bruise" him. Thus the Scripture in 1 John is made clearer. The next prophecy that might also give evidence of stoning is found in Isaiah , chapters 52 and There, the Hebrew words are even more specific. The King James translation is quite vague. Yet he was pierced [wounded, bruised, STONED; chalal] for transgressions that were ours, was crushed [bruised; emasculated; daka] for iniquities that were ours, -- The chastisement for our well-being was upon him, And by his stripes [chaburah; i.
The first word "pierced" is the Hebrew chalal , which means "stoned", but for certainty we must also identify the other relevant terms in this Scripture. One of these words is "crushed" bruised in KJV. The Hebrew word here is daka , and it is more specific in its rendering. William Wilson gives the best translation of the word:. Daka: a crushing: Deut. The word would imply that the Messiah would be stoned, and that the effect of that penalty would be emasculation, that is a destruction of his abdominal cavity if not his genital organs. This is not to imply that the object of the penalty was to emasculate the genitals in particular, but during the process of stoning the Messiah was to be so physically damaged he would be unable to produce physical descendants even if he were to live.
Isaiah makes it clear that the Messiah would have no physical descendants. Yet in the same manner that all were made spiritual descendants of Abraham, he, too, would have spiritual descendants. Out of his anguish he shall see it; He shall enjoy it to the full through his devotion [Isaiah , JPS]. It is important that the word daka is used here because it infers that the Messiah is to be cursed by God.
The same word, which is seldom used in Scripture, is the one used to describe an individual "cursed of God". But there is another word in the Isaiah prophecy to link the execution to stoning. That word is "stripes". The word is chaburah , and it means the "black and blue mark", the "weal". That word is used specifically to refer to the type of wounds one might receive from the penalty of stoning.
There is a powerful prophecy in the book of Job that portrays the execution of Yahshua, who like Job, was persecuted. Relevant Scriptures have been placed in brackets as examples. And would that a book mine opponent had written [i. Perhaps one of the most important Old Covenant prophecies to study in regard to the penalty of stoning is Isaiah In it we have a clue as to why the disciples might not have, at first, recognized Yahshua after he had been resurrected.
Had Yahshua been stoned as seems to be prophesied he would have been so marred or disfigured and so malformed as to be indistinguishable as a man at all. The result of having been stoned would have obscured his identity, and not even his closest disciples would have, at first, recognized him [ John ; Mark ; John ; John , 12 ]. It was probably for this reason that Mary of Magdala did not recognize him until he spoke to her [ John ].
There is other evidence in the New Covenant that we must consider. The apostle Paul had been stoned in Antioch, dragged out of the city and left for dead [ Acts ; 2 Corinthians ]. As a result of having been stoned, Paul carried with him the lasting results.
His eyes had been damaged. When a man was stoned, it was the head and eyes that were usually targeted [ Mark ]. Yahshua, himself, had given us the parable of the vineyard [ Mark ] that tells us the primary places of injury during stoning: the head and the eyes. It was rare that anyone escaped death when stoned, but when he did he was an outcast from Israel.
He would have been called a "leper" and spat upon "in disgust" [ Deuteronomy ]. How do we know Paul was not a leper but was referring to his having been stoned? Here is what he says. This is not a reference to any spiritual connection between Paul and Yahshua. These "brandmarks" that Paul carries in his own flesh are the result of having been stoned, and he claims they are the same as those that Yahshua received. We might also remember that Pilate seemed shocked when he was told that Yahshua had already died.
He knew that crucifixion sometimes took days, yet it had only been six hours since Yahshua had been "hanged" on the tree. Pilate "wondered whether already he was dead," and even "calling near the centurion, questioned him -- whether he had already died" [ Mark ]. We have one more passage in Revelation where Yahshua is symbolized as the "Lamb as it had been slain ".
The Greek word translated "slain" in this verse is sphazo. It means "to butcher, slaughter, maim, mangle, or wound"; i. Webster gives us the definitions we need for the words: 1 maim -- "to mutilate, disfigure".
30/08/2014 Ex 3 1 Kings 7 Ps 107 Luke 18
Mutilate implies "the cutting off or removal of an essential part of a person The word "slain" then meant more than just "kill". The Hebrew concept of the word, again, is more exact.
In Hebrew the word would be harag. Since with reference to the enticer to idolatry, the Bible Deut. It is interesting, too, that in the book of Revelation the word "Lamb" is not the "lambkin" amnos of the gospels. This Greek word is derived from airo meaning to expiate [i. It is a perfect picture of the execution of Yahshua. Traditional Christian belief is founded on the fact that Yahshua fulfilled the Passover "appointment", that he was the Passover Lamb who took away the sins of the world.
If this is so, then the belief cannot be fully founded unless attention is given to every aspect of what happens to the Passover sacrifice, and it is the final part of that sacrificial preparation, the flaying of the lamb, that might more completely fulfill the requirements and which fit the word "slain". As gruesome as it sounds, the penalty of stoning might reflect the final requirement. The Jewish community understands these prophecies to refer to the stoning of the Messiah, which Christianity fiercely denies, so it is little wonder they do not believe Yahshua was and is their Messiah.
Whatever one believes, we must believe Yahshua was hanged alive on a living tree. The evidence is overwhelming.
ACFW Colorado Chapters
From the New Covenant, we have several references to it. Never is the word xulon translated as the "cross". The word for "cross" would have been stauros , and even then the Greek word only reflects the upright nature of the tree! It is the same word used in Genesis and Deuteronomy to describe the hanging of an individual on a "tree". These "gallows" do not refer to a Roman cross.
The disciples, in fact, confronted the Jewish judicial sanhedrin later that decade with the ultimate accusation that they had hanged Yahshua upon a "living" tree. Here are the passages that reflect the type of execution Yahshua endured.
Related Yahshuas Bridge (Iron & the Stone Book 2)
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved