Was Jesus crucified for disobedience to God in bringing his message to the Gentiles?

Hello Steve,

Okay, let us first establish the foundation and that is who did Jesus said he came to, okay.

Jesus said that he came to the house of Israel. My understanding is that the house of Israel is the Jewish people.
We know that God precedent is that prophets are matched to their own people. Therefore, the race of the prophet will always match the race of the people that God had sent the prophet to, am I right.

So again, do you accept that Jesus came only to the Jewish people?

Of course, the progression of this dialogue will lead up to why Jesus was crucified.

Tell me what you think.

Matthew 12:17-21

"This was to fulfill what had been spoken through the prophet Isaiah: 'Here is my servant, whom I have chosen, my beloved, with whom my soul is well pleased. I will put my Spirit upon him, and he will proclaim justice to the Gentiles. He will not wrangle or cry aloud, nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets. He will not break a bruised reed or quench a smoldering wick until he brings justice to victory. And in his name the Gentiles will hope.'"

Hello Steve,

I believe that we are getting ahead of ourselves. I said that we must first establish a foundation and that foundation is the people that Jesus was sent to, am I right.

Now, was not Jesus sent to the house of Israel?

Tell me what you think.

Harry,

Jesus was sent to Israel, and to the Gentiles as well, as shown in the verses I quoted. I will find some more if the one was not sufficient.

Hello Steve,

No. You do not have to find anymore versus.

Okay, let us understand that Matthew is not the commander in chief. God is the commander in chief. What we will know of God is what Jesus said and what Jesus did.

We know that Jesus testified that he was sent to the house of Israel by the commander in chief. In other words, Jesus was commissioned to go to the house of Israel. God did not commission Jesus to go elsewhere. Could we agree on this so far?

Eventually, I will show you that by Jesus going to the Gentiles is what caused his crucifixion.

Tell me what you think.

Okay Harry, these are the words of Jesus as reported in the Gospel According to John. 10: 14-18.

"I am the good shepherd. I know my own and they know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father. And I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life in order to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up again. I have received this command from my Father."

Hello Steve,

Well, what interests me that support my point am that Jesus has other sheep in the fold that does not belong in the fold.

In other words, God did not send Jesus after other sheep. God sent him to his own sheep. His own sheep is the same race as Jesus is. Jesus was Jewish and he was sent to the Jewish sheep. Those other sheep were not of Jesus race and that is why he said they did not belong in the fold.

Jesus was a bigheaded person. He disobeyed God big time, but he felt that God could still forgive him. He felt that God had forsaken him by not forgiven him and allowed him to be crucified.

Steve, prophets are to do what they are commissioned to do and nothing more.

Anyway, Jesus had sheep in the fold that did not belong there and that is my point.

Jesus was not sent to the Gentiles. Prophets could only administer to their own people and not other people. When those people time comes, God will send them a prophet of their own kind. In other words, Jesus needed to give other prophets and opportunity to work with their own people as God had sent Jesus to his own people. Am I making any sense with you? Are you learning anything?

Tell me what you think.

Harry,

No, it does not say the other sheep did not belong there, but that they were not there and needed to be brought in, to make one flock, one shepherd. Further, he says the Father approves, that he lay down his own life, it was not taken from him.

You have not shown anything that supports God punished Jesus.

Hello Steve,

Steve, let us work backwards from Jesus dying declaration to see if we could make some sense out of this issue, okay.

Jesus said directly to God, why hast thou forsaken me, am I right. Now, is Jesus indicating some sort of disappointment in God? Of causes, Jesus is showing disappointment in God. Now, if God had not forsaken Jesus as Jesus thought, would Jesus have been crucified? I do not think so.

After we clear this up then I will come back to the sheep issue, okay.

Tell me what you think.

Harry,

If we are sticking strictly with the biblical account, then at the moment of Jesus' death he took on the sins of all humankind, and was in that sense indeed forsaken. Again, if we accept the bible's teaching, he was raised and sits at the right hand of the Father. So the story ends in victory. But regardless, the kingdom of God did in fact grow from a mustard seed, to encompass all nations, not just Israel.

Hey,
Now this is Scholastic Thought and debate worthy of educated Americans. I like the reading,

Hey Robert,

You know I like to hear from all sides, and the exchange above is based on certain preconceptions. I know from things you've said that Islamic thought proceeds along different lines, and likely your comments would take a different approach. I'd enjoy hearing them if you are inclined to share.

Steve,

I pray that I present myself as an American that believes in free speech. I also pray that I read a subject, and then try to comprehend the writer, and then use my scholarship or researched scholarship to comment.

On BIA I am not one to go into pictures, or emotionalism, but I try to respond to Blogs I like reading or thinking about.

I, Love, IsaIbnMaryam---more than my wife, my children, myself
--i would not call him the latin, jesus-though--

Out of my belief in Knowledge and Scholarship that when The Creator has decided that the Sons of Adaam are required to Face Judgement-----Then, IsaIbnMaryam returns to start Judgement--that was his prophetic purpose.

You do a great job with harry, and your writings to him---are patient, I believe you are a great human being who feels for his fellow man.. And harry, just has HisReality that as far as Africans of SlaveAmerican descent---he might as well be their Sovereign Prophet, or he is going into a place where he needs discussion with you, me or some others.

harry is always polite, and he stays on this point, Always......

I respect his thought but he is too far away in NC----i believe that a library or a hospital is in his future but not prophethood....

Robert, Thanks.

You have once again encouraged my study. I have been slack, but I did look up:

Surah 4

157. That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-

158. Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;-

ameen

Hello Steve,

Well Steve, we have to stick to and strictly use the biblical account of Jesus life and how it ended. Remember that the Bible is the Jewish people’s testimony to the world of their relationship with God and Jesus was a Jew, furthermore Jesus said that he came to the house of Israel, am I right. Now, taking all of this information into account, who would you say is better than the Jews to speak for Jewish people than Jewish people are. I certainly would say just the Jewish people, not even Prophet Mohammad who was an Arab man could speak for the Jewish people. In other words, imagined that you are Jewish, your wife of course is Jewish and she has a birthmark right above her clitoris, how could someone else know this better than you could? You understand my point. So do not get stupid and say a doctor, okay. So, yes we have to stick to and strictly use the biblical account of Jesus life and how it ended. The Bible said that Jesus was crucified and today’s Jews do not deny his crucifixion. Al Quran says he was not crucified. Whose account would you accept? I would accept the biblical account for the reasons I gave.

Now, when you say that Jesus took on the sins of all humankind that is purely ignorant conjecture on your part. As an upright man I could never allowed Jesus to take on my sins and feel just. Why could I not go to God myself and ask for the forgiveness of my own sins as King David did so contritely in the 51st Psalm?

However, the issue that we are rationally trying to resolve is whether Jesus came to his own Jewish people or whether he came to all of humankind. I maintain that prophets of God could only serve their own race. Do you see the logic in what I am saying?

Tell me what you think.

Harry, I know that is what you want to be true, but your motive is not pure. You are like King James, who chose his own translation over the Geneva Bible, which undermined the Divine Right of Kings.

Hello Steve,

There are no real differences between the Geneva version and the King James Version of the Bible, except that the Geneva version is older. So, stop the nonsense and agree with me that Jesus came to his own Jewish people. So, let us not go off track with this nonsense of undermining the Kings.

Secondly, Jesus disobeyed God big-time and took his message to the Gentiles since he was not able to handle his people’s rejection of him.

Lastly, there is a rational connection between his desperate prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane and God abandoning him.

Have not you notice that my argument all along and even with Robert is that God sends prophets only to their own people? Could you not connect the dots from Jesus crucifixion how serious in nature that it is to disobey God and take your message to one another race of people? For a prophet to do such a thing is the same as to say Jesus is God or self-made.

Steve I have showed you by all accounts that Jesus came only to his own people and that by going to the Gentiles he was crucified. Consequentially, when you make your daily prayers to God, pray for Jesus forgiveness, okay. The Spirit of Jesus would be grateful, I know.

Tell me what you think.

Hello Robert,

You said this, “And harry, just has HisReality that as far as Africans of SlaveAmerican descent---”

Have I not connected the dots for you that Allah has always matched the race of the Prophet to the race of his people?

For instance, Prophet Mohammad was an Arab man and he was matched to the Arabian people, am I right.
Prophet Moses was Israelite and he was matched to the children of Israel, am I right.
Prophet Jesus was Jewish and he was matched to the Jewish people, am I right about that as well.

Now, how you cannot connect the dot that I am a Black American, a slave descendent and I am match to Black Americans who are descendents of slaves?

I certainly know why you cannot connect this last dot, it is because you are so brainwashed that you want Prophet Mohammad the Arab man to be your Prophet. But, Prophet Mohammad cannot be your Prophet, because I am rightfully your Prophet since you are a Black American and not an Arab man, Robert. You need to face the truth and live up to it.

Now, if my reasoning is wrong then by all means, please correct me. However, I know that you cannot override me.

I am the way, and besides me, there is no other way. I am Black America’s first genuine prophet of God. Everything that I say is going to happen.

Tell me what you think.

Harry,

You are wrong about the Geneva bible vs. King James. Not only do I have a facsimile edition of the Geneva, 1560 edition, but also a reproduction of the 1611 King James. I have also studied the history of the English bible in depth.

I am well aware that you wish to prove that prophets are sent to their own people. It is a big part of your uphill climb. It is a case of trying to make the facts fit the purpose, which is why I say you do not have the pure motive of scholarship and reason. On the one hand you say God inspires you. On the other, you go to great lengths to re-write history to prove to us all you are right. You seem to be too desperate to be a man inspired by God directly.

Hello Steve,

Steve, I believe that you are tumbling backwards and off course. If I am wrong then at the least show something out of the Geneva Bible instead of telling me about my uphill climb.

If you are not able to do this, I will accept your surrender, okay.

Tell me what you think.

Harry,

I don't have access to my main reference, my father has it. But here is something off the web which gives some of the essentials.

"The Geneva Bible

An Introduction to the Geneva Bible



For the last three centuries Protestants have fancied themselves the heirs of the Reformation, the Puritans, the Calvinists, and the Pilgrims who landed at Plymouth Rock. This assumption is one of history's greatest ironies. Today's Protestants laboring under that assumption use the King James Bible. Most of the newer Bibles such as the Revised Standard Version are simply updates of the King James.

The irony is that none of the groups named in the preceding paragraph used a King James Bible nor would they have used it if it had been given to them free. The Bible in use by those groups until it went out of print in 1644, was the Geneva Bible. The first Geneva Bible, both Old and New Testaments, was first published in English in 1560 in what is now Geneva, Switzerland,* William Shakespeare, John Bunyan, John Milton, the Pilgrims who landed on Plymouth Rock in 1620, and other luminaries of that era used the Geneva Bible exclusively.

Until he had his own version named after him, so did King James I of England. James I later tried to disclaim any knowledge of the Geneva Bible, though he quotes the Geneva Bible in his own writing, As a Professor Eadie reported it:

". . . his virtual disclaimer of all knowledge up to a late period of the Genevan notes and version was simply a bold, unblushing falsehood, a clumsy attempt to sever himself and his earlier Scottish beliefs and usages that he might win favor with his English churchmen." 1

The irony goes further. King James did not encourage a translation of the Bible in order to enlighten the common people. His sole intent was to deny them the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible. The marginal notes of the Geneva version were what made it so popular with the common people.

The King James Bible was, and is for all practical purposes, a government publication. There were several reasons for the King James Bible being a government publication.

First, King James I of England was a devout believer in the "divine right of kings," a philosophy ingrained in him by his mother, Mary Stuart. 2 Mary Stuart may have been having an affair with her Italian secretary, David Rizzio, at the time she conceived James. There is a better than even chance that James was the product of adultery* (G.P.V. Alerigg Jacobean Pageant p.6.). Apparently, enough evidence of such conduct on the part of Mary Stuart and David Rizzio existed to cause various Scot nobles, including Mary's own husband, King Henry, to drag David Rizzio from Mary's supper table and execute him. The Scot nobles hacked and slashed at the screaming Rizzio with knives and swords, and then threw him off a balcony to the courtyard below where he landed with a sickening smack. In the phrase of that day, he had been scotched. 3

Mary did have affairs with other men, such as the Earl of Bothwell. She later tried to execute her husband in a gunpowder explosion that shook all of Edinburg. King Henry survived the explosion, only to be suffocated later that same night. The murderers were never discovered. Mary was eventually beheaded at the order of her cousin, Elizabeth I of England. 4

To such individuals as James and his mother, Mary, the "divine right of kings" meant that since a king's power came from God, the king then had to answer to no one but God. This lack of responsibility extended to evil kings. The reasoning was that if a king was evil, that was a punishment sent from God. The citizens should then suffer in silence. If a king was good, that was a blessing sent from God.

This is why the Geneva Bible annoyed King James I. The Geneva Bible had marginal notes that simply didn't conform to that point of view. Those marginal notes had been, to a great extent placed in the Geneva Bible by the leaders of the Reformation including John Knox and John Calvin. Knox and Calvin could not and cannot be dismissed lightly or their opinions passed off to the public as the mere dithering of dissidents.

First, notes such as, "When tyrants cannot prevail by craft, they burst forth into open rage," (Note i, Exodus 1:22) really bothered King James"

More at: http://www.reformedreader.org/gbn/igb.htm

Hello Steve,

How your point of introducing the Geneva Bible has anything to do with that Jesus was specifically sent to the house of Israel and not to the Gentiles? Steve you need to show that God specifically sent Jesus to the Gentiles as well. Jesus made the personal decision to turn to the Gentiles after his people rejected him, am I right.

The same would be the case for me. God have specifically sent me to Black Americans. Now, if I try to lead the Mexicans into sovereignty on a portion of this continent I would meet the same fate as Jesus did because I would be disobeying God big time. I am to lead Black Americans into sovereignty on a portion of this continent that they could call their very own country with borders. Furthermore, I am not a Mexican and I have repeatedly said that God always match the race of the Prophet to the race of the people the Prophet is sent. Am I making good sense with you? Why then are you having such difficulties understanding simple things?

Have you forgotten that my point is that Jesus disobeyed God big time by not doing what he was supposed to have done and was crucified as a result?

Let us stay on track about the issue, please.

The Geneva Bible have not change anything, am I right.

What say you?

Harry, I made a side comment that you were like King James, and we pursued this over a couple exchanges, that is all.

As to the original question, you have yet to cite any references that God was angry with Jesus. You have said some things about Jesus feeling forsaken, but haven't made any clear connection that God thought Jesus had disobeyed him. Unlike the story of Moses where a clear connection is made, because Moses struck the rock twice.

Hello Steve,

You have the intelligence in front of you and you are failing to connect the dots.
It is clear that Jesus was sent to the house of Israel. You have not denied that. Now, Gentiles means all races. You and I agree that Jesus went to the Gentiles. However, I am saying that the Gentiles were not part of Jesus duties from God. Since God specifically identified a people that Jesus was sent to, namely the house of Israel common sense would tell you he was not sent to all the races, am I right. Now, you have one of my references that I am citing.

Secondly, Jesus mentioned God had forsaken him. Now, we have to give a rationally intelligent reasoning why God would abandon Jesus, am I right. For God to forsaken an anointed prophet is very, very serious, am I right.

Now, what offend would anger God big time than to spitefully disobey God? Because, Jesus was bighead. He thought high and mighty of himself.

He failed to execute his duties under the full protection of God to his own Jewish people he was sent. He fascinated other races with the powers that God gave him and fell victim to his own vanity.

So, why should he not have made a desperate attempt to get back in the confidence of God and pray as he has never prayed before when he prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane? However, God did not forgive him and he was executed by crucifixion. His dying words was that he felt God forsaken him rather than forgave him. In his vanity, he still felt that his disobedience to God was not such a big deal. This is the second reference I am citing, okay.

Now, do not allow your finger to wag your body and look foolishly ignorant in responding. In other words, intelligently and rationally knock down what I say since everything I say is from the Bible as it is written. The differences between you and I is that you cannot interpret as well as I do and that is because I am inspired by God.

What say you?