Originally posted by NemesioThat's not much of an argument, Nemesio, to say the very least.
What if I told you that the Holy Spirit told me that Jesus never existed? What would you say?
You'd say I was wrong. So, if I can be confident through something I interpret to be the Holy
Spirit's revelation and be completely wrong (naturally, I believe Jesus existed), then so, too, can
a so-called believer think that s/he is 'saved' and be totally wrong.
Nemesio
First, if the Holy Spirit reveals a certain truth, then it is the truth. Since the Holy Spirit's job is to glorify Jesus Christ, then the Holy Spirit would never have given anyone confidence that Christ didn't exist. I would indeed say that you are wrong, if that were your contention, because:
"This is how we know if they have the Spirit of God: If a person claiming to be a prophet acknowledges that Jesus Christ came in a real body, that person has the Spirit of God. But if someone claims to be a prophet and does not acknowledge the truth about Jesus, that person is not from God" (1 John 4:2-3).
Second, it is indeed the work of the Holy Spirit to give assurance of one's salvation:
"You received God’s Spirit when he adopted you as his own children. Now we call him, “Abba, Father.” For his Spirit joins with our spirit to affirm that we are God’s children" (Romans 8:15-16).
Thinking doesn't make it so, obviously, but if it is so, the Holy Spirit will certainly give a believer confidence that he or she is 'saved'.
Originally posted by no1marauderWell, the Greek word in the bible translated as 'believe', means not only to 'believe', but to 'cleave to', 'trust in', and 'rely upon' Jesus Christ. The dictionary defines believe as, "to have confidence, firm faith or trust in." Abraham was declared righteous because of his faith in God, and likewise everyone who believes in Jesus Christ is 'declared righteous'. Abraham believed God could and would do what He promised; that is, give Sarah a son in her old age. Christians believe God could, would, and has done what He promised; that is, raise Jesus Christ from the dead. Did Jesus Christ raise from the dead? If you truly believe that in your heart, then you believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
And I repeat: the question is unclear. In what sense? Once you actually specify what you're asking, I can either A) Answer the question; B) Tell you I don't know the answer or C) Inform you it's NOYB. Any of the three might be an appropriate response to the question: "Do you believe in Jesus Christ" from my standpoint.
"If anyone is ashamed of me and my message in these adulterous and sinful days, the Son of Man will be ashamed of that person when he returns in the glory of his Father with the holy angels" (Mark 8:38).
"Everyone who acknowledges me publicly here on earth, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven" (Matthew 10:32).
A believer in Christ is always ready to proclaim his or her affiliation with and allegiance to and belief in Jesus Christ, so that he or she may suffer whatever persecutions possible for His sake.
Originally posted by epiphinehasCould you reformulate all that into one sentence and avoid the sermon?
Well, the Greek word in the bible translated as 'believe', means not only to 'believe', but to 'cleave to', 'trust in', and 'rely upon' Jesus Christ. The dictionary defines believe as, "to have confidence, firm faith or trust in." Abraham was declared righteous because of his faith in God, and likewise everyone who believes in Jesus Christ is 'declared ...[text shortened]... ist, so that he or she may suffer whatever persecutions possible for His sake.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderIf Jesus didn't raise from the dead, then Jesus Himself would be a liar, because in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, he explicitly says that He would rise from the dead after three days.
No. Is everything in the Gospels meaningless if he didn't?
(I know this is probably going to tick you off) Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 15:14-16:
"And if Christ has not been raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your faith is useless. And we apostles would all be lying about God—for we have said that God raised Christ from the grave. But that can’t be true if there is no resurrection of the dead. And if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised."
If you can't trust Jesus when He says He will rise from the dead after three days in the grave, how can you trust Him when He talks about the end times where everbody will be resurrected from the dead and be brought to judgment?
If you can find meaning in the Gospels without believing in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, I'm sure it's possible. But what of Christ's authority; by whose authority is He speaking? If He is not telling the truth about His resurrection, why should anyone take His word as more authoritative than anyone elses?
I don't know, that's up to you to decide.
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasThe Greek original of Matthew could be translated as:
If Jesus didn't raise from the dead, then Jesus Himself would be a liar, because in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, he explicitly says that He would rise from the dead after three days.
(I know this is probably going to tick you off) Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 15:14-16:
"And if Christ has not been raised, then all our preaching is useless, and y d as more authoritative than anyone elses?
I don't know, that's up to you to decide.
"Disapeare for three days and then comeback"
The word used for "dead" in Greek could give the meening of absense or something like that not necessarly death.
May be I'm wrong but visted could correct me.
Originally posted by epiphinehasIn terms of the “text versus tradition” theme—
That's not much of an argument, Nemesio, to say the very least.
First, if the Holy Spirit reveals a certain truth, then it is the truth. Since the Holy Spirit's job is to glorify Jesus Christ, then the Holy Spirit would never have given anyone confidence that Christ didn't exist. I would indeed say that you are wrong, if that were your ...[text shortened]... the Holy Spirit will certainly give a believer confidence that he or she is 'saved'.
For Orthodox Christians (as well as for Roman Catholics—though they both have differences about the tradition, which led to the “Great Schism” of 1054), the test of whether or not one is speaking in accord with the Holy Spirit is whether or not one is also speaking in accord with Church doctrine “as handed down by the Fathers.” The purpose of Orthodoxy is to preserve the tradition, which (in its view) has rightly interpreted the scriptures.
Therefore one cannot use strictly sola scriptura to confirm whether or not one has the Spirit in him, nor any personal spiritual experience. Nor of course can one use one’s own reading of the scripture to establish that one’s experience is really of the Holy Spirit, while claiming that one’s reading is correct because one is being guided by the Spirit—that would be wholly circular reasoning.
For example—to pick one that both Epiphenahas and Nemesio seem to agree on—if one claims that salvation is an event, rather than a process (of theosis), that would indicate that one is not speaking in accord with the Holy Spirit.
Or, if one held to a Christology different from that finally hammered out in the Definition of Chalcedon in 451.
So, in this “universe of discourse,” Orthodoxy takes the tradition as preserved in the church to be the axiomatic “standard of truth,” according to which both scriptural interpretation and claims of being “in the Spirit” are tested.
If, for a Protestant, sola scriptura is the standard, then the question arises as to what kind of hermeneutic yields the proper reading (e.g., historical/literal, historical-critical, literary-critical, or some “appropriate” combination). It then appears that the decided hermeneutics becomes axiomatic. If experience of the Holy Spirit is the standard, then the question arises as to how one discerns—for himself—that the experience is a real one, and not, say, a strictly psychological and/or emotional event (no matter how unexpected, strange or powerful—even a life-changing one).
Again, Orthodoxy’s answer (and the RCC’s too) is that conformity to church doctrine, as developed and handed down in the tradition, is the standard. In broader terms (that likely includes some Protestant churches as well), it is the teachings of the community of faith (the ekklesia) that are the standard.
Originally posted by vistesdIt looks like you've had some good rest, vistesd! 🙂
In terms of the “text versus tradition” theme—
For Orthodox Christians (as well as for Roman Catholics—though they both have differences about the tradition, which led to the “Great Schism” of 1054), the [b]test of whether or not one is speaking in accord with the Holy Spirit is whether or not one is also speaking in accord with Church doctrine “as ha ...[text shortened]... ell), it is the teachings of the community of faith (the ekklesia) that are the standard.[/b]
My take would be: if the Holy Spirit is indeed the Teacher, then He will reveal what is truth. Whether it's one reading or another, or even partial aspects of a given reading; i.e. discernment as to what is not exactly true. And this will always be the case with the Holy Spirit. Whether one has, as they say, 'quenched' the Holy Spirit by disobeying God's commandments, thereby supplimenting His influence, or whether one has never received the Holy Spirit in the first place, determines the legitmacy of claims made 'in the Holy Spirit'. The most significant indicator that the Holy Spirit indwells a man or woman, is whether or not he or she first believes in Jesus Christ (that He rose from the dead), and second obeys His commandments.
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasFunny you mention the end times; Jesus gives a lengthy description of them in Matthew 24 and then says:
If Jesus didn't raise from the dead, then Jesus Himself would be a liar, because in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, he explicitly says that He would rise from the dead after three days.
(I know this is probably going to tick you off) Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 15:14-16:
"And if Christ has not been raised, then all our preaching is useless, and y d as more authoritative than anyone elses?
I don't know, that's up to you to decide.
34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be accomplished.
Yet that generation did "pass away" without all those things being accomplished. Does that make Jesus a liar?
EDIT: I have looked at the following Gospel passages regarding the "resurrection" recommended from a Christian website (http://www.biblestudylessons.com/cgi-bin/gospel_way/resurrection_evidence.php):
John 2:18-22; Matt. 16:21,22; 17:22,23; 26:31,32; Mark 9:9,10 (and parallel accounts). Matthew 20:18,19
They all use the term "rising from the dead" or variations of the same phrase. Does this necessarily state a physical resurrection? Perhaps one of our Greek experts can take a look at this.
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't know, does it make Him a liar? I peronally don't believe He is, but neither do I know exactly what He means by that verse. The greek word is genea can also be interpreted as 'nation', 'age', 'family', 'men of the same stock', etc. Decide for yourself on that one...
Funny you mention the end times; Jesus gives a lengthy description of them in Matthew 24 and then says:
34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be accomplished.
Yet that generation did "pass away" without all those things being accomplished. Does that make Jesus a liar?
EDIT: I have look ...[text shortened]... y state a physical resurrection? Perhaps one of our Greek experts can take a look at this.
I'll have to look into the resurrection greek.
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasI’m just going to be able to pop in and out here sporadically for the next couple of days, so it might take me awhile to catch up. But (and this is more of an aside than a response to your post)—
It looks like you've had some good rest, vistesd! 🙂
My take would be: if the Holy Spirit is indeed the Teacher, then He will reveal what is truth. Whether it's one reading or another, or even partial aspects of a given reading; i.e. discernment as to what is not exactly true. And this will always be the case with the Holy Spirit. Whether one has, believes in Jesus Christ (that He rose from the dead), and second obeys His commandments.
If I were able to say the Nicene Creed, say, with utmost sincerity, understanding it in the same way as the Nicene fathers (and without turning it all into metaphor—I’m not doing this as a trick question). In other words, suppose in talking about Christology, we were in complete accord.
I think we would still likely disagree on soteriology. In the Orthodox church, as I have said before, the most prominent view of salvation is as healing, and it is acceptable to believe that ultimately all will be saved—albeit, for some, that may subject to a spell in the ultimately healing fires of hell.
I’m going to provide a couple of citations, which are not exhaustive:
“As a copious spring could not be stopped up with a handful of dust, so the Creator’s compassion cannot be conquered by the wickedness of creatures.” (Isaac of Nineveh; 7th century) Isaac views whatever torment there is in hell as being caused by “the invasion of love,” which is ultimately a healing force; and the torment is caused by remorse. Orthodox theologian Olivier Clement comments as follows—
“We must pray, however, that the fire of judgment—which is the fire of God’s love*—will not consume the wicked, but only that part in each one which is evil. The division into ‘sheep’ and ‘goats’ of which the Last Judgment scene speaks would thus be made, not between Two crowds of human beings, but between two kinds of character within each individual. In practice, other parables of a similar kind like that of the ‘good seed’ and the ‘tares’ cannot be interpreted in any other way. Jesus explains that the ‘good seed means the sons of the Kingdom; the weeds are the sons of the evil one’, and that at the end these latter will be cast into the blazing furnace (Matthew 13:36). Only Gnostics and Manicheans can hold that it is a question here of people. All human beings are creatures of God. What is ‘sown by the devil’ is destructive suggestions, the seeds of idolatry and folly. Good seeds and tares are human dispositions. To destroy the thoughts sown by the evil one is not to destroy the person but to cauterize him. What Gregory of Nyssa suggests is precisely this divine surgery.
“‘The body is subject to various forms of illness. Some are easy to treat, others are not, and for the latter recourse is had to incisions, cauterizations, bitter medicine... We are told something of the same sort about the judgment in the next world, the healing of the soul’s infirmities. If we are superficial people, that amounts to a threat and a process of severe correction... But the faith of deeper minds regards it as a process of healing and therapy applied by God in such a way as to bring back the being he created to its original grace.’ (Gregory of Nyssa, Great Catechetical Oration)”
Clement quotes Ambrose of Milan (4th century): “The same individual is at the same time saved and condemned.” [I think this statement here is to be understood in the foregoing context, in which Clement quotes it, and not as a statement that no one can avoid hell in the afterlife—that undoubtedly would be heretical.]
St. Gregory of Nyssa (4th century) referred to the apokatastasis, the return of all things to God as “the final restoration which is expected to take place later in the kingdom of heaven of those who have suffered condemnation in Gehenna.” (The Life of Moses, II-82-4.)
I don’t expect that you’ll agree (though you might: I shouldn’t second-guess you); and I’m not in a position to argue it. But, such a view would not be considered heretical in the Orthodox church, so long as one expressed only the opinion and hope for such apokatastatis for everyone, and did not assert it as doctrine. Origen’s assertion was condemned by the church; Gregory’s belief was not.
* This is likely drawn, in part, from the texts identifying God as agape, and also as a “consuming fire.”
________________________________________
EDIT: I'm not presenting any of that as some kind of "escape clause." I mean, it would be a helluv an escape clause (pun intended) for one to hang his hat on!
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauder"And Jesus going up to Jerusalem, took the twelve disciples by themselves in the way, and said to them, `Lo, we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man shall be delivered to the chief priests and scribes, and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the nations to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify, and the third day he will rise again'" (Matthew 20:17-19 YLT).
Funny you mention the end times; Jesus gives a lengthy description of them in Matthew 24 and then says:
34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be accomplished.
Yet that generation did "pass away" without all those things being accomplished. Does that make Jesus a liar?
EDIT: I have look y state a physical resurrection? Perhaps one of our Greek experts can take a look at this.
The greek for 'rise again' in all these instances is egeiro, which in its literal sense means 'to rouse or awaken -- from sleep, from sitting or lying, from death, or from disease', and in its figurative sense can mean 'to rouse or awaken -- from obscurity, inactivity, ruins, or nonexistence' (source, Strong's Concordance). The Lexicon entry on Zhubert reads: '(active) raise, awaken, erect, resurrect; rise, awake, be raised (from the dead).' Thayer's at crosswalk reads: 'to arouse, cause to rise
to arouse from sleep, to awake, to arouse from the sleep of death, to recall the dead to life, to cause to rise from a seat or bed, etc., to raise up, produce, cause to appear, to cause to appear, bring before the public, to raise up, stir up, cause to be born; of buildings, to raise up, construct, erect.'
__________________________________________________________________
The question is, is Jesus meaning to say unequivocally that He will physically come back to life after having died, and does the scripture record bare this out as it refers to His resurrection.
If we were to read 'rise again' as indicating that Jesus had merely 'disappeared' for a three day period, what exactly are we claiming? That Jesus did not die on the cross? Certianly such a claim is not consistent with scripture in the slightest. Jesus predicted He would be crucified, the bible account shows that He was crucified and not taken down off the cross until he had died. Furthermore, he was wrapped in a shroud and laid in a rich man's tomb, a giant stone rolled over the front of it, guarded by the Pharisee's guards so His followers would not steal his body in the night (as an aside, the Pharisees by this action prove the meaning Christ intended, that when He spoke of 'rising again' He was to rise again bodily from the grave). Obviously, from the scriptural account we cannot posit that Jesus merely disappeared and then appeared again and that this constitutes a resurrection.
The apostles spoke of Christ's resurrection as the foundation of their faith. The greek word for resurrection is anastasi which means 'a raising up, rising (e.g. from a seat), a rising from the dead, that of Christ, that of all men at the end of this present age'. Literally its meaning is 'a resurrection from death'; figuratively its meaning is 'a recovery'. How can we tell that the resurrection to which they refer is literal or figurative?
Consider Matthew 27:52-54-
"And the tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who have fallen asleep, arose, and having come forth out of the tombs after his rising, they went into the holy city, and appeared to many. And the centurion, and those with him watching Jesus, having seen the earthquake, and the things that were done, were exceedingly afraid, saying, `Truly this was God's Son.'"
Someone attempting to interpret all these events as merely figurative would probably say that the terms 'tombs were opened' and 'saints who have fallen asleep' and 'come forth out of the tombs' are referring not to a physical resurrection, but to some kind of 'spiritual recovery' of sorts. But the greek word for 'tomb' (mnemeion) does not have a figurative sense; its meaning is clearly 'a place of interment, grave, tomb, or sepulchre.' And if the bodies of the saints 'appeared to many' in some incorporeal state, then why would the tombs have to be opened? Surely throwing open the doors of their tombs was not a theatrical gesture, but a utilitarian one: doors must be open for people to walk through them. Obviously these saints were raised from the dead physically. Would it have been any different for Jesus?
Similarly, Lazarus was raised from the dead physically. He was in his tomb four days after dying when Jesus finally arrived to raise him from the dead:
"Jesus, therefore, again groaning in himself, cometh to the tomb, and it was a cave, and a stone was lying upon it, Jesus saith, `Take ye away the stone;' the sister of him who hath died -- Martha -- saith to him, `Sir, already he stinketh, for he is four days dead;' Jesus saith to her, `Said I not to thee, that if thou mayest believe, thou shalt see the glory of God?' They took away, therefore, the stone where the dead was laid, and Jesus lifted his eyes upwards, and said, `Father, I thank Thee, that Thou didst hear me; and I knew that Thou always dost hear me, but, because of the multitude that is standing by, I said [it], that they may believe that Thou didst send me.' And these things saying, with a loud voice he cried out, `Lazarus, come forth;' and he who died came forth, being bound feet and hands with grave-clothes, and his visage with a napkin was bound about; Jesus saith to them, `Loose him, and suffer to go.' Many, therefore, of the Jews who came unto Mary, and beheld what Jesus did, believed in him" (John 11:38-45).
This account explicity shows that Christ has the power to literally raise someone physically from the dead. Would it have been any different for Jesus in His 'rising' from the dead? Why would Christ's resurrection be any less remarkable than Lazarus's?
"Because of this doth the Father love me, because I lay down my life, that again I may take it; no one doth take it from me, but I lay it down of myself; authority I have to lay it down, and authority I have again to take it; this command I received from my Father'" (John 10:17-18).
Furthermore, it is clear throughout the rest of the epistles that the apostles were preaching a physically resurrected Christ:
"And if Christ has not been raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your faith is useless. And we apostles would all be lying about God—for we have said that God raised Christ from the grave" (1 Corinthians 15:14-16).
And that the believer's hope was to reside in the power of God to physically resurrect Christ from the dead:
"Blessed [is] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, according to the abundance of His kindness did beget us again to a living hope, through the rising again of Jesus Christ out of the dead" (1 Peter 1:3).
__________________________________________________________________
The biblical account of Jesus and His apostles only makes sense if Jesus indeed came back to life physically after having died.
The overriding principle in the NT is faith in the power of God. That Christ rose from the dead after carrying the sins of the world at the cross is miraculous evidence (for the believer) that God has indeed eternally pardoned the judgement of sin for all those who put their faith in Him. Therefore, to believe in Jesus Christ is to believe in the power of God to raise Him from the dead.
"Your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God" (1 Corinthians 2:5).
The 'wisdom of men' claims God has no power to resurrect the dead, and scoffs at the idea of rising from the dead. In fact, Paul was mocked for preaching such:
"Because He did set a day in which He is about to judge the world in righteousness, by a man whom He did ordain, having given assurance to all, having raised him out of the dead.' And having heard of a rising again of the dead, some, indeed, were mocking, but others said, `We will hear thee again concerning this;' and so Paul went forth from the midst of them" (Acts 17:31-33).
Justification in God's eyes; being 'declared righteous' hinges on one's sincere belief that God can do what He promises, e.g. raise Jesus physically from the dead:
"And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; but for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead" (Romans 4:21-24).
Therefore:
"If thou mayest confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and mayest believe in thy heart that God did raise him out of the dead, thou shalt be saved, for with the heart doth [one] believe to righteousness, and with the mouth is confession made to salvation; for the Writing saith, `Every one who is believing on him shall not be ashamed'" (Romans 10:9-11).
4 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehas[/b]If we were to read 'rise again' as indicating that Jesus had merely 'disappeared' for a three day period, what exactly are we claiming? That Jesus did not die on the cross? Certianly such a claim is not consistent with scripture in the slightest. Jesus predicted He would be crucified, the bible account shows that He was crucified and not taken down off the cross until he had died. Furthermore, he was wrapped in a shroud and laid in a rich man's tomb, a giant stone rolled over the front of it, guarded by the Pharisee's guards so His followers would not steal his body in the night (as an aside, the Pharisees by this action prove the meaning Christ intended, that when He spoke of 'rising again' He was to rise again bodily from the grave). Obviously, from the scriptural account we cannot posit that Jesus merely disappeared and then appeared again and that this constitutes a resurrection.
"And Jesus going up to Jerusalem, took the twelve disciples by themselves in the way, and said to them, `Lo, we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man shall be delivered to the chief priests and scribes, and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the nations to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify, and the third day he will [b]rise aga s 10:9-11).
May be someone else was on the cross, not Jesus. Someone who looks like him, specially the one who was captured never said he is Jesus, and all the students left him, and no one was around at the crucification time. And the one on the cross was crying and asking GOD to save him, and that doesn't make any sense if he is a saviour.
Something else, when Jesus came back, was he spirit or human.
If he was spirit why does he need to eat. And if he was human, why does he need human body for?
I don't remember names now, but I read somewhere that not every one in the early centuries did belive that Jesus was crossified. May someone help to give names.
Read this:
[ King James Version ]-[ Heb:5:7 ]-[ Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; ]
If Jesus asked GOD to save him from death and GOD heard him and saved him, who come he was crucified.
Originally posted by ahosyneyMay be someone else was on the cross, not Jesus. Someone who looks like him, specially the one who was captured never said he is Jesus, and all the students left him, and no one was around at the crucification time.
May be someone else was on the cross, not Jesus. Someone who looks like him, specially the one who was captured never said he is Jesus, and all the students left him, and no one was around at the crucification time. And the one on the cross was crying and asking GOD to save him, and that doesn't make any sense if he is a saviour.
Something else, when Jes ...[text shortened]... s asked GOD to save him from death and GOD heard him and saved him, who come he was crucified.
First, Judas betrayed Jesus by identifying Him to the authorities with a kiss. Second, Jesus had already predicted His own crucifixion and resurrection. Third, there were witnesses who knew Christ present at His trial and crucifixion. Fourth, it had been foretold that Jesus would be smitten by God and His disciples would be scattered.
1. Regarding the person arrested when the authorities came with Judas looking for Jesus, it is clearly Jesus Christ:
"Judas, one of the twelve disciples, arrived with a crowd of men armed with swords and clubs. They had been sent by the leading priests and elders of the people. The traitor, Judas, had given them a prearranged signal: “You will know which one to arrest when I greet him with a kiss." So Judas came straight to Jesus. “Greetings, Rabbi!” he exclaimed and gave him the kiss. Jesus said, “My friend, go ahead and do what you have come for.” Then the others grabbed Jesus and arrested him" (Matthew 26:47-50).
2. Jesus had predicted His own betrayal, crucifixion, death, and resurrection:
"“Listen,” he said, “we’re going up to Jerusalem, where the Son of Man will be betrayed to the leading priests and the teachers of religious law. They will sentence him to die. Then they will hand him over to the Romans to be mocked, flogged with a whip, and crucified. But on the third day he will be raised from the dead" (Matthew 20:17-19).
Would Christ impart this information to His disciples if it were not going to come to pass? The integrity of Christ and of the gospels hinges on Christ's honest dealings; everything happened as He said it would. There is never any mention of a stand-in dying on the cross instead of Jesus.
3. There were witnesses present at Christ's crucifixion who knew Him:
"And many women who had come from Galilee with Jesus to care for him were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary (the mother of James and Joseph), and the mother of James and John, the sons of Zebedee" (Matthew 27:55-56).
4. Christ's disciples didn't leave because the authorities arrested someone besides Jesus; they feared persecution and their abandonment was foretold:
"You will all be offended and stumble and fall away because of Me this night [distrusting and deserting Me], for it is written, I will strike the Shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered" (Matthew 26:31).
Jesus was referencing Zechariah 13:7-
"'Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, the man who is my partner,' says the Lord of Heaven’s Armies. 'Strike down the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.'"
____________________________________________________________________
And the one on the cross was crying and asking GOD to save him, and that doesn't make any sense if he is a saviour....If Jesus asked GOD to save him from death and GOD heard him and saved him, who come he was crucified.
While Christ was on the cross he did not ask God to save him. His exact words were:
“'Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?' which means, 'My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?'" (Mark 15:34).
This is the cry of innocence. Many innocent lambs had been sacrificed for the sake of Israel's sins before the Ark of the Covenant in the OT. Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God. His innocence is what gives His sacrifice eternal forgiveness of sin to all who put their faith in His resurrection.
In the Garden of Gethsemane Jesus prayed for His Father to take the 'cup' of suffering (the crucifixion) from Him, were it possible:
“My Father! If it is possible, let this cup of suffering be taken away from me. Yet I want your will to be done, not mine" (Matthew 26:39).
Yes, Jesus pleaded with the Father for some other way to accomplish His task, but He preferred the Father's will to His own. The Lord's plan for the Messiah was foretold and it was God's will for it to come to pass. It is Christ's obedience to the cross (the Lord's will) which is essential. In your Hebrews quote you did not include the most vital verse:
"Even though Jesus was God’s Son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered" (Hebrews 5:8).
The Lord did answer Him and sent an angel to strengthen him for His time of tribulation:
"Then an angel from heaven appeared and strengthened him. He prayed more fervently, and he was in such agony of spirit that his sweat fell to the ground like great drops of blood" (Luke 22:43-44).
The point the Hebrews author was making is that because of Christ's great faith God answered Him, and gave Him the strength necessary to carry out God's will. He did not save Christ from the cross, because the cross was God's will and way of salvation for all mankind. As Jesus Christ said Himself:
"And as Moses lifted up the bronze snake on a pole in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, so that everyone who believes in him will have eternal life" (John 3:14-15).