A Challenge to Our Intelligence.

[Ben_Masada]

Can’t the Sabbath be broken in cases of matters of life or death?

Was that a case of life and death? Do you happen to know what is a case of life and death? That’s when a life can be saved. You claim that Jesus was dead; so, there was no life to be saved.

 

[Ben_Masada]

What graveyard? there was only one grave there. The grave was in a rock, and the entrance was blocked by the stone. So the grave itself was all behind the stone, not under! So, as long as the stone remained there,

There was a graveyard in Jerusalem, didn’t you know? Nobody can be buried outside the graveyard duh!

 

[PJM]

=Ben Masada;5689877]

Congratulations! You have just uncovered another contradiction in the NT, because in Matthew 5:18,19 we have that Jesus came to fulfill every single item of the Law to the letter. Therefore, he was a married man, which is the first of the commandments. So much for your criticizing me that I don’t bring any evidence to my assertions.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Say… was it during daytime, or at night?

Daytime. (Mat. 27:62)

 

[Ben_Masada]

We can do what you do and attack the OT, but we don’t, we respect it as the foundation of our beliefs. .

You have a weird way to demonstrate your respect for our Scriptures, by picking up a religious Jew and making a Greek demigod out of him, as if
in Judaism there is room for Greek Mythology. If this is respect. God have mercy on us if you decide to dishonour our Faith.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Matthew might have got this story from probably two different people, by hearsay so to speak! I doubt the priests themselves would have told him themselves…

Matthew the Apostle never wrote that stuff. The guy who wrote about that, probably, was never in Israel even for a visit. The gospel writers wrote half from hearsay and half from fabrication.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben Masada;5676457:

Then your people, the Jews, are not the ones who received the Torah from God. Your people certainly has stolen it to the Israelites!!!
Seriously, Ben! Just because the term Christians appears only then, it doesn’t mean that Christianity as a faith just started there… no more than the Jewish faith only started when they were first called Jews instead of israelites or even something like Judeans…

The word “Jews” comes from the word “Judah” the son of Jacob. Luke says that it was with Paul that the disciples started being called Christians
for the FIRST time. (Acts 11:26) And that happened in Antioch, about 30 years after Jesus had been gone. Now, go figure.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Hello Ben,

I would think that you would be proud of Jesus. Afterall he was Jewish. His ascendency is recorded right down to Abraham. He is one of you and one of the most beloved men in history. How is that something to feel threatened by? Alas I will try to explain the situation here;

 

[Ben_Masada]

First there was “wierd” then “more wierd” is this gonna be thee wierdest:shrug:

Was Jesus Jewish and, if he was, how would that have influenced his experiences as a young man growing up in Galilee?

From the Clan of King David.

My my, such charges I have read the bible in it beautiful entirety, mutiple times. help us out friend, this is located where?

The gospels have no sense yet that Jesus was anything other than a Jew. The gospels don’t even have a sense that he came to found a new religion, an idea completely foreign to all the gospel text, and completely foreign to Paul.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben Masada;5673465:

So, Jesus would have survived the spearing to his heart? Sure, John is the only one to tell about it, but he also was the only Apostle at the foot of the cross where Jesus was nailed. It says Jesus was already dead then. The other crucified people had their legs broken… You would be able to remain alive, then, had you been speared right in the heart?

**There was no spear-piercing at Jesus’ side. It was not a Roman custom to do that. Josephus says that the Romans crucified thousands of Jews. There is not a single report in the writings of Josephus that they ever spear-pierced a crucified. John plagiarized it from Zechariah 12:10 with the purpose to score a prophecy to enhance Jesus’ credibility as the one.

A second reason is that before the alleged piercing, the Centurion and his corhots had acknowledged that Jesus was indeed the son of God. There is no logic to claim that they would still spear-pierce him. (Mat. 27:54)

The third reason is that the Centurion might have been generously bribed by Joseph of Arimathea to just allow him to take Jesus off the cross and report back to Pilate that everything was all right and that Jesus was dead. At least, there is precedence for this bribe in Matthew 28:12. **

 

[Ben_Masada]

Lapell;5681372:

Yeah, tell me about Logic!!!

**Yeah, do you really want me to tell you about Logic?
Here we go. Let us start with Mark 14:50. “When Jesus was arrested ALL the disciples deserted him and fled.” This is one leg of this Logic why John was not at the Calvary the day Jesus was crucified.

The second leg of this Logic is that according to a Roman policy, it was strictly forbidden for a disciple to approach the site of a crucifixion. Only women and very close family. From the book, “The Myth of the Pax Romana” by Prof. Erick Hinnerman, a German Scholar of the 19th Century.

Jesus’ beloved disciple yes, she was there before Jesus with his mother whom Jesus recommended one to each other. She was Mary Magdalene. Her replacement by John was a Church conspiracy to distract the reader from thinking that Jesus had been married to Mary. This thought has been confirmed by a few Scholars.

There is a third leg to this Logic. Jewish decorum. A religious Jew would never recommend his mother to the care of a male disciple and vice-versa no matter what. **

 

[PJM]

=Ben Masada-COLOR=“DarkRed”]Matthew the Apostle never wrote that stuff. The guy who wrote about that, probably, was never in Israel even for a visit. The gospel writers wrote half from hearsay and half from fabrication.

***So Ben, let me guess, your favorite comic book character is the Phatom right?

In all of your post, I have yet seen even one shred of evidence. Not ONE:shrug:*** You want to be taken seriously? Then use the mind and intellect that God gave you. All your doing now is following in the very steps of your Jewish predecessors by denying the Messiah. And what did that get you around 70A.D.? Catholic Faith has now had 265 consecutivr Popes and 2,000 years of service to prove itself. And only you Ben, have discovered thes glaring errors? How convienant. Perhaps you should contact Hollywood and make a movie?

Love and prayers Ben,

 

[PJM]

***Ben I have to be honest here.

Your post are by far more of a challange to our patience than to our intellegence. It takes very little intellegence to uncover your ajenda, which to date has yet to provide a single shred of evidence.

But we still love ya Ben, because Christ whom you try to crucify again, tells us too.***

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben Masada

Keep in mind something I learned in my life:

*The true descendants of bigotry and hate are those who embody bigotry and hate in words or actions. You don’t inherit it by blood but in words and actions. The same is true with being a victim. *

I grew up like a second class citizen with no future, and in my life I have seen bigotry against me and my family in the name of faith. I have heard the condescending self righteous arguments and questions asked in order to convert people or to bash their faith. In the gospels this is seen when some official poses a question to Jesus in order to trap him. There is no compassion or understanding only the hard hearted win or lose in a legalistic debate. Sorry but you can’t convince me of anything because I believe your true intentions are out of malice. Nobody is perfect, not even “Religious Jews.” And we all need more compassion and understanding. I don’t believe your questions serve either, and I don’t believe you truly want answers.

I will pray for you.

If you use knowledge and research, you will be doing much better than wasting your time trying to appeal to my emotions. The road to my soul is not through my heart but through my mind.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Your logic is such that as Ben desires debates,…I can see why he hasn’t posted anything to refute your excellent synopsis yet! He is too busy with his other debating.forums with his prostylizing rhetoric. Nevertheless, there is a degree of logic that one can not refute. Faith!

God Bless!

Now yes, you said all in one word: Faith. It is indeed impossible to refute faith. Faith is synonymous with lack of knowledge. But for lack of knowledge People perish. (Hosea 4:6)

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben Masada;5675889:

We would have to accept your story that the Romans didn’t believe Jesus to be dead because going through torture and crucifixion and being stabbed in the chest is nothing a bandage can fix

Jesus was never spear-pierced for three reasons: First, it was not a Roman policy to do that. Josephus asserts that the Romans killed thousands of Jews, and there is not a single indication of spear-piercing. Second, it was before this alleged piercing that the Centurion and his corhots confessed that Jesus was son of God. It makes no sense to make sure he was finished with a stab at his side. And third, since money speaks volumes, the Centurion must have had enough from Joseph of Arimathea to just let Joseph take Jesus off the cross without any more ado. There is a precendent for this bribe in Matthew 28:12.

And remember Pilate was never hell bent on killing Jesus, the high Jewish priest saw him more of a threat. Now if Jesus was a military leader that presented a real physical armed threat to Rome, of course he would be hunted down. Jesus was more of the threat to the priestly class which were instrumental in having him killed.

If Pilate was never bent on killing Jesus for political reasons why would he write on that plate the reason why he was killed? That takes care of that. And regarding the chief priests, what threat would mount them if Jesus had come to confirm their most important thing which was God’s Law? They would never ask the enemies of our Country to crucify a loyal Jew. That’s a conspiracy to clear the Romans of their guilt of Jesus’ death. If you don’t believe so, explain the two contradictions above.

Here is where we part, as Christians we believe Christ ascended into heaven, you don’t believe that so no matter what there is no point in arguing where Jesus went after the 40 days because you don’t believe in his resurrection.

You cannot suggest to me to believe something that goes against the Scriptures. Physical resurrection is a contradiction to the Scriptures.

Yes, but which Jews, the ones who were threatened by Jesus’ ministry. My problem is when you say that Joseph kept Jesus alive using his wealth and influence. Jesus was dead on the cross, the Gospels attest to this. You claim that Joseph knew that Jesus was still faintly alive and money exchanged hands and the rest is your bizarre history.

No Jew was threatened by Jesus’ Ministry. Who proclaimed Jesus dead on the cross, a Doctor? No, So, stop the nonsense. The gospels attest to this, what did you expect? If Jesus wasn’t still alive, Nicodemus would not have brought about 100 pounds of medications to help Joseph treat him. (John 19:39)

Yes, the apostles did not preach a religion that replaced Judaism, but one can hardly call Jesus teachings about the clean and unclean and the role of the Temple faithful to Judaism, remember the Jew priests felt their financial and religious roles threatened by Jesus on his ministry against the role of the Temple in worship.

Not Jesus’ teachings. Jesus could not teach anything against the Jewish laws. It would be a contradiction against Matthew 5:18,19. Don’t forget he confirmed all to the letter.

You even said, the apostles and Jesus got together and created the Nazarene Sect. As for Paul’s role in Christianity, Paul and even the Gospels are instrumental in proclaiming the message of Christ to the Gentile communities. If you’re a Gentile why would you mutilate your penis and avoid certain food to be faithful to God? These Jew laws did not apply to the Gentile who professed faith in the risen Christ. And how can I stay focused with a nut job like you?.

Yes, Jesus and the Apostles organized the Sect of the Nazarenes. And all the converts from the Gentiles would become Jewish and staunch defenders of the Law just like any other Jew. (Acts 21:20) The laws didn’t apply to the followers of Paul, whose custom was to rob the Nazarenes of their synagogues by overturning them into Christian churches. And all because he was unable to build a church from scratch.

 

[KindredSoul]

Congratulations! You have just uncovered another contradiction in the NT, because in Matthew 5:18,19 we have that Jesus came to fulfill every single item of the Law to the letter. Therefore, he was a married man, which is the first of the commandments. So much for your criticizing me that I don’t bring any evidence to my assertions.

Contradiction? Hardly. If–and I know it is hard for you to set your bias aside long enough to consider that “if”–but if Jesus was in fact God incarnate, then He had the authority to radically reinterpret the Law without abolishing it. He had the authority to fulfill the Law in a way that seemed new, but in a way that He, being its Drafter, knew to be the deepest, truest understanding possible. Keep in mind, Jesus directly implied that some parts of the Law weren’t really the Law at all, but were man made, such as the law permitting divorce. In denying the legitimacy of divorce, for example, Jesus’ claim was that He wasn’t failing to fulfill part of the Law, but was refusing to fulfill a man made addition to the Law that had only been added by Moses, not God, due to the “hardness of your hearts.” Hence your belief that by fulfilling the Law He must have done it in a way that you or the other Jews would expect is not demonstrably true, unless we have first embraced your bias that Jesus was not Divine, which you have not proven. Once more, you presume too much, and there is again no proof that Jesus would have been married, nor that He would have to be married in order to be “fulfilling the Law” properly from His Divine perspective.

During those 40 days Jesus was not everyday with his disciples. He appeared to them from time to time. Read the text. Where do you think he was, heaven? Think again. He was with Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus,who had brought about 100 pound of medications to help Joseph treat Jesus in a VIP manner. (John 19:39) Keep scoring my evidences okay? And don’t forget that you are the one who never shows any.

Alright. I will score your evidence. This round, you have scored 0, and 0 seems to be the grand total of your score thus far. This time you have essentially told me that Joseph brought 100 pounds of medicine to help Jesus, who was secretly staying with him. Where do you get this information other than speculation? You have failed to point out a historical record that says so, and the Gospels certainly don’t say so (they quite agree with me that Jesus rose from the dead and hence needed no medicine) although you have tried to distort them as such. Thus, you have a strange definition of “evidences” if you think you have just provided such a thing.

**KS, you can never prove rationality in a religion whose blood in the veins is moved only by faith. Faith is the opposite of rationality. I have studied Psychology of religions. **

Now you confuse rationality with proven fact. Faith can be rational; it just cannot be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. However, you can have faith in something that is perfectly rational, but not proven by air-tight proof. For instance, it is rational to believe that your best friend would not steal from you if he has never stolen from you before and if it would be totally out of character for him to do so. However, as you cannot prove that he would never steal from you, it is a type of faith. Your misunderstanding of what it means to have faith, and your false assertion that faith and rationability are opposed, betrays your lack of insight into the matter.

By the way, do you believe your own religion does not require faith? Are you so naive as to believe that Judaism is a proven fact, as such that no faith is necessary? Do you suppose that the billions of people, not only Christians, who disagree with your religion are just so stupid that they could not see the truth of your proven-beyond-the-shadow-of-a-doubt religion? Are all people who don’t believe in Judaism so mentally impaired that they cannot see the truth of a religion that, according to your implication, is so obviously true it shouldn’t even require faith? I assume you are not so arrogant, in which case you admit that your religion, too, requires faith.

CONTINUED…

 

[KindredSoul]

…CONTINUED (From Above)

**The so-called Gentiles you refer to that Paul wanted to bring into the fold, were no longer Gentiles but neophite Jews who had been converted by the Nazarenes and Paul was robbing them of their converts. Paul was never able to build a church from scratch. He acted like the cuckoo bird who would invade the Nazarene synagogues and overturn them into Christian churches. **

Much speaking, no proof. The same as usual. Unless, of course, this time you have records showing that Paul’s religion and the religion of the Apostles was different. I’ll give you a head start by letting you know that the New Testament doesn’t say that, when read fully and in context–since you tend not to be willing to read it that way, you’ll want to steer clear of it entirely to save us all the time and energy. So, you might want to get started looking for the non-biblical historical records that show what you are saying to be true…something that literally and plainly says “The apostles didn’t believe in the resurrection, except for Paul.” The clock is ticking.

There were no Christians before Paul. Read Acts 11:26.It was in Antioch that Christianity started because Paul had spent a whole year preaching about Jesus as Christ. So, there was no such a thing as Christians coexisting with local Jews in Jerusalem.

Same as above, you offer no proof. You refer to Acts, even though that same book holds that people believed that Jesus rose from the dead long before Paul came along. Again, you want to have your cake and eat it too, trying to “trap us with our own scriptures,” scriptures whose accuracy you affirm as long as you think they “trap us” but will decry as inaccurate the moment you realize that they do not, in fact, prove what you think they do…just as, again, Acts speaks of the belief in Christ’s resurrection predating Paul’s conversion.

Read Acts 21:20,21. Verse 20 about the gospel of the Apostles or Nazarenes. Verse 21 about the gospel of Paul. The one of Paul got him into chains; and if he had not appealed to Caesar, he would have been killed in Jeruslaem.

Again, as anyone who has read, with intellectual honesty, the book of Acts and even one letter of Paul knows, whether the reader is Christian or not, the difference was not over whether or not the “Nazarene” Christians–and yes, they were Christians–believed in Jesus’ resurrection (history never once suggests that they didn’t, and all signs seem to say that they did), but rather that they at first permitted the belief that converts had to follow Jewish Law. It was Paul’s disagreement with this (the Apostles later agreed with him before settling the matter officially) that got him almost killed in Jerusalem, not his belief in the Resurrection. Again, you offer no proof of your claims to the contrary. If you were wording your assertions honestly, it would have to be worded “This is why I think they tried to kill Paul and not, at first, the Apostles,” but you totally ignore the inconveniently (for your argument) different reason stated pretty plainly in black and white.

They tried, but Paul never wanted to listen. He rather would pride on the fact that his gospel, he didn’t even went up to Jerusalem to learn it from throse who were apostles before him. Who could talk to Paul, who would curse even an angel who came down from heaven with a gospel different from his? (Gal. 1:6-10)

Where is your proof, historical or otherwise, that “they tried”? I mean a verse or record in history that says clearly and unarguably “Jesus of Nazareth’s twelve original disciples did not believe He had died and risen again, and they argued with Paul, specifically saying Jesus didn’t die and rise from the dead, when Paul came along saying He did.” St. Paul had a headstrong, stubborn personality, but that doesn’t prove your point at all unless you have reasonable proof, of the kind I just requested, that the Apostles tried to refute him about Jesus rising from the dead. There are absolutely no records of this; even if Paul was so headstrong, the Apostles were still important figures regarding the truth about Jesus. It stands perfectly to reason that if “they tried” to dispute Paul’s claims about Jesus rising from the dead, there would be early records of this, records that clearly and irrefutably state–rightly or wrongly–that the twelve Disciples never believed Christ rose from the dead. Even if this would never have made it to scripture, some bystander would have witnessed it, and someone like Josephus would have recorded it. Yet no such records exist. Again, you are assuming too much.

As always, your arguments require us to have the bias, before even entering the debate or receiving any proof, that 1. Jesus was definitely not Divine, that 2. Jesus definitely did not rise from the dead, and that 3. Anyone whose belief in His resurrection would have lended it credibility, such as the Apostles, must not have believed in it either. If I do not first have those three biases, biases that are unfounded, then any leisurely reading of the New Testament or early records of Christianity would lead me to believe, even if I weren’t Christian, that at least the Apostles believed as much as anyone else in the Christian movement that Jesus died and rose from the dead. That they believed this is obvious, so much that even secular historians, who are often no friends of Christianity at all in their attitude, come to the conclusion that the Apostles clearly believed Jesus rose from the dead, even if they (the historians) doubt the Resurrection themselves. Why do these secular, unchristian men admit to such a thing? Because that the Apostles themselves believed Jesus had risen from the dead is so obvious even an Atheist can see it–even as he vehemently disagrees with them.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[PJM]

=Ben Masada;5691021]If you use knowledge and research, you will be doing much better than wasting your time trying to appeal to my emotions. The road to my soul is not through my heart but through my mind.

***Tell me it ain’t so Ben.

I’m loggin off. can’t take any more of your “mind” and remain chairatble.

Shalom***

 

[Matthew_Sharp]

Hello Ben Masada, please address post #67. For some reason you choose to skip over that one.

I’m not Bible savvy but the idea one can survive a brutal torture session and crucifixion is difficult to buy into as you claim, and then to go on and say Jesus could fully recover within 40 days time, I don’t buy that as well. People barely recover from major body trauma now with so much ground breaking medicine and technology taking the shortest time 2 months or so, I don’t believe it for one second that Jesus could recover during that (40 days) time period or even recover at all, even if he did survive he would have succumbed to his injuries within hours of being taken down still making it possible for him to resurrect as the Gospels claim.

Consider open wounds, sanitation, internal bleeding, head trauma, dehydration, organ damage as FatTire said. I can see where your coming from, your Jewish and you don’t believe in Jesus so you will reach at anything and desperately try to disprove him, but I’m not a Christian but even I can see that your claims are unfounded or at the least very weak and unbelievable.

By the way I am considering to become a Catholic and you are playing devil’s advocate, which is good to question, but I have to tell you, reading your arguements and claims are actually drawing me closer to Jesus and to acknowledge that the resurrection is a real event and that Jesus is who he said he was.

Funny, a Jew helps a non-believer find faith in Jesus Christ. I’m still laughing at that one.

After you’ve tackled post # 67, if you’d like try to address issues I’ve proposed as well, if any.

Best,

Matthew