A Challenge to Our Intelligence.

[Ben_Masada]

I’m quite sure I know what the word Eyewitness means. I do recall using the word “virtually” as to indicate the obvious fact (which you have dismissed so lightly) that the difference in the proof provided between someone seeing Him alive after He had been known to be dead and someone who actually saw Him as He was in the act of rising from the dead is strictly a technicality when it comes to witnessing whether or not a dead man was no longer dead…the last statement, after all, is the essential question. Did a dead man rise again from the dead, and were there witnesses to the fact that he had done so?

**Who proclaimed Jesus dead, a Doctor? Read Mark 15:44. Pilate, a man, expert in the crucifixion of Jews did not believe. He had to call the Centurion to certify and only then, allow Joseph of Arimathea to take him off the cross. Do you know why he didn’t believe? Because according to Josephus, it was not uncommon for crucified to remain alive on their crosses, albeit fainting from time to time, up to even 3 or 4 days. Jesus was taken off after only a few hours. There is approximately 95 percent chances that he was still alive. That with volumes that money can write, Joseph got Jesus and the Centurion the happiness to report to Pilate that everything was all right. **

Luke also said in the Gospel of Luke, 23: 46 “…and when He had said this, He breathed his last,” which, as anyone knows, means he died. So appealing to Luke to imply that it was vague whether or not Jesus died simply isn’t a workable strategy on this question. Considering that the same author who said “…He breathed his last” says that after the fact He “showed Himself that He was alive after His sufferings”, I do not see how you thought your appeal to Luke would prove your point.

So, Luke said that Jesus breathed his last? Who told him? Either everyone who saw Jesus on that cross was dead already or too old to remember. Don’t forget that Luke wrote his gospel in the year 85 CE. Never saw Jesus, and perhaps was never in Israel in his life. That’s 55 years after Jesus had been gone. Have mercy pal!

By the way, let us establish: A man is flogged at least around forty times, a bloody, painful procedure (a study of Roman history tells how brutal flogging was, as were the instruments used); this same man is forced to carry a cross, which quite believably due to the trauma of his flogging, he could barely do and certainly could not do without help. The same man has his wrists and ankles more or less shattered in the center by having nails–bulky enough nails to support body weight–driven into them, and shows no reaction whatsoever to the stabbing of his side. There was a crowd of people who witnessed his death, including those who had a vested interest in being sure he really was dead, so he was at least “dead enough” to satisfy them. So, whether he was the Messiah or not, we can establish that he went through the ringer in such a way that people do not recover to “good as new” status in a few days if they (somehow) survive the ordeal.

**Let me rather establish that Jesus was not the only Jew to get that very same treatment before crucifixion. Flogging was a practice in the agenda of the Romans as a method to break down resistence to the handling of crucifixion per se. Read John 19:1. **

And you would imply that this man, if he was somehow barely alive after all, but without any supernatural explanation or healing, had the strength to go about casually travelling along roads by himself until he met up with two people he’d known (Luke 24: 13-25), apparently looking like a perfectly normal traveller who had not been flogged into a bloody/scarred up mess, so much that it threw his old friends off as to his identity at first (they would understandably have been expecting the injured mess of a man from calvary), and generally functioning like a man who had not just been through the kind of torture that one does not easily dismiss after three days? Pray tell, why, but for the bias of a skeptic, would this make any more sense than believing that something miraculous was going on?

Others went through the same treatment and remained on their crosses even days till death met them. Therefore, I am not implying anything. I am simply being logical. Your romantic feeling for the case of Jesus is due to Paul’s indoctrination. The others were simply unlucky that they didn’t have a Paul to make a Christ out of them.

 

[PJM]

=Ben Masada-

I’m quite sure I know what the word Eyewitness means. I do recall using the word “virtually” as to indicate the obvious fact (which you have dismissed so lightly) that the difference in the proof provided between someone seeing Him alive after He had been known to be dead and someone who actually saw Him as He was in the act of rising from the dead is strictly a technicality when it comes to witnessing whether or not a dead man was no longer dead…the last statement, after all, is the essential question. Did a dead man rise again from the dead, and were there witnesses to the fact that he had done so?

**Let me rather establish that Jesus was not the only Jew to get that very same treatment before crucifixion. Flogging was a practice in the agenda of the Romans as a method to break down resistence to the handling of crucifixion per se. Read John 19:1. **

Ben my friend you are digging yourself quite a comfortable seat in a very uncomfortable place. As I aready have given witness to the fact that He was seen alive my a vast number of people, who say the wounds on His hands and feet. “My Lord and my God” sound filmiliar? Christ was with them for fourty days before He Assended back into heaven.

Of signifiance, it was only THREE days after His crucifixion that Jesus did these things. Even you must admit that f what you claim is true [its not] that Jesus could not have possibly healed from the scouraging abd crucifixion in only three days, given the state of medical care in those times. [Bet you hadn’t thought of that point dear friend?]

[KindredSoul] "And you would imply that this man, if he was somehow barely alive after all, but without any supernatural explanation or healing, had the strength to go about casually travelling along roads by himself until he met up with two people he’d known (Luke 24: 13-25), apparently looking like a perfectly normal traveller who had not

been flogged into a bloody/scarred up mess, so much that it threw his old friends off as to his identity at first (they would understandably have been expecting the injured mess of a man from calvary), and generally functioning like a man who had not just been through the kind of torture that one does not easily dismiss after three days? Pray tell, why, but for the bias of a skeptic, would this make any more sense than believing that something miraculous was going on?"

[Ben] Others went through the same treatment and remained on their crosses even days till death met them. Therefore, I am not implying anything. I am simply being logical. Your romantic feeling for the case of Jesus is due to Paul’s indoctrination. The others were simply unlucky that they didn’t have a Paul to make a Christ out of them.

Not everyone was nailed, those that lasted were only tied to there crosses! Nailing was yet another humiliation.

Love and prayers,
Pat

 

[AdrianP]

An account of the 3 days, historical document:
pseudepigrapha.com/apocrypha_nt/narjoe.htm

 

[KindredSoul]

**Who proclaimed Jesus dead, a Doctor? Read Mark 15:44. Pilate, a man, expert in the crucifixion of Jews did not believe. He had to call the Centurion to certify and only then, allow Joseph of Arimathea to take him off the cross. Do you know why he didn’t believe? Because according to Josephus, it was not uncommon for crucified to remain alive on their crosses, albeit fainting from time to time, up to even 3 or 4 days. Jesus was taken off after only a few hours. There is approximately 95 percent chances that he was still alive. That with volumes that money can write, Joseph got Jesus and the Centurion the happiness to report to Pilate that everything was all right. **

Who proclaimed Jesus alive (at the time we believe He was dead)? A doctor? No? Then the rest is merely fancy theory, and in no way invalidates Christian beliefs as you so confidently believe it does. Unless you can prove that Jesus was never dead as medically and solidly as you expect us to prove that He was dead until His Resurrection, beyond the shadow of a doubt, you are hoist in your own petard by your own definition of what constitutes an acceptable argument in a debate.

So, Luke said that Jesus breathed his last? Who told him? Either everyone who saw Jesus on that cross was dead already or too old to remember. Don’t forget that Luke wrote his gospel in the year 85 CE. Never saw Jesus, and perhaps was never in Israel in his life. That’s 55 years after Jesus had been gone. Have mercy pal!

You appealed to Luke when it was convenient for you, and question him when it isn’t? Very consistent. In any event, I am sure you are aware that the Gospel writer, even if not an eyewitness, would have done research in order to gather the story. By the way, “too old to remember”? Some very old people still have sharp minds. Again, you presume too much because the existence of “old” witnesses who could actually have told Luke about the story or confirmed it for him would be inconvenient for you unless they had Alzheimer’s. Just because that makes it more convenient for you doesn’t make it so. Again, you demand of us that only cold hard proof will suffice, and yet all you give us from your side is opinionated probability. Double standard.

Oh, and what eye-witness told you that Jesus didn’t actually die on the cross? Do you now see how that particular sword cuts both ways?

**Let me rather establish that Jesus was not the only Jew to get that very same treatment before crucifixion. Flogging was a practice in the agenda of the Romans as a method to break down resistence to the handling of crucifixion per se. Read John 19:1. **

To be sure we’re on the same page, whether or not Jesus was the only Jew to get that treatment is a fact that, in and of itself, has nothing to do with anything.

Others went through the same treatment and remained on their crosses even days till death met them. Therefore, I am not implying anything. I am simply being logical. Your romantic feeling for the case of Jesus is due to Paul’s indoctrination. The others were simply unlucky that they didn’t have a Paul to make a Christ out of them.

You mean to tell me that others went through that same treatment, then traveled and met up with their old friends, looking good as new, able to walk and function normally despite their bones being pierced, able to carry on as though they had never been tortured at all, within three days of being taken down from the cross and presumed dead? I’ll be waiting for you to show us where any other flogging and crucifixion victim did all that, or was even seriously believed to have done so by anybody…unlike Jesus, who had people who had actually known Him, such as Peter and others, willing to die for their belief that He had risen from the dead and appeared to them, well before “a Paul” came along to “indoctrinate” them…keep in mind, Paul was persecuting Christians before he became one. That logically requires Christianity to have started before he jumped on the bandwagon.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[Ben_Masada]

Sorry for the length; will take 2 posts to fully reply.

This assumes that Jewish priests always followed the letter of the laws. There is clear evidence that they did not, otherwise when Jesus entered the temple with His disciples to celebrate the Passover, He would have had no cause to be upset over what He saw going on there.

**All religious Jews follow the letter of the Law. And they are really fanatics about the Sabbath laws. And who is saying that they didn’t, a Gentile? But of course! What did you expect? And you cannot prove any of the accusations about the priests exploiting the people with regards to money. Taxes or prices of the things sold. And what’s the point anyways? **

You might also recall that Josephus detailed in his later historical account of period immediately following Christ’s death that the Chief Priest Ananus was deposed in AD 62 for illegally convening the Sanhedrin in the case of James and some other followers who were sentenced to death by stoning.

This only proves that Kaiaphas could not have condemned Jesus without the gathering of the Sanhedrin. So, it didn’t happened.

So it is clear that not all of these people of high religious position were models of sanctity. And that’s not even touching the matter of Judas and the 30 pieces of silver.

That’s a plagiarism from the selling of Joseph by his brothers with the purpose to make Jesus a fulfiller of one more prophecy.

The Chief Priest and the Pharisees were responding to what they viewed as a crisis. In such times, exceptions were often made to “the law.” David eating the shewbread, for instance. There is no compelling reason to feel assured that a law constrained them from acting in their own self-interest. Also, nothing says they “entered” the area of the tomb, only that “they went and made the sepulchre secure, the guard being with them.” Nothing says this can’t mean they stood at a distance and supervised Roman guards rolling a stone in place and slapping a bit of mortar in the seam.

You are being too hypothetical and giving me the same freedom to say that Joseph of Arimathea removed Jesus from that tomb during the first hours of Friday evening.

Please re-read the actual words of Matthew’s text. It clearly states “late on the sabbath day as it began to dawn…”

**As it began to dawn. But it was not dawn yet. So, we don’t have any part of the day after dawn to count as the third day.
**

That is your private interpretation. The Gospel account says nothing about them having one thought in mind (moving the stone). What it does say is that sometime around dawn the women went there, there was an earthquake, the stone was moved, and when they got there all they saw was an angel sitting on the rock, telling them Jesus wasn’t there, He had risen, and they were welcome to take a look inside the tomb, and they should go and tell the disciples. Then the angel added that He had gone to Galilee and they would meet up with Him there.

Are you sure that’s my private interpretation that the women were worried only about who would move the stone? This proves you know very little of your NT.
Read Mark 16:3 and tell me if a I need a private interpretation. It’s only too clear. Then, the angel comes down, removes the stone and sees no one inside. He tells the women that Jesus was not there. How did he know that Jesus had risen if he didn’t see it happening?

 

[Ben_Masada]

Cont’d from above.

Your own interpretation again. How do you know the angel didn’t witness this? The angel clearly knew He was risen.

**Do you know something? You speak of angels as if they were not only spiritual emanations, which are seen with forms of whatever only in visions and dreams. Were the women having a vision? If they were not, that was not an angel. And how could anyone know that Jesus was risen if none saw him rising? **

Well you have a slight problem here. The people who had the most interest in doing so are all accounted for elsewhere, cowering lest they meet a similar fate. The women had been been with them or in contact with them, so it would be rather silly for them to gather spices and head out to a tomb they knew to be empty. Are you asserting they did this for show purposes only? How do you explain them arranging that earthquake at just the right moment in time?

And how do you know there was an earthquake at all, because a Hellenistic Gentile said so 50+ years after Jesus had been gone? Do you see the difficulty here for a normal Jew to accept a tale which even Jesus’ Apostles considered an “idle tale?” (Luke 24:11)

The Pharisees had a vested interest here in assuring that no evidence of any resurrection be seen by anyone, as it would put them out of business.

What on earth are you talking about! Doesn’t the NT claim that the Pharisees believed in Resurrection? Why would Jesus’ resurrection put them out of business? The opposite is rather true. It would be a boom for their business. This story is already sounding like a forgery.

This assumes two unproven things; the tomb was robbed, and the Roman soldiers slept. What is your evidence that either occurred? We do know that Roman soldiers faced a penalty of death for sleeping on guard duty, and we know that there was more than one stationed there. For 24-hour coverage, it is the most logical assumption to believe they rotated in shifts, some sleeping, some wide awake. You yourself pointed out what an unusual circumstance it would have been for the Chief Priest and Pharisees to even go there in the first place, needing to violate law to do so. Do you imagine that was not taken into consideration by this Roman guard? That this wasn’t your everyday, backyard guard detail?

If you ask me, there were no Roman souldiers at the tomb. The contradictions are too many to be true. And that Jesus was raised from that tomb in the first hours of that Friday evening by Joseph of Arimathea, because he knew Jesus was still alive. What I said about the law of pichuach nephesh was that a commandment can be relaxed to save a live. There was no such an emergency at the tomb in the case of Jesus.

Exactly. Since the soldiers would face summary execution for failing to guard the tomb or falling asleep. Thus you are left having to explain how the body got out of the tomb under those circumstances. Rather than face the possibility of the miraculous, you resort to an appeal that the accounts are all lies and no Roman guard was ever set. This might be possible except that Jesus did appear to others after the fact. So now you must explain how a mass hallucinatory event just so happened to follow a series of events that would not predict it. How do you account for that?

When Jesus was removed from that tomb, there was no one standing guard. Don’t forget that if they were there, they were brought there Saturday morning. Joseph of Arimathea had the whole night of Friday to do that job. About the mass hallucinatory events, I don’t have to explain, Jesus’ own Apostles declared that the women were halucinating with the idle tale of the resurrection. (Luke 24:11)

That is factually incorrect. Please refer to Josephus Antiquities, Book 18, 63-64. I quote: About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is lawful to call him a man, for he was a performer of wonderful deeds, a teacher of such men as are happy to accept the truth. He won over many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the leading men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again on the third day, as the prophets of God had foretold these and ten thousand other wonders about him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day.’

It has been proved already by several Scholars that this text above is a forgery interpolated by the Fathers of the Church. Until the 4th Century Josephus had never been quoted. Then, all of a sudden he started being quoted. The forgery was on.

Don’t approach the situation with poor assumptions and factual inaccuracies. Consider the whole body of evidence, such as that the people promoting this belief, Jesus’ disciples, went on to face lives of hardship and persecution, ultimately ending in their deaths specifically because they held to these beliefs. That would mean, if your assertions be true, they suffered a lifetime and died for the cause of a lie. Not just those who would have been directly involved, but then hundreds or thousands after them.

What they suffered and died for do not mean a lot because Muslims throw themselves to their death almost daily somewhere in the name of Islam. Does is mean they have a monopoly on the Truth? I didn’t think so. The Baha’i people in Iran at the time of the Aiatolla Chommeni were killed by the hundreds and never retracted. Does it mean they are the ones with the Truth? I didn’t think so either. So, ponder.

 

[AdrianP]

Something for followers of OLD LAW::
New Law is MUCH MUCH MUCH better than Old Law and Christianity is MUCH MUCH MUCH better than Judaism and is not supposed to follow
amazon.com/tag/christianity/forum/ref=cm_cd_ef_tft_tp?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx77WQHU8YS50Z&cdThread=Tx3SL6ITIY9PDCW&displayType=tagsDetail

 

[Randy_Carson]

A Challenge to Our Intelligence

That’s about another puzzle that has been insulting our intelligence for 2000 years: The Roman guards who were asked of Pilate to watch the tomb for three days.(Mat. 27:64)

According to the writer of the gospel of Matthew, the chief priests had to break the Sabbath and, worse than that, a Shabbaton, because it was the first day of Passover, the 14th of Nisan, to go deal with Pilate about surveillance of a dead in the graveyard.

This is an evidence that the guys who wrote the gospels had a very poor knowledge of Jewish culture and customs to picture religious Jewish priests dealing with Pilate on that Sabbath for a group of soldiers to guard the tomb and to prevent anyone from desecrating it.

So, those priests were supposed to take those soldiers to the graveyard, which priests were forbidden to enter, especially on the Sabbath, and do the physical work to seal the tombstone. And all during that Shabbaton.

Why do you believe that the Jewish priests entered the graveyard to “do the physical work to seal the tombstone?” The Roman guards could manage that on their own under orders from Pilate.

When that Sabbath was over, which in Israel is at sunset, the same gospel writer sends some women to the tomb with the purpose to anoint Jesus’ body. The man had probably forgotten the guards to prevent the approach of any suspect.

No, the writer did not forget. The writer realized that armed Roman guards would not be threatened by women bearing annointing oils.

The women had one thought in mind only: Who would remove the tombstone. No one thought about how to fight the soldiers to approach the tomb. Obviously they would know they were there. Evidently, the three days they were supposed to watch the tomb turned out to be one.

Perhaps you have not read far enough in Matthew to see what happened next:

Matthew 28:1-4
1After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.
2There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.

When the women got there the place was deserted. Instead of the guards, the author reports about an earthquake, when an angel came down from heaven and removed the stone; but the women could not do their job, because there was no one in the tomb; Jesus was not there. Even the angel had been cheated form being an eyewitness.

The guards were there but they had fainted due to fear of the earthquake (and the power of God no doubt). And you’re right, Jesus was God, but the linens His body had been wrapped in were still there. Finally, the angel invited the women to see for themselves.

Matthew 24:5-7
5The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7Then go quickly and tell his disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.’ Now I have told you.”

Obviously, Jesus had been removed from that tomb even before the guards had been settled at the area to watch.

Removed by whom, Ben?

The disciples? Then all of them were willing to be martyred for something that they knew to be a lie? Doubtful.
The Jewish leaders? Then all they had to do to put down the new Church was to produce the body, right? Never happened.
The Romans? What was in it for them to support the followers of Jesus? Nothing. In fact, the guards would have probably been killed for failing in their duty to guard the tomb.

Then the soldiers that the women had not seen at the tomb, appeared at the house of the priests to say that the tomb was empty and of course, to get a good bribe with the advice to spread around that while they were sleeping, Jesus’ disciples had come by night and stolen the body. That’s the insult to the intelligence even of a moron, let alone to those who have a mind to think.

Why, Ben? The Jews bribed Judas to betray Jesus in the first place…why would they be above bribing the Roman soldiers to put out a false story about the stolen body?

How could intelligent Jews give such an advice? How could the soldiers know that the tomb robbers had been Jesus’ disciples if they had been sleeping? What about Roman military discipline? The soldiers would all be executed according to Roman military laws. Josephus, who would go down to small details even of family intrigues, never mentioned a word about such a thing.

You’re right. There is NO WAY those guards were asleep on the job. Consequently, the body was NOT stolen during the night.

And notice something else:

Matthew 28:11-15
11While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. 12When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, 13telling them, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ 14If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.” 15So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.

Notice that the Jewish leaders DID NOT instruct the soldiers to say that Jesus’ body had been stolen before they got their to guard the tomb. That’s your theory, and it would have been the easiest. Why didn’t the Jews circulate that story? Evidently because no one would have believed it.

No, Ben, Jesus was raised from the dead just as He had predicted beforehand, and His followers went to their own deaths rather than deny this truth.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So, here is what Ben Masada is asking us to believe:

1. After being crucified, Jesus was buried (are you buying this, Hadi?),
2. Before the guard was posted, some disciples slipped into the tomb and stole the body,
3. Matthew made up a cover story about the guards being asleep and being bribed, and
4. All of the disciples, Paul included, were hounded all over the Middle East and throughout the Roman Empire and martyred for something that they knew to be a lie.

That’s quite a conspiracy theory, Ben.

Have you heard the one about 9/11 actually being a Mossad operation to turn the United States against Iran and Islam?

 

[Randy_Carson]

**Are you sure you know the etimology of the word EYEWITNESS? Eyewitness is the one who saw Jesus being raised from the dead. To have seen Jesus after his crucifixion is not proof even that he died, let alone that he resurrected. **

Take a look at Acts 1:3. Luke said that Jesus showed himself that he was alive after his sufferings or his passion, as we have in the KJV. To be seen alive after one’s suffering or passion, is no proof that he died and much less that he resurrected. That you refuse to take it from me, it’s understandable, but to take it from Luke, you have no excuse.

I can witness to the fact that a large quantity of gold is located in a safe-deposit box even if I did not observe it being placed into the box originally. The gold is there…I saw it with my own eyes. The fact that is it there now implies that someone must have placed it there in the past.

How does this apply to the death and resurrection of Jesus? Simple.

Did anyone witness His death? Your close friend, Hadi the Muslim, will say no; what is your opinion? Did Jesus die upon the cross after being crucified by the Romans or not? Did He “swoon”? Was a look-alike crucified instead? What’s your theory?

In addition to the Romans and Jewish leaders present, "55Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. 56Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons." (Mt 27:55-56)

John 19:25-27
25Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Dear woman, here is your son,” 27and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.

Apparently, quite a few people witnessed Jesus crucifixion and death…Mary, Mary Magdelene, the Apostle John. Or do you dispute this, also?

Notice the names of those present…sound familiar? They were the same people who later saw Him alive again.

Did they see Him die? You bet. He was crucified and a spear was thrust into His side.

Did they later see Him alive again? Absolutely. I posted these accounts already.

Therefore, were there any witnesses OF the resurrection? Not as it occurred as you might watch a soccer match in a stadium or a television show.

Were any witnesses TO the resurrection? Oh, yeah. Lots of people.

 

[reen12]

Thanks for the support, Hadi. It’s good to feel I am not alone out there in the wilderness.

I’m here, too, J. Ben Masada.
No, you’re not alone in the wilderness.

There are points on which I will not agree with you,
but that’s OK. Judaism provides a lot of elbow room,
in terms of specific beliefs.

jewfaq.org/beliefs.htm

I wrote, yesterday, for another thread:

quote: reen12

I was highly trained in Catholic thought, as well as in philosophy.
But you know what? Judaism leads, and I follow. Why?

Because as a 14 year old, I noted an elderly neighbor,
who walked each morning to synagogue, to help form a minyan.
He was charity itself. Soft spoken, and good to others, in a quiet way.
My choice of religious faith was not philosophically based.
It had little or nothing to do with any tenets of religious faith.
It was a quiet, elderly man, who spoke of God without uttering a word.

I’m glad that you’re addressing the matter of the accounts of the
resurrection. Can remember being puzzled, about the ‘three days.’

quote: Ben Masada

How could intelligent Jews give such an advice? How could the soldiers know that the tomb robbers had been Jesus’ disciples if they had been sleeping? What about Roman military discipline? The soldiers would all be executed according to Roman military laws. Josephus, who would go down to small details even of family intrigues, never mentioned a word about such a thing.

Precisely.

reen12

 

[PJM]

=reen12;5665864]I’m here, too, J. Ben Masada.
No, you’re not alone in the wilderness.

There are points on which I will not agree with you,
but that’s OK. Judaism provides a lot of elbow room,
in terms of specific beliefs.

quote: reen12

***Kinda like Protestants who apparentely are permiited to translate the bible in which ever way suits them at the moment:shrug:

But does Judaism permit frabracting ones own truth?

Love and prayers, Shalom friends***

 

[reen12]

***Kinda like Protestants who apparentely are permiited to translate the bible in which ever way suits them at the moment:shrug: ***

But does Judaism permit frabracting ones own truth?

Love and prayers, Shalom friends

Peace to you, PJM.

jewfaq.org/beliefs.htm

reen12

 

[Ben_Masada]

Something for followers of OLD LAW::
New Law is MUCH MUCH MUCH better than Old Law and Christianity is MUCH MUCH MUCH better than Judaism and is not supposed to follow
amazon.com/tag/christianity/forum/ref=cm_cd_ef_tft_tp?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx77WQHU8YS50Z&cdThread=Tx3SL6ITIY9PDCW&displayType=tagsDetail

And Replacement Theoology is a MUCH MUCH MUCH easier way to express one’s hostility to the Faith of Jesus, which, as you know, was Judaism.

 

[Ben_Masada]

=Ben Masada-

 

[Ben_Masada]

Who proclaimed Jesus alive (at the time we believe He was dead)? A doctor? No? Then the rest is merely fancy theory, and in no way invalidates Christian beliefs as you so confidently believe it does. Unless you can prove that Jesus was never dead as medically and solidly as you expect us to prove that He was dead until His Resurrection, beyond the shadow of a doubt, you are hoist in your own petard by your own definition of what constitutes an acceptable argument in a debate.

Think KindredSoul for a change. Do you think that when Joseph was taking Jesus off the cross and realized he was still alive he would proclaim to the four corners of the earth that Jesus had survived the cross? I don’t think so. They would have killed him all over again and perhaps even Joseph for trying to take a Jew off the cross still alive.

You appealed to Luke when it was convenient for you, and question him when it isn’t? Very consistent.

Do you see what I mean? If I have room to appeal to any gospel writer for what agrees with me and to question him for what disagrees with me, the name is contradiction.

Oh, and what eye-witness told you that Jesus didn’t actually die on the cross? Do you now see how that particular sword cuts both ways?

Commonsense and a work of equation. Putting things together toward a common denominator.

To be sure we’re on the same page, whether or not Jesus was the only Jew to get that treatment is a fact that, in and of itself, has nothing to do with anything.

Only as long as you don’t use it as an excuse for Jesus being different.

You mean to tell me that others went through that same treatment, then traveled and met up with their old friends, looking good as new, able to walk and function normally despite their bones being pierced, able to carry on as though they had never been tortured at all, within three days of being taken down from the cross and presumed dead?

I can’t say that because none of the others had the chance to be taken
off the cross after only a few hours. They had either their legs broken because of the Sabbath, or they remained for days on their crosses till death met them.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Why do you believe that the Jewish priests entered the graveyard to “do the physical work to seal the tombstone?” The Roman guards could manage that on their own under orders from Pilate.

They could but, did they do it?

No, the writer did not forget. The writer realized that armed Roman guards would not be threatened by women bearing annointing oils.

Are you so sure as to roll your eyes? Take a look at John 20:15. Mary expressed her intentions to take Jesus’ body away with her if the Gardener only told her where he had put it.

Perhaps you have not read far enough in Matthew to see what happened next:
Matthew 28:1-4
1After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.
2There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.

**I am not interested in the appearance of the angel. What I want to know is if Jesus was in the tomb when the angel removed the stone, was he? No, he was not. The tomb was already empty. Back to square one. **

The guards were there but they had fainted due to fear of the earthquake (and the power of God no doubt). And you’re right, Jesus was God, but the linens His body had been wrapped in were still there. Finally, the angel invited the women to see for themselves.

To see what, Jesus or the linen? The linen because Jesus was not there. What is this supposed to mean?

Matthew 24:5-7
5The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7Then go quickly and tell his disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.’ Now I have told you.”

"He has risen, just as he said." Really! How come his own disciples did not believe what he had said? When the women brought the news about the resurrection, they did not believe for considering it an idle tale. (Luke 24:11)

Removed by whom, Ben? The disciples? Then all of them were willing to be martyred for something that they knew to be a lie? Doubtful.

No, not by his disciples. They were too coward for such an enterprise.

The Jewish leaders? Then all they had to do to put down the new Church was to produce the body, right? Never happened.

No, not the Jewish leaders. I know too much of Judaism to think that they would use the holy hours of the Sabbath to be hounding in a graveyard.

The Romans? What was in it for them to support the followers of Jesus? Nothing. In fact, the guards would have probably been killed for failing in their duty to guard the tomb.

The Romans wouldn’t care less. The man was Joseph of Arimathea; the only man who had realized Jesus was still alive when he took him off the cross. And he did it after an hour or two that Jesus had been laid to rest.

Why, Ben? The Jews bribed Judas to betray Jesus in the first place…why would they be above bribing the Roman soldiers to put out a false story about the stolen body?

That bribe of Judah was a plagiarism from the sale of Joseph by his brothers. Just an interpolation to score one more prophecy to enhance Jesus’ credibility as the one.

You’re right. There is NO WAY those guards were asleep on the job. Consequently, the body was NOT stolen during the night.

Jesus was removed from that tomb during the night of Friday when there were no guards at the area. Don’t forget that they were put there Saturday morning.

And notice something else:

Matthew 28:11-15
11While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. 12When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, 13telling them, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ 14If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.” 15So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.

So, the guards reported everything that had happened. What did they report, that Jesus had resurrected? If they did report that the tomb was empty when the stone was removed, why would the chief priests spend their money with a bribe so that they would spread that the disciples had come and stolen the body? Does it make sense to you? Then, the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. It means they circulated the news that the body had been stolen? Think it through! They knew they would be executed for their sloppy job as a Roman soldier. Now, can you see what an insult to our intelligence?

No, Ben, Jesus was raised from the dead just as He had predicted beforehand, and His followers went to their own deaths rather than deny this truth.

Nevertheless, Luke says in 24:11 that Jesus’ disciples did not believe the resurrection, and even considered it an idle tale. And then, the Apostles made their headquarters in Jerusalem, and for 30 years never said a word about the resurrection. Why do I think so? Because when Paul brought that same message to Jerusalem, he almost got killed by the local Jews for preaching apostasy.

 

[PJM]

=reen12;5666061]Peace to you, PJM.

jewfaq.org/beliefs.htm

reen12

And also to you!

 

[Newbie2]

PJM;5664568:

To be seen alive after one’s crucifixion is no proof that he died, let alone that he resurrected. A little Logic will help those who can think.

And Luke said that he was 40 days with his disciples AFTER HIS SUFFERING OR PASSION, not after death or resurrection. (Acts 1:1-3)

And regarding Jesus’ recovery, he was being VIP treated by two millionaries: Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus. BTW, this last one brought about 100 pounds of medications to treat Jesus wounds for a fast recovery.

So the Romans, experts in the torture and killing of crucifixion, either failed to determine that Jesus was dead, or let him go; “Oh, I think he’s suffered enough. Let’s take him down and let him go.” Yes, a little Logic will help those who can think.

OMGosh. Just when you think that posts cannot get more bizarre. I’m laughing so hard that I’m crying. Here, let me wipe my eyes…

…OK, that’s better. So Jesus recovers and what happens next? (This should be good) He just gives up his ministry and fades into oblivion? Wanders the desert and becomes a hermit?

I’m sorry for being so sarcastic, but when someone claims that the Romans are stupid enough not to recognize someone who’s still alive after being crucified, or that someone could face a “quick revovery” after being crucified, I just cannot take such claims with any scintilla of seriousness.

 

[KindredSoul]

Think KindredSoul for a change.

No change needed; I think all the time…rationally even (!), though no doubt you would deny until the end of time that a Christian can be thinking rationally and still be Christian.

Do you think that when Joseph was taking Jesus off the cross and realized he was still alive he would proclaim to the four corners of the earth that Jesus had survived the cross? I don’t think so. They would have killed him all over again and perhaps even Joseph for trying to take a Jew off the cross still alive.

That’s more fancy theory. You have offered no proof. It is you attacking the Catholic belief on this matter, not only saying it is false but saying it is an irrational insult to peoples’ intelligence; thus the burden of proof–not mere plausibility–is on you, and by proof I mean that you must demonstrate that, in a world where the supernatural exists (as both of our religions teach) it is utterly impossible that Jesus rose from the dead. All you have been demonstrating is the hypothetical possibility that He didn’t. Hypothetical possibilities, as this thinking man (thank you very much) quite realizes, prove nothing.

Do you see what I mean? If I have room to appeal to any gospel writer for what agrees with me and to question him for what disagrees with me, the name is contradiction.

Except for the fact that the only way you managed to appeal to him was by completely ignoring something else he had said earlier, something that explained what he meant in the scripture you quoted rather than contradict it. There is no contradiction so long as a person isn’t twisting specific verses. As shown, the scripture from Acts no more “agrees” with you than the scripture from Luke, unless twisted to mean something Luke (the writer) clearly didn’t mean to imply. And that’s what you’re doing: If it can be twisted by you, you use it as a “that proves it from your own scriptures!” moment. If it cannot be twisted by you, you shrug it off as a “your scriptures are probably false” moment. The phrase is “having your cake and eating it too,” and the consensus is “you can’t do it.”

Oh, and what eye-witness told you that Jesus didn’t actually die on the cross? Do you now see how that particular sword cuts both ways?

Commonsense and a work of equation. Putting things together toward a common denominator.

Yes, we use common sense and sound reasoning too. Only we don’t automatically rule out the supernatural occurances. The only way your argument has a monopoly on common sense is in a world where it has been proven that the supernatural and miraculous cannot happen. Not only has this not been proven (as I do not believe it is true), if it had been it would hurt your own religion as much as ours, as God Himself is supernatural and His chief way of revealing Himself throughout the Hebrew scriptures has been through miraculous occurrences. A man rising from the dead is a miracle; but, unless they have effectively proven that miracles are impossible, I fail to see how that contradicts common sense.

To be sure we’re on the same page, whether or not Jesus was the only Jew to get that treatment is a fact that, in and of itself, has nothing to do with anything.

Only as long as you don’t use it as an excuse for Jesus being different.

As demonstrated later, Jesus isn’t different because He was tortured and crucified, but because of what happened afterwards.

You mean to tell me that others went through that same treatment, then traveled and met up with their old friends, looking good as new, able to walk and function normally despite their bones being pierced, able to carry on as though they had never been tortured at all, within three days of being taken down from the cross and presumed dead?

I can’t say that because none of the others had the chance to be taken
off the cross after only a few hours. They had either their legs broken because of the Sabbath, or they remained for days on their crosses till death met them.

After only a few hours? I get what you’re saying about how it usually lasted far longer than that…but I cannot see how you believe “only” a few hours hanging on a cross, having been flogged into a bloody mess, having carried a heavy cross to the point of exhaustion, and having your bones pierced through, could leave you able–due to the mere “brevity” of the event–to do all the things that Jesus was able to do a mere three days later, assuming that person was without any supernatural power or supernatural help. You earlier upheld the value of using common sense…now, in even thinking that a Jew with no supernatural aid could be as well off three days later as Jesus was simply because he was only on the cross for “only a few hours”, you violate common sense in any reality, with or without the existence of the supernatural. Because, whether or not the supernatural exists (and if it does, it doesn’t violate common sense to believe a man could possibly rise from the dead) it violates common sense to believe a man could do those things naturally a mere three days later, regardless of whether he’d been on the cross for three hours or three days.

As for your “medication by millionaires” argument, I would like to know what treatment back then, short of miraculous, could make a man so extensively wounded heal and seem totally recovered (unrecognizable compared to his previously scarred and torn condition) within three days. Do you have any demonstration of such a treatment’s existence? You see, all the wealth in the world cannot buy medical treatment that doesn’t exist; even today, with all of our medical advances and high technology to help us along, the hypothetical treatment you propose would be barely short of a miracle if it is even possible at all–and I have not seen it demonstrated that it is–let alone in the medical field of Jesus’ time. The rich are powerful, but they’re not that powerful.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul