How do you interpret passages the Bible?

[billwjb]

Billwjb,

I ran into this (concerning your disbelief that Christ was taken down from the cross) and thought I’d pass this along.

I was reading through the 613 Jewish Commandments and found this:

Punishment and Restitution

1. That the dead body of an executed criminal shall not remain hanging on the tree over night (Deut. 21:23) (negative).
2. To inter the executed on the day of execution (Deut. 21:23) (affirmative)

See also: jewfaq.org/613.htm

P.S. King Herod’s son was Jewish, not traditional observant (beheading of John)

God Bless

Barb

Barb,

Thank you for this. It at least gives a cultural and scriptural context for the jewish crucifixions being only for one day. Perhaps this scripture is the reason for the story turning out the way it did. However, the crucifixion was done by Romans, not by jews, and so it is difficult to be certain about whose practices would be followed.

My reference for being open to multiple days is taken from The Trauma of the Cross, by Damiian Smythe (Paulist Press, 1999) where the author includes an excerpt from J. B. Green in an article entitled “Crucifixion” in a book entitled *Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels *(InterVarsity Press, 1992):

“Among the torturous penalties noted in the literature of antiquity, crucifixion was particularly heinous. The act itself damaged no vital organs, nor did it result in excessive bleeding. Hence death came slowly, sometimes over several days, through shock or a painful process of asphyxiation as the muscles used in breathing suffered increasing fatigue.”

and on the same page:

The process could be accelerated by breaking the legs of the crucified. But the punishment did not end with death. Often, as a further disgrace, the person was denied burial and the body was left on the cross to serve as carrion for the birds or to rot."

If these were the general practices, it seems to me to make sense that they might well have applied to Jesus.

 

[NotWorthy]

Barb,

Thank you for this. It at least gives a cultural and scriptural context for the jewish crucifixions being only for one day. Perhaps this scripture is the reason for the story turning out the way it did. However, the crucifixion was done by Romans, not by jews, and so it is difficult to be certain about whose practices would be followed.

My reference for being open to multiple days is taken from The Trauma of the Cross, by Damiian Smythe (Paulist Press, 1999) where the author includes an excerpt from J. B. Green in an article entitled “Crucifixion” in a book entitled *Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels *(InterVarsity Press, 1992):

“Among the torturous penalties noted in the literature of antiquity, crucifixion was particularly heinous. The act itself damaged no vital organs, nor did it result in excessive bleeding. Hence death came slowly, sometimes over several days, through shock or a painful process of asphyxiation as the muscles used in breathing suffered increasing fatigue.”

and on the same page:

The process could be accelerated by breaking the legs of the crucified. But the punishment did not end with death. Often, as a further disgrace, the person was denied burial and the body was left on the cross to serve as carrion for the birds or to rot."

If these were the general practices, it seems to me to make sense that they might well have applied to Jesus.

Except for that whole 39 lashes and the crowning of thorns.

If you recall, in one of the Gospels (Johns?), Pilate is surprised that Jesus is already dead. It seems the blood-letting of the scourging and the 2 inch thorns in His head led to a quick Crucifixion.

Also, the two thieves, who did not receive the scourging, had to have their legs broken as you described.

 

[bkayw]

Billmjb,

I made mention of this above and you might already know this, but Herod Antipas - King Herod’s son, was tetrarch and instrumental in Jesus’ crucifixion. The Herodian Dynasty was a quasi Jewish / quasi Roman system of governance.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_Antipas

From Wiki - sorry so long - but history always is

Herod Antipas (short for Antipatros) (before 20 BC – after 39 AD) was a first century AD ruler of Galilee and Perea, who bore the title of tetrarch (“ruler of a quarter”). He is best known today for accounts in the New Testament of his role in events that led to the executions of John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth, and through their portrayal in modern media, such as film.

After inheriting his territories when the kingdom of his father Herod the Great was divided upon his death in 4 BC, Antipas ruled them as a client state of the Roman Empire. He was responsible for building projects at Sepphoris and Betharamphtha, and more important for the construction of his capital Tiberias on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. Named in honor of his patron, the emperor Tiberius, the city later became a center of rabbinic learning.

Antipas divorced his first wife Phasaelis, the daughter of King Aretas IV of Nabatea, in favour of Herodias, who had formerly been married to his brother Herod Philip I. According to the New Testament Gospels, it was John the Baptist’s condemnation of this arrangement that led Antipas to have him arrested; John was subsequently put to death.

The Gospel of Luke states that when Jesus was brought before Pontius Pilate for trial, Pilate handed him over to Antipas, in whose territory Jesus had been active. However, Antipas sent him back to Pilate. The legal basis for these events, and the very historicity of Antipas’ involvement in the trial, have been the subject of scholarly debate. Besides provoking his conflict with the Baptist, the tetrarch’s divorce added a personal grievance to previous disputes with Aretas over territory on the border of Perea and Nabatea. The result was a war that proved disastrous for Antipas; a Roman counter-offensive was ordered by Tiberius, but abandoned upon that emperor’s death in 37 AD. In 39 AD Antipas was accused by his nephew Agrippa I of conspiracy against the new Roman emperor Caligula, who sent him into exile in Gaul. Accompanied there by Herodias, he died at an unknown date.

Early Life:

Antipas was a son of Herod the Great, who had become king of Judea, and Malthace, who was from Samaria.[1] His date of birth is unknown but was before 20 BCE.[2] Antipas, his full brother Archelaus and his half-brother Philip were educated in Rome.[3]

Antipas was not Herod’s first choice of heir. That honor fell to Aristobulus and Alexander, Herod’s sons by the Hasmonean princess Mariamne. It was only after they were executed (c. 7 BCE), and Herod’s oldest son Antipater was convicted of trying to poison his father (5 BCE), that the now elderly Herod fell back on his youngest son Antipas, revising his will to make him heir.[4]

During his fatal illness in 4 BC, Herod had yet another change of heart about the succession. According to the final version of his will, Antipas’ elder brother Archelaus was now to become king of Judea, Idumea and Samaria, while Antipas would rule Galilee and Perea with the lesser title of tetrarch. Philip was to receive Gaulanitis (the Golan Heights), Batanaea (southern Syria), Trachonitis and Auranitis (Hauran).[5]

Because of Judea’s status as a Roman client kingdom, Herod’s plans for the succession had to be ratified by Augustus. The three heirs therefore travelled to Rome to make their claims, Antipas arguing he ought to inherit the whole kingdom and the others maintaining that Herod’s final will ought to be honored.

Despite qualified support for Antipas from Herodian family members in Rome, who favoured direct Roman rule of Judea but considered Antipas preferable to his brother, Augustus largely confirmed the division of territory set out by Herod in his final will. Archelaus had, however, to be content with the title of ethnarch rather than king.[6]

While Archelaus was deemed incompetent by Augustus and replaced with a prefect in 6 AD, Antipas would govern Galilee and Perea for forty-two years.[7] These territories were separated by the region of the Decapolis, with Galilee to the north and Perea to the south (see map).

Threats to stability in both areas would have been clear to Antipas when he took office. While he had been making his case to Augustus in Rome, dissidents led by one Judas son of Hezekiah had attacked the palace of Sepphoris in Galilee, seizing money and weapons with which they terrorised the area.[8] In a counterattack ordered by Quinctilius Varus, Roman governor of Syria, Sepphoris was destroyed by fire and its inhabitants sold as slaves.[9] Perea, meanwhile, bordered on the kingdom of Nabatea, which had long had uneasy relations with Romans and Jews.[10]

 

[bkayw]

Part of Antipas’ solution was to follow in his father’s footsteps as a builder. He rebuilt and fortified Sepphoris, while also adding a wall to Betharamphtha in Perea.[11] The latter city was renamed Livias after Augustus’ wife Livia, and later Julias after his daughter.[12] However, the tetrarch’s most noted construction was his capital on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee – Tiberias, so named to honor his patron Tiberius, who had succeeded Augustus as emperor in 14 AD.[13]

Residents could bathe nearby at the warm springs of Emmaus, and by the time of the First Jewish-Roman War the city’s own buildings included a stadium, a royal palace and a sanctuary for prayer.[14] It gave its name to the sea and later became a center of rabbinic learning.[15] However, pious Jews at first refused to live in it because it was built atop a graveyard and therefore a source of ritual impurity; Antipas had to colonise it using a mixture of foreigners, forced migrants, poor people and freed slaves.[16]

At other times Antipas was more sensitive to Jewish tradition. His coins carried no images, which would have violated Jewish prescriptions against idolatry.[17] When Pontius Pilate, governor of Judea from 26 CEto 36 CE, caused offence by placing votive shields in the royal palace at Jerusalem, Antipas and his brothers successfully petitioned for their removal.[18]

John the Baptist and Jesus

Early in his reign, Antipas had married the daughter of King Aretas IV of Nabatea. However, while staying in Rome in order to secure the territory of his recently deceased half-brother Herod Philip II (c. AD 34), he fell in love with his brother’s widow Herodias (granddaughter of Herod the Great and Mariamne I), and the two agreed to marry each other, after Herod Antipas had divorced his wife.[19] On learning of this, Aretas’ daughter traveled to the fortress of Machaerus, from where Nabatean forces escorted her to her father. Relations between Antipas and Aretas soured and in time preparations began for war.[20] The marriage of Antipas and Herodias took place sometime in AD 34.[21]

Antipas faced more immediate problems in his own tetrarchy after John the Baptist – in 28/29 AD according to the Gospel of Luke[22] – began a ministry of preaching and baptism by the Jordan River, which marked the western edge of Antipas’ territory of Perea. The New Testament Gospels state that John attacked the tetrarch’s marriage as contrary to Jewish law, while Josephus says that John’s public influence made him fearful of rebellion.[23] John was imprisoned in Machaerus and executed.[24] According to Matthew and Mark, Herod was reluctant to order John’s death but was compelled by Herodias’ daughter (unnamed in the text but traditionally Salome), to whom he had promised any reward she chose in exchange for her dancing.[25]

**Among those baptized by John was Jesus of Nazareth, who began his own ministry in Galilee – causing Antipas, according to Matthew and Mark, to fear that the Baptist had been raised from the dead.**26]

Luke alone among the Gospels states that a group of Pharisees warned Jesus that Antipas was plotting his death, whereupon Jesus denounced the tetrarch as a “fox” and declared that he, Jesus, would not fall victim to such a plot because “it cannot be that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem”.[27]

Luke also credits the tetrarch with a role in Jesus’ trial. According to Luke, Pilate, on learning that Jesus was a Galilean and therefore under Herod’s jurisdiction, sent him to Antipas, who was also in Jerusalem at the time. Initially, Antipas was pleased to see Jesus, hoping to see him perform a miracle, but when Jesus remained silent in the face of questioning Antipas mocked him and sent him back to Pilate. Luke says that these events improved relations between Pilate and Herod despite their earlier enmity.[28]

The reason for Antipas’ involvement has been debated. Theodor Mommsen argued that the normal legal procedure of the early Roman empire was for defendants to be tried by the authorities of their home provinces.[29] A. N. Sherwin-White re-examined the relevant legal texts and concluded that trials were generally based on the location of the alleged crimes, but that there was a possibility of referral to a province of origin in special cases.

[30] If Pilate was not required to send Jesus to Antipas, he may have been making a show of courtesy to the tetrarch[31] and trying to avoid the need to deal with the Jewish authorities himself.[32] When Jesus was sent back, Pilate could still have represented Antipas’ failure to convict as support for his own view (according to Luke) that Jesus was not guilty of a capital offence,[33] thus allowing him to avoid responsibility for Jesus’ execution.[34]

Some scholars believe that Jesus’ trial by Herod Antipas is unhistorical.[35] Robin Lane Fox, for example, argues that the story was invented based on Psalm 2, in which “the kings of the earth” are described as opposing the Lord’s “anointed”, and also served to show that the authorities failed to find grounds for convicting Jesus.[36]

 

[bkayw]

Legacy

Among the followers of Jesus and members of the early Christian movement mentioned in the New Testament are Joanna, the wife of one of Antipas’ stewards, and Manaen, a “foster-brother” or “companion” of Antipas (both translations are possible for the Greek σύντροφος).

It has been conjectured that these were sources for early Christian knowledge of Antipas and his court.[50] In any case, Antipas featured prominently in the New Testament in connection with the deaths of John the Baptist and Jesus (see above). The pseudepigraphical Gospel of Peter went further, stating that it was Antipas rather than Pilate who ordered the crucifixion of Jesus.

In line with the work’s anti-Judaic theme, it pointedly remarked that Herod and “the Jews”, unlike Pilate, refused to “wash their hands” of responsibility for the death.[51]

 

[scottm]

Bill, dude, you need to retake Logic 101. Your question about a Bible verse on bigotry is based upon a blatantly false premise. It’s like the classic question, “Have you stopped beating your wife today?” The classic question assumes a false premise – that I’ve been beating my wife. Your question assumes a false premise – that I’m bigoted against those who disagree.

That has never been the situation. I’ve always only been opposed to dishonesty. It’s a Venn diagram, see. You’ve always proclaimed yourself a Catholic in your CAF profile while denying Catholic dogma in CAF posts.

Venn diagram: “All Catholics believe the Nicene Creed as a matter of non-negotiable essential dogma. You do not believe the Nicene Creed. Therefore, you are not a Catholic.”

That’s not bigotry. That’s junior-high Venn logic. You are falsely advertising yourself.

I get the strong impression too that you deny the immaculate conception, which is both Catholic and Orthodox dogma though it is not in the Nicene Creed. Well, Dan Brown had better reasons for denying Catholicism than what you’ve proposed, and his books are in the fiction section. Seriously, think about how silly you sound when you say this:

1. Biologists discovered the ovum in the 1800’s.
2. At the time of that discovery Catholics and Orthodox had already been believing and teaching the immaculate conception for some 1700 years, and for the Orthodox it was already dogma.
3. Therefore, the Pope’s ex cathedra pronouncement of Orthodox dogma was a defensive reaction to protect Catholics from unfriendly science.

That conclusion is intellectually vacuous. Yes, I said that out loud. That’s not bigotry on my part. That’s elementary logic on my part and bigotry on your part for covering your eyes and name-calling everyone who won’t go along with your Dan Brown ideas.

My religious affiliation has always been in my profile, in the upper right corner of every post, in the same place yours is. That explains why I care about both the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

 

[Tuno]

One is God-breathed and one is not.

What are you trying to take literal?The 6 days of Creation? Or what God is trying to tell us in the Creation account? There’s a huge difference.

For instance, what would the ancient world have thought if the Creation account included billions of years of evolution (with a Divine hand behind it) and plants and animals rising out of the primordial ooze?

What in the name of goodness does it mean “God-breathed?”

In the Bible some things can be taken literally: using it an ancient copper mine was found that produces profitably; oil was found as well, and Beesheba was re-planted with tamarack trees as was recorded happened. But in parables there are as many as three or four levels of meaning. And if we look at the God sponsored incidents of rape, incest, genocide, and slavery of the OT, we’d have on mell of a hess going on. But then, there is the world news…

As for plants rising from the ooze, is that as hard to take as a woman rising from a rib, a moving star, dead people walking around on that “Friday,” the ark, seas parting, etc. Need I go on?

 

[billwjb]

Legacy

Among the followers of Jesus and members of the early Christian movement mentioned in the New Testament are Joanna, the wife of one of Antipas’ stewards, and Manaen, a “foster-brother” or “companion” of Antipas (both translations are possible for the Greek σύντροφος).

It has been conjectured that these were sources for early Christian knowledge of Antipas and his court.[50] In any case, Antipas featured prominently in the New Testament in connection with the deaths of John the Baptist and Jesus (see above). The pseudepigraphical Gospel of Peter went further, stating that it was Antipas rather than Pilate who ordered the crucifixion of Jesus.

In line with the work’s anti-Judaic theme, it pointedly remarked that Herod and “the Jews”, unlike Pilate, refused to “wash their hands” of responsibility for the death.[51]

WOW! Thank you so much for all the historical background around the movers and shakers of the era, especially the Jews.

Although Jesus seems clearly to have established at least a modest following, and therefore might have caused Antipas to feel threatened, and the intrigue does sound compelling, but it is still hard for my skeptical mind to see why Jesus was executed at all, especially by the Roman governor. Apparently, behind the scenes political manouvering was able to manipulate Pilate, at least on this issue. Life must hae been pretty cheap in those days.

 

[billwjb]

Bill, dude, you need to retake Logic 101. Your question about a Bible verse on bigotry is based upon a blatantly false premise. It’s like the classic question, “Have you stopped beating your wife today?” The classic question assumes a false premise – that I’ve been beating my wife. Your question assumes a false premise – that I’m bigoted against those who disagree.

That has never been the situation. I’ve always only been opposed to dishonesty. It’s a Venn diagram, see. You’ve always proclaimed yourself a Catholic in your CAF profile while denying Catholic dogma in CAF posts.

Venn diagram: “All Catholics believe the Nicene Creed as a matter of non-negotiable essential dogma. You do not believe the Nicene Creed. Therefore, you are not a Catholic.”

That’s not bigotry. That’s junior-high Venn logic. You are falsely advertising yourself.

I get the strong impression too that you deny the immaculate conception, which is both Catholic and Orthodox dogma though it is not in the Nicene Creed. Well, Dan Brown had better reasons for denying Catholicism than what you’ve proposed, and his books are in the fiction section. Seriously, think about how silly you sound when you say this:

1. Biologists discovered the ovum in the 1800’s.
2. At the time of that discovery Catholics and Orthodox had already been believing and teaching the immaculate conception for some 1700 years, and for the Orthodox it was already dogma.
3. Therefore, the Pope’s ex cathedra pronouncement of Orthodox dogma was a defensive reaction to protect Catholics from unfriendly science.

That conclusion is intellectually vacuous. Yes, I said that out loud. That’s not bigotry on my part. That’s elementary logic on my part and bigotry on your part for covering your eyes and name-calling everyone who won’t go along with your Dan Brown ideas.

First, I am glad to hear that you have stopped beating your wife!

I know that is a misreading of what you said, but it seems to me that you have done a bit of misreading of what I have said, and as you know, such things often lead to misunderstandings and flameouts, and it is hard to unsay things like that.

You seem to miss my point altogether regarding the discovery of the ovum. I gave it as an example of a belief (a secular ordinary belief)) that was held pretty universally in all cultures for thousands of years, and that was suddenly found to be wrong upon discovery of the ovum.The immaculate conception had little to do with the ovum, although it is a bit of related science. Perhaps it was just a coincidence that Rome firmed up that dogma so close in time to the scientific discovery.

On another subject, Maybe someone can comment on the line in the creed that goes"On the third day he rose again according to the scriptures." This last phrase is quite interesting.I find its wording to be unusual, and it seems like it would not be necessary to the sentence at all. And yet, there it is.

 

[NotWorthy]

What in the name of goodness does it mean “God-breathed?”

Well, the question was, “what’s the difference between the Lord of the Rings and the Bible”. The Bible is inspired by God - or God-Breathed. The Lord of the Rings is a wonderful book, but it is from the mind of our good J.R.R. Tolkien.

In the Bible some things can be taken literally: using it an ancient copper mine was found that produces profitably; oil was found as well, and Beesheba was re-planted with tamarack trees as was recorded happened. But in parables there are as many as three or four levels of meaning. And if we look at the God sponsored incidents of rape, incest, genocide, and slavery of the OT, we’d have on mell of a hess going on. But then, there is the world news…

As for plants rising from the ooze, is that as hard to take as a woman rising from a rib, a moving star, dead people walking around on that “Friday,” the ark, seas parting, etc. Need I go on?

I don’t know. Tell you kids those stories and they sit in wide-eye wonder. Tell your kids how an atom is made of protons, neurons, electrons, quarks, and such and you’ll have a kid wondering what mom and dad have been smoking.

 

[NotWorthy]

On another subject, Maybe someone can comment on the line in the creed that goes"On the third day he rose again according to the scriptures." This last phrase is quite interesting.I find its wording to be unusual, and it seems like it would not be necessary to the sentence at all. And yet, there it is.

“according to the Scriptures” means “as prophecied in the Old Testament”.

 

[Tuno]

Inspired by God: Genesis 19:30-36, 35:22, Exodus 6:20 plus 15 other cases of incest in eight different forms. Sexual intercourse in public? With ten of your father’s wives? 2 Samuel 15:16, 16:21-23. Raping your sister, then tossing her out, bolting the door, and leaving her to fate? 2 Samuel 13:2, 14-18. Offering your virgin daughter and guest’s concubine to a crowd for the night so they wouldn’t molest your guest, a passing stranger? Judges, 19:16-26. Made barren for reproaching your husband for exposing his genitals at a dance? 1 Samuel 18:27 & 2 Samuel 4:14, 20, 23. God orders brutal massacres: Joshua 10:40. In the case of the Medianites, everyone was to be exterminated except for the virgins, who were to be kept for slaves.

To continue; Mark 5:10-20, Jesus sends 2000 swine, someone’s hard earned property and wealth, to their deaths, conforming to the request of demons, when in His capacity as God he could have disposed of them in any non destructive way. Oh, and there was the fig tree withering incident as well. Damn; it was out of season and there wasn’t fruit! Imagine that as a calculated offense. No wonder non Cathlics see Jesus as not friendly to animals and Nature. All lovely God inspired morality, to be sure. I mean, I know that the Son of God IS, but imagine being some good natured moral adult who never heard of Christianity reading this stuff and asking sincere questions? There may be answers for Jesus’ actions, and I have considered them, but they could easily come off as a big stretch for the two thirds of the world who are not habituated Christians. But the ones the list started with? Good luck.

One might read, in addition, The Bible Unmasked by Joseph Lewis (Freethought Press Association, 1926) and Abelards 157 questions that reveal basic contradictions in dogma in his Sic et Non. You can go on from there about inspired.

I don’t know. Tell you kids those stories and they sit in wide-eye wonder. Tell your kids how an atom is made of protons, neurons, electrons, quarks, and such and you’ll have a kid wondering what mom and dad have been smoking.

Jeeez, Notworthy, my folks both smoked Kent cigaretts, and I was fascinated by their science demonstrations as well as Hungarian mythology and nightly bedtime stories, and conversations about the day’s events, even the news.

The only time I remember wondering what was weird about them was why they thought I was evil for not having done anything. That was when they forced me to learn the act of contrition. I kept asking what I did wrong, and they couldn’t come up with anything other than that I was born a sinner. I had made mistakes, which they corrected, but as they pointed out at the time, those were ignorance, not deliberate evil intent. I think we must have grown up in radically different households, or maybe your parents just didn’t know how to convey the absolute wonder of Creation. I still wonder at the beauty of atoms and stars. You tell me what’s wrong with that picture.

All Bibles of all faiths have much gold and dross as well. There is a far greater and more useful toolbox available to us now than ever before regarding the understanding of matters of faith. And though that toolbox mostly tends to ignore some of the more useful ones as too esoteric, we yet can think, feel, and project more reasonably than with just blind faith, as many on here seem to tend to do.

 

[NotWorthy]

Inspired by God: Genesis 19:30-36, 35:22, Exodus 6:20 plus 15 other cases of incest in eight different forms. Sexual intercourse in public? With ten of your father’s wives? 2 Samuel 15:16, 16:21-23. Raping your sister, then tossing her out, bolting the door, and leaving her to fate? 2 Samuel 13:2, 14-18. Offering your virgin daughter and guest’s concubine to a crowd for the night so they wouldn’t molest your guest, a passing stranger? Judges, 19:16-26. Made barren for reproaching your husband for exposing his genitals at a dance? 1 Samuel 18:27 & 2 Samuel 4:14, 20, 23.

Ahhhh, you think that since the author of these Scriptures printed these events, that God approved or promoted it? That’s news to me.

No, the authors of these stories only show that these various people were sinful, and yet God continued His promise through these people. This is a fact that I am most thankful for, when I look back at the sins I have committed in my life.

God orders brutal massacres: Joshua 10:40. In the case of the Medianites, everyone was to be exterminated except for the virgins, who were to be kept for slaves.

And why was this. You seem to be adept at reading the Bible. God explains why He ordered this. Why don’t you explain His (Mis)-Reasoning before I address this point.

To continue; Mark 5:10-20, Jesus sends 2000 swine, someone’s hard earned property and wealth, to their deaths, conforming to the request of demons, when in His capacity as God he could have disposed of them in any non destructive way.

Hmmmmm… where does Jesus tell the Swine/Demons to jump off the cliff? I’m not aware of that verse.

Do you ever wonder if Jesus was performing a sign for these people?

Oh, and there was the fig tree withering incident as well. Damn; it was out of season and there wasn’t fruit! Imagine that as a calculated offense.

Signs, Tumo, Signs. Yes, Our Lord and Savior knew it was out of season. Let me ask you, what was the Fig Tree a symbol of in the Old Testament? Could Jesus be referring to this as a way of making this a sign, perhaps?

No wonder non Cathlics see Jesus as not friendly to animals and Nature. All lovely God inspired morality, to be sure. I mean, I know that the Son of God IS, but imagine being some good natured moral adult who never heard of Christianity reading this stuff and asking sincere questions? There may be answers for Jesus’ actions, and I have considered them, but they could easily come off as a big stretch for the two thirds of the world who are not habituated Christians. But the ones the list started with? Good luck.

I wasn’t aware that anyone considered Jesus anti-animal or anti-nature. That’s a new one to me.

One might read, in addition, The Bible Unmasked by Joseph Lewis (Freethought Press Association, 1926) and Abelards 157 questions that reveal basic contradictions in dogma in his Sic et Non. You can go on from there about inspired.

One might read “Jesus of Nazareth” by Cardinal Ratzinger (aka Pope Benedict XVI).

Jeeez, Notworthy, my folks both smoked Kent cigaretts, and I was fascinated by their science demonstrations as well as Hungarian mythology and nightly bedtime stories, and conversations about the day’s events, even the news.

That’s fantastic! Uhhh… the bedtime stories and all, not the Kent Smoking habit.

The only time I remember wondering what was weird about them was why they thought I was evil for not having done anything. That was when they forced me to learn the act of contrition. I kept asking what I did wrong, and they couldn’t come up with anything other than that I was born a sinner. I had made mistakes, which they corrected, but as they pointed out at the time, those were ignorance, not deliberate evil intent. I think we must have grown up in radically different households, or maybe your parents just didn’t know how to convey the absolute wonder of Creation. I still wonder at the beauty of atoms and stars. You tell me what’s wrong with that picture.

And I think I see the picture beginning to form. You seem to be poorly catechized. I never questioned the Act of Contrition, for it is a prayer of love, not one of self-guilt that you have portrayed it as.

And I too, am amazed at the beauty. But, if you try and paint a picture of atoms, explaining their movement in the microcosm without the aid of a microscope, one would begin to wonder what your parents are smoking… and they’d suspect it wasn’t Kents!

All Bibles of all faiths have much gold and dross as well. There is a far greater and more useful toolbox available to us now than ever before regarding the understanding of matters of faith. And though that toolbox mostly tends to ignore some of the more useful ones as too esoteric, we yet can think, feel, and project more reasonably than with just blind faith, as many on here seem to tend to do.

 

[billwjb]

“according to the Scriptures” means “as prophecied in the Old Testament”.

And yet it seems a carefully worded phrase which can be read with your meaning, but it can also be read to say that he rose on the third day and the scriptures prove it. I assume there must have been a tussle over it by those who drafted the wording.

 

[NotWorthy]

And yet it seems a carefully worded phrase which can be read with your meaning, but it can also be read to say that he rose on the third day and the scriptures prove it. I assume there must have been a tussle over it by those who drafted the wording.

Both answers would seem to verify the same Truth, which makes me wonder what your point is.

 

[sinnerdexter]

Agreed. In fact if we were to accept the Bible as the self authenticating Word fo God, we would also have to accept the Koran and the Book of Morman as the Word of God…

God never gave us the book seperate from the institution. The Bible was not seperated from The Catholic Church until the Protestant Reformation. Likewise the idea that the link between Christ and the institution of One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is “less certain” is a fallicy that comes FROM that very “reformation”.
The Protestant reformation could not stand if the 1100 year old, universally accepted, definition of Church remained unchanged. So the Protestants taught a new meaning, a new interpretation of Church - The so called “invisible church of all believers” - An interpretation foreign to anyone in the Church, East or West, prior to that.
When I look for the term “Church” in the Gospels I see it used twice. Both times by Christ and both times in connection with granting the authority to “Bind and Loose”…“Whatever”. The first time gives the Keys of the Kingdom to Peter, and the second time tells the faithful to “Tell it To The Church” and then abide by the decision of The Church. I don’t see how this is in any way ambiguious. Christ established a visible and authoritative Church.

Yes it is unfortunate that God’s Perfect Church has had it’s share of imperfect leaders.
I don’t agree with you that “political pressures” played any significant role in the selection of the Canon, but that would be a matter well outside the scope of this thread.

I think that once you work out the issues for yourself, with teh help of the Holy Spirit, you will no longer believe this.

Peace
James

The Roman Catholic Church began with the acceptance of Christianity by Rome. This marriage was between the pinnacle imperialist culture of the ancient western world, which was rational, had a well developed government, and had much of the best technology of its day. This merged with the gentle Christian teachings of love. The hybrid from this marriage reflected both, and was no longer either of the two originals in pure form.

The early Roman Catholic Church retained the glory of Rome mentality, but tempered with the softening and community effect of Christianity. Christianity does not teach conquest, but for the Roman aspect of the hybrid, this was a day at the office. The Church, as it evolved, used this evolving hybrid to enforce when needed, and to recruit when appropriate The Christian turn the other cheek will not work with bullies. Bullies respected the Roman might and power. With the hybrid, it was possible to impact both the sheep and the wolves. The recruited wolves become more Roman-like, while the recruited sheep become more Christian-like, with both under the same power structure. Relative to the bible, interpretations over time would reflect the projections of the hybrid. One would not interpret in a way that makes yourself look wrong. One may not stress the love aspect if you need to kick butt. Rather one would go more old testament.

I modern times, a more pure form of Christianity is differentiating itself. Hitler was an example of the Roman aspect of Christianity differentiating itself. It is not coincidence that the goose step and even the swastika had been used by ancient Rome. After the differentiation, the new hybrid shifted increasingly away from Roman and toward Christianity. Now Christians are easy to bully because they lack the Roman toughness blended into their hybrid. But this is also changing the way the bible is seen and interpreted, since the projection is now different.

 

[NotWorthy]

The Roman Catholic Church began with the acceptance of Christianity by Rome. This marriage was between the pinnacle imperialist culture of the ancient western world, which was rational, had a well developed government, and had much of the best technology of its day. This merged with the gentle Christian teachings of love. The hybrid from this marriage reflected both, and was no longer either of the two originals in pure form.

Any example of this nonsense or is this just your opinion?

The early Roman Catholic Church retained the glory of Rome mentality, but tempered with the softening and community effect of Christianity. Christianity does not teach conquest, but for the Roman aspect of the hybrid, this was a day at the office. The Church, as it evolved, used this evolving hybrid to enforce when needed, and to recruit when appropriate The Christian turn the other cheek will not work with bullies. Bullies respected the Roman might and power. With the hybrid, it was possible to impact both the sheep and the wolves. The recruited wolves become more Roman-like, while the recruited sheep become more Christian-like, with both under the same power structure. Relative to the bible, interpretations over time would reflect the projections of the hybrid. One would not interpret in a way that makes yourself look wrong. One may not stress the love aspect if you need to kick butt. Rather one would go more old testament.

At what time did this happen?

I modern times, a more pure form of Christianity is differentiating itself. **Hitler was an example of the Roman aspect of Christianity differentiating itself. **

** **** **** **** **** **** **** **

It is not coincidence that the goose step and even the swastika had been used by ancient Rome. After the differentiation, the new hybrid shifted increasingly away from Roman and toward Christianity. Now Christians are easy to bully because they lack the Roman toughness blended into their hybrid. But this is also changing the way the bible is seen and interpreted, since the projection is now different.

Where are you getting this tripe?

The Goose Step was found in ancient Rome?
From Wikipedia:

The goose-step is a special marching step usually performed in formal military parades and other ceremonies. While marching in parade formation, troops swing their legs in unison to a nearly horizontally position while keeping their knees locked. In many armed forces the step is modified to raise the legs to a lower angle. Originating in Prussian military drill in the mid-18th century, the step was called the stechschritt (literally, “piercing step”) or stechmarsch. “Goose-step,” a pejorative term, is not used officially by the armed forces of the nearly 30 countries that maintain this tradition.

 

[NotWorthy]

The Swastika was Roman? Evidently, it was found everywhere in ancient Cultures.

“The presence of Swastika is evident in various civiliziation such as the Egyptians, Mayans, Aztec, Inca, Native Americans, Romans, Greeks, Chinese, Japanese, ancient Troy and Celts to name but a few and that derived from the Vedic Dharma of Aryans of Bharat or India.” From hi-in.facebook.com/pages/Reclaim-the-Swastika-symbol/128870393792705

 

[JRKH]

The Roman Catholic Church began with the acceptance of Christianity by Rome. This marriage was between the pinnacle imperialist culture of the ancient western world, which was rational, had a well developed government, and had much of the best technology of its day. This merged with the gentle Christian teachings of love. The hybrid from this marriage reflected both, and was no longer either of the two originals in pure form.

The early Roman Catholic Church retained the glory of Rome mentality, but tempered with the softening and community effect of Christianity. Christianity does not teach conquest, but for the Roman aspect of the hybrid, this was a day at the office. The Church, as it evolved, used this evolving hybrid to enforce when needed, and to recruit when appropriate The Christian turn the other cheek will not work with bullies. Bullies respected the Roman might and power. With the hybrid, it was possible to impact both the sheep and the wolves. The recruited wolves become more Roman-like, while the recruited sheep become more Christian-like, with both under the same power structure. Relative to the bible, interpretations over time would reflect the projections of the hybrid. One would not interpret in a way that makes yourself look wrong. One may not stress the love aspect if you need to kick butt. Rather one would go more old testament.

I modern times, a more pure form of Christianity is differentiating itself. Hitler was an example of the Roman aspect of Christianity differentiating itself. It is not coincidence that the goose step and even the swastika had been used by ancient Rome. After the differentiation, the new hybrid shifted increasingly away from Roman and toward Christianity. Now Christians are easy to bully because they lack the Roman toughness blended into their hybrid. But this is also changing the way the bible is seen and interpreted, since the projection is now different.

You know - there is a kernal of truth in what you say above about how there is a certain lack of toughness in many Christians (I wouldn’t go so far as to say in “Christianity” as a whole), but unfortunately this point is buried under so much tripe and misinformation as to be completely lost.

Peace
James

 

[billwjb]

Both answers would seem to verify the same Truth, which makes me wonder what your point is.

I am in the camp that believes that the followers of Jesus, baffled by all the (possibly grief driven) “appearances” after the crucifixion (and by the crucifixion itself), searched through the Hebrew scriptures until they were able to figure out “what must have happpened.” Once they figured it out, it became part of their worship rituals and readings, and eventually made its way into the gospel renditions.

A not too dissimilar thing would be the infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke which also seem to hjave been added well after the fact, probably because “it made sense” to have such a beginning to such a significant life.