My Opinion: No Piercing At Jesus' Side

[firstmode]

Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Ananias the High Priest who was mentioned in Acts 23:2​

1. Now as soon as Albinus was come to the city of Jerusalem, he used all his endeavors and care that the country might be kept in peace, and this by destroying many of the Sicarii. But as for the high priest, Ananias (25) he increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money
2. Acts 23:2, “And the high priest Ananias commanded those standing beside him to strike him [Paul] on the mouth.”

Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions “Christus” who is Jesus - Annals 15.44​

1. “Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.”
   1. Ref. from classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.mb.txt

Thallus (Circa AD 52, eclipse of the sun) Thallus wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to his own time. His writings are only found as citations by others. Julius Africanus, who wrote about AD 221, mentioned Thallus’ account of an eclipse of the sun.​

1. “On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.”
   1. Is this a reference to the eclipse at the crucifixion? Luke 23:44-45, “And it was now about the sixth hour, and darkness fell over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45 the sun being obscured; and the veil of the temple was torn in two.”
   2. The oddity is that Jesus’ crucifixion occurred at the Passover which was a full moon. It is not possible for a solar eclipse to occur at a full moon. Note that Julius Africanus draws the conclusion that Thallus’ mentioning of the eclipse was describing the one at Jesus’ crucifixion. It may not have been.
   3. Julius Africanus, Extant Writings, XVIII in the Ante Nicene Fathers, ed. by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), vol. VI, p. 130. as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.

 

[firstmode]

Pliny the Younger mentioned Christ. Pliny was governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. Pliny wrote ten books. The tenth around AD 112.​

1. “They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.”
   1. Pliny, Letters, transl. by William Melmoth, rev. by W.M.L. Hutchinson (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1935), vol. II, X:96 as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.

The Talmud​

1. “On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, “He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.” But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!”
   1. Gal. 3:13, “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.”
   2. Luke 22:1, “Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which is called the Passover, was approaching. 2And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how they might put Him to death; for they were afraid of the people.”
   3. This quotation was taken from the reading in The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, p. 281 as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.

Lucian (circa 120-after 180) mentions Jesus. Greek writer and rhetorician.​

1. “The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.”
   1. Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 1113, in The Works of Lucian of Samosata, transl. by H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler, 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1949), vol. 4, as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.
   2. Though Lucian opposed Christianity, he acknowledges Jesus, that Jesus was crucified, that Christians worship him, and that this was done by faith.

 

[Valke2]

When Gentiles convert to Judaism, they are no longer Gentiles but Jews. What false messiah was this in 70 CE?
I don’t get it. Was there a messiah in 70? Christianity was never a Jewish sect. Christianity was born already a Gentile religion…

The Bar Kochba Revolt.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben Masada;4877310:

inJESUS;4877278:

Even if one were to believe Jesus survived crucifixion and the torture that preceded it, how would you explain (assuming that you don’t believe Jesus is divine) that he not only survived but appeared good as new for a luncheon date with his followers?

I’m a little older than Jesus was when he was crucified. But I’m more or less healthy. I played two hours of tennis yesterday and my shoulder hurts and I’m limping a little from a sore knee. I would imagine that if instead of playing tennis, I let someone whip me mercilessly and then drive nails through my hands and feet and leave me hanging on a stake for a few hours, that people might notice that I was a little worse for wear for the next few days.

As you can see, one goes crazy to try to make sense out of so much confusion these guys wrote in the gosples. As a matter of fact, it’s weird to think of Jesus having dinner with his disciples three days after so much suffering. And Luke says that this went on for 40 days. isn’t it something? Go figure!

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

When Gentiles convert to Judaism, they are no longer Gentiles but Jews. What false messiah was this in 70 CE?
I don’t get it. Was there a messiah in 70? Christianity was never a Jewish sect. Christianity was born already a Gentile religion…

The Bar Kochba Revolt.

Bar Kochba! What are you talking about? Put another 70 years into this! The war of Bar Kochba was in the years 133 CE.

Ben:

 

[Valke2]

Bar Kochba! What are you talking about? Put another 70 years into this! The war of Bar Kochba was in the years 133 CE.

Ben:

I realize he was off on the date but that is obviously the false messiah he was referring to (at least that is what I thought)

 

[Ben_Masada]

I realize he was off on the date but that is obviously the false messiah he was referring to (at least that is what I thought)

Yes, I know. And it’s an embarrassment to us that a man of the size of Rabbi Akiva would proclaim Bar Kochba
the Messiah. He should know much better from Isaiah that the Messiah is Israel, the Jewish People.

Ben:

 

[codebilly]

Ben Masada wrote: “You are completely out of tune with reality. The Covenant of God with Israel is as eternal as the natural laws”.

Every creature that is alive shall be yours to eat; I give them all to you as I did the green plants. - Only flesh with its lifeblood still in it you shall not eat. For your own lifeblood, too, I will demand an accounting: from every animal I will demand it, and from man in regard to his fellow man I will demand an accounting for human life. - Gen 9:3-6

"See, I am now establishing my covenant with you and your descendants after you and with every living creature that was with you: all the birds, and the various tame and wild animals that were with you and came out of the ark. - Gen 9:8-10

God made His covenant with Noah, and his sons, and descendants AND the animal kingdom and requires an accounting of the blood, even blood of animals.

Genesis makes clear that food before the flood was only green (and seed bearing) plants.

The first priests therefore were in Noah’s line because a priest is that person who performs a ritual or Rite in solemnly vowed remembrance of God’s Covenant. Hence, no animal could be eaten (slaughtered) without remembering God’s covenant.

All the way to the time of Christ, Jews had priests who took solemn vows or an oath to offer properly and according to God’s Covenants, food and sacrificial (bloody / meat) offerings. This fact is referenced throughout the entire body of Hebrew scriptures.

So Ben, tell us, how is it that a Jew can eat meat or smear the blood of a spotless lamb on his doorpost?

There are no Jewish priests, and hence no blood accounting according to God’s covenant, nor is there Rite/Ritual of the priestly lines established in the Old Testament.

Jesus absorbed the entire body of Jewish priests into Himself and His Apostolic succession.

It is an absolute distortion of history that the Romans wiped out every Jewish priest on the face of the earth. Destruction of the temple is one thing, but destruction of every temple, and every place of sacrificial offering, and every priest is another. It would have been completely impossible for the Romans to destroy every priest and priestly line in Israel and among the diaspora.

The fact is that the vast majority of authentic, vowed, Jewish priests became followers of Jesus and assumed their priestly duties in the New Covenant.

Jesus proclaimed His eternal and everlasting vow to save sinners, at the table of the Last Supper and throughout His passion and death on the cross.

No priest could offer sacrifice of any animal to God after the sacrifice of Jesus. Any priest attempting it would be ashamed and bewildered.

Praise Be to the Immortal Savior, Lord Jesus Christ who surrendered Himself to end the bloody sacrificial rite of Passover with His very own Body and Blood, and gave us the New Covenant of His saving power.

 

[ralphinal]

No, but the guy who wrote the first gospel does. He says the Jewish priests bribed the guards with a large amount of money, and nobody asks him to prove his theory. (Mat. 28:11-19) Why do I have to prove that Joseph of Arimathea bribed the guards in the Calvary?

Wanna know a secret? Most Christians pay no attention to that passage. But, how do the two connect? You have said on here that the passage in the Bible is wrong because Jewish preists would not bribe, but Joseph, who was Jewish and a member of the Sanhedron, would. There is no way you can connect the dots.

When Gentiles convert to Judaism, they are no longer Gentiles but Jews. What false messiah was this in 70 CE?
I don’t get it. Was there a messiah in 70? Christianity was never a Jewish sect. Christianity was born already a Gentile religion…

Going backwards, you are wrong. The first Christians were Jews. They were called Followers of the Way. It was later that they were called Christian, but they were Christian none the less. Think about this: Who were the first JEws?

I cannot think of the false messiah in 70. He was the one who made the Romans so made they left no stone on another in Jerusalem.

How do you explain that God chose the most stupid People on earth?

Ben:

I never said that Jews were the most stupid people on earth. You asserted that being Jewish made you an expert on Judaism and that it made your logic flawless. Neither of which is automatically true. BY the way, that assertion is so illogical, there is no reason to accept any of your logic.

 

[allhers]

allhers;4877211:

Ben Masada;4877192:

And you have all the right in the world to believe whatever you please.

That’s Pauline rhetoric. But about Isaiah yes, I have read a lot. It has nothing in this book about Jesus. But let get more specific and go to chapter 53. If you believe that the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is the Messiah, Isaiah identifies that
Servant with Israel by name in Isaiah 41:8,9; 44:1,2,21; 45:4. Take a look at those quotations and tell me what do you think.

Yes, I did. And it was to his mother that Jesus recommended his wife, and to his wife that Jesus recommended his mother. Being a religious Jew, it would never make sense to recommend his mother to a male disciple and vice-versa. It means
that John was not there.

Yes, there were two witnesses but they never said anything. Therefore, where did the guy who wrote the fourth gospel get the idea that Jesus was spear-pierced? You don’t know, and that’s why I am going to tell you: From Zechariah 12:10 as a plagiarism of something that has nothing to do with literal piercing of one’s side.

Ben:

I do believe what is right!

As for your reference in Isaiah, keep reading, read down to verse
14 where it says this…Fear not, O worm Jacob, O maggot Israel; I will help you, says the LORD; your redeemer is the Holy One of Israel.

I was just pointing out that you finally agreed that there WERE at least 2 witnesses. earlier you seemed to have trouble believing this, I am happy to see that you resolved this. However, you still have much to learn. As for them never saying anything, do you think they went through the rest of their lives never speaking a word about all this?

As for Zechariah12:10, who do you think that he is speaking of?

 

[allhers]

Yes, I know. And it’s an embarrassment to us that a man of the size of Rabbi Akiva would proclaim Bar Kochba
the Messiah. He should know much better from Isaiah that the Messiah is Israel, the Jewish People.

Ben:

Oh, I see here where this is what you believe that verse is referring to right? Well, we believe that Israel of old gave birth to the Messiah and became the New Israel, the Church.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Wanna know a secret? Most Christians pay no attention to that passage. But, how do the two connect? You have said on here that the passage in the Bible is wrong because Jewish preists would not bribe, but Joseph, who was Jewish and a member of the Sanhedron, would. There is no way you can connect the dots.

I said that the bribe claimed by the guy who wrote the first gospel makes of the Jews the most stupid People.
And I believe that the bribe of the Centurion by Joseph of Arimathea makes a lot of sense.

Going backwards, you are wrong. The first Christians were Jews. They were called Followers of the Way. It was later that they were called Christian, but they were Christian none the less. Think about this: Who were the first JEws?

The difference between us is that I usually quote my assertions and you never do with yours. No, the first Christians were Christians period. The first Jews were Jews. Then, ALL the Nazarenes were Jews, but none was a Christian. Now, “The New Way” was another name for the Nazarenes. When Paul went to Jerusalem for letters to arrest Nazarenes in the synagogues of Damascus, he said that they were those who lived according to The New Way. Read Acts 9;2.

You asserted that being Jewish made you an expert on Judaism and that it made your logic flawless. Neither of which is automatically true. BY the way, that assertion is so illogical, there is no reason to accept any of your logic.

Between you and me, I don’t think there is any doubt about it, is there?

Ben:

 

[ralphinal]

I said that the bribe claimed by the guy who wrote the first gospel makes of the Jews the most stupid People.
And I believe that the bribe of the Centurion by Joseph of Arimathea makes a lot of sense.

But you cannot PROVE it.

The difference between us is that I usually quote my assertions and you never do with yours. No, the first Christians were Christians period. The first Jews were Jews. Then, ALL the Nazarenes were Jews, but none was a Christian. Now, “The New Way” was another name for the Nazarenes. When Paul went to Jerusalem for letters to arrest Nazarenes in the synagogues of Damascus, he said that they were those who lived according to The New Way. Read Acts 9;2.

You did not answer, WHO were the first Jews? Who were the first followers of the faith and were they called Jews? You are correct about the Way, but you somehow fail to see that the New Way WERE Christians. It seems like you have been reading Muslim websites

Between you and me, I don’t think there is any doubt about it, is there?

Ben:

Yep.

 

[Valke2]

• The fact is that the vast majority of authentic, vowed, Jewish priests became followers of Jesus and assumed their priestly duties in the New Covenant.*

That’s news to me. How do you arrive at this conclusion?

 

[codebilly]

That’s news to me. How do you arrive at this conclusion?

do the math … where are the Jewish priests?

btw – as mentioned previously, it would have been impossible for the Romans to have killed every Jewish priest in Israel and of diaspora … even if they did destroy the temple in Jerusalem

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben Masada;4877301:

allhers;4877211:

I do believe what is right!

As for your reference in Isaiah, keep reading, read down to verse
14 where it says this…Fear not, O worm Jacob, O maggot Israel; I will help you, says the LORD; your redeemer is the Holy One of Israel.

I was just pointing out that you finally agreed that there WERE at least 2 witnesses. earlier you seemed to have trouble believing this, I am happy to see that you resolved this. However, you still have much to learn. As for them never saying anything, do you think they went through the rest of their lives never speaking a word about all this?

As for Zechariah12:10, who do you think that he is speaking of?

To understand Zechariah 12:10, you have to have some kind of initiation on the concept of Messiah ben Joseph versus Messiah ben David. Israel, the Ten Tribes of the Northern Kingdom was MBJ, and Judah in the South was MBD.

According to Isaiah 9:8, God had decreed to remove Judah from existence, but because of His promise to David that Judah would remain forever as a lamp in Jerusalem according to I Kings 11:36, Israel or MBJ had to redeem Judah or MBD. So, God’s decree over Judah fell upon Israel, and this had to go to redeem Judah. That happened when Assyria removed the whole population of Israel and exchanged them for Gentiles who came from Assyria to the Galelee.

Now, for Zechariah 12:10. Eventually, Judah went into exile in Babylon. After 70 years they returned to Jerusalem, and in their happiness to start anew, they understood and were reminded that their happiness was due to the redemptive death of Israel, or MBJ
who had been pierced for their sins. That’s what the whole chapter 53 of Isaiah is all about. Israel had been pierced by the sins of Judah in the sense that Israel had died so that Judah remained. So, the Jews or MBD would look at him, MBJ and mourn for him as one mourns for his firstborn. That’s all. Nothing to do with literal piercing of one’s side. As I said here once: Sometimes it pays to think.

Ben:

 

[Valke2]

do the math … where are the Jewish priests?

btw – as mentioned previously, it would have been impossible for the Romans to have killed every Jewish priest in Israel and of diaspora … even if they did destroy the temple in Jerusalem

No one is saying the Romans killed all the Jewish priests. How that can possibly translate into almost all the priests followed Jesus doesn’t make any sense to me.

What math are you referring to? And btw, why would it be impossible for the Romans to have killed all of the priests?
And there would be no priests in the diaspora. The only place a priest would be found would be at the Temple. The destruction of the Temple effectively destroyed the priest class.

To put it another way, if there is no church would it really matter that you were an alter boy ?

 

[Valke2]

allhers;4878069:

Ben Masada;4877301:

To understand Zechariah 12:10, you have to have some kind of initiation on the concept of Messiah ben Joseph versus Messiah ben David. Israel, the Ten Tribes of the Northern Kingdom was MBJ, and Judah in the South was MBD.

According to Isaiah 9:8, God had decreed to remove Judah from existence, but because of His promise to David that Judah would remain forever as a lamp in Jerusalem according to I Kings 11:36, Israel or MBJ had to redeem Judah or MBD. So, God’s decree over Judah fell upon Israel, and this had to go to redeem Judah. That happened when Assyria removed the whole population of Israel and exchanged them for Gentiles who came from Assyria to the Galelee.

Now, for Zechariah 12:10. Eventually, Judah went into exile in Babylon. After 70 years they returned to Jerusalem, and in their happiness to start anew, they understood and were reminded that their happiness was due to the redemptive death of Israel, or MBJ
who had been pierced for their sins. That’s what the whole chapter 53 of Isaiah is all about. Israel had been pierced by the sins of Judah in the sense that Israel had died so that Judah remained. So, the Jews or MBD would look at him, MBJ and mourn for him as one mourns for his firstborn. That’s all. Nothing to do with literal piercing of one’s side. As I said here once: Sometimes it pays to think.

Ben:

little messiah vs. big messiah.

This is another good topic that needs a new thread.

 

[ralphinal]

No one is saying the Romans killed all the Jewish priests. How that can possibly translate into almost all the priests followed Jesus doesn’t make any sense to me.

What math are you referring to? And btw, why would it be impossible for the Romans to have killed all of the priests?
And there would be no priests in the diaspora. The only place a priest would be found would be at the Temple. The destruction of the Temple effectively destroyed the priest class.

To put it another way, if there is no church would it really matter that you were an alter boy ?

Logically, those priests who survived, and there had to be some, would have assumed other roles within the Jewis people.

There is no reason to assume that any sizable number of them became Christian. Well, not at first. Over the passage of time, who knows how many members of the Tribe of Levi became Christian. It may be one. It may be zero. It may have been many

 

[allhers]

allhers;4878069:

Ben Masada;4877301:

To understand Zechariah 12:10, you have to have some kind of initiation on the concept of Messiah ben Joseph versus Messiah ben David. Israel, the Ten Tribes of the Northern Kingdom was MBJ, and Judah in the South was MBD.

According to Isaiah 9:8, God had decreed to remove Judah from existence, but because of His promise to David that Judah would remain forever as a lamp in Jerusalem according to I Kings 11:36, Israel or MBJ had to redeem Judah or MBD. So, God’s decree over Judah fell upon Israel, and this had to go to redeem Judah. That happened when Assyria removed the whole population of Israel and exchanged them for Gentiles who came from Assyria to the Galelee.

Now, for Zechariah 12:10. Eventually, Judah went into exile in Babylon. After 70 years they returned to Jerusalem, and in their happiness to start anew, they understood and were reminded that their happiness was due to the redemptive death of Israel, or MBJ
who had been pierced for their sins. That’s what the whole chapter 53 of Isaiah is all about. Israel had been pierced by the sins of Judah in the sense that Israel had died so that Judah remained. So, the Jews or MBD would look at him, MBJ and mourn for him as one mourns for his firstborn. That’s all. Nothing to do with literal piercing of one’s side. As I said here once: Sometimes it pays to think.

Ben:

Sometimes it pays to read and think, and in all things, pray.
usccb.org/nab/bible/zechariah/intro.htm

(If you follow all the links and footnotes, etc…it looks like only the tribe of Judah remained loyal to David’s house.)