My Opinion: No Piercing At Jesus' Side

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ben_Masada
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What confuses me is that the “Jews” would not bribe the guards to tell one story, but a “Jew” would bribe them to disobey a direct order.

I see your point. I think the New York Jew Answer would be “Who friggin’ cares? What I should know from Jesus? Ask the Catholics”
That’s about what I was thinking.

And of course Jews are no less likely to engage in bribery as anyone else. I would venture to say that bribery was a necessity with the Romans and with subsequent host countries.
 
That’s about what I was thinking.

And of course Jews are no less likely to engage in bribery as anyone else. I would venture to say that bribery was a necessity with the Romans and with subsequent host countries.
That would be an understatement…There has never been a government immune to it or a people unwilling to do it
 
This is where Ben uses this as proof that Joseph of Arimathia (sp) bribed the centurion. :rolleyes:
You know, he is talking about the one called “Distinguished” and “virtuous and rightout” in the Bible. Why would he not bribe someone?

It is a load of donkey doo
 
No, I don’t feel threatened. Insulted, yeah, but threatened not in the least. Since you want to discuss events in scripture, can you point me to the scriptural evidence that describes Jesus NOT being lanced, J of A bribing the centurion, John not really a jew, and spiriting away of Jesus to a foreign land?
Halsey, are you Jewish? No, you are not. I am.
Tell me, do you believe Jesus was Jewish? Yes, you do. Do you believe John was Jewish? Yes, you do. So, step aside, because the credibility to decide what is Jewish in the NT and what is not, is found with me of the both of us. Therefore, John could have never written the fourth gospel. John was a Nazarene Jew. He would have lost all his Jewish credibility if he had been the one who wrote that gospel. The same applies to Jesus; and this is the reason why I believe only 20 percent of the NT, being 80 percent composed of unJewish interpolations.
The problem is that your attack on my faith has no basis in reality. And when faced with the reasoned refutations of your claims, you must compound your unfounded beliefs with even more outrageous claims. In your words, “I know that habit is the worst thing to break, especially in matters of religion. But it will be okay.” Give it a try.
I don’t agree with you that I am attacking, but I agree that you do feel attacked. If you use Psychology here, I think fangs is the only thing you seem to have left. Have you ever
heard about the saying that, “If you can’t beat them, join them?” That’s an option. Take a look at Zechariah 8:23. Soon or later, anyways, Gentiles will take hold of the corner of the garment of every Jew and beg to go with them because they have finally recognized that God is with them. Please read, in order not to say that I am making up things.

Ben: 🙂
 
Halsey, are you Jewish? No, you are not. I am.
Tell me, do you believe Jesus was Jewish? Yes, you do. Do you believe John was Jewish? Yes, you do. So, step aside, because the credibility to decide what is Jewish in the NT and what is not, is found with me of the both of us. Therefore, John could have never written the fourth gospel. John was a Nazarene Jew. He would have lost all his Jewish credibility if he had been the one who wrote that gospel. The same applies to Jesus; and this is the reason why I believe only 20 percent of the NT, being 80 percent composed of unJewish interpolations.
I’m sorry, until you can actually provide any REAL proof for your argument, you have absolutely NO credibility at all. Saying you’re Jewish gives you no credibility. Especially when it comes to the New Testament. Here’s a hint, Ben. The New Testament was written by Jews who became Christians because they recognized the Messiah when He came.

Your 20% / 80% argument is similar to the muslim argument about the NT being corrupted. It is an interesting point that the only ones to agree with you at all on this thread are the muslim posters.
I don’t agree with you that I am attacking, but I agree that you do feel attacked. If you use Psychology here, I think fangs is the only thing you seem to have left. Have you ever
heard about the saying that, “If you can’t beat them, join them?” That’s an option. Take a look at Zechariah 8:23. Soon or later, anyways, Gentiles will take hold of the corner of the garment of every Jew and beg to go with them because they have finally recognized that God is with them. Please read, in order not to say that I am making up things.
And we have. Salvation comes from the Jews. It is fulfilled In Jesus Christ. Some day the rest of the Jews will recognize Jesus as the Messiah and when that happens, the rest of the world will know that God is with the Jews.
 
Halsey, are you Jewish? No, you are not. I am.
Tell me, do you believe Jesus was Jewish? Yes, you do. Do you believe John was Jewish? Yes, you do. So, step aside, because the credibility to decide what is Jewish in the NT and what is not, is found with me of the both of us. Therefore, John could have never written the fourth gospel. John was a Nazarene Jew. He would have lost all his Jewish credibility if he had been the one who wrote that gospel. The same applies to Jesus; and this is the reason why I believe only 20 percent of the NT, being 80 percent composed of unJewish interpolations.

I don’t agree with you that I am attacking, but I agree that you do feel attacked. If you use Psychology here, I think fangs is the only thing you seem to have left. Have you ever
heard about the saying that, “If you can’t beat them, join them?” That’s an option. Take a look at Zechariah 8:23. Soon or later, anyways, Gentiles will take hold of the corner of the garment of every Jew and beg to go with them because they have finally recognized that God is with them. Please read, in order not to say that I am making up things.

Ben: 🙂
Jesus was a Jews, so was John. Why would you conclude that John did not wrote the fourth Gospel just because he was a Jew? Jesus was a Jew but He did not follow the Jewish Thorah. Why would John follow the Jewish Thorah, contradicting his own teacher.
 
Jesus was a Jews, so was John. Why would you conclude that John did not wrote the fourth Gospel just because he was a Jew? Jesus was a Jew but He did not follow the Jewish Thorah. Why would John follow the Jewish Thorah, contradicting his own teacher.
Please, a herald to everyone in this forum not to miss what our friend Swariffin has declared. Jesus was a Jew but he did not follow the Jewish Torah.

Now, please take a look at Matthew 5:17-19. If Jesus did not follow Torah, he was a sinner, and this is a different image of a perfect Jesus, who is claimed by Christians.

Ben: :confused:
 
Ben: 🙂
Become a Catholic, stop torturing yourself 🙂
How could I quit the Faith of Jesus, which was
Judaism for the Faith of Paul, which was Christianity? Would you do that? I didn’t think so. I think the other way around is more likely. I mean, that you become Jewish and no one will be tortured.

Ben: 🙂
 
Your were there as an eye witness I take it…How old does that make you?
 
I’m sorry, until you can actually provide any REAL proof for your argument, you have absolutely NO credibility at all. Saying you’re Jewish gives you no credibility. Especially when it comes to the New Testament. Here’s a hint, Ben. The New Testament was written by Jews who became Christians because they recognized the Messiah when He came.

Your 20% / 80% argument is similar to the muslim argument about the NT being corrupted. It is an interesting point that the only ones to agree with you at all on this thread are the muslim posters.

And we have. Salvation comes from the Jews. It is fulfilled In Jesus Christ. Some day the rest of the Jews will recognize Jesus as the Messiah and when that happens, the rest of the world will know that God is with the Jews.
When Jesus said that salvation is from the Jews, he meant on a collective basis, because he understood that the promise of God to Noah is that Israel would be the guarantee that no longer a catastrophe like the Flood would visit Mankind again. But you guys don’t like to hear something like that, because the first thing that comes to your mind is to bite the hand that feeds you. But the truth is the truth and it can’t be anything else but the
truth.

Ben: 🙂
 
**When Jesus said that salvation is from the Jews, he meant on a collective basis, **because he understood that the promise of God to Noah is that Israel would be the guarantee that no longer a catastrophe like the Flood would visit Mankind again. But you guys don’t like to hear something like that, because the first thing that comes to your mind is to bite the hand that feeds you. But the truth is the truth and it can’t be anything else but the
truth.

Ben: 🙂
Is this one of your “traditions” too?

Still have no evidence to back up your claims I see. 🤷
 
This is common ground during the building phase of every religion or during a period of religious persecutions.
During the Aiatolla Hommeni regime thousands of religious members of the Habai faith were executed without recanting. Even today many Muslims even explode themselves for their faith
withouth a second thought, so to speak.
You’re confusing the faith of someone who comes along 800 years after the founding of the religion, with the faith of a person who walked with Jesus. All of the Apostles (except John and Judas Iscariot) who were with Jesus died rather than recant belief in the Resurrection, because of what they witnessed (not just because of their faith, but because of their direct experience). The same is not true about muslims in the 20th and 21st centuries whose faith compels martyrdom. If christianity were just a charade, then those who knew it was a charade (i.e. the Apostles) would have recanted to avoid their own deaths.
Ben Masada:
Do you have any idea why Mary Magdalene could not hug Jesus after three days, but only later in the course of the 40 days he remained with the disciples? Perhaps he was still all in bandages.
The text does not support your speculation.
Ben Masada:
Well my friend, was Jesus an Orthodox observant Jew or was he not? It stands the reason therefore, that anything about Jesus which contradicts his Jewish Faith cannot stand in a Court of Law.
Jesus was a practicing Jew. But it does not stand to reason that anything that contradicts the Pharisees or Saducees interpretation of Mosaic law trumped Jesus’ understanding. If Jesus was a prophet, or the Messiah, his authority on what is the correct interpretation of Jewish Law would rightly supercede that of his contemporaries. It’s really a question of authority, is it not? So, if you reject Jesus’s claim to authority, you can reject Jesus’s teaching on having come to fulfill the Law. If you reject it, then he is just another pretender. I think your attempt to paint him as a pretender here, based upon the crucifixion narratives is unpersuasive. However, you clearly have convinced yourself that you are correct.
Ben Masada:
Because it presumes to temper with Judaism by bringing Hellenistic innovations, which have nothing to do with our Faith.
Hellenistic innovations? In what sense? I think where you are confused is in the manner in which Christians of non-Jewish background turned to hellenistic philosophy to try to understand what was revealed by Christ. But where in the NT is there evidence of “Hellenistic” innovations regarding matters of doctrine?

Peace,
Robert
 
Please, a herald to everyone in this forum not to miss what our friend Swariffin has declared. Jesus was a Jew but he did not follow the Jewish Torah.

Now, please take a look at Matthew 5:17-19. If Jesus did not follow Torah, he was a sinner, and this is a different image of a perfect Jesus, who is claimed by Christians.

Ben: :confused:
He did follow the Torah. What makes you think He didn’t?
I want to know - simply because they couldnt find fault with Him, but it was how they saw it…so i am interested where you get that idea…
He also told the ppl to obey the Chair of Moses but do not follow them in their sins.

Matthew 5
17 Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. To fulfil… By accomplishing all the figures and prophecies; and perfecting all that was imperfect. 18 For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled. Amen… That is, assuredly of a truth. This Hebrew word, amen, is here retained by the example and authority of all the four Evangelists. It is used by our Lord as a strong asseveration, and affirmation of the truth.
19 He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. The scribes and Pharisees… The scribes* were the doctors of the law of Moses: the Pharisees were a precise set of men, making profession of a more exact observance of the law: and upon that account greatly esteemed among the people*.
 
Please, a herald to everyone in this forum not to miss what our friend Swariffin has declared. Jesus was a Jew but he did not follow the Jewish Torah.

Now, please take a look at Matthew 5:17-19. If Jesus did not follow Torah, he was a sinner, and this is a different image of a perfect Jesus, who is claimed by Christians.

Ben: :confused:
Then perhaps you can explain me why Jesus cure the sick during Sabath?

Another question from me, do the Jewish doctors and nurses in the Jewish hospital serve the patients during Sabbath?
 
How could I quit the Faith of Jesus, which was
Judaism for the Faith of Paul, which was Christianity? Would you do that? I didn’t think so. I think the other way around is more likely. I mean, that you become Jewish and no one will be tortured.

Ben: 🙂
Please tell me why Jesus kept on challenging the Thorah?
 
.

Jesus was a practicing Jew. But it does not stand to reason that anything that contradicts the Pharisees or Saducees interpretation of Mosaic law trumped Jesus’ understanding. If Jesus was a prophet, or the Messiah, his authority on what is the correct interpretation of Jewish Law would rightly supercede that of his contemporaries. It’s really a question of authority, is it not? So, if you reject Jesus’s claim to authority, you can reject Jesus’s teaching on having come to fulfill the Law. If you reject it, then he is just another pretender. I think your attempt to paint him as a pretender here, based upon the crucifixion narratives is unpersuasive. However, you clearly have convinced yourself that you are correct.
** Jesus was a Jew. he was for the Jews only. Throughout his life Jesus could not act or utter a single world against the law of Moses. And he did not do that.

The only few innovations he did were some improvements in teh laws of Moses about Sabath etc. or about stoning an adulteress. Even in those things Jesus never went against the Law of Moses.

Jesus did not say that it was illegal to stone the adultress. He gave the right judgement that the punishment fo adultery is stoning to death.

Even in matters of sabath, he advised the Jews not to be harsh and reluctant in the matters of doing good things on Sabath day. But he never told any one to disregard Sabath.

Had Jesus done or said anything against the law of Moses,he would have fallen from the Grace of God and would have been rejected right away. Even in the case that he did not do anything wrong,he was under close observation and scrutiny. He was a Jew and a Perfect Jew.

But I am afraid to call him a perfect Jew because recently there had been some one (Hitler) apparantly, outwardly perfect for his (German) people . But he ruined his nation. ben and company can pass any remark (good or bad) on Jesus. I cannot do it.

It would not be fair that christians claim any right on Jesus. jesus did not belong to them at all. jesus, his mother,his all disciples, even Mary Magd were all Jews. There was no compaign (preaching) for any new religion till the last days of Jesus. He was teaching exactly as per the Law of Moses a.s.**
Hellenistic innovations? In what sense? I think where you are confused is in the manner in which Christians of non-Jewish background turned to hellenistic philosophy to try to understand what was revealed by Christ. But where in the NT is there evidence of “Hellenistic” innovations regarding matters of doctrine?
Peace,
Robert
** It is well known that saul took the whole system to Greece. The word Christ and christinaity all seem to be Greek. The Greeks were pagans, having many gods and Godesses. they loved the flesh of swine. So Saul helped them with that unclean flesh.
I can feel that christianity started with Saul. befor eSaul there was no church or christianity.

The problem is that the first thrirty(30) years of the life of Jesus are in complete obscurity. Nobody knows where he was living and what he was doing. Then within three (3) years of his preaching, there was a complete downfall. And no record of where he went or what became of him. So all the lot is based on the three years of the life of Jesus by the gospels.

The gospels do not mention saul and saul does not mention the apostles. Saul was preaching his own philosophy. That was christianity, in my opinion.**
 
Please tell me why Jesus kept on challenging the Thorah?
Show me what you say with a quotation because Jesus was an Othodox practicing Jew, and there is nothing more important in the life of such a Jew than the Torah. What you say sounds more like a slander against Jesus. I can’t defend him if you don’t show me where you are getting this idea from.

Ben: 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top