B
- Status
C
CassiusLonginus
Guest
Hello all,
I’m sorta jumping in from about page 4 here (yeah, now on 27th page, I know, just don’t have the time to read alllllllll that).
I thought I’d mention a few common sense things from what I read in those first few pages.
Who were the witnesses at the cross? There were probably many soldiers there as well as even more Jews who were not favorable to Jesus. It was for fear of the Jews that Jesus was crucified. There were mobs of people crying for his death. Are you saying that none of these jeered and followed to the site of the death? Many Jews, and especially the high priests and the mobs had a vested interest in seeing this man dead. Are you saying that none of them bothered to witness the fact of his death?
Another thing, he was mercilessly whipped and flogged. He had open wounds everywhere. He had a crown of thorns digging into the flesh on his head. Even in 21st century medical facilities it’s pretty easy to get an infection, even in just one wound. He had hundreds, and he lived in 1st century palestine. How infection-free do you think he could have remained had he survived the cross? He would more likely have been killed by people just trying to get his wounds clean! Think!
As I stated before, many Jews had a vested interest in seeing him dead. But did they not listen to him preach? Even his enemies knew he had claimed to rise on the third day. Are you saying there weren’t any Jews guarding the tomb along with the Romans? Why would they just blow off their duty of making sure his disciples didn’t steal the body. No, this doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. One person on here keeps talking about Flavius Josephus. Josephus said that there were 1,500 Jews watching the tomb. Even if it weren’t that many, there wouldn’t be zero Jews watching. That would be just dumb. Are we now saying that 1st century Jews were dumb? I don’t think so. These people were just as smart and cunning as anybody else, and they would have ensured that that tomb was watched 24/7 for at least 3 days, and armed to boot!
And about the Lance. The Jews at the cross would have insisted on proving that he was dead. It would make no sense otherwise. Well, he looked dead, whereas the other two with him were still alive (they hadn’t been beaten and scourged as severely). Their legs were broken. Protocol. No matter what, they couldn’t ‘get away’, it would hasten death, etc. Jesus already appeared dead. Obviously his disciples believed he was dead. Why break his legs when you can simply pierce the heart. So, that’s what happened, and there would have been tons of soldiers, and even more Jews (favorable to Jesus’ death) there to witness and report back to the chief rabbis about it. Also, the conversion of some of the soldiers happened after his death, but Longinus’ conversion happened precisely when he put his spear into Jesus’ heart. Up until that moment he was a Roman soldier just doing his duty, which included making sure that the man was dead.
Bottom line: Some Jews called for Jesus’ death because to them he was not only a blasphemer, but a very popular one. Why would they call for his death (claiming he was God), and then not make sure that he was dead, and proving to his following that he wasn’t God by not resurrecting? Obviously there were a ton of Jews there to witness the crucifixion, death, spearing, and ressurection of Jesus. After witnessing that resurrection, I’m sure that many of those Jews finally converted too.
I’m sorta jumping in from about page 4 here (yeah, now on 27th page, I know, just don’t have the time to read alllllllll that).
I thought I’d mention a few common sense things from what I read in those first few pages.
Who were the witnesses at the cross? There were probably many soldiers there as well as even more Jews who were not favorable to Jesus. It was for fear of the Jews that Jesus was crucified. There were mobs of people crying for his death. Are you saying that none of these jeered and followed to the site of the death? Many Jews, and especially the high priests and the mobs had a vested interest in seeing this man dead. Are you saying that none of them bothered to witness the fact of his death?
Another thing, he was mercilessly whipped and flogged. He had open wounds everywhere. He had a crown of thorns digging into the flesh on his head. Even in 21st century medical facilities it’s pretty easy to get an infection, even in just one wound. He had hundreds, and he lived in 1st century palestine. How infection-free do you think he could have remained had he survived the cross? He would more likely have been killed by people just trying to get his wounds clean! Think!
As I stated before, many Jews had a vested interest in seeing him dead. But did they not listen to him preach? Even his enemies knew he had claimed to rise on the third day. Are you saying there weren’t any Jews guarding the tomb along with the Romans? Why would they just blow off their duty of making sure his disciples didn’t steal the body. No, this doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. One person on here keeps talking about Flavius Josephus. Josephus said that there were 1,500 Jews watching the tomb. Even if it weren’t that many, there wouldn’t be zero Jews watching. That would be just dumb. Are we now saying that 1st century Jews were dumb? I don’t think so. These people were just as smart and cunning as anybody else, and they would have ensured that that tomb was watched 24/7 for at least 3 days, and armed to boot!
And about the Lance. The Jews at the cross would have insisted on proving that he was dead. It would make no sense otherwise. Well, he looked dead, whereas the other two with him were still alive (they hadn’t been beaten and scourged as severely). Their legs were broken. Protocol. No matter what, they couldn’t ‘get away’, it would hasten death, etc. Jesus already appeared dead. Obviously his disciples believed he was dead. Why break his legs when you can simply pierce the heart. So, that’s what happened, and there would have been tons of soldiers, and even more Jews (favorable to Jesus’ death) there to witness and report back to the chief rabbis about it. Also, the conversion of some of the soldiers happened after his death, but Longinus’ conversion happened precisely when he put his spear into Jesus’ heart. Up until that moment he was a Roman soldier just doing his duty, which included making sure that the man was dead.
Bottom line: Some Jews called for Jesus’ death because to them he was not only a blasphemer, but a very popular one. Why would they call for his death (claiming he was God), and then not make sure that he was dead, and proving to his following that he wasn’t God by not resurrecting? Obviously there were a ton of Jews there to witness the crucifixion, death, spearing, and ressurection of Jesus. After witnessing that resurrection, I’m sure that many of those Jews finally converted too.
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
V
Valke2
Guest
I always had a problem with this aspect (as well as others). It seems unlikely that Jews, who were subject to mass crucifixions, would have much stomach for purposely viewing another one. It makes far more sense that the cite of crucifixions would have been avoided by its potential victims.
C
CassiusLonginus
Guest
Says who? The NT disagrees with your assertion. What document can you show that contradicts what is found in the NT? And if you’re about to say that the NT contradicts the NT, think again; differences in the Gospels aren’t contradictions, simply omissions from one writer to the other.
Yes, Jesus was crucified by Pilate for fear of the Jews. In other words, even as a defeated people, they still were able to exert their influence on him. It’s not as though Pilate was immune from demotion from Caeser, and the Jews knew this. It says in the Gospels that Pilate found no fault with Jesus, but the Jews insisted the Romans crucify him anyway. Yes, it was Jews who were doing this, contrary to the nonsense you wrote above. Non Jews wouldn’t CARE about a supposed Jewish blasphemer. The only people who did care were the Jews, which is precisely who was calling for his crucifixion. You act as if this is so farfetched, but we have a parallel today. In the western world today, this tiny, miniscule minority wields an incredibly disproportionate influence, where any criticism results in losses of jobs and jail time, but if you insult anybody else, or tell a ‘tall tale’ about a non Jew, even if it’s true, it’s no big deal and nobody even cares.
The explanation is extremely simple for anybody with a little common sense. As a “blasphemer”, and one who had a huge following, the high priests etc were simply doing their job. I’ll just restate what I said: Many Jews, and especially the high priests and the mobs had a vested interest in seeing this man dead WHICH IS TRUE, WHICH IS WHY THEY WERE CALLING FOR HIS DEATH. Are you saying that none of them bothered to witness the fact of his death?
Actually, thus far in the discourse between you and me, you’re the one who isn’t making any sense, and you can’t back up anything you say with fact or common sense, so you have to fall back to arguments that are simply ad hominem attacks like “what you say makes no sense”. What I say makes too much sense for your likes…Deal with it.
“non-Jewish nonsense”??? Seriously? Jesus referenced Jonah at least twice in the Gospels as a prefigured event of his own resurrection. The symbolism of “three days” or “third day”, is very frequent in the OT, and wasn’t lost on the Jews of his time, even if it is lost on many today.
No, this is another of yours. The bottom line is that the Romans always finished a job (remember the temple in A.D. 70?), so why would they not guarantee, with one method or another, that Jesus was dead? Why would they not make sure? The answer is that they wouldn’t NOT make sure, which is to say that they absolutely would make sure he was dead, and double-sure!
Of course he was dead. He had been deprived of sleep from the night before, was beaten, flogged, whipped, scourged, crowned with thorns, made to carry a heavy cross, was nailed to it, and after all this he died. I doubt you or I would last half as long, possibly not even living long enough to be crucified. And what I said about Dismas and Gestas was that they hadn’t been tortured ‘as severely’. You must not have read what I wrote very well.
He appeared dead because he was dead, and the spear thrust proved it. A man with a gaping hole in his heart cannot be alive.
Yes the disciples fled, except John, and Mary and some of the other women as you forget.
There are too many problems with this line of thinking. First, the centurions didn’t convert until AFTER he was dead. After Jesus died, the earth shook violently and they realized what they had done. The other wrong-thinking on your part is to assume that there were no temple spies to make sure for the high priests and chief rabbis that Jesus the ‘blasphemer’ was dead. Even in the unlikely circumstances that the soldiers would take a bribe, there must have been many Jews present who were required by their superiors to MAKE SURE that Jesus died. You never address this point.
The Jews call for Jesus’ death so why wouldn’t they send people to witness his death? According the NT there were mobs of people at Pilate’s tribunal area. Are you saying none of them were there at the scourging and along the way, and at the crucifixion? This is just stupid. Of course they were there, and there were probably many of them to make sure that he was dead. Why don’t you address that point?
C
CassiusLonginus
Guest
So you say. Where’s your proof? Oh, that’s right, it’s all conjecture on your part, and goes against all that is said in the gospels in particular, and the NT in general.
C
CassiusLonginus
Guest
I didn’t realize that the Jews were subject to mass crucifixions around A.D. 33. And yes, some, on the payroll of the high priests and chief rabbis, who had a vested interest in MAKING SURE that this “magician” and “blasphemer” was dead, would have been there at the crucifixion to the bitter end, to MAKE SURE that the job was finished. I don’t know why that’s so hard to understand.
When people are wronged or murdered, don’t family members always show up at the trial of the murderer, and at the murderer’s execution!?!?!!?!?!?!?!? Of course they do, because they have a vested interest in MAKING SURE that justice is done.
Likewise, the Jewish rabbinate knew of Jesus’ claims to rise again on the third day. Why would there NOT be both a Jewish and Roman guard on the tomb? It doesn’t make any sense for them NOT to be there to MAKE SURE that what Jesus ‘claimed’ didn’t come true. Are we having a hard time understanding logic here today or what!? Are we having a hard time understanding humans? Have we ever met another person? Do we not know how people work and think and act???
This guy claims he’s gonna rise again on the third day. Absurd. However, some of his people might steal the body. Should we watch the grave and make sure they don’t steal the body to make us look bad and make them look good? Nah, let’s go get hammered!
Get real. Use common sense.
P
planten
Guest
**The gospels and the NT are not reliable at all. These were written by some men and sifted and edited very precisely to cover up some truths and to advance certain beliefs which did not belong to Jesus or any Jew.
I believe that Jesus was a Jew. He followed the Jewish law. At the most he suggested some sensible improvements in the law of Jews. But Jesus never uttered any single word against that law. Jesus never even dreamed that he would be the one to start a new faith (Trinitarian philosophy ) far away from the beliefs of the Jews.
But Catholics have their long history, after the council at Nicene in 325 A.D. That is when the greek pagan philosophy got accepted officially and the real teachings of Jesus banned.
The soldiers at the crucifixion were bribed and advised by Pilate not to harm Jesus too much. It is believed that the wife of Pilate was a believer and supporter of Jesus and so were some of the soldiers who carried out the good job at the site of crucifixion.
**
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
That’s a perfect example of a post loaded with ad hominem attacks; but that’s okay. I am mature enough to deal with you. Besides, according to Isaiah 2:2,3, when Gentiles want instruction in the Word of God, the address is Zion, the Jewish People. That’s what I am here for. Are you sure that contradictions in the gospels are only omissions from one to the other? How about the Jesus of Luke going back to Nazareth at 40 days old according to Luke 2:39 while the Jesus of Matthew was still hiding in Egypt waiting for Herod to die? Is this omission or two infant Jesuses were coexisting at the same time?
If you ever pick a volume of Josephus to read, look for what he says about Pilate.
This is your way to promote Antisemitism. Pope John 23rd asked publicly forgiveness from the Jewish People for the false accusation throughout these almost two thousands years of antisemitic assertion that the Jews killed Jesus. When a Pope recognized such an antisemitic accusation and his lay Catholics insist with the absurdity is unthinkable that at this day and age we have to deal with it. That is a NT attempt to transfer the blame on the death of Jesus from the Romans to the Jews. You don’t want to listen to Pope John 23rd but I guarantee you, you won’t succeed.
You are mistaken and made blind by your hatred for the Jewish People. These things in the gospels were written 50+ years after the alleged facts. No one is able
to prove anything. I hold unto the logical position that the Jews would not ask the enemy occupier of their homeland to crucify a Jew who had come to confirm the most precious thing to the Jews: The Law. (Mat. 5:17-19) Therefore, to say that those who were fabricated to ask Pilate for the death of Jesus were not Jews. It was all a tremendous antisemitic lie.
This only proves that you have never read Josephus. Some of the crucified would spend even from two to four days on the cross till they died. Jesus was taken off the cross by Joseph of Arimathea on the same day after a few hours. Besides, he was not the only one to be beaten, flogged, whipped, scourged, etc. Are you trying to say that Jesus was the only Jew crucified by the Romans? You must be kidding!
Thank you for having included Mary, because I do believe she was Jesus’ famous beloved disciple.
You have fallen in your own trap. You say that the Centurion did not conver until AFTER Jesus was dead. Therefore, he could not spear-pierce Jesus after he converted to his cause. And if he spear-pierced Jesus before he was dead, Jesus did not die as a result of crucifixion but of a stab wound at his heart. Are you read to pursui that line? Complications will get you around the corner. I don’t believe your religious authorities will agree with you.
Ben:
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
You are too ready to claim that what you say is logical. I am gonna tell you something about Jesus and I am gonna prove it to you with real logic. There are three
things Jesus never claimed upon himself which would make him a blasphemer, which he was not. The first thing is that he was the Messiah, the second is that he was the son of God, and the third is that he would ever resurrect.
Now, here are the proofs: When Jesus was gone, the Apostles got together and organized the Jewish Sect of the Nazarenes and established their headquarters in Jerusalem. For the next 30 years they coexisted peacefully with the local Jews. (Acts 9:31) When Paul showed up in Jerusalem preaching that Jesus was the Messiah, son of God, and that he had resurrected, he caused such a havoc in Jerusalem that the local Jews were on an uproar to kill him. How come? What were the Nazarenes preaching about Jesus for 30 years to get along so well with mainstream Judaism? Because the Apostles were as surprised about Paul’s gospel as everyone else. Now, go on and read the whole book of Acts to see if my logic makes sense or not.
Ben:
V
Valke2
Guest
Well I will assume you didn’t realize that thousands of Jews had been crucified during the time of Jesus. Regarding your personal beliefs about what happened in front of Jesus’ tomb, this doesn’t have anything to do with my post, which stated that I have a hard time believing Jews would want to stick around to watch a crucifixion.
R
ralphinal
Guest
I fully understand and actually agree. It should be noted that the Bible does not say there were many jews there at all. Some of his closest friends and family, and some who might have come by just to see.
V
Valke2
Guest
that makes more sense.
C
CassiusLonginus
Guest
There’s not much one can do when his beliefs are so diametrically opposed to another’s, and written record and traditional teaching are not enough for either side. I must say though, that the paragraph I wrote in which you accused me of ad hominem attacks had none. I was simply asking for sources. Do you know what ad hominem attacks are (in light of the chance that English may not be your native tongue)?
I will say this though: The point for which I was falsely and recklessly accused of being an anti-semite is the one that you yourself confirm with your unjust and defaming rhetoric. Where’s Abe Foxman when I need him to come to my rescue???
Seeing as anti-catholicism is an everyday and acceptable form of bigotry (actually the only acceptable form of bigotry anymore), it’s no wonder that there’s no parallel term in my religion for “anti-semite”. If there were, people would finally wake up and see how offensive they are on a daily basis toward Catholics, in all aspects of society (but especially the media), and so pompously and self-righteously so. Tolerance only applies to non-Catholics. The world may be as intolerant of the Catholic Church as it wants, and there is no recourse. This is proved every day in my country at least, from the ignorant things people constantly blurt out to the selective reporting on the news, to the laws that lawmakers are constantly trying to pass that target and single out or set double standards in regard to the Catholic Church. There’s one in Connecticut on the table even as we speak.
And lastly: I didn’t know there were Jews who don’t believe Jesus was a magician and blasphemer, boiling in excrement in hell. Thanks for the info. That’s a step in the right direction for the Jews!
Good day.
I will say this though: The point for which I was falsely and recklessly accused of being an anti-semite is the one that you yourself confirm with your unjust and defaming rhetoric. Where’s Abe Foxman when I need him to come to my rescue???
Seeing as anti-catholicism is an everyday and acceptable form of bigotry (actually the only acceptable form of bigotry anymore), it’s no wonder that there’s no parallel term in my religion for “anti-semite”. If there were, people would finally wake up and see how offensive they are on a daily basis toward Catholics, in all aspects of society (but especially the media), and so pompously and self-righteously so. Tolerance only applies to non-Catholics. The world may be as intolerant of the Catholic Church as it wants, and there is no recourse. This is proved every day in my country at least, from the ignorant things people constantly blurt out to the selective reporting on the news, to the laws that lawmakers are constantly trying to pass that target and single out or set double standards in regard to the Catholic Church. There’s one in Connecticut on the table even as we speak.
And lastly: I didn’t know there were Jews who don’t believe Jesus was a magician and blasphemer, boiling in excrement in hell. Thanks for the info. That’s a step in the right direction for the Jews!
Good day.
V
Valke2
Guest
S
swariffin
Guest
Luke was not a Jew, surely he missed the event of Bethlehem kid massacre. Luke also made a mistake in describing the event of purification of a mother giving birth in accordance to Jewish practices at that time. For sure, the bible is not a legal documents. The bible is a book of faith, collectively from different angles from different point of view. Surely differences may occur, but did not change the message of faith. Unlike the Quran which was declared a verbatim word of God, which supposed to contain no error.
R
ralphinal
Guest
And, if the Gospel claims are correct, that a small number of people drummed up the charges, they would have been some of the ones there.
Rome was great at the show. The idea that they were crucified in some out of the way place is crazy. I assure you, they were in a spot that it would be easy to see.
S
swariffin
Guest
That sect of Nazarene was the accusation made by Tertulus to accuse Paul before Felix, the Roman leader in Caesarea. That sect of Nazarene were Jesus’ follower and certainly already not 100% in accordance with Judaism at that time. At that time, they were still going to the synagogues until they were expelled away at 90AD, following the Yamnia conference. Jesus’ follower were the scape goat following the destruction of the temple, back in 70AD by the Roman.You are too ready to claim that what you say is logical. I am gonna tell you something about Jesus and I am gonna prove it to you with real logic. There are three
things Jesus never claimed upon himself which would make him a blasphemer, which he was not. The first thing is that he was the Messiah, the second is that he was the son of God, and the third is that he would ever resurrect.
Now, here are the proofs: When Jesus was gone, the Apostles got together and organized the Jewish Sect of the Nazarenes and established their headquarters in Jerusalem. For the next 30 years they coexisted peacefully with the local Jews. (Acts 9:31) When Paul showed up in Jerusalem preaching that Jesus was the Messiah, son of God, and that he had resurrected, he caused such a havoc in Jerusalem that the local Jews were on an uproar to kill him. How come? What were the Nazarenes preaching about Jesus for 30 years to get along so well with mainstream Judaism? Because the Apostles were as surprised about Paul’s gospel as everyone else. Now, go on and read the whole book of Acts to see if my logic makes sense or not.
Ben:
For sure, Act 2:41-47 clearly says that beside going to the synagogues, they also gathered together, and breaking breads in accordance to what Jesus had said. For sure, the breaking bread were never done in the Synagogues. As the number of Jesus follower increased, and wide spread throughout the cities surrounding the Mediteraean sea. Later, they were called the Christian (Act 11:26) from the Greek word Christianous which means the follower of Christos. It took time for the the early Jesus follower to declare Jesus as Christ, because the number were still small compared to the whole Jewish population. Once the number increase, and spread all around the cities outside Judea, then they dared to say that Jesus was Ha Massiah. Very logical indeed.
For sure, if Jesus declared Himself as Messiah early during his service, he would be stoned to death. Early during Jesus time, the Roman was not strong enough to revoke the right of the Jewish leader to sentence people to death. That is why Herod was capable of ordering the Kid Massacre during Jesus early age. That is also why the son of Herod the great (also named Herod) was able to sentence John the Baptist to death.
Around 33AD, the Roman was strong enough already to invoke their own rule, so that when Jesus admit that He is the Messiah in front of Kayafas (Mat 26:63-65), Kayafas could not directly sentenced Jesus to death, but send Jesus to Pilate, with the accusation of Rebelion (not as a blasphemer). Surely the story of Jesus is logical.
When there was riot in Jerusalem. It was the mainstream Jewish who were mad at Paul. Inside Jerusalem where the Jewish leader in the temple preside, their power to influence people were at the most. Outside Jerusalem, their power was weaker. And, it was there Jesus follower were increasing in number. Surely that fact make the Jewish in Jerusalem were disturbed. The apostle in Jerusalem was not so dare to spread the teaching of Jesus, off course. That is logical. (For sure, you are not going to preach Judaism in Iran, are you?) All of the story of the early Christian are make sense and very logical. For sure,
as time goes by, it is illogical to assume that everything remain stable.
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
The Jewish Sect of the Nazarenes were indeed formed by followers of Jesus but they were 100 percent according to Judaism. Their troubles with mainstream Judaism started with Paul, because they had helped Paul escape when he was about to stand trial for preaching apostasy in Jerusalem. That’s why Tertullus connected Paul with them.
Jesus was a religious Jew and so were all the Nazarenes. Breaking bread was Christian and Christians did it in churches. Jesus and the Nazarenes congregated in synagogues and did not behave like Christians. Many of the Nazarenes converts did turn back into Gentiles because of Paul’ missionary work in the synagogues of the Nazarenes throughout Asia Minor. But because Paul was not able to start a church from scratch. So, he would fish his converts in the synanogues of the Jews.
The only thing logical about Jesus being the Messiah is that Paul was the first to start spreading the news about 30 years after Jesus had been gone. It’s written in Acts 11:26. There were no Christians before Antioch and Paul. Otherwise, we have to admit that there is contradiction in the NT. Are you ready for that?
Last but not least, you fell in your own trap. You say that outside Jerusalem the power of the Jewish leaders was weak. Nevertheless, before going to Damascus, Paul went to Jerusalem for letters to arrest Nazarenes in Damascus as if the Jewish leaders were so powerful that they had even jurisdiction over another country, as to
send envoy to arrest citizens in another country because they dared to believe differently.
It means you dropped the cards on the table too early and lost the game. Good luck next time.
Ben:
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
Very much better! However, I am not sure your Catholic authorities would agree with your assertion, because you have cancelled out the role of divine inspiration. Yes, Luke was not Jewish, but how about the spirit that inspired him, it doesn’t count? Besides, Luke leaves no one in the dark when he declares to Theophilus that he was reporting ALL about Jesus until the end of his life on earth. (Acts 1:1,2) How could he miss the massacre of the kids in Bethlehem? How could he miss Egypt in the life of Jesus? I’ll tell why. Because those things never happened. They were plagiarized from the Tanach to be fabricated in terms of prophecies to enhance Jesus’ credibility as the one.
Ben:
- Status