Not relevant. The Roman legions also had banners/flags with the units with the gods on them – but they would not bring them into Jerusalem (Pilate tried once and had to take them out).
Non-issue.
You’re assuming that the spear-piercing was done solely to rush death.
Again, not relevant.
Congratulation!No Piercing At Jesus’ Side
Here are three reasons why Jesus was never pierced at his side on the cross:
1- The custom to rush the death of all the Jews crucified by the Romans was Jewish and not Roman; and the practice was done only on Fridays, so that the bodies would not be left hanging during the hours of the Sabbath. And the method was leg-breaking and not spear-piercing. The Romans wouldn’t care less if the Jewish Sabbath got desecrated by the bodies on the crosses.
2 - There is a tradition that the Centurion was richly bribed by Joseph of Arimathea, who was a very rich man in Israel, to just let him - Joseph - take Jesus off the cross and report back to Pilate that Jesus was indeed already dead.
3 - That Centurion and his men could never by their own accord pierce Jesus after their recognition that Jesus was indeed the son of God. This is for lack of any other option, a confession that they had converted themselves to the Cause of Jesus. That’s in Matthew 27:54. Besides, there was no such a Roman custome to spear-pierce a crucified to check if he was dead.
The first and third reasons dispense with any other evidence that the piercing of Jesus’ side by a Roman spear was an interpolation by either the writer of the Gospel 50+ years after Jesus had been gone or by the Fathers of the Church in 327 CE, when they selected the books into the Canon of the NT.
Ben:
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.
was not saul a follower of the law umtil damascus? why did Paul/saul do all that you say he did?
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:
And who called the follower of Jesus in Anthioch as Christian?
Could you scanned the preface and post it in this thread?
**Luke says that the disciples were called Christians FIRST in Antioch. Why? Because Paul had spent a whole year there, preaching about Jesus as Christ.
**My answer to the good question from Ben :**Luke says that the disciples were called Christians FIRST in Antioch. Why? Because Paul had spent a whole year there, preaching about Jesus as Christ.
Now, I have for you two questions: Before Paul arrived in Antioch. a) What were the disciples called? and b) What were they preaching about Jesus to be called Christians only after Paul spent a whole year there?
Ben:
**You have failed to score a grade with those answers. The disciples were called Nazarenes because it was from Jerusalem that the Elders of the Nazarenes with James as their chairman, had sent Barnabas to take care of the Synagogue of Antioch.
**Eternaly Secure;4963158:
Oh oh! Another believer in devil. Listen my friend, devil does not exist. Devil is only a concept to illustrate the evil inclination in man. As a being, it is used by religious crooks to make a living out of the naives of this world..
If he was already dead, why would the Romans go out of their policy and spear-pierce Jesus at his side? Does it make any sense to you?
**That prophecy meant the wholeness of Israel as a People. It had nothing to do with Jesus on an individual basis. The gospel writer simply plagiarized it to enhance Jesus as the one.
Now, can I count that you have opened your eyes? I hope so.
Ben:
The mark of the beast is a mark that any alive at the time of the antichrist will have to take, if they want to buy or sell.
If that were tomorrow, in the condition that you are now in, you will take it and will be damned.
The Lord Jesus freely gave up his life and noone could take it from him.
The blood and the water showed that he was dead, this was God’s will to fulfill scripture.
At this moment in time the devil is your father and if you do not repent you will spend eternity in the lake of fire with him.
I’m sorry but you failed to score any points on that answer because there is no proof supporting it.
Unsubstantiated tradition is called hear-say and is not admissable. You have no proof of such a tradition, or at the very least, have failed to produce it. In either case it is quoite telling.
**How about you? Can you provide any proofs for Church traditions? The assumption of Mary, the mother of Jesus is a Church tradition. Can you prove it? Of course not! But anything I say is not admissable. How convenient! Guess what? You are
****When I said that Barnabas had been sent from Jerusalem to take care of the Synagogue of Antioch, you answer that I have no proof to support it. Do you know why? Because you show zero knowledge of your own NT, and keep posting replies just
**Ben Masada;4965424:
The mark of the beast is a mark that any alive at the time of the antichrist will have to take, if they want to buy or sell.
If that were tomorrow, in the condition that you are now in, you will take it and will be damned.
The blood and the water showed that he was dead, this was God’s will to fulfill scripture.
At this moment in time the devil is your father and if you do not repent you will spend eternity in the lake of fire with him.
**So, Jesus freely gave up his life and none could take it from him. Isn’t that right? Nevertheless, after he prayed three times trying to make God change His mind about his death on the cross, he declared, “be Thy will done and not mine.” What was Jesus’ will? Can anything be more obvious than that Jesus went to the cross against his will? It was God’s will but not Jesus’. It means that Jesus died against his will. That he was forced, so to speak. Therefore, it’s not true to keep declaring this cliche that he freely gave up his life because none could take it from him. Not true at all.
Ben:
You should heed your own advice: post #444 had nothing to do with Barnabas.
Well, in that case, my apologies. I thought you were a Catholic.
**Please read Matthew 5:19 without eye patches of faith and you will understand that Jesus not only fulfilled the laws for himself but also confirmed them all for all his fellow Jews to do the same.
**