D
djconklin
Guest
5 days later and we’re still waiting …
- Status
W
WarriorAngel
Guest
Yes - Jesus fulfilled the Laws of God.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.
Ben:
As I said - there is a distinction.
Furthermore when Peter was hungry he felt he dare not eat anything ‘unclean’ and a vision from Heaven came to him 3 times saying ‘Do not call what I have created unclean - get up and eat.’
Peter then taught this obviously since he wrote about it.
So the cleansing and food parts are immaterial to God and really to salvation of man - but Paul said - if it weakens you to eat something - then don’t.
But the Laws Jesus referred to was the Laws of God.
He even made a distinction when the Pharisees made a comment on His Apostles not washing before the meal.
So as Jesus told them - its not what goes into the mouth that corrupts - but what comes out.
The Laws are different.
P
planten
Guest
** W A, we do not believe what you said. Fulfilling the law does not mean abolishing the law as a curse. That is abuse of the law to call it a curse. Jesus obeyed the law all his life and even gave improved instructions to the application of the same law. He did not change the law at all.
Had Jesus said even a word against the law, he would have been caught quickly, he would have been exposed as a heretic and taken to task. Nobody would have listened to him and no body would have followed him.
Jesus did never say that he was God. At the most he said, he was son of god. For that the sanheidren charged him with blasphemy. Had he said that he was God he would have been punished all the more.
The Elders of The Jews did not tolerate Jesus being the son of God. How could they allow (digest) Jesus saying that he was god himself.
I may add " What goes in must come out." So if the Catholics eat dirty things (such as flesh of swine), dirty things will come out of them as we observe in the habits of most christians. According to Islam, we are only allowed to eat the food which is lawfully earned and it should be of the right material, not pig etc or eagle or dog. The clean type animal should also be slaughtered in the name of Allah/ Yehwah/God, like they say Koshar. Jesus never ate the flesh of swine not did his mother Mary nor did any of his followers. How come the Catholics are on holiday about foods.**
D
djconklin
Guest
God didn’t say that. He said “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.” (Acts 10:15) As shown in the next chapter the animals were symbols of mankind: the clean being the Jews, the unclean being the Gentiles, the common being Jews who had associated wirth Gentiles.
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
**At least, I said it’s a tradition. A tradition does not have to be written, and a tradition does not have to be proved. At least, I have a precedence to claim this tradition, although the precedence is a lie that was written in Matthew 28:11-15. It’s much better to claim a tradition that is not written than a written lie.
Ben:
**
D
djconklin
Guest
And the supporting evidence for this “belief” would be?
- I didn’t say that it had to be written–this is a non-argument.
- I didn’t say that the tradition had to be proved. I asked for proof that the tradition even exists.
- On what basis do you have “precdence to claim this tradition”?
- Where’s the proof that Matthew 28:11-15 is a lie?
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
P
planten
Guest
**As far as I knew, Jesus was alive when he was brought down from the cross. He was on the cross for only three hours or less. He was looked after well and taken to a spacious tomb and treated in early hours of the night (before Saturday= Sabath.). He was in thattomb for a very short time.
As soon as the people dispersed as they dispensed with their job of crucifixion, the body of Jesus was removed from that tomb to a more secure secret place (within few hours). So the body of Jesus was not in the tomb even one night. There was great danger of keeping the body in that tomb lest the soldiers were appointed on the tomb. Before any one could come, the body was taken away to a more secure place. That was to avoid any danger to the life of Jesus. He had his well wishers who were very wise.
Because the body of Jesus was no more in that tomb, there could be no more problem from any one. Every one knew that Jesus was dead and his body was in the tomb.
After all, the Jews came to know about the body having been removed. That is why they tried to bribe the soldiers. (Whether they could bribe or not, the knowledge about the body having gone had come to the elders of the Jews.).
The elders of the Jews came to know that body of Jesus had disappeared. So they tried to mount a search operation by bribing the soldiers. But they failed to make the soldiers agree to their plans. Otherwise they wanted to make another attack on Jesus by having him produced in public…
**
As soon as the people dispersed as they dispensed with their job of crucifixion, the body of Jesus was removed from that tomb to a more secure secret place (within few hours). So the body of Jesus was not in the tomb even one night. There was great danger of keeping the body in that tomb lest the soldiers were appointed on the tomb. Before any one could come, the body was taken away to a more secure place. That was to avoid any danger to the life of Jesus. He had his well wishers who were very wise.
Because the body of Jesus was no more in that tomb, there could be no more problem from any one. Every one knew that Jesus was dead and his body was in the tomb.
After all, the Jews came to know about the body having been removed. That is why they tried to bribe the soldiers. (Whether they could bribe or not, the knowledge about the body having gone had come to the elders of the Jews.).
The elders of the Jews came to know that body of Jesus had disappeared. So they tried to mount a search operation by bribing the soldiers. But they failed to make the soldiers agree to their plans. Otherwise they wanted to make another attack on Jesus by having him produced in public…
**
T
Thing
Guest
Hi Planten, you do realize don’t you that the only accounts in-this-world of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ are the accounts in the Gospels of the four evangelists. And those four Gospel accounts tell the exact opposite story to the one you tell.
I have to ask you where you get these ideas of yours - because there are no historical manuscripts in existance which tell your version of events.
Did you just make up the things that you want to believe?
D
djconklin
Guest
D
Deum_quaerens
Guest
The Jesus Seminar is a radical fringe group which comes to foregone conclusions predetermined by ridiculously contrived presuppositions. You might as well go to David Irving and Ernst Zundel for information on the Holocaust.
As Dr Craig L. Blomberg wrote in “Who does the Jesus Seminar really speak for?”:
Please see:
- Dr William Lane Craig, “Rediscovering the Historical Jesus: Presuppositions and Pretensions of the Jesus Seminar”;
- Dr William Lane Craig, “Rediscovering the Historical Jesus: The Evidence for Jesus”;
- J. P. Holding, “Swan Song III: The Jesus Sam-Inar”;
- J. P. Holding, “The Jesus Seminar and the Social Sciences”;
- J. P. Holding, “The Gospel of Thomas. A worthless document”.
You have been misinformed, I am afraid. Please see Edwards, William D., et al., “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ” (published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, 21 March 1986, 1455–63).
The rest of your risible hypothesis is likewise untenable in the light of modern scholarship.
As for the contention of the original poster of this thread, he would have to explain why, if the piercing of Jesus’s side is a Johannine invention, the author thereof referred to blood and water, and not only to blood, or to blood and bile, since the medicine of the day held that there were four substances (“humours”) in the body, namely, black bile, choler, phlegm and blood — not water.
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
**But of course, I understand that you have to defend the blunders of the gospel writers, since the Jesus Seminar was against those blunders. To tell you the truth,
I don’t need the conclusions of the JS. I am a member of the Faith of Jesus, which was Judaism. I know what is to be Jewish. Therefore, anything not Jewish about Jesus was not true, but simply Christian attempts to insert Hellenistic innovations into Judaism.
Ben:
**
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
[/QUOTE]Mary Magdalene could not wait for that Sabbath to end to return to the tomb area to see Jesus. The Sabbath ends at sunset and not Sunday morning. We are Jews and not Gentiles. Jesus was also Jewish. When Mary arrived at the tomb soon after that sunset, she became desperate to see that the tomb was empty. (Mat. 28:1) And if you read John 20:15, she had gone to the tomb to take Jesus out of there. She had arrived too late. Joseph of Arimathea had done that job during the first hours of Friday night. You can’t see this logic because the patches of the Church are too tight on your eyes.
The reason was Joseph of Arimathea. And he had to do that before Mary Magdalene did it herself.
So, how could the women anoint Jesus’ body with the guards in there and stone sealed? That’s an embarrassment, which becomes worse as you try to justify it.
**Are you trying to tell me that the soldiers would have allowed them to break the seal on the tombstone and anoint Jesus? The more you struggle to get off the spider’s web the more entrapped you become. Don’t you feel embarrassed to fight against the truth?
Ben:
D
Deum_quaerens
Guest
The Jesus Seminar is against mainstream scholarship altogether.
You are approaching the documents with the unjustified presupposition that Jesus was not trying to found a new movement, and did not make extraordinary claims about Himself; that is no way to study history. Why was he crucified if He did not make claims that were so un-Jewish as to be blasphemous to Jewish ears?
Glenn Miller has written a related article in this regard, “Christian ‘bias’ in the NT Writers”.
Besides, I notice that you did not address my previous question: why, if the piercing of Jesus’s side is a Johannine invention, did the author thereof refer to blood and water, and not only to blood, or to blood and bile, since the medicine of the day held that there were four substances (“humours”) in the body, namely, black bile, choler, phlegm and blood — not water?
D
djconklin
Guest
It is the methodology which allegedly finds the alleged “blunders” that is a blunder. It is highly flawed. That’s why you have now been directed to two good works that show this. Read and learn–did you know that your brain is always producing new brain cells? But, as the March 2009 issue of Scientific American shows, if you don’t use them to learn something new, you lose them.
And how would she see in the dark?
Breaking news! You heard it here first! Mind you, no one claimed that they were Gentiles, so this is a non-point. But, when one is desperate …
Actually, since I do know how to read I can easily see that the text doesn’t say what her intent was–but kudos for at least trying to provide some support for what you are claiming. BTW, there’s no proof that Joseph of Arimathea removed the body–that’s why you didn’t attempt to provide any. You can’t see that because of the blinders of unbelief that you are wearing.
Again no proof. I didn’t expect any tho’.
No embarrassment at all; it is you who are embarrassed when you can’t supply any sort of proof ro your claims. You have assumed that they wouldn’t break the seal to let the ladies apply the ointment to the body. They assumed that the guards would let them–after all, its not like they were going to take the body (they had no reason to do so).
Why not?
Good advice–why don’t you follow your own advice?
L
LilyM
Guest
So Ben, you’ve said that Jesus never claimed to be God, never committed what orthodox Jews would think of as blasphemy, in fact never broke the Jewish law in any way.
Two questions:
a) why was he brought before the Sanhedrin then? If he’d done nothing wrong according to Jewish law?
b) assuming the crime for which Jesus was crucified was in fact some breach of Roman law - political agitation or something - surely the Romans, if not the Jews, would have utmost interest in making sure such a popular political criminal - so popular that it was feared his followers would steal his body and make him some sort of demigod - was dead.
In such a case the Romans would have carefully witnessed the crucifixion and made sure that someone who had claimed that he would rise again in fact was dead and **stayed **safely dead and buried.
You can’t have it both ways - either the Jews, the Romans, or both, were fearful enough about him to summarily execute him in a way that probably seriously contravened Roman as well as Jewish legal process.
Take your pick, one or other or both. Someone was pretty darn scared of Jesus. And that one, or other, or both, being so fearful that they hurried him off to his death, would make darn sure that he was really and truly dead.
Two questions:
a) why was he brought before the Sanhedrin then? If he’d done nothing wrong according to Jewish law?
b) assuming the crime for which Jesus was crucified was in fact some breach of Roman law - political agitation or something - surely the Romans, if not the Jews, would have utmost interest in making sure such a popular political criminal - so popular that it was feared his followers would steal his body and make him some sort of demigod - was dead.
In such a case the Romans would have carefully witnessed the crucifixion and made sure that someone who had claimed that he would rise again in fact was dead and **stayed **safely dead and buried.
You can’t have it both ways - either the Jews, the Romans, or both, were fearful enough about him to summarily execute him in a way that probably seriously contravened Roman as well as Jewish legal process.
Take your pick, one or other or both. Someone was pretty darn scared of Jesus. And that one, or other, or both, being so fearful that they hurried him off to his death, would make darn sure that he was really and truly dead.
P
planten
Guest
**LilyM, you have asked Ben. But I may give my humble opinion. The Jews elders were corrupt, hard hearted. They had the law of Moses but did not apply is correctly. Due to the misdeeds of he Jews, the Promised Masiha of Jews had come. That was Jesus.
When he started preaching, all the elders of the Jews and their malpractices were exposed. You and I can read all about those malpractices (in the name of God) in the bibleNT. We learn when Jesus entered Jerusalem, he turned the tables there and preached severely against the bad practices of the Jews.
The elders were exposed and wanted to catch hold of Jesus to stop him going further. In Quran, it is all described. The Jews even approached Mother Mary in that regard to restrain her son from the severe preaching. But she dodged them by saying “You are elders talking about religion. He is also talking about religion. Why don’t you talk to him?”
That is in the Quran.
I feel that you should know why the Jews became anxious to catch and kill Jesus. It is no secret. It is certain that Jesus did not give any chance to the Jews or to the Roman government to have any real complaint. There was no room for any genuine charge against Jesus. This is further proved by Pilate asking Jesus again and again about what Jesus had done. that was because (according to the knowledge of Pilate) Jesus had not done anything wrong at all.**
I have replied to that above. The Jews and others tried to have Jesus involved in some case, of rebellion or tax or being the king of Jews. But it was all false and could not help them and did not work out. Jesus did not give them any cause of arrest. they even tried to involve Jesus in a charge of having a lady stoned to death for adultery. But he avoided the difficulty very wisely without breaking the law of Moses or the law of the Romans.
]quote] In such a case the Romans would have carefully witnessed the crucifixion and made sure that someone who had claimed that he would rise again in fact was dead and **stayed **safely dead and buried.
You can’t have it both ways - either the Jews, the Romans, or both, were fearful enough about him to summarily execute him in a way that probably seriously contravened Roman as well as Jewish legal process.
Take your pick, one or other or both. Someone was pretty darn scared of Jesus. And that one, or other, or both, being so fearful that they hurried him off to his death, would make darn sure that he was really and truly dead.
** I have replied to the core problem above. There was no mistake or crime or sin of Jesus whatsoever. The problem was that non-spiritual Politicised Jewish Clergy was feeling the heat from Jesus. That is all. It is all proved from the Quran and from the BibleNT**.
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
- Status