My Opinion: No Piercing At Jesus' Side

[Ben_Masada]

**That’s not Jesus perse that I am claiming; he is dead. It’s the credibility of Judaism, his Faith, which you guys are tempering against by using a religious Jew to insert Hellenistic innovations into it.

Ben: **
[/quote]

 

[Ben_Masada]

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

 

[djconklin]

The Jesus Seminar is against mainstream scholarship altogether.

I think you guys are a “house divided.” The JS was headed by Christian Scholars.

Just because some call themselves Christians doesn’t mean that they are. Their teachings are heterodox to the point of heresy.

 

[djconklin]

why was he brought before the Sanhedrin then? If he’d done nothing wrong according to Jewish law?

Jesus was not before the Sanhedrin. It was against the Law for the Sanhedrin to get together during the night to decided the fate of a criminal. The Gentile who wrote that gopel knew zero about Jewish things.

Matthew was a Gentile (see my tag line). It is acknowledged that the trial before the Sanhedrin at night was illegal. But, they did it anyway. And then held a formal trial in the morning to appear legal.

 

[djconklin]

And how would she see in the dark?

That’s why she confused Jesus wiht the gardener…

If it was so dark how could she find her way to the tomb? Or, there was enough light to find the way but because of her grief and tears she couldn’t see clearly when Jesus was talking to her.

 

[djconklin]

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.

They are but the opinion of another man. I can think for myself.

Actually, they performed studies and experiments to prove that if you learn new things you keep the new brain cells.

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.

So, you know so much how to read that from the following statement,
“Sir, if you are the one who carried him off, tell me where you have laid him and I WILL TAKE HIM AWAY,” and you still don’t see the text saying that it was her intent to carry him off." You do make one think about resting his case. I think you are beyond repair. At least, read John 20:15.

Mea Culpa! When I searched for the verse on Bibleworks I forgot that I had just searched for another text and so I didn’t see the verse you were referring to. BTW, Mary has assumed that someone else took the body (so if they did it once, she wants to put Him some place where He won’t be moved again.) Her remark also implies that she knew that He was dead.

But try first to remove the blinders of the Church from your eyes.

A mature adult that doens’t wear blinders can admit an error with no shame attached, as I just did. See tag line.

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.

Law of probability. No one else could have had that idea, since Joseph was the one who removed Jesus from the cross and must have realized that he was still alive. Or perhaps you don’t understand Probabilism?

The probability of any Jew violating the Sabbath and to do so with no one seeing him and with the guard in place and with experienced Roman soldiers who know how to kill people and to tell if they are dead is below zero.

No embarrassment at all; it is you who are embarrassed when you can’t supply any sort of proof for 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).

That the guards would break the seal to the tombstone to let the women touch Jesus’ body is possible only in the minds of puppets moved by church strings. Anyways, the tomb was already empty.

Where’s the proof? Always the lack of proof and instead you have to engage in personal attacks like a bully on a school-yard.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Actually, they performed studies and experiments to prove that if you learn new things you keep the new brain cells.

 

[djconklin]

Actually, they performed studies and experiments to prove that if you learn new things you keep the new brain cells.

I know about that. But why precisely their preconceived views? I have read too many of those opinions. They don’t differ very much.

Who said they had preconceived views? Where’s the proof for such a thing?!?

Her remark also implies that she knew that He was dead.

But of course! Why would Joseph tell her the truth before the right time? He knew how women can get excited about things like that.

Yeah, right. Let’s keep you up all nite, no meals, scourge you, hang you on a cross for the same number of hours, shove a spear into you piercing the sac around the heart and see if you’re alive after all that.

The probability of any Jew violating the Sabbath and to do so with no one seeing him and with the guard in place and with experienced Roman soldiers who know how to kill people and to tell if they are dead is below zero.

Sorry, but you are mistaken again; and now on a double. First, according to the Jewish concept of “Pichuach Nephesh” a man-made rule] we are allowed to break a commandment if by doing so, we are observing a greater one. And to save the life of a man, one is allowed to break the Sabbath. But, since He was dead …]

Notes added.

Your second mistaken is that when Joseph removed Jesus from that tomb, the place was desert and there was no guards around. The guards were sttled at the tomb area only next day, Saturday and not early in the morning, considering that Pilate was never too ready when it was to listen to Jews. Read Matthew 27:62.

Matthew 27:62 Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,

That only takes care of one day. And you need to read the whole context:

Matthew 27:63-66 Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first. Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can. So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.

This means that they knew He was dead and they didn’t worry about anyone stealing the body on the Sabbath.

Matthew was a Jew and he wrote his account fairly early; probably 35-40 A.D. leaning more to the earlier date–and possibly during Pentecost, so the people going home from Pentecost could take a Gospel account with them.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Who said they had preconceived views? Where’s the proof for such a thing?!?

 

[Centos]

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:

Point 1 is irrelevant. The spear was not thrust into Christ’s ribs to kill him, but to confirm that he was already dead. As for point 2, there’s also a “tradition” that Christ’s disciples took Christ’s body from the tomb. It was “damage control.” We can actually call it a lie – but I guess “tradition” works also. As for point 3 – just more speculation.

You’re welcome to your opinion, but that’s all it is, speculation animated by a preconceived notion.

May God be with you

 

[djconklin]

Who said they had preconceived views? Where’s the proof for such a thing?!?

I say so. I have stopped reading them because their preconceived notions are usually Christian. Show me a Jewish one and I’ll go back to read them.

ROFL! Scientific American is, if anything, anti-religion. You have no idea what you are talking about. I’m not going to waste anymore of my time.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Point 1 is irrelevant. The spear was not thrust into Christ’s ribs to kill him, but to confirm that he was already dead. As for point 2, there’s also a “tradition” that Christ’s disciples took Christ’s body from the tomb. It was “damage control.” We can actually call it a lie – but I guess “tradition” works also. As for point 3 – just more speculation.

You’re welcome to your opinion, but that’s all it is, speculation animated by a preconceived notion.

May God be with you

**How about the preconceived notions and speculations of the Gentiles who wrote the gospels? Why don’t you question them? All written with the purpose to discard Judaism as absolete; against even the word of Jesus himself who came to confirm it to the letter. **

 

[Ben_Masada]

Matthew was a Gentile (see my tag line). It is acknowledged that the trial before the Sanhedrin at night was illegal. But, they did it anyway. And then held a formal trial in the morning to appear legal.

Why they did it anyway, because the Church decided that the Jewish Sanhedrin should do it? You must be kidding! That’s all we need now: Gentiles dictating to the Jews how Judaism is supposed to be run.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Just because some call themselves Christians doesn’t mean that they are. Their teachings are heterodox to the point of heresy.

**Yes, you guys never fail. Everything is fine until a Christian is caught doing something criminal. Then, the others say that he was not a real Christian. How about the Pope Innocence III, who called for the 4th Crusade? Why don’t you read about what the 4th Crusade and the many Jews they killed on the way to the Holy Land? Do you want to know the reason? They used to say, “Why go all the way to the Holy Land when the killers of our Lord are here?” And they started killing Jews even before they arrived there. Was Innocence III less of a Christian for doing this? **

 

[Centos]

**How about the preconceived notions and speculations of the Gentiles who wrote the gospels? Why don’t you question them? All written with the purpose to discard Judaism as absolete; against even the word of Jesus himself who came to confirm it to the letter. **

So who were these “Gentiles” who wrote the gospels? I guess, when “revising” history to your own taste, you might as well go all out, eh?

I asked my questions long ago, before I entered the Church. The answers I found satisfied me – as God had blessed me with Faith.

As for Judaism being obsolete – if Christ is the Messiah, it is obsolete. So I turn the question back to you. Why don’t you question your own beliefs?

When God ripped the veil from top to bottom in the Temple, that singled the end of the Old Covenant. As the former Pharisee, St. Paul wrote…

6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. (Hebrews 8)

May God be with you

 

[djconklin]

Originally Posted by djconklin
Matthew was a Gentile (see my tag line). It is acknowledged that the trial before the Sanhedrin at night was illegal. But, they did it anyway. And then held a formal trial in the morning to appear legal.

Why they did it anyway, because the Church decided that the Jewish Sanhedrin should do it? You must be kidding! That’s all we need now: Gentiles dictating to the Jews how Judaism is supposed to be run.

The early church was primarily Jewish. It wasn’t till the 50s that Gentiles were being brought in in large numbers. The church did not dictate how Jews should run their religion. Matthew simply recorded a fact. Which none of the Jews at the time denied.

Originally Posted by djconklin
Just because some call themselves Christians doesn’t mean that they are. Their teachings are heterodox to the point of heresy.

Yes, you guys never fail. Everything is fine until a Christian is caught doing something criminal.

You guys never fail. I didn’t say anything at all about any criminal activity.

 

[Ben_Masada]

The early church was primarily Jewish. It wasn’t till the 50s that Gentiles were being brought in in large numbers. The church did not dictate how Jews should run their religion. Matthew simply recorded a fact. Which none of the Jews at the time denied.

You guys never fail. I didn’t say anything at all about any criminal activity.

The Cause of the Nazarenes was the most missionary Jewish sect ever in the History of Judaism. Within about 10 years from the time Jesus was gone till the time of Stephen, the Nazarenes had amassed a huge population of converts from the Gentiles. They had synagogues - not churches - throughout Asia Minor. It was from these synagogues that Paul fished his followers because he was never able to build a church from scratch. From his Road to Damascus until Rome, his main concern was to work among the Jews. Let’s say, about 98 percent. The converts of the Nazarenes would become Jewish just like any other regular Jew. That’s why I can agree with you that
the followers of Jesus were primarily Jewish.

 

[Ben_Masada]

So who were these “Gentiles” who wrote the gospels? I guess, when “revising” history to your own taste, you might as well go all out, eh?

 

[djconklin]

Within about 10 years from the time Jesus was gone till the time of Stephen, the Nazarenes had amassed a huge population of converts from the Gentiles.

The non-canonical Ben gospel account.

 

[djconklin]

That veil was never ripped. As I can see, you believe in fiction. The sacrifices continued uninterruptedly for another 40 years after Jesus was gone.

The third sentence is non sequitur from the first. The fiction lies in believing that the two are connected.