My Opinion: No Piercing At Jesus' Side

[Ben_Masada]

The non-canonical Ben gospel account.

**At least, nobody pull on my strings. It means, I have a mind of my own. **

 

[djconklin]

Originally Posted by djconklin
The non-canonical Ben gospel account.

At least, nobody pull on my strings. It means, I have a mind of my own.

Nobody pulls my strings. The difference between us is I use reason, logic and cold-hard facts. You on the other hand have claimed that the magazine Scientific American is Christian and that the Gospels were written by Gentiles and that they are anti-Semitic.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Nobody pulls my strings. The difference between us is I use reason, logic and cold-hard facts. You on the other hand have claimed that the magazine Scientific American is Christian and that the Gospels were written by Gentiles and that they are anti-Semitic.

There is no Logic where faith is needed. And the Scientific American magazine does not have to be Christian. But I am sure Christians write for it.

 

[Centos]

Centos;5121334:

They were disciples of Paul’s. A Jew could not write something so unJewish and antisemitic like the gospels.

Of course! One needs faith to believe what lacks all evidences to stand upon.

How come if Jesus himself was the one who said that it’s much more probable for the heavens and earth to pass than for Judaism to be obsolete? Read Matthew 5:19. Are you also contradicting Jesus’ words like Paul?

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.
Where are you getting these illusions from, the guy who wrote that fiction in the gospel? I Am sorry for the naives of this world. And Paul was never a Pharisee. He himself said he could be anything according to the momentum. And mind you that only hypocrites speak thus.…

Point 1 – Christ’s disciples were Jewish. Any claim to the contrary is historical revisionism. You’re free to state your opinion, but you should at least provide some kind of supporting evidence.

Point 2 – Apply your accusation to yourself (see point 1). There is also evidence for Christ and His death – but by Faith I believe his revelations.

Point 3 – Christ said he would fulfill the Law – not that he would preserve the Old Testament Covenant. Read St. Paul on this:

Galatians 3:

16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Point 4 – The veil was ripped – and the blood of calves was not necessary after Christ’s sacrifice – whether the Jews continued the Old Testament practices is beside the point. My “illusions” come from the Word of God.

Matthew 27
51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

As for St. Paul being a Pharisee – I’ll take his word for it, thank you.

Philippians 3:
4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.

May God be with you

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben Masada;5123906:

Christ’s disciples were Jewish. Any claim to the contrary is historical revisionism. You’re free to state your opinion, but you should at least provide some kind of supporting evidence.

Yes, Jesus’ disciples were Jewish but not Christians. Christians started with Paul about 30 years after Jesus had been gone. Evidence? Read Acts 11:26.

Apply your accusation to yourself (see point 1). There is also evidence for Christ and His death – but by Faith I believe his revelations.

Where is the evidence for his death without contradiction?
Of course, one needs faith to believe what lacks evidence to stand upon.

Christ said he would fulfill the Law – not that he would preserve the Old Testament Covenant. Read St. Paul on this:

Paul was an apostate from Judaism. His word enjoys no credibility among the Jews. And regarding Jesus, when he said that he had come to fulfill the Law, he added that we all must do the same. Why? Because nothing had been changed. It was more likely that the heavens and earth should pass away, but not even a dot in the letter of the Law would pass. Evidence? Read Matthew 5:19.

Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

But of course! This is Paul cheating on the ignorant readers who do not know grammar. Seeds in the plural is spoken only of fruits with seeds. In the singular, “seed” means the progeny of a person. I think it’s even an insult to your intelligence that I should explain such a thing to you.

Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

Wow! You are improving! I thought God is three.

Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

Why don’t you read Ezekiel 18:21? Life is possible only through obedience to the Law. Can’t you see Paul trying to contradict the only Scriptures that Jesus used to handle?

But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

What does it meant, that now you are no longer under the Law? We are all under the Law. Above the Law only God, and out of the Law are the criminals. Where are you, under, above or out?

Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

We are justified only by obedience to the Law. Read Isaiah 1:18,19.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Even those who do not acknowledge that Jesus was Christ? You are cooking yoursef for contradiction.

And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

**Oh! Now, seed in the singular means “ye” in the plural Do you see now what I mean? What happened to the contradiction of seed and not seeds? **

The veil was ripped – and the blood of calves was not necessary after Christ’s sacrifice – whether the Jews continued the Old Testament practices is beside the point. My “illusions” come from the Word of God.

There is nothing in the only Scriptures that Jesus used to handle about a veil that was ripped.

As for St. Paul being a Pharisee – I’ll take his word for it, thank you.

But of course! I never expected otherwise.

Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

Paul never persecuted a single church. He had to be crazy to found a church to persecute the adepts. He used to persecute the Sect of the Nazarenes.

 

[djconklin]

Even God said “Come now let us reason toegther …”

You had explicitly stated that Scientific American was Christian–you lied.

Now you have a new lie that Christians write for it–the burden of proof is on you. Good luck trying to prove the impossible.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Even God said “Come now let us reason toegther …”

Why didn’t you finish the quotation? That’s in Isaiah 1:18,19.What’s the only way to reason with God together? By being willing to obey. That’s the way to reason with God: Through obedience to the Law.

 

[Lapell]

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:

I come very late in this… “discussion”. Well, the #1 is a bit strange. Because they did break the legs of the two others crucified men besides Jesus. They did not pierce his heart in order to make him die. He was already dead! They don’t give any reason. They just reported the thing. It doesn’t say that the centurion asked the Roman soldier to pierce Jesus’ side, just that the soldier did. I don’t even know if that was done “to check if he was really dead”…

 

[Lapell]

Also, how do you know that the Apostle John never mentioned the piercing of Jesus’ side in his oral preaching to the disciples of Jesus of Nazareth (or the members of the Church (Assembly)) in the years before he wrote his version of the Gospel?

 

[Lapell]

Even though you are a Jew, Ben, I don’t expect you to know exactly how the early Church used to work, esp. in the Apostolic times! And though you know much more than we do about Judaism, I doubt you know everything about what happened in Jesus’ times…

 

[Lapell]

How fitting is the title: “My (Ben’s) Opinion: No Piercing At Jesus’ Side”…

 

[Ben_Masada]

Even though you are a Jew, Ben, I don’t expect you to know exactly how the early Church used to work, esp. in the Apostolic times! And though you know much more than we do about Judaism, I doubt you know everything about what happened in Jesus’ times…

I can think, can’t I? Besides, the NT gives me a great margin to be able to put things together and come up with the truth.

 

[Ben_Masada]

I come very late in this… “discussion”. Well, the #1 is a bit strange. Because they did break the legs of the two others crucified men besides Jesus. They did not pierce his heart in order to make him die. He was already dead! They don’t give any reason. They just reported the thing. It doesn’t say that the centurion asked the Roman soldier to pierce Jesus’ side, just that the soldier did. I don’t even know if that was done “to check if he was really dead”…

If Jesus was already dead, why go out of their way to act in a way which was not their custom and spear-pierce him? Nothing makes sense at all. The roman custom was to let the corpses rotten on their crosses.

 

[Lapell]

If Jesus was already dead, why go out of their way to act in a way which was not their custom and spear-pierce him? Nothing makes sense at all. The roman custom was to let the corpses rotten on their crosses.

Well, soldiers are not exactly robots! Certain personal decisions they CAN make. The custom is one thing… although, would you claim to know the customs of the army, even the Roman army, in all their details? Even then, the Roman soldier might have done it on his own. Why? I don’t know. Still it is very possible, isn’t it…

 

[Lapell]

I can think, can’t I? Besides, the NT gives me a great margin to be able to put things together and come up with the truth.

Yes, you can think, and thank God for it!!! But there is no guarantee that putting certain things together will automatically make you come up with the actual truth. You have put a few things together, but how about examining the whole of it from the beginning to the end?

 

[Ben_Masada]

Yes, you can think, and thank God for it!!! But there is no guarantee that putting certain things together will automatically make you come up with the actual truth. You have put a few things together, but how about examining the whole of it from the beginning to the end?

That’s what we are her for: To examine if the things I put together from the NT do not reflect the Truth.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Well, soldiers are not exactly robots! Certain personal decisions they CAN make. The custom is one thing… although, would you claim to know the customs of the army, even the Roman army, in all their details? Even then, the Roman soldier might have done it on his own. Why? I don’t know. Still it is very possible, isn’t it…

Soldiers usually don’t act without orders, and the Roman authorities would not change their policy because of a custom among the conquered peoples. Then, if you want me to believe that they spear-pierced Jesus, you will have to believe that they did the same to all crucified, and it makes no sense, because it was not their custom to do so. Their custom was to let the crucified rot.

 

[Lapell]

Soldiers usually don’t act without orders, and the Roman authorities would not change their policy because of a custom among the conquered peoples. Then, if you want me to believe that they spear-pierced Jesus, you will have to believe that they did the same to all crucified, and it makes no sense, because it was not their custom to do so. Their custom was to let the crucified rot.

Well, Ben, you seem very keen on what happens in armies. No room for ANY initiatives at all? I don’t think the orders are always as precise and restricted as to what to do or not to do in certain situations…
Were you there when then their superiors issued their orders in the case of crucifixions? You certainly must have been there…
Why the soldier did what he did, I don’t know. That he did I am more certain. Why this detail struck the Apostle John that much I can’t tell you, but it certainly struck him.
And why did he report this in his account of the Gospel, well, I don’t know for sure, except that to him it must have been of some importance. And why not?

 

[Lapell]

That’s what we are her for: To examine if the things I put together from the NT do not reflect the Truth.

And YOU are not willing to examine it as put together with the whole of the Gospel, or ARE you? The same goes with any passage of the Old Testament, by the way… Context! Context! Context! A sentence means nothing apart from its context! I learned this in a school of translation in Ottawa.

 

[Ben_Masada]

And YOU are not willing to examine it as put together with the whole of the Gospel, or ARE you? The same goes with any passage of the Old Testament, by the way… Context! Context! Context! A sentence means nothing apart from its context! I learned this in a school of translation in Ottawa.

I am all for analysing anything according to the context as long as the whole thing is Jewish. You cannot give me Jesus being born of a woman withoug the participation of a human father because this is not Jewish. Can you see what I mean?