The Idle Tale - Luke 24:11

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ben_Masada
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lapell said:
A first attempt was in Acts 22, 1-21, where he took the whole thing from the beginning, explaining where he came from, and his background before that turning point when on his way to Damascus the resurrected Jesus appeared to him. At one point, he said that the Lord (the resurrected Jesus) told him: “Go, I will send you to the Gentiles” and right then, he was interrupted by shouts: “Do away with him! This man shouldn’t be allowed to stay alive!” The next day, the Roman officer wanted to know exactly what were the charges the Jewish Council (that’s the High Priest and the Sanhedrin)had against Paul. Chapter 23. That’s where Paul, in verse 6, shouted: Brothers, I am a Pharisee and a descendant of Pharisees. I am on trial because I expect that the dead will come back to life." As you pointed out, this was not the charge against him per se, but since it all had to do with his preaching the resurrected Jesus as the Messiah, and the implications of this on a number of details on how to serve the Lord God from then on, not only in Paul’s view, but in the new Church authorities’ view (see the decision the Church took at the first historical Church Council held in Jerusalem in Acts 15, 1-31), it WAS certainly quite correlated! It was not the last time Paul would speak up. (Continued in my next post)
Click to expand...
With this explanation above, you have only confirmed my assertion that Paul was lying when before the Sanhedrin, he answered saying that he had been arrested because of his hope in the resurrection. Lapell, come on! Don’t you think it’s high time to stop fighting against the Truth? What are you afraid of, that the Church will excommunicate you? Fear not. You will only be exchanging the Faith of Paul for the one of Jesus. Don’t you think you will be much better off?
 
Lapell said:
Paul also offers a defense before the Roman governor Felix when the High Priest Ananias (or Ananiah), some “leaders of the people” (members of the Sanhedrin maybe) and an “attorney” (according to “God’s Word” Translation).Tertullus is the one who presented the accusation before Felix. Since it was a Roman Court, not the Jewish one, the accusation was put this way: “We have found this man to be a troublemaker. He starts quarrels among all Jews throughout the world. He is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect. He also entered the Temple courtyard in a way that violates tradition. So we arrested him.” (Acts 24, 5-6) The High Priest and those with him agreed that that was the case as it was standing.To that, Paul presented his defense in Acts 24, 10-21.
He also presented his defense before King Agrippa in Acts 26, 2-23.
Click to expand...
Well, where is Paul’s defense? You all here say that the accusations were false. Did Paul defend himself by saying that the accusations were not true? I am still waiting.
 
Lapell said:
Now, what makes you Jews think it’s really Paul who really was the head of the Church and not Peter? Is it not because of the think Paul was talking about in his letter to the Galatians about what Cephas (Peter) was doing which drew Paul to publicly scold him. The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) had happened, but to kinda accommodate some friends of James he stopped going with Gentiles, so the decision was made at the Council of Jerusalem, but Peter was acting as though it had not taken place at all, and it’s in this context that Paul was scolding him. O. K.? And Peter listened. And I supposed he took the blame. Why did Paul explain this in a letter. To calm down false rumors about him from that incident. And that’s quite simply what there was to it and nothing more. Peter still remained the chief leader of the Church. Paul did not take his place! So all that so-called Replacement Theology, so-called “Pauline” theology as different from what the Apostles had believed and taught from Shavuoth after April 7, 30, that just are false theories, dear Ben! Whether it was a genuine impression that was transmitted from generation to generation, which I believe was the thing that actually happened, or a lie carried out and believed at some point in the course of history, in both cases it’s simply false! It was viewed from the outside and some internal things of what Tertullus called the Nazarene sect simply eluded the Jewish authorities, I am afraid… even though I am sure they did know some things about them and about that Jesus of Nazareth, mind you!
Click to expand...
Lapell, Peter was a Nazarene Jew. Paul was a Christian by necessity for having been the founder of Christianity. There is no comparison between Peter and Paul. We are talking here about two different religions. Paul was the head of the Church. Paul was the first Pope. It’s a funny charade to think of a Nazarene as the first Pope. It’s not even fair to deny Paul the fruit of his life of struggle. He was a genius. If it were not for him, there would be no Christian Church.
 
Lapell said:
Back to the OP topic now…
Yes, the Apostles tought it an “idle tale” indeed until Peter went to the tomb which was just as the women said, and he was perplexed… And after He appeared to them, they couldn’t call it an idle tale any more, for they themselves saw Him with their own eyes.
In John’s account, Thomas wasn’t there when He first appeared to the other Apostles, and he too could not believe what they were saying. Not that he didn’t want to believe, on the contrary he would have wanted to, but he did not want to believe in a false rumor. Thomas was a realist. And when Jesus appeared to him the following first day of the week, he was awed, and he couldn’t think it was an idle tale any more! Same with Saul of Tarse on his way to Damascus (Acts 9)…
Click to expand...
"Until Peter went to the tomb, and got perplexed." He got perplexed with what, linnen folded apart? How can linnen folder apart make one perplexed?
The women had already told them that the tomb was empty. Is it supposed to be a joke?
 
Ben_Masada said:
"Until Peter went to the tomb, and got perplexed." He got perplexed with what, linnen folded apart? How can linnen folder apart make one perplexed?
The women had already told them that the tomb was empty. Is it supposed to be a joke?
Click to expand...
Ben,

Have you studied the history of Judaism? Because, if not, you won’t understand why Jesus folded the linen cloth.
 
Aw screw it, I’ll just explain the linen cloth.

In the Jewish household during the Roman Empire, if a Jew owned a slave, the slave would wait on the master while he ate. Jews would eat with napkins. If he crumbled the napkin up and left the table, it meant “I’m finished eating.” If he folded the napkin and left the table, it meant “I’m coming back.” Jesus folded the linen cloth, which meant “I’m coming back!”

That’s why Peter was perplexed. He saw Jesus’ body was missing, so he assumed someone had stolen the body. But than he noticed the linen cloth, and it confused him. He didn’t think Jesus had risen from the dead.
 
Ben_Masada said:
Lapell, Peter was a Nazarene Jew. Paul was a Christian by necessity for having been the founder of Christianity. There is no comparison between Peter and Paul. We are talking here about two different religions. Paul was the head of the Church. Paul was the first Pope. It’s a funny charade to think of a Nazarene as the first Pope. It’s not even fair to deny Paul the fruit of his life of struggle. He was a genius. If it were not for him, there would be no Christian Church.
Click to expand...
Dear Ben, I just quoted the Bible I used here. Tertullus himself called Paul a leader of the Nazarenes when he was representing the High Priest and the representants of the Sanhedrin (“Jewish Council” according to the the “God’s Word Translation” version), whether you like it or not. So there you are…
 
Ben_Masada said:
"Until Peter went to the tomb, and got perplexed." He got perplexed with what, linen folded apart? How can linen folder apart make one perplexed?
The women had already told them that the tomb was empty. Is it supposed to be a joke?
Click to expand...
Obviously, YOU were not the one whom the women told this to! In real life, I suppose that in his place you would have been somehow very stoic? To friends? Come on, Ben! I can see now what the first Christians must have faced when they told the people about Jesus’ resurrection and His being the Messiah whom Israel has awaited and still is awaiting… Thank you Ben for this demonstration.
Très instructif en effet!
 
Ben_Masada said:
**I am all ears. Believe me I am. Tell me how and where I can read that Paul answered to the accusations before the Sanhedrin, or for that matter before James and the Elders in Jerusalem that he did not teach the Jews to abandon Moses, that he did not teach them to stop circumcising their children, and that he did not tell them
to renounce the Jewish customs. I am well open-minded to reconsider. But don’t stroll away from Acts 21:21, because these were the accusations. **
Click to expand...
As for Paul teaching the Jews to stop circumcising their children, as this quote of you here shows that you say Paul was accused of, where did you see he did just that, when only the Gentiles entering into the new faith were dispensed from it according to the decision of the first Concile of the then new Church which took place in Jerusalem. Paul and other Christians preaching Jesus the Christ only carried about what the Church had decided, no more! That it may have seemed otherwise to a number of Jews back then may have been, but it was nothing else than an impression, Ben.
Say, Ben, I thought you said you are not a scholar? Are you then telling us your rabbi’s position, or is it simply your own? Maintaining forever a false stand is very possible, you know. Adolf Hitler was very good at that. Some modern ideologists of false ideas too!
 
And I can see that one not believing in an afterlife can whatever he wants because to him, there is no such a thing as a Last Judgment, with either an eternal Happiness or an eternal Damnation awaiting each one of us…
 
Ben_Masada said:
**I was right. It must be a joke. **
Click to expand...
Yes, and the Catholic Church has been covering it up for two thousand years. Oh, and did you know the Earth is flat? And dinosaurs still exist? And aliens crash landed in the garden of Eden?
 
Eucharisted said:
Aw screw it, I’ll just explain the linen cloth.

In the Jewish household during the Roman Empire, if a Jew owned a slave, the slave would wait on the master while he ate. Jews would eat with napkins. If he crumbled the napkin up and left the table, it meant “I’m finished eating.” If he folded the napkin and left the table, it meant “I’m coming back.” Jesus folded the linen cloth, which meant “I’m coming back!”

That’s why Peter was perplexed. He saw Jesus’ body was missing, so he assumed someone had stolen the body. But than he noticed the linen cloth, and it confused him. He didn’t think Jesus had risen from the dead.
Click to expand...
**Oh, now I understand! So, Jesus went out of the tomb met Mary Magdalene, who was outside, but because he had folded the linen, he returned to the tomb. Never heard of it! **
 
Ben_Masada said:
**Oh, now I understand! So, Jesus went out of the tomb met Mary Magdalene, who was outside, but because he had folded the linen, he returned to the tomb. Never heard of it! **
Click to expand...
No, He returned in sense that He had already returned. He had come back from the dead!
 
Eucharisted said:
Yes, and the Catholic Church has been covering it up for two thousand years. Oh, and did you know the Earth is flat? And dinosaurs still exist? And aliens crash landed in the garden of Eden?
Click to expand...
Otherwise, how do you explain the discrepancies if not as a result of Church conspiracy?
 
Ben_Masada said:
Otherwise, how do you explain the discrepancies if not as a result of Church conspiracy?
Click to expand...
Research the early Church and you’ll see why a conspiracy is impossible. I’m done talking with you, because you don’t want to learn.
 
Eucharisted said:
No, He returned in sense that He had already returned. He had come back from the dead!
Click to expand...
Does it mean that the next return of Jesus you guys talk about is going to be the third coming of Jesus? Be careful, you are coming too close to the spider’s web. If you fall on it, you will be stuck in a way that the more you move you will be more and more stuck to it.
 
Lapell said:
Dear Ben, I just quoted the Bible I used here. Tertullus himself called Paul a leader of the Nazarenes when he was representing the High Priest and the representants of the Sanhedrin (“Jewish Council” according to the the “God’s Word Translation” version), whether you like it or not. So there you are…
Click to expand...
**Lapell, I’ll tell you where Tertullus is coming from with that generalization in his statement about Paul in Court. Exactly 14 years before, Paul had come to Jerusalem to try to join the Sect of the Nazarenes and the Apostles would not accept him, not only for his history of persecution of the Nazarenes, but also because they were certain that Paul was either lying or crazy with his tale that he had met Jesus on the Road to Damascus.

It happens that among the Nazarenes there was an old friend of Paul’s, called Barnabas, who would put in a word for Paul to be accepted at least on a trial basis. Probably, Barnabas would watch him. Paul! Who could watch Paul? Paul had waited too long for that chance to preach his gospel in Jerusalem. The man went berserk spreading everwhere the news that Jesus was the Messiah, son of God, and that he had resurrected. Within 15 days only, he had caused such a havoc among the local Jews that they were after him to kill him. At this juncture, and in consideration to Barnabas, James and the Elders got him down to Caesarea and from there, they sent him back to Tarsus where he belonged.

Therefore, being reminded of that strategical salvation of Paul by the Nazarenes, Tertullus did not bother to verify the facts and considered Paul a ring-leader of the Sect of the Nazarenes. Because of that incident, the credibility of the Nazarenes was considerably hurt among mainstream Judaism. That’s the reason why Paul was forever banned from Israel and could never build a church in Israel soil, thanks especially to the Pharisees, whom Paul fed his grudge against till the end of his life in Rome.

So, what Tertullus said in Court about Paul was irrelevant for lack of appropriate information. **
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top