That’s exactly what I did. At that time, Paul had no Christians in Rome. He wrote to the Nazarene Synagogue as if to prepare them to welcome him as one who lived in peace with the Law and that he had done nothing wrong against the Faith of our Fathers. You can have a better idea, as you read Acts 28 after reading Romans 6 and 7.I believe I did mention that scripture should be read against the historical backdrop and considered in relation to the community it was addressed to.
With all due respect Ben, I think your taking what I said out of context. You say ‘I can have a better idea.’ What is my idea? What do you think, I think? I don’t believe I actually said what my thought.That’s exactly what I did. At that time, Paul had no Christians in Rome. He wrote to the Nazarene Synagogue as if to prepare them to welcome him as one who lived in peace with the Law and that he had done nothing wrong against the Faith of our Fathers. You can have a better idea, as you read Acts 28 after reading Romans 6 and 7.
**When Jesus started appearing to the disciples, it does not mean that he had risen from the dead. Luke says in Acts 1:1-3 that Jesus tried to prove by many convincing evidences that he was alive after his sufferings or passion; not after death or resurrection. It can be well understood that he survived the cross. Otherwise, how could one spend 40 days eating and drinking, and forgive me to have to say, defecating. What kind of body is that which one will bring from resurrection if this is to be believed? **He did say those things and Peter did confess him as the Messiah. I cannot comment on what they as individuals thought the term Messiah meant at that time, but I think I can safely say that did not believe he would rise from the dead; they understood the meaning of his words regarding his Ressurrection after they encountered the risen Christ and the belief that Jesus was God Incarnate emerged after Pentecost, not before the death of Jesus. That is what I mean when I use the term Messiah. My coreligionists are entitled to disagree with me; I never said any of the points I made here are infallible, but they are based on the work of scholars and they are not simply my own opinions. As far as calling me into account goes, no one can do that save God himself.
It would not have been a sin if he was, infact, divine.**Then, if it was true that Jesus had blasphemed, he would have committed a sin; and you could no longer claim that he was sinless.
**
Jesus did more than that. He makes himself equal to God when He declares, “You heard it said…but I say to you…”**I say it would be because Jesus had come to confirm the most important thing to his People: The Law. (Mat. 5:19) **
**The case of Jesus having blasphemed the name of God is a solved issue already. You yourselves cannot conceive that Jesus was sinful. Therefore, he did not blaspheme against God. Second, a death sentence could not be decided if all the members of the Sanhedrin were not present to consider the charges. And they were not. Third, the Sanhedrin would never get together at night to deliberate on a Court of Law. And last but not least, a death sentence would take from months to years to be concluded. If the trial of Jesus was true, only Romans took part in it, and it was for treason against Rome. **If we take the gospel account at face value, the council charged Jesus with blaspheming the name of God (Mt 26:65-66), which calls for a death sentence.
whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD shall be put to death. The whole community shall stone him; alien and native alike must be put to death for blaspheming the LORD’S name. (Lev 24:16)
Of course, the Romans reserved the sole authority to administer capital punishment in Palestine, but the Sanhedrin still judged the internal affairs of Judaism. For this reason, they had to deliver Jesus to Pilate in order to enforce their judgment. To say anything else is to claim the Sanhedrin was not doing it’s job.
Where does it say in the Bible that Jesus defecated? Your statements are again absurd…it clearly states Jesus was Resurrected from the Dead…**When Jesus started appearing to the disciples, it does not mean that he had risen from the dead. Luke says in Acts 1:1-3 that Jesus tried to prove by many convincing evidences that he was alive after his sufferings or passion; not after death or resurrection. It can be well understood that he survived the cross. Otherwise, how could one spend 40 days eating and drinking, and forgive me to have to say, defecating. What kind of body is that which one will bring from resurrection if this is to be believed? **
I don’t think Jesus blasphemed God, but others did.The case of Jesus having blasphemed the name of God is a solved issue already. You yourselves cannot conceive that Jesus was sinful. Therefore, he did not blaspheme against God.
You are correct that things were not legitamate with the trial of Jesus, and I can’t say exactly how things played out. If we take the gospel at face value, we know that they were divided over what to do about Jesus prior to that night and that some of them believed in him. We also know that the high priest Caiaphas and others planned to have Jesus killed (John 11:47-53). We see this sort of thing in our own politics between majorities and minorities. In order to keep things out of the public eye, or to take advantage of members not being there, things getting rammed through during midnight sessions of Congress. What is the difference?**Second, a death sentence could not be decided if all the members of the Sanhedrin were not present to consider the charges. And they were not. Third, the Sanhedrin would never get together at night to deliberate on a Court of Law. And last but not least, a death sentence would take from months to years to be concluded. **
And which of Jesus’ rabble rousing deeds got the attention of Rome? (he was a devout Jew who was faithfull to the Law after all).**If the trial of Jesus was true, only Romans took part in it, and it was for treason against Rome. **
Ah! Now I know where your coming from. Yes I’ve heard this discussed; that Jesus survived the Cross and the arguements for and against.**When Jesus started appearing to the disciples, it does not mean that he had risen from the dead. Luke says in Acts 1:1-3 that Jesus tried to prove by many convincing evidences that he was alive after his sufferings or passion; not after death or resurrection. It can be well understood that he survived the cross. Otherwise, how could one spend 40 days eating and drinking, and forgive me to have to say, defecating. What kind of body is that which one will bring from resurrection if this is to be believed? **
**But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we also await a savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. **He will change our lowly body to conform with his glorified body by the power that enables him also to bring all things into subjection to himself. (Phil 3:20-21)** What kind of body is that which one will bring from resurrection if this is to be believed? **
Though He did not blaspheme against God, it certainly looked in the eyes of the High Priest and the members of the Sanhedrin present as though he did because to them he could not be anything else than a man. We probably would have thought the same unless certain things we’d witness about him would bring us to believe quite otherwise, and those things would have to be very extraordinary…**The case of Jesus having blasphemed the name of God is a solved issue already. You yourselves cannot conceive that Jesus was sinful. Therefore, he did not blaspheme against God. Second, a death sentence could not be decided if all the members of the Sanhedrin were not present to consider the charges. And they were not. Third, the Sanhedrin would never get together at night to deliberate on a Court of Law. And last but not least, a death sentence would take from months to years to be concluded. If the trial of Jesus was true, only Romans took part in it, and it was for treason against Rome. **
Lapell;5216323:
Again, was Isaiah, or were Isaiah and his disciples, the only authors of the Book of Isaiah? If you agree that God was the main author of all the books in the Bible, how then would you know that the mention of Israel as Messiah would be the only one that GOD had meant? You seem to forget there is more than just one layer of meaning in the Scriptures. Also, as soon as we could see one layer of meaning pointing to what the NT tells us, you immediately dismiss it as though from an incontrolable gut reaction similar to gut reactions antisemites would have, from what I understand, against the Jews…Because YOU don’t believe in Jesus the Messiah ( nor that He actually is the Messiah, for that matter ) is not a sufficient proof that we are wrong.
QUOTE]
How about Isaiah, was he wrong to mention Israel by name as the Messiah? How about Habakkuk, was he wrong for saying that Israel, the Jewish People was the Anointed one of the Lord? (Hab. 3:13)
One thing that you have to understand, Ben, is that when Jesus did die on the cross (and he did die on the cross) and was buried in a tomb (Mary, Jesus’ mother, Mary Magdalene, a few other women, the apostle John, Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea were there and you can be sure they told the other Apostles and disciples about it, some of them at least), their faith about Jesus being the Messiah was quite shattered, actually. You may not believe this to be the actual truth, but it is. Although we are told that Mary, Jesus’ mother kept believing in Him, although she was troubled and did not understand then exactly what God was up to… I think "Minky… " meant that their faith in Him as the Messiah was more solid from then on, for they seemed to have given up on Him until He appeared to them in person.Are you sure? Didn’t he tell the Samaritan woman that he was the Messiah? Didn’t Peter confess that he was the Messiah? Hey, don’t worry about me. Your coreligionaries are the ones who will call you into account for the above statement. Myself, I believe he became the Messiah when Paul appeared in Jerusalem preaching about him as such.
As far as I have been taught yes. Ben may contradict me on this but as far as I have been taught, ‘Messiah’ means anointed by God. Jehu was referred to as the anointed one as was King David and in the book of Isaiah, Cyrus the Persian is referred to as the anointed one of God. They where all in different senses ‘Saviours’ of the nation of Israel but in a human sense.Isn’t there room , therefore, for both interpretations on who Isaiah calls the Messiah, hmm?
It only tells me that you don’t read the quotations we put down. Luke in Acts 1 says that Jesus spent 40 days with his disciples. And to prove that he was alive, he would have dinner with them. He even asked for something to eat to prove that he was alive. We don’t have to be a Doctor to understand the process of digestion. If you eat and drink, you must by necessity also defecate the wasted material. I don’t believe you are demanding that it be written that Jesus defecated. It’s obvious. And mind you, this is no disrespect if you are trying to make a point and not just being ridiculous.Where does it say in the Bible that Jesus defecated? Your statements are again absurd…it clearly states Jesus was Resurrected from the Dead…
I can’t believe how you guys are so willing to keep the blinders on and refuse to see gospel or Church conspiracy to transfer the blame of Jesus’ death from the Romans to the Jews. What makes me not lose my faith in your intelligence is that I am sure you guys know that something is wrong here. But between opting for the commonsense and demand an explanation, you prefer to let injustice rest on the shoulders of the Church. Therefore you, so to speak, wash your hands.I don’t think Jesus blasphemed God, but others did.
You are correct that things were not legitamate with the trial of Jesus, and I can’t say exactly how things played out. If we take the gospel at face value, we know that they were divided over what to do about Jesus prior to that night and that some of them believed in him. We also know that the high priest Caiaphas and others planned to have Jesus killed (John 11:47-53). We see this sort of thing in our own politics between majorities and minorities. In order to keep things out of the public eye, or to take advantage of members not being there, things getting rammed through during midnight sessions of Congress. What is the difference?
And which of Jesus’ rabble rousing deeds got the attention of Rome? (he was a devout Jew who was faithfull to the Law after all).
Obviously some of his own people had to hand him over to Rome, and accuse him of political revolt (which put him in the same category as Barabbas). The high priest happended to be one of them. He threatened Pilate politically so that he would condemn Jesus to death (John 19:12,15,21).
Does that mean Pilate or Judas is off the hook? No! The complexity of the whole thing is obvious in the gospel account, and the personal sin of the participants is know only to God. We Catholics believe that Jesus was handed over according to the definite plan of God and “all sinners” are the authors of Christ’s Passion (because he died for all of our sins).
To believe in something you are not sure is to believe blindly. At least, you have going in your favor, that “no one can prove beyond doubt that Jesus rose from the dead.” It means, you are not beyond repair.Ah! Now I know where your coming from. Yes I’ve heard this discussed; that Jesus survived the Cross and the arguements for and against.
Catholics believe that Jesus had a glorified body and this is why people who knew him such as; Mary Magdalene and his followers he met on the road to Emmaus did not immediately recognise him. I’m not big on the Theology of glorified bodies as I haven’t studied it in any great depth yet. Someone else here could probably explain what we believe better than I could.
There are reasons why Catholics believe in the Ressurection; it’s not a matter of blind faith.
However a degree of faith is needed as no one can prove beyond doubt that Jesus rose from the dead.
**Well, what difference was there between his lowly body of before resurrection and his glorified body of afterwards if he was partaking of the same things of prior to it? Watch, because you must be digging contradictions in the NT. ****But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we also await a savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. **He will change our ****lowly body to conform with his glorified body by the power that enables him also to bring all things into subjection to himself. (Phil 3:20-21)
AND
Cor 15:42-54
**Have you ever pondered about what you say? You are talking about opinions and hypotheses of people writing about a case 50+ years after Jesus had been gone. Please, have mercy on yourself!Though He did not blaspheme against God, it certainly looked in the eyes of the High Priest and the members of the Sanhedrin present as though he did because to them he could not be anything else than a man. We probably would have thought the same unless certain things we’d witness about him would bring us to believe quite otherwise, and those things would have to be very extraordinary…
Ben Masada;5219409:
I don’t think you are properly addressing the issue at hand. The point is that the Messiah cannot be an individual in particular, but the People of Israel. That’s what Isaiah testimonies in his or their book; it doesn’t matter.Again, was Isaiah, or were Isaiah and his disciples, the only authors of the Book of Isaiah? If you agree that God was the main author of all the books in the Bible, how then would you know that the mention of Israel as Messiah would be the only one that GOD had meant? You seem to forget there is more than just one layer of meaning in the Scriptures. Also, as soon as we could see one layer of meaning pointing to what the NT tells us, you immediately dismiss it as though from an incontrolable gut reaction similar to gut reactions antisemites would have, from what I understand, against the Jews…