We speak of the crucified Jesus not because he would have been the only one that the Romans crucified and you should know it by now, but because of Who He is and that this one Jesus was resurrected and ascended into Heaven. Shalom, Ben! Bonne route on your Lord’s ways and paths… Shalom, you today’s Saul of Tarse… Bayu, bayu, bayu, bayu!
I simply wrote this post to explain my use of the word “unbeliever” in the previous post of mine. I thought you could have deduced it yourself, Ben. Now, bayu, bayu, bayu,bayu!! (and sweet dreams!)
Where is the documentation. Where is his clash with Roman policy recorded. Jesus was not on Rome’s radar screen until he was set up. And It was the Temple guards that went for Jesus, not Roman soldiers.
Show me a quotation in the NT saying that Peter was a the first Pope. Maybe you should stop being a fool yourself.
Big deal if he ate, and he sh#t. That doesn’t disprove anything.
Who said anything about not dying. I suppose the netherworld and Sheol are metaphorical expressions also?
All assumptions! Nothing but assumptions. Isaiah himself identifies that Suffering Servant with Israel by name, so that you don’t have to assume. But as I can see he lost his time because you guys love to assume what does not have anything to do with the text. Read Isaiah 41:8,9; 44:1,2,21; 45:4. And all the other quotations give me only the impression that you think Jesus was the only one crucified by the Romans. You should read Josephus. The Romans crucified thousands of Jews in the very same manner Jesus was. The others too shed the same blood and felt the same pain.
Your answer is a cop out and sets up a gross double standard. If you apply your own standards to the OT it is fabricated and should not be believed.
Do you know what’s written in Isaiah 42:6? That Israel has been assigned as light unto the Gentiles. Therefore, I am not here seeking the Truth. I am here bring the Truth. And if you read Psalm 119:105, the Truth is compared to light in the path of man. No wonder that Jesus said that the Jews are the light of the world. (Mat. 5:14)
There was never an eyewitness to Jesus’ resurrection. This is something that one has to believe in the dark. I am not that naive, unless you show me who was an eyewitness to the resurrection.
You guys must love to make a laughingstock of yourselves.
Why don’t you try me with the Hebrew Scriptures? You will be suprised that there is no double standard with me. The shock between us is that I read the Scriptures with logical enlightenment. And you, allow me to say, seem to be enlightened most the time, but when they pull the strings stronger than usual, you drop the other shoe in more embarrassing ways than one.
Malcus was the servant of the high priest. I should have been more specific. John 18:3 suggests that there was a detachment of Roman troops with the Temple guard. This would be a case of the occupying military escorting the provincial government. If the Roman’s were behind the arrest, Jesus would have gone straight to Pilate. But that is not what happened. It was primarily the provincial government acting at that point.
For what it’s worth, thanks for the compliment. The only point I’m making about double standard is: the criteria of “no I witness author” is fine for Judaism but not Christianity. And the elapsed time between the writing and actual events is six time larger (or more) with Judaism. It’s a double standard to hold that against one text without holding it against the other.
Should a book be written: Not By Reason Alone ? Actually, you are not just saying:" I will believe anything that can be demonstrated through reason", which I myself agree to say. But you are saying, “I won’t believe a thing that can’t be demonstrated through reason”… which is at once contradicted by your faith in the God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob, if it’s really in Him that you truly believe in…
Malcus was a relative of the High Priest! Also, in a Greco-Roman world, Ananiah is written Ananias. Have you not a different first name for your dealings with the non-Jews? At least, outside of the Land of Israel?
I am certain that you take certain things without asking " I won’t take it unless you demonstrate right now why I must take it!"
Speaking of Biblical interpretation in Judaism, Isn’t it true that Maimonides had to add a few rules to it. I think they are 13, while previously there were only 7.
:coffeeread::sad_yes:
Well if you supposedly read the NT, you’d see it. Jesus told Peter, not only to start His church, but gave the command “**Whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven, whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in Heaven” **Not only did He leave Peter with the authority to govern the church, He also gave commands to His Disciples when He breathed on them with the Holy Spirit and said “**What sins you forgive are forgiven them, what sins you retain are retained” **This is also the duty of pennance from our priests.