The Mark of the Beast

[Ben_Masada]

Who bent such rules, Ben?
If someone says something that seems to seal his fate, would the sentence not be rendered immediately? The High Priest said: “What need do we have of witnesses? You have just yourselves heard the blasphemy! What’s your verdict?” “He deserves death!” Jesus had said the one thing they took to be a clear blasphemy, punishable of death… Only the circumstances (it was during Passover) prevented them from stoning him to death! Hence that they delivered him instead to the Romans to have him crucified.

The gospel writers bent the rules. And to answer your question about sentencing someone immediately my answer is absolutely not. Every sentence above is a contradiction in the NT. The High Priest would never condemn anyone to death without witnesses. We can very well see NT conspiracy to blame the Jews for the death of Jesus.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Can you simply ignore the fact that the Jews wanted Christ dead? Do you not believe this? show me one quote from the New Testament, other than the Disciples of Christ who wanted Him alive. Do you think that the Pharisees wanted Him alive?

**There is nothing more important to a Jew than God’s Law. Jesus comes to confirm that Law down to the letter, and now you want me to believe that those Jews asked the Romans to crucify him? Does it make sense to you? It surely does
not to me. And how could the Pharisees want Jesus dead if they were his own coleagues?
The Sect of the Nazarenes had even Pharisees in their Council in Jerusalem. The one who
had problems with the Pharisees was Paul, whom the Pharisees banned from Jerusalem and never allowed him to build a church in Isreli soil. Then they transfered his grudge as if it was from Jesus.

You ask me for a NT quotation that the Pharisees wanted Jesus alive. It’s a pity that I am rplying to this post of yours from my office at my working place, where I don’t have a Bible with me. But perhaps it sounds familiar to you that once the Pharisees warned Jesus to escape from being arrested when the Herodians were about to get him. I don’t remember by heart of this passage, but I’ll check it out when I get home.**

 

[minkymurph]

**There is nothing more important to a Jew than God’s Law. Jesus comes to confirm that Law down to the letter, and now you want me to believe that those Jews asked the Romans to crucify him? Does it make sense to you? It surely does
not to me. And how could the Pharisees want Jesus dead if they were his own coleagues?
The Sect of the Nazarenes had even Pharisees in their Council in Jerusalem. The one who
had problems with the Pharisees was Paul, whom the Pharisees banned from Jerusalem and never allowed him to build a church in Isreli soil. Then they transfered his grudge as if it was from Jesus.

You ask me for a NT quotation that the Pharisees wanted Jesus alive. It’s a pity that I am rplying to this post of yours from my office at my working place, where I don’t have a Bible with me. But perhaps it sounds familiar to you that once the Pharisees warned Jesus to escape from being arrested when the Herodians were about to get him. I don’t remember by heart of this passage, but I’ll check it out when I get home.**

I don’t think anyone here said ALL Pharaisees wanted Jesus dead. I would be quite willing to accept that individual Pharisees warned Jesus to escape. But can you really be sure that NO religious leader would have colluded with the Romans to have Jesus, or any other innocent Jew for that matter killed? What about my post about Jews in concentration camps in Nazi Germany? There is no doubt that Jews colluded with Nazi’s during the rise of the Third Reich. There is any amount of evidence for that.

You appear to be inferring that Jews are above such a thing as colluding with foreign oppressors to have one of their people killed. I’m not asking you to change your views concerning the death of Jesus, but you can’t say that no Jew, or no High Priest in the course of history would ever have done such a thing. There are plenty of religious leaders in all denomations who preach God’s Law and claim to adhere to it but we know they do not. You would have to say that it’s at least a possibility that were Jews in Ancient Israel who colluded with Romans for their own ends. Saying so does not mean you have to change your views on the New Testament.

 

[SteveLohr]

The gospel writers bent the rules. And to answer your question about sentencing someone immediately my answer is absolutely not. Every sentence above is a contradiction in the NT. The High Priest would never condemn anyone to death without witnesses. We can very well see NT conspiracy to blame the Jews for the death of Jesus.

Ben-The High Priest did have witnesses before he condemned Jesus. The witness was Jesus himself. As a matter of law, that was all they needed:

At daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and teachers of the law, met together, and Jesus was led before them.
“If you are the Christ,” they said, “tell us.” Jesus answered, “If I tell you, you will not believe me, and if I asked you, you would not answer.
But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God.”
They all asked, “Are you then the Son of God?” He replied, "You are right in saying I am.”
Then they said, “Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips.” (Luke 22:66-71)(NIV)(emphasis added)

 

[SteveLohr]

You would have to say that it’s at least a possibility that were Jews in Ancient Israel who colluded with Romans for their own ends. Saying so does not mean you have to change your views on the New Testament.

There is in fact historical evidence of exactly such collusion. Consider Josephus, who was (according to his own account) a Pharisee and did in fact collude with the Romans. See generally en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus

Regards,
SteveLohr

 

[minkymurph]

There is in fact historical evidence of exactly such collusion. Consider Josephus, who was (according to his own account) a Pharisee and did in fact collude with the Romans. See generally en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus

Regards,
SteveLohr

Don’t take this the wrong way Steve and I’m only saying this before someone else does. Wikipedia is not a recognised academic source. The college I attend doesn’t accept references from Wikipedia and you can’t use it in any of your essays. There is however some interesting information on it and the article you have used here is referenced so it can be checked from other sources for validity.

 

[SteveLohr]

Don’t take this the wrong way Steve and I’m only saying this before someone else does. Wikipedia is not a recognised academic source. The college I attend doesn’t accept references from Wikipedia and you can’t use it in any of your essays. There is however some interesting information on it and the article you have used here is referenced so it can be checked from other sources for validity.

No problem. I don’t take it wrong. I generally would not use Wikapedia for a reference. However, for lay people, it would be easier to obtain than citing to copies of Antiquities or War, and frankly, I wasn’t motivated enough to spend the time to find a reference for something as intuitively obvious as the fact I was trying to establish, namely that historically there have been Jewish people who have acted against the interest of their own people. For the purpose of what I was trying to establish, the cited Wikapedia article is accurate. But generally speaking, you are right.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

**There is nothing more important to a Jew than God’s Law. Jesus comes to confirm that Law down to the letter, and now you want me to believe that those Jews asked the Romans to crucify him? Does it make sense to you? It surely does
not to me. And how could the Pharisees want Jesus dead if they were his own coleagues?
The Sect of the Nazarenes had even Pharisees in their Council in Jerusalem. The one who
had problems with the Pharisees was Paul, whom the Pharisees banned from Jerusalem and never allowed him to build a church in Isreli soil. Then they transfered his grudge as if it was from Jesus.

You ask me for a NT quotation that the Pharisees wanted Jesus alive. It’s a pity that I am rplying to this post of yours from my office at my working place, where I don’t have a Bible with me. But perhaps it sounds familiar to you that once the Pharisees warned Jesus to escape from being arrested when the Herodians were about to get him. I don’t remember by heart of this passage, but I’ll check it out when I get home.**

Paul again…good grief… talking to you is like talking to a cactus plant…

 

[Ceil-1]

The Romans did not arrest Jesus, the Jews did. The Romans simply did as the Sanhedrin asked them. What’s another crucified Jew to them? They enjoyed torturing people. Why is it such a big deal to you?

All it indicates is that Jesus was rejected by His own people whom He had shown only kindness to. This has theological implications galore.

You have a persecution complex, or something.

BTW, are you a religious Jew, or in name only?

 

[minkymurph]

The Romans did not arrest Jesus, the Jews did. The Romans simply did as the Sanhedrin asked them. What’s another crucified Jew to them? They enjoyed torturing people. Why is it such a big deal to you?

All it indicates is that Jesus was rejected by His own people whom He had shown only kindness to. This has theological implications galore.

You have a persecution complex, or something.

BTW, are you a religious Jew, or in name only?

Let’s put the NT to one side. Do the prophets; Amos, Hosea for example not frequently speak of Jews oppressing their own people? Do they not frequently speak of social injustice in Israel, oppression of the poor and the corruption of the wealthy? Was this not a consistent message of the prophets?

Yes, they did speak of idolatry and apostasy from the true religion because pagan rituals became incorportated into Yahwism but the prophets firmly believed that Jew was oppressing Jew. Did not Isaiah warn against political alliances and say Israel should put it’s trust in Divine Power and not political alliances with foreign nations who would oppress them and did not Kings such as Ahaz refuse to listen; making alliances with Assyria against their brothers in Israel? Did not Isaiah warn this was a mistake and walk naked as a symbol of what Assyria would do; strip Judah as they had to pay heavy tribute to Assyria as a consequence of this decision and Ahaz chose not to listen?

Do not the prophets say that Judah and Israel mistreated their brother and would reap the reward of this? Is this not Biblical evidence that Jews were prepared to do business with foreign oppressors because it suited them and do not the scriptures say there were Jews who would not? Was Elijah not told there where those who had bent the knee to Baal but manuy who had not? Is this not Biblical evidence that there where Jews who upheld the law and Jews who did not? What about King Mannaseh? Did he not have Isaiah killed?

I am not saying this because I am anti-semetic. I am saying this because no one can say 'people in my religion would not do this. Living in Northern Ireland I hear all the time ‘the Catholic Church did this, the Catholic Church did that.’ If there are faults, I don’t deny them. I don’t claim and I’m sure many others on this site would claim that all Catholics are fine, upstanding people who can do no wrong. However, they seem to ignore what those in their own faith are capable of the same.

 

[minkymurph]

No problem. I don’t take it wrong. I generally would not use Wikapedia for a reference. However, for lay people, it would be easier to obtain than citing to copies of Antiquities or War, and frankly, I wasn’t motivated enough to spend the time to find a reference for something as intuitively obvious as the fact I was trying to establish, namely that historically there have been Jewish people who have acted against the interest of their own people. For the purpose of what I was trying to establish, the cited Wikapedia article is accurate. But generally speaking, you are right.

Wikipedia is a good site for reference. I often use it myself. I’m so glad you have taken what I said in the Spirit it was meant and as I said, I thought I would say would say it before someone else did and I’m glad you responded to clarify useage.

 

[Ben_Masada]

The Romans did not arrest Jesus, the Jews did. The Romans simply did as the Sanhedrin asked them. What’s another crucified Jew to them? They enjoyed torturing people. Why is it such a big deal to you?

All it indicates is that Jesus was rejected by His own people whom He had shown only kindness to. This has theological implications galore.

You have a persecution complex, or something.

BTW, are you a religious Jew, or in name only?

**Who wrote the reason for Jesus’ crucifixion on that plate on the top of his cross, the Jews or the Romans? Did I hear the Romans? So, the impliction was not Theological but political. **

 

[Ben_Masada]

Paul again…good grief… talking to you is like talking to a cactus plant…

Well, the founder of your Church was a phenomenon. It’s impossible to talk about religion without his interference.

 

[ryanoneil]

**Who wrote the reason for Jesus’ crucifixion on that plate on the top of his cross, the Jews or the Romans? Did I hear the Romans? So, the impliction was not Theological but political. **

It was very theological to Jesus and his contemperaries though.

On the last and greatest day of the feast, Jesus stood up and exclaimed, “Let anyone who thirsts come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as scripture says: ‘Rivers of living water will flow from within him.’” (John 7:37-38)

While this isn’t an exact quotation from any Old Testament passage, everyone knew what Jesus was saying about himself and compairing himself to.

I** will be standing there in front of you on the rock in Horeb. Strike the rock, and the water will flow from it for the people to drink." This Moses did, in the presence of the elders of Israel. The place was called Massah and Meribah, because the Israelites quarreled there and tested the LORD, saying, “Is the LORD in our midst or not?” (Ex 17:6-7)

Then he brought me back to the entrance of the temple, and I saw water flowing out from beneath the threshold of the temple toward the east, for the facade of the temple was toward the east; the water flowed down from the southern side of the temple, south of the altar. (Ezek 47:1)**

On that day, living waters shall flow from Jerusalem, half to the eastern sea, and half to the western sea, and it shall be so in summer and in winter. The LORD shall become king over the whole earth; on that day the LORD shall be the only one, and his name the only one. (Zech 14:8)

Now read about the division among the people, concerning Jesus being the Prophet and the Christ. link to John 7:37-53. Nicodemus pleads for due process and legal justice, only to be ridiculed by the Pharisees, just as the officers (7:47) and the people were (7:49).

 

[ryanoneil]

**Who wrote the reason for Jesus’ crucifixion on that plate on the top of his cross, the Jews or the Romans? Did I hear the Romans? So, the impliction was not Theological but political. **

Jesus and the Pharisees clashed of theological difference on many occasions. One of them occured right after the “living water” episode.

while Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. But early in the morning he arrived again in the temple area, and all the people started coming to him, and he sat down and taught them. Then the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery and made her stand in the middle. They said to him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” They said this to test him, so that they could have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and began to write on the ground with his finger. But when they continued asking him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he bent down and wrote on the ground. And in response, they went away one by one, beginning with the elders. So he was left alone with the woman before him. Then Jesus straightened up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She replied, “No one, sir.” Then Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go, (and) from now on do not sin any more.” (John 8:1-11)

The Pharisees were not seeking legal advice from Jesus. Their question is a trap designed to incriminate or discredit him. If Jesus “authorizes” the stoning, the Pharisees will report him to the Romans for criminal wrongdoing (because the Jews were not permitted to administer capital punishment under Roman rule). If Jesus forbids the stoning, the Pharisees will discredit him as a false messiah who contradicts Moses (Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22). Of course, Jesus eludes the trap entirely and forces the Pharisees into their own trap.

Then notice the claim Jesus makes about being the “light of the world” and the ensuing clash with the Pharisees.

Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” So the Pharisees said to him, “You testify on your own behalf, so your testimony cannot be verified.” (John 8:12-13)

They knew what he was claiming about himself.

**The LORD preceded them, in the daytime by means of a column of cloud to show them the way, and at night by means of a column of fire to give them light. Thus they could travel both day and night. Neither the column of cloud by day nor the column of fire by night ever left its place in front of the people. (Ex 13:21-22)

Through your precepts I gain insight; therefore I hate all false ways. Your word is a lamp for my feet, a light for my path. (Ps 119:105-105)

I, the LORD, have called you for the victory of justice, I have grasped you by the hand; I formed you, and set you as a covenant of the people, a light for the nations, To open the eyes of the blind, to bring out prisoners from confinement, and from the dungeon, those who live in darkness.(Isa 42:6-7)

It is too little, he says, for you to be my servant, to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and restore the survivors of Israel; I will make you a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth. (Isa 49:6)**

 

[Lapell]

The gospel writers bent the rules. And to answer your question about sentencing someone immediately my answer is absolutely not. Every sentence above is a contradiction in the NT. The High Priest would never condemn anyone to death without witnesses. We can very well see NT conspiracy to blame the Jews for the death of Jesus.

And how do YOU know the High Priests and the Sanhedrin had NOT bent the rules concerning them? Don’t tell me they could not: were they not humans? Certainly they were not God Almighty come into the flesh? You were not there: how can you be so sure that they didn’t bend anything? From a pre-revelation from the TaNaKH? Is it how you can tell? That would quite hazardous, to say the least!

 

[minkymurph]

Well, the founder of your Church was a phenomenon. It’s impossible to talk about religion without his interference.

Catholics do actually think that Paul was a founder of their Church so it is not an insulting thing to Catholics to say ‘your Church was founded on Paul.’ I was always taught the Church was founded on THE APOSTLES and if you go to Rome, there are as many statues of Paul as there are of Peter. If you go to Lourdes there as many statues of Paul as Peter. In both Rome and Lourdes there are in fact stautes of all the Apostles in many Churches to denote that it was founded on all of them.

Paul had a specific mission in taking the message of the Gospel to the Gentiles. Peter had a specific role in relation to guidance on theological matters. So I have no problem when people say Paul was a founder of the Church. So long as they understand the Catholic Church teaches the Church was not founded on Peter as one man in that we follow the teachings of one man, we believe Peter was to lead in spiritual matters and not in an elitist way, but in union with the other Apostles. If others choose to believe Paul was the only founder and believe the evidence supports that theory, that is their perogative.
I am at liberty to consider other evidence and draw my conclusions.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

**Who wrote the reason for Jesus’ crucifixion on that plate on the top of his cross, the Jews or the Romans? Did I hear the Romans? So, the impliction was not Theological but political. **

**Pilate wrote “Jesus of Nazareth, King of The Jews”. But the Jews didn’t like that, no siree, they balked at what he wrote because Pilate actually believed this. That is why Pilate said “It is what it is”. **

 

[minkymurph]

Just on a point about Judaism and the New Testament. As far as my memory serves me, the Council of Jamnia (Jewish) closed the Canon of Scripture in 70 CE. The New Testament was not admitted and was not believed to be inspired. There of sects of Jews therefore who do not accept any of the New Testament is inspired in which case, it is human opinion and being so, we are all entitled to view it as we wish and no one person’s opinion can be said to be ‘IT’ as none of it is inspired.

Are there sects of Jews who believe either the New Testament or the Greek Seputagint are inspired?

 

[Ben_Masada]

Just on a point about Judaism and the New Testament. As far as my memory serves me, the Council of Jamnia (Jewish) closed the Canon of Scripture in 70 CE. The New Testament was not admitted and was not believed to be inspired. There of sects of Jews therefore who do not accept any of the New Testament is inspired in which case, it is human opinion and being so, we are all entitled to view it as we wish and no one person’s opinion can be said to be ‘IT’ as none of it is inspired.

Are there sects of Jews who believe either the New Testament or the Greek Seputagint are inspired?

**Allow me please to remind you that the NT did not exist in the year 70 to be considered. Only the Pauline Letters, and none in Israel. All out in the Diaspora throughout Asia Minor. The gospels started appearing after the war of 70 CE all the way up to the end of the First Century. Mark after the war, Luke in 75 CE, Matthew in 85, and John between 95 and 100 CE.

And regarding your question, no Jew believes the NT was Divinely inspired. The Greek Sptuagint yes, the 70 Rabbies who were contracted to write it.**