The Mystery Of The Empty Tomb

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ben_Masada
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It doesn’t say that. It says that a Father will not be punished for what his son does and a son shall not be punished for what his father does not “no man can die for the guilt of another” that is an interpretation. It does not say that a man cannot choose to die for another. Which is what Jesus did. He chose to lay down His own life no one took it from Him.

I am curious. Do you follow all of Deut?
**You see the handiwriting on the wall in your own language and deny what is written. When the text says that “No man can die for the guilt of another” it means all men and not only the father or the son.

Regarding Jesus choosing to die on the cross, because no one would take his life from him, lacks all truth. When he sensed arrest, he left the Upper Room and fled to the Ghetsemane to pray for three times asking God not to die on the cross. When he saw that his prayer would not be heard, he declared, “Be Thy will done, NOT MINE.” What was Jesus’ will to die on the cross? How much obvious do you want this to be that Jesus walked the via dolorosa against his will? That’s what I don’t like about faith. It makes people blind to Reason.**
 
The central message is LORD and MESSIAH. Jesus is being Identified as the one crucified not that being the central message. They didn’t physically crucify Him but because of their sins and the sins of the world He died. Yes they crucified Him so did you and so did I.
Absolutely not! Jesus could not be crucified for the sins of another. This is Pauline rhetoric and a cop-out to minimize the false accusation of Luke in Acts 2:36. He meant to accuse the Jews with having crucified Jesus. A Greek Gentile as he was, would have no qualms to transfer the guilt over the death of Jesus from the Romans
unto the Jews. The Church needed Rome, and Chrsitians would not get it with a hostile
message of Christ-killer.
 
Oh! I never thought God would ever do something I wish him do.

The point here is that although God created laws of nature, he is not bound by them. And therefore he can do things that violate the laws of nature. He can make things happen unrestricted the laws of nature. And he can certainly perform miracles.

Yours is another horwash. The same hogwash when you claimed God cannot be born by a virgin.
Again, here is the very same reply: God can everything, God can make miracles. God can be born of a virgin. But He did not do these things just because you claim He did. Open up the Scriptures that Jesus used to handle and show me when God was born of a virgin, for an example. Without assumptions, please!
 
**You see the handiwriting on the wall in your own language and deny what is written. When the text says that “No man can die for the guilt of another” it means all men and not only the father or the son.

Regarding Jesus choosing to die on the cross, because no one would take his life from him, lacks all truth. When he sensed arrest, he left the Upper Room and fled to the Ghetsemane to pray for three times asking God not to die on the cross. When he saw that his prayer would not be heard, he declared, “Be Thy will done, NOT MINE.” What was Jesus’ will to die on the cross? How much obvious do you want this to be that Jesus walked the via dolorosa against his will? That’s what I don’t like about faith. It makes people blind to Reason.**
John 10 11-18
 
Again, here is the very same reply: God can everything, God can make miracles. God can be born of a virgin. But He did not do these things just because you claim He did. Open up the Scriptures that Jesus used to handle and show me when God was born of a virgin, for an example. Without assumptions, please!
MT 1:18 Luke 1
 
It depends on what you mean by “believing in Jesus.” I do believe Jesus existed as a real Jew. I don’t believe in him as a Christian does. Jews who believe in Jesus as Christians do, yes, they are no longer Jews but Christians.
Those Jews who still claim to be Jews but believe that Jesus was the Messiah.
 
Again, here is the very same reply: God can everything, God can make miracles. God can be born of a virgin. But He did not do these things just because you claim He did. Open up the Scriptures that Jesus used to handle and show me when God was born of a virgin, for an example. Without assumptions, please!
Isaiah 9:6.

6 For a CHILD IS BORN to us, and a son is given to us, and the government is upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called, Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace.

Isaiah 7:14

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.

and

Matthew 1

23 Behold a virgin shall be with child, and bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
 
Gospel of Mark - 58-65 AD, written by a disciple of Peter

quotes from Papias on the Gospel of Mark in Hist. Eccl. iii. 39:

For information on these points, we can merely refer our readers to the books themselves; but now, to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words: “And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord’s sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.

Irenaeus wrote (Against Heresies 3.1.1): “After their departure [of Peter and Paul from earth], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.”

There are some other pieces of* external* evidence that show that the author of the Gospel of Mark was a disciple of Peter:

Justin Martyr quotes from Mark as being the memoirs of Peter (Dial. 106.3). In Acts 10:34-40, Peter’s speech serves as a good summary of the Gospel of Mark, “beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached.” Finally, there was not an extremely strong motivation for the early church to attribute the second gospel to one obscure Mark, the disciple of Peter, instead of directly to an apostle. Thus, the tradition of Markan authorship is to be taken seriously.
 
Those Jews who still claim to be Jews but believe that Jesus was the Messiah.
**Oh yes! Elijah had those kinds of Jews at his time. We like to call them Jews-for-Baal. They would practice a pagan religion, while insisting on being identified as Jews. They, as well as those of today, were straddling the issue until Elijah lost his patience with them and slitted the throats of 850 of their prophets. (I Kings 18:23,40) **
 
Isaiah 9:6.

6 For a CHILD IS BORN to us, and a son is given to us, and the government is upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called, Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace.

Isaiah 7:14

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.

and

Matthew 1

23 Behold a virgin shall be with child, and bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
**Regarding Isaiah 9:6, I am going to ask you to wait a week or so to have a thread for an exegesis I am preparing. And for Isaiah 7:14, the virgin is Israel according to Amos 5:2. And back to Isaiah, the son of that virgin is Judah, the People who remained in the Land after Israel was removed by Assyria. Take a look at Isaiah 7:15. It says in there that the son will feed on butter and honey, which will be the food of all who remained in Land. (Isa. 7:22) Then if you read Isaiah 8:8, the Prophet identifies Immanuel by name with Judah, when he says that the Assyrians had flooded all around “thy Land, Immanuel.”
**
 
Gospel of Mark - 58-65 AD, written by a disciple of Peter

quotes from Papias on the Gospel of Mark in Hist. Eccl. iii. 39:

For information on these points, we can merely refer our readers to the books themselves; but now, to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words: “And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord’s sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.

Irenaeus wrote (Against Heresies 3.1.1): “After their departure [of Peter and Paul from earth], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.”

There are some other pieces of* external* evidence that show that the author of the Gospel of Mark was a disciple of Peter:

Justin Martyr quotes from Mark as being the memoirs of Peter (Dial. 106.3). In Acts 10:34-40, Peter’s speech serves as a good summary of the Gospel of Mark, “beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached.” Finally, there was not an extremely strong motivation for the early church to attribute the second gospel to one obscure Mark, the disciple of Peter, instead of directly to an apostle. Thus, the tradition of Markan authorship is to be taken seriously.
Peter was a Jewish man and could have never dictated such a Hellenistic gospel to a Gentile to write. I am sorry.
 
Peter was a Jewish man and could have never dictated such a Hellenistic gospel to a Gentile to write. I am sorry.
Peter was a Jewish man who believed Jesus was the Messiah. No matter what you think a Jewish man would or would not do does not matter.
Oh yes! Elijah had those kinds of Jews at his time. We like to call them Jews-for-Baal. They would practice a pagan religion, while insisting on being identified as Jews. They, as well as those of today, were straddling the issue until Elijah lost his patience with them and slitted the throats of 850 of their prophets. (I Kings 18:23,40)
Here you admit that not all Jews thought alike.
 
Peter was a Jewish man who believed Jesus was the Messiah. No matter what you think a Jewish man would or would not do does not matter.
Here you admit that not all Jews thought alike.
**If you believe so, explain the contradiction why he was not chased to be arrested by the local Jews, for preaching about Jesus as Messiah and Paul was for doing the very same thing. Obviously, He had never heard about Jesus’ Messiahship until Paul showed up.

What a Jew does or does not, it matters to me; and that’s what matters.

Two Jews = three opinions.**
 
No and neither is Jn. 8:44
**That’s what you think. I am going to prove to you that John 8:44 is a lie
and to ask you to commit it to memory never to forget. Read John 8:31. Jesus was speaking to the Jews who had believed in him. How could Jesus call children of the Devil the Jews who had believed in him. Does it make sense to you? While you think what to say in reply think of the Golden Rule that Jesus broke by calling his fellow Jews children of the Devil. Would you like to be called a child of the Devil? I don’t think so. Therefore, do not do unto others what you would not like they did unto you. **
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top