Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
Non-fiction is often like that, huh?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Was Jesus sent to be crucified?
- Thread starter croak
- Start date
If you check it up Mark didn't get on with Paul and neither did Peter
There is refrences on the net saying, that the disciples tried to establish a true faith of christ, yet this was later wiped out by the roman christian church, also destroying the temple as fore told of the anti-christ and his followers.
Christ did choose Paul, according to Paul, yet what else do you do with some one who is killing your followers.
The only problem is Saul started prophecing, yet it is a proverb already from samuel is saul amoung the prophets, just to make sure people see.
I will find you the scripture about where the jewish council, in John decide to kill christ to cover sin.
If you want more scriptures that show the true meaning of Christ there is many on my site.
Still working on improving it so it is easily explainable to many
The points i say have been edited are noticable as they have added titles, intros and the very end of revelations is an addition.
It is not that the bible isn't solid as a book there is still many points where Paul contridicts christ
What they have added makes it seem as if Pauls, way is right and that the church should have power
Yet if you ignore them bit and just read christ words, it is blatiently clear he was against the pharisee and there ways and our modern day church is very similar
There is refrences on the net saying, that the disciples tried to establish a true faith of christ, yet this was later wiped out by the roman christian church, also destroying the temple as fore told of the anti-christ and his followers.
Christ did choose Paul, according to Paul, yet what else do you do with some one who is killing your followers.
The only problem is Saul started prophecing, yet it is a proverb already from samuel is saul amoung the prophets, just to make sure people see.
I will find you the scripture about where the jewish council, in John decide to kill christ to cover sin.
If you want more scriptures that show the true meaning of Christ there is many on my site.
Still working on improving it so it is easily explainable to many
The points i say have been edited are noticable as they have added titles, intros and the very end of revelations is an addition.
It is not that the bible isn't solid as a book there is still many points where Paul contridicts christ
What they have added makes it seem as if Pauls, way is right and that the church should have power
Yet if you ignore them bit and just read christ words, it is blatiently clear he was against the pharisee and there ways and our modern day church is very similar
No*s
Captain Obvious
Wizanda,
What I ask for was how you know. I've read scholarship. I was required to read it for six years, and let me promise you, it's not as pat as those quotes make it sound. Several things are stated as fact that really have little proof or never happened in the books; they just happen to fit a theory. For instance, there was supposedly a "Council of Jamnia," and I've read it in scholarly books as fact and been taught it as fact. Yet...Nobody can cite a document for that mythic beast, a school of Jamnia, but not a council.
Here's what I want you to explain:
How did Paul manage this feat? If the Gospels were written in the fifties, then Paul wouldn't even have much time to edit it and take control of all Christianity before he was killed.
John was written after Paul died. How did he edit it?
Why do you assume that if you have a conspiracy that took control of all Christianity that they'd overlook Mark? That seems a little unlikely to me. In fact, if that were the case, I doubt they would even have selected it.
Why do you believe it? Not Bible quotes, but why? When I read Christ and Paul, they harmonize to me quite well. In fact, I've read "just the words of Christ" several times and never had a problem.
I understand what you're referring to on the Jewish priests now. I take it you are referring to the conspiracy to hide it. Your wording suggested that they were sacrificing Him to God.
What I ask for was how you know. I've read scholarship. I was required to read it for six years, and let me promise you, it's not as pat as those quotes make it sound. Several things are stated as fact that really have little proof or never happened in the books; they just happen to fit a theory. For instance, there was supposedly a "Council of Jamnia," and I've read it in scholarly books as fact and been taught it as fact. Yet...Nobody can cite a document for that mythic beast, a school of Jamnia, but not a council.
Here's what I want you to explain:
How did Paul manage this feat? If the Gospels were written in the fifties, then Paul wouldn't even have much time to edit it and take control of all Christianity before he was killed.
John was written after Paul died. How did he edit it?
Why do you assume that if you have a conspiracy that took control of all Christianity that they'd overlook Mark? That seems a little unlikely to me. In fact, if that were the case, I doubt they would even have selected it.
Why do you believe it? Not Bible quotes, but why? When I read Christ and Paul, they harmonize to me quite well. In fact, I've read "just the words of Christ" several times and never had a problem.
I understand what you're referring to on the Jewish priests now. I take it you are referring to the conspiracy to hide it. Your wording suggested that they were sacrificing Him to God.
What difference does it make, if I produce more biblical proof of the Everlasting Plan of Salvation formulated to destroy for ever, sin? What difference would it make to you if I prove from the scriptures that us humans are only incidental to the plan of salvation? What difference would it make; if us humans were to realize that our's is only an invitation to join the winning team; and that we have no part to play in helping Christ to win in his battle with satan?
That we share in the proceeds is the substance of Grace...an invitation that is our's to accept or refuse to accept.
"Proof"? Proof is for those who must be convinced, before accepting the free gift of Grace. But such, by their so desiring show that they are un-interested in their own salvation; and in short, are unbelievers....and as such should be denied such proof.
precept
No*s,
re: "You aren't reckoning the days right. Jesus died and was buried on Friday. That is day 1. He remained there on Saturday. That is day 2. Then, Sunday makes the third day, and He rose on that day."
Y
es, 3 calendar days were involved, but where is the third night?
re: "You aren't reckoning the days right. Jesus died and was buried on Friday. That is day 1. He remained there on Saturday. That is day 2. Then, Sunday makes the third day, and He rose on that day."
Y
es, 3 calendar days were involved, but where is the third night?
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Really?!! Srrsly?! after 10 years you dredge this up from God knows where and respond to it???
And your response isn't even cogent to the thread topic. :thud:
sojourner,
re: "Really?!! Srrsly?! after 10 years you dredge this up from God knows where and respond to it???"
If old posts are not supposed to be addressed, I would think that the topic would be closed. This one hasn't been.
　
re: "And your response isn't even cogent to the thread topic."
Croak in his original post (OP) #1, was questioning the three days and three nights of Matthew 12:40 in light of a Friday crucifixion. No*s responded to croak in post #14 by saying 'You aren't reckoning the days right'. I was merely commenting on that line of discussion. If that is off topic, then so are No*s' as well as croak's comments.
re: "Really?!! Srrsly?! after 10 years you dredge this up from God knows where and respond to it???"
If old posts are not supposed to be addressed, I would think that the topic would be closed. This one hasn't been.
　
re: "And your response isn't even cogent to the thread topic."
Croak in his original post (OP) #1, was questioning the three days and three nights of Matthew 12:40 in light of a Friday crucifixion. No*s responded to croak in post #14 by saying 'You aren't reckoning the days right'. I was merely commenting on that line of discussion. If that is off topic, then so are No*s' as well as croak's comments.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
For the love of God! How many pages back did you have to go to even find this? It wants to die! Please let it!
LightTraveler
Member
Wow, what an ordeal just to attempt to read through this post.
Let's just end the conversation by saying that regardless of whether or not God sent Jesus to be crucified during that incarnation doesn't let his executioners (including Satan) off the hook. They're still gonna pay. They're not gonna "free" themselves from justice as they're planning.
Let's just end the conversation by saying that regardless of whether or not God sent Jesus to be crucified during that incarnation doesn't let his executioners (including Satan) off the hook. They're still gonna pay. They're not gonna "free" themselves from justice as they're planning.
Was Jesus sent to be crucified? The answer is No!!!
Jesus was tried, convicted and put to death for blasphemy according to the law given to Moses by God in Deuteronomy.
Deuteronomy 18: 20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death."
Jesus was tried, convicted and put to death for blasphemy according to the law given to Moses by God in Deuteronomy.
Deuteronomy 18: 20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death."
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Jesus was crucified for the crime of insurrection.
Read your bible.
John 18:38
"What is truth?" retorted Pilate. With this he went out again to the Jews gathered there and said, "I find no basis for a charge against him.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Study your history (and your bible). John had a theological, not a historical agenda. Historically, only the Sanhedrin would apply a charge of "blasphemy." Rome had nothing to do with "blasphemy." Historically, the Sanhedrin didn't crucify people. But Rome did. The charge was, of course, trumped up, and it was insurrection.
If there were no "basis for a charge," there would have been no crucifixion. Therefore, a Roman charge was offered: insurrection, because they claimed Jesus claimed to be king.
outhouse
Atheistically
Yet there probably was a disturbance in the temple of some kind.
The temple was extremely populated during Passover. He may have only been able to rally a few people around him instead of everyone due to crowd size.
Plenty of reasons to demonstrate if one was a pious Aramaic Jew. Melqart on temple coins, severe oppression, corruption and taxation. Take your pick, something happened enough to have the Romans make an example out of him.
And it wasn't his teaching. many things were being taught in almost half a million people, but actions would get you on the radar.
The high priest charged Jesus with blasphemy.
Matthew 26:63
But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God."
Matthew 26:64
"You have said so," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
Matthew 26:65
Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
OK. I thought I addressed that point. What you're omitting is that the Sanhedrin didn't crucify people. Rome crucified people. And Rome needed a "legitimate" charge in order to do that. "Blasphemy" wasn't recognized as such, because "blasphemy" was a Judaic issue -- not a Roman issue. So they came up with "insurrection," as evidenced by the sign on the cross, "King of the Jews."
Again you are confused.
So the charge against Jesus of insurrection and sedition was rejected by Pilate. But the Jews wanted Jesus crucified for blasphemy and Pilate gave in when even his offer to spare Jesus was rejected by the people.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Did you ever stop to think about the fact that all scriptures are subjective and that the early church had logical reason to demonize those Jews who did not accept Jesus? The Romans we know had no interest in Judaism one way or another as long as we kept the order and paid our taxes.
That is why crucifying another Jew like Jesus was not a big deal to them especially when the Jews themselves were calling for him to be crucified. Why the Jews chose Barabbas to be releases instead of Jesus when Pilate made the offer proves the total rejection of Jesus as their messiah. The fact the Jews today are not repentant of their role in Jesus's death an innocent Rabbi who tried to reform the Jewish religion, shows how meaningless their adherence to the prophets teachings and scriptures are and have always been.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Yeah, but, again, the Romans had no reason to care anything about blasphemy. The charge was obviously trumped-up, in order to prevent a larger public problem. The Romans killed Jesus. The Jews didn't crucify people.