VINEGAR or WINE? DRANK or NOT? Mat 27:34 JC tasted, but didn't drink the vinegar/gall Mrk 15:23 wine/myrrh this time, but JC didn't even taste it Jon 19:30 JC drank the vinegar
Mat 27:44 The other crucifixion victims taunted JC Mrk 15:32 (see Matthew) Luk 23:39-42 One crucified guy taunted JC, the other praised him
JESUS' LAST WORDS Mat 27:46,50 "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" and a cry "with a loud voice" Mrk 15:34,37 (see Matt, which also has JC losing all faith) Luk 23:46 "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit." Jon 19:30 "It is finished."
IMMEDIATE RESULT OF JC's DEATH Mat 27:51-3 The veil of the temple split, the earth quaked, rocks broke, the bodies of dead
saints walked, visible to many. Mrk 15:38 The veil of the temple, split, but nothing else happened Luk 23:45 Veil of temple split BEFORE JC died. Jon Nothing earth-shaking
CENTURION'S COMMENTS Mat 27:54 Roman centurion suddenly speaks as a monotheist, calling JC son of god. Mrk 15:39 (see Matthew) Luk 23:47 Centurion called JC a righteous man.
WHO WAS THERE? Mat 27:55-6 Women far off include: Mary Magdalene; Mary the mom of James and Joses(;)
and mother of Zebedee's sons (does this mean 2 women or 3?) Mrk 27:40 Possibly agrees with Matt. If so, Salome was the mother of Zebedee's sons. Jon 19:25-6 Mary (JC's mother), her sister Mary! (wife of Cleophas), and Mary Magdalene
stood by JC's cross. So did the disciple whom JC loved.
Significant items not mentioned in other gospels Mrk 15:44 Pilate surprised that JC was already dead Jon 19:35 They pierced JC's side.
Who first came to the sepulchre? Mat 28:2,4 The 2 Marys and the guards saw an angel cause an earthquake by rolling away
the stone at JC's tomb. Mrk 28:16 Salome is with the 2 Marys. They saw no earthquake. Luk 24:1,2,10 Apparently the 2 Marys and Joanna, not Salome. Jon 20:1 Mary Magdalene came alone and found the stone moved.
What did she or they find? Mat 28:2,7 The angel, sitting on the stone, tells the Marys to tell the disciples. Mrk 16:5,7 Same instructions, but angel was sitting inside the sepulchre. Luk 24:4 Two men, not one angel, were standing, not sitting. They didn't instruct the women
to do anything but remember. Jon 20:2,12 She ran without seeing or hearing any angel or man (until Peter, etc, had
arrived). By accident (?), she found Peter and the beloved disciple, who then ran
to the sepulchre.
To whom did Jesus first appear and where? Mat 28:9 JC met them on the way. They held his physical feet. Mrk 16:9 JC first appeared to Mary of Magdala Luk JC did not appear to the women on their way to the disciples.
24:39-43 When he appears to the group, he is a physical body, tho they don't touch
him. Jon 20:14,17 JC first appeared to Mary Magdalene at the sepulchre. He told Mary not to touch
him.
Mat 28:10 JC repeats the angel's instructions to tell the disciples to meet JC in Galilee Luk 24:15-31,4,6 JC appeared first to Cleopas and another disciple. When they return to
Jerusalem they hear that JC has also appeared to Simon. Then JC appeared to the
group. Jon 21:14 JC appears for the third time ONLY, so John's account doesn't merely omit the
appearances in the other gospels, it contradicts them.
Did disciples receive power? Luk 24:49-51 Disciples should wait in Jerusalem until endued with power from on high:
then JC left earth Jon 20:21-23 Disciples receive the holy ghost and power from JC before leaving earth
JC's INSTRUCTIONS Mat 28:19,20 With no apparent reaction to the doubters, JC told the disciples to teach all
nations JC's orders and to baptize them (faith apparently unimportant)_ and that he
would be with them until the end of the world. Mrk 16:15-8 Preach the gospel to every creature. Their fate depends on their belief in JC.
The believers will cast out devils in JC's name, speak in new languages, hold
serpents, if they drink anything deadly it won't hurt them, and they'll heal the
sick by laying hands on them. Luk 23:47 Teach all nations repentance and remission of sins.
> > The gospels blame the Jews for JC's crucifixion, but he received a Roman
> > punishment for
> > breaking Roman law, so that whole Christ-killer label your book puts on
> > the Jews is a big lie.
Pinn
> Not true. The Lord was killed by the Romans and the Jews. It
> was the Jews who brought Jesus to the Roman authorities in the first
> place. It was the Jews who demanded that he should be crucified. It
> was the Jews who protested because he claimed to be the Son of God
> (blasphemy).
>
> What was the Roman law which Jesus broke? The only one I can
> think of is that THE JEWS said that he was trying to make himself
> higher than Ceaser.
Jesus claimed to be king of the Jews: Matt 27:11, Mark 15:2, Luke 23:3, John 18:37 The phrase "so you say" was elsewhere translated "you've spoken correctly"
That was tantamount to rebellion under Roman law, a capital crime. Crucifixion was a Roman punishment for such crimes. Supposedly Jesus had "King of the Jews" written on his cross.
The Jewish laws cited in the Bible are just about all wrong: The Sandhedrin COULD impose a death sentence, for example. Jesus was very close to the Pharisees in doctrine. He may have been one. The Bible paints the Sadducees and Pharisees as the same. The Sadducees were priests with an interest in the status quo. The Pharisees were much closer to the common people.
If Jesus were the messiah prophecied in the Old Testament, he would have to lead a war of liberation. That was the messiah's job. Since he didn't, any Jew would see him as a failure.
Was Jesus a Militant Jewish Nationalist? A. Yes
1. He was supposed to be king of the Jews The only point in Jewish tradition of emphasizing Jesus as · a descendant of David · born in Jerusalem · meeting various other Old Testament criteria is to show that he could be the messiah, the liberating King of Judah. Military success is an essential messianic feature. Matt 2:1 The Magi asked where the infant king of the Jews was. Matt 2:6 A leader will come out of Bethlehem. This refers to Mica 5:2-4, where he says this
leader will effect the whole country (NJB). In Jewish tradition, one cannot easily separate the religious and the political.
2. His royal claim troubled the authorities. Romans didn’t allow competing kings in their territories. They killed them. This is historical fact and it has some support in the Bible. Matt 2:13 "… for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him." Matt 10:4 Two of JC’s disciples were Simon the Zealot (NJB) and Judas Iscariot. Iscariot might come from Sicarii: the assassin. So we have one standard zealot and one specialist zealot.
3. He acted on his claim. Matt 10:34-5 "Think not that I (have) come to send peace on earth. I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I (have) come to set a man at variance against his father…" Matt 21:12 Jesus drove the vendors from the market section of the temple. How? Did he have an armed band with him? In John, he used a whip. Right after that in the synoptic gospels, the priests are afraid to arrest Jesus "because of the crowd." So, was Jesus leading a large rebellion? Matt 21:43 The kingdom of god will be taken from the priests. This means that they had it. Can’t we conclude that Jesus was talking about the temple when he said "kingdom of god" and "heaven"? Matt 23:21-2 strengthens this theory: god lives in the temple. It is heaven. Matt 26:51 When they arrest JC, one of his followers cuts off the ear of the priest’s servant. John 18:36 … if my kingdom were of this world, my men would have fought to prevent my capture… Apparently they did fight a little, so his kingdom was of this world. Mark 15:7 Barrabas had committed murder in an insurrection. These were times of high tension between Jews and their Roman oppressors. Luke 12:56 Hypocrites! You can read the sky and the earth. Why can’t you read these times?" Vague, yes, but it points the fact that there was a lot happening, not just one prophet spreading the news. In 70 CE, many Jews would risk their lives to overthrow the Romans. It is probably the ensuing destruction of the Temple that Jesus is supposed to be talking about when he gives his cataclysmic predictions (and, in another letter, I point out that this is what Revelations is referring to, too.) This tense setting puts the lie to the claims in the Bible that the Jews loved their Roman overlords. Luke 2:38 speaks of the deliverance of Jerusalem: in other words, the liberation of the Jews. Luke 22:36 "… he that (has) no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one…" (We now return to "THE NAKED AND THE MILITANT".) In Luke 23:2, if you take the 3 complaints against Jesus and put them in the mouths of Romans instead of Jews, they make perfect sense. The devout Jews 1) didn’t want to pay the Romans any tribute; 2) they wanted a messiah to come and lead them; and 3) this would require stirring people to revolt. Likewise in John 18:31 the Jews say they can’t put anyone to death. They and Pilate knew that wasn’t true. The Romans let the Jews kill blasphemers, etc. In John 19:12, the Jews go so far as to instruct Pilate on how to be a good servant of Caesar’s. That’s like "Gone With the Wind": a white woman writing how much them colored folks loved slavery. And in John 19:15 We have no king but caesar.
In The Death of Jesus, by Joel Carmichael, he points out the contradictory themes and suggests, logically, that: thosethings that contradict what the church eventually wanted people to believe are true. So, for example, since the church didn't want people to think Jesus was a militant, then things which point to his militancy are probably true. The devout church leaders had a tendency to burn literature that made them appear to be wrong. Fortunately, they didn't understand how wrong the Bible made them look.
> > Romans 1:3 says Jesus was of the seed of David according to the flesh.
> > So no virgin birth, right? (Matthew misunderstood most of the verses he quoted and
>
> wrong.
> screwed
> > up Isaiah 7:14 good!
PPPPPPP
> Jesus was born into the line of David. This was because his
> mother was Mary, and his mother's husband was Joseph (who was an
> ancestor of
> David). Joseph was not Jesus's biological father, but Jesus
> was still
> born into Joseph's family line (as Mary was Jesus's mother).
Then you disagree with Romans 1:3 that JC was the seed of David ACCORDING TO THE FLESH. That means Mary and SOMEBODY did the wild thing and semen passed from his inserted penis to her ovaries, etc. As I said, not a virgin birth. Of course, stuff in Matthew contradicts this (which gets back to my original point.)
> > Of course, most Christians - the New Jerusalem Bible is a exception -
> > have followed him and
> > perpetuated the error: Isaiah said "a young woman shall give birth and
> > call him Immanuel".
> > Jesus wasn't CALLED Immanuel, even if that's a supposed meaning of his
> > life ("god is with us").
PPPPPPPPPPPP >
> Ahhh..but Isaiah also says ....
> "and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The
> mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
> " Isaiah 9 v 6
> But Mary did not call her Son any of these things either!
> Does this
> not suggest that the names given in Isaiah are not earthly
> names
> attatched to Jesus, but they are names which speak of what
> the Messiah
> will be like - what his glory will be like.
Your statement suggests leaps of faith that are not supported by anything in the Bible. No matter what else Isaiah said, he said they'd call him Immanuel in 7:14. It's not apparent that he's talking about the same thing in 9:6. In 7:14, he's talking about a woman of his own time and trying to comfort the king that his adversaries' lands will be deserted before Immanuel reaches... 7? 13? years of age.
> > Romans 1:8 No faith is spoken throughout the world or ever was.
PPPPPPPPPPPP>
> And how do you know this? At the time of the writing of
> Romans, Christianity was growing very rapidly. It was
> catching on all around the world.
ALL AROUND THE WORLD? Few people outside the Roman Empire had heard of him. I assure you that nobody in India, South America, or China had heard of Jesus when Romans was written. Many still have not heard of JC. Romans 1:8 shows that the author knew little about the extent of the world.
> > Romans 1:16 power to everyone who believes... Revelations and various
> > other places say that people will be judged by what they DO.
> PPPPPPPP
> I don't understand what you are trying to say here. What
> Paul is saying is that the message of the Gospel is a
> powerful message - a powerful message of God which
> gives salvation to everyone that believes.
>
> It has'nt got anything to do with Judgement.
Yes it does. You are saying that everyone who believes will have salvation. Revelations says people who do good will have salvation. Here are some variations on who gets past the pearly gates: A. Mat 5:3 The poor in spirit. B. Mat 5:10-12 Those persecuted for righteousness’ sake or for Jesus’ sake. C. Mat 5:19 Whoever follows and teaches the Mosaic law to the letter. D. Mat 6:1 Revise the above: those who give alms openly won’t be rewarded in heaven. E. Mat 6:14 Those who forgive. (What if someone gives alms openly, but also forgives
sins against herself/himself?) F. Mat 7:21 He who does the will of Yahweh. That's just from 3 chapters in Matthew!
PPPPPPPPPPPPP
> Darby's translation of the word of God (which is the most
> accurate translation of scripture available) renders the
> verse like this:
>
> "for righteousness of God is revealed therein, on the
> principle of faith, to faith: according as
> it is written, But the just shall live by faith."
>
> Revealed on the PRINCIPAL of faith, to faith. In other words,
> people have the ability to have faith, and so God reveals
> his righteousness to those with faith.
That's one faithful interpretation. If Darby's translation is good, then the original author needs some lessons in clarity. And how do you live by faith? Can you eat it? Or is it a moral code? Faith is an attitude, not a code. The passage is illogical.
> > 1:29 God's favorites practiced most of these bad traits in the OT.
PPPPPPPPPPPP
> Of course! Even the old testament people who were walking
> with God were not perfect! Everyone sins. David was a
> prime example of this. He lusted after a married women,
> committed adultary, and then committed murder. It was wrong
> for David to do what he did - and you would expect him to
> be a good example for others to follow, but he was'nt.
> But, God can still use people even though they may sin.
But in 1:30 he continues to equate people who do such things with haters of god. Let's not take things out of context.
PPPPPPPPPPPPPP
> I can't proof to you that my faith works by showing you
> things. I can't suddenly cause fire to come down from
> heaven, or a virus to suddenly come on your computer. I can't
> walk over to someone, touch them, and heal them of some
> disease which they may have. However, I can tell people
> about the gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit, which
> can lead to conviction of their need to get right with God.
I meant: show me a saved soul or demonstrate that ANY soul exists or has ever been saved. If you can't, how can you say Christianity works?
Second, we'll put aside computer viruses for the moment: Mark 16:17-18 "... and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them..."
The challenge is open to anyone who says they believe: drink a nice tall glass of Drano, or hydrochloric acid, etc. According to this verse NOBODY believes.
PPPPPPPPPPPPP
> Since becomming a Christian, I am a different person. Instead
> of doing all of the things which the majority of people do
> in this increasing evil world, you start showing forth more
> love, more care, more concern for other people.
Luke 14:26 "If any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother..."
PPPPPPPPPPPP
> I have recently been through a very bad time in my life,
> where I have been suffering from deep depression (caused
> by university stress), where I once thought about suicide.
> However, by trusting in God, by resting in the promises
> of His word, I was brought through it all. Before I started
> going into depression, I was at a church meeting, and the
> speaker was about to talk about 'holding on to that which
> you believe no matter what', when I heard a voice telling
> me to listen very hard to what he was about to say, as I
> was going to need it. Can all this be a coincidence, or a
> psycological thing? I think not! God does work - he has
> worked in my life, and he can work in your as well.
I'm sorry about your bad times, but God can't work in my life because it doesn't exist. As for "A coincidence or a psychological thing?" I think so!
> > With the acts in the Bible and the scapegoating of the Jews, Christian
> > atrocities such as the Crusades should not surprise us. What good has
come of Christianity?
PPPPPPPPPPPPP
> Ok...The crusades were a bad thing. The first thing you
> have to understand is that not all Christians are genuine
> Christians. Some ( in fact a lot) of people say they are,
> but they are not genuine. They have not truely accepted
> the Lord Jesus Christ as their Saviour. They just go along
> with it, thinking they are, when they are not. Most of those
> taking part in the Crusades were like this. If they were
> truely 'Christian', then I am sure that they would not have.
You didn't answer. What good has come of Christianity?
> > The only "good" I can see is that it apparently makes some people feel
> > good. So what?
PPPPPPPPPPPPPP
> Being a Christian does not make me feel good.
Then quit.
PPPPPPPPPPPPPP
One thing I
> have learned from my recent depression is that being a
> Christian is not about feelings. True, you do get feelings
> from time to time which are induced by the Holy Spirit, but
> most of what being a Christian is about is resting in the
> promises of God's word, and living out your life accordingly.
> Once you do this, you can then seek to not only tell others
> about your beliefs, but also seek to love others, care for
> others, and not hate everyone. If everyone in this world
> was a true born again Christian, then there would be much
> less fighting, bitterness, and anger in the world.
Not in my experience. People seem to be good and bad regardless of their religious views.
> > Lots of fairy tales make people feel good.
> >PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
> > > It's not a physical blindess, but a spiritual one. I'm not making
> > > anything up. do you think that Christians are people who would make
> > > something up, and then go round persuading others to believe what
> > > they have made up? it simply dose not work like that.
> > Yes, I think the Christians made a lot up. They *persuaded* others to
> > believe by brutal
> > force in many cases (Germany, Caribbean, Latin America). Countless
> > thousands were slaughtered for not believing.
> PPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
> Again, I would say that these are not true Christians. I can
> understand what it must be like for many people, when they
> see Christians engaging in war, and harming others. It must
> put people off totatlly. But this is not what true
> Christianity is about. Believe me.
I'm sorry, I'm not an automatic believer. I have to judge what Christianity is by the Bible. The Bible supports all the atrocities I've mentioned, so I conclude that that IS Christianity.
> The Christians also burned the books of
> > those who disagreed,
> > even slightly, in some cases.
> > It simply has worked like that.
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
> see above.
You dismiss all these atrocities by saying they weren't committed by true Christians. Yet you wallow in their results. The Bible you cherish is the result of brutal battles over theology. The Bible is the result of the attempted destruction of any literature that would compete with it. Europe had 1,000 years of scientific coma due to the success of the Church in establishing the Bible. You stand up proudly and say, "NO! We haven't learned anything in 2000 years! I defy you to teach me anything, because it's all already here in the Bible! I won't personally butcher people who don't believe this stuff, but I'll stand by the results of those who did."
PPPPPPPPPPPPP
> > > The trouble with a lot of atheists is that they seek prove all the
> > > time. The only way they want to believe something is by prove. If you
> > > can't prove something, then you can't believe it. Being a Christian
> > > is about walking by FAITH, and not by SIGHT.
> >
> > And what is wrong with wanting proof? If you don't need proof, you can
> > believe anything.
>
> That's right. And for a lot of things in life, you do need
> a certain amount of proof before believing something.
"For a lot of things..." Yes, so how about for something important, like your philosophy of life? Shouldn't people require some proof of the facts they base their world philosophy on?
Ralph, from previous post>>
> > My toenail clippings created the universe retroactively. Why you are so
> > narrow-minded as to not comprehend this, I don't know. I suppose you're
> > hung up on silly things like the fact
> > that there's no evidence for it. You're just like on of those foolish
> > atheists that wants proof. What's good about having faith?
> PPPPPPPPPPPPPP
> It is only good if by having faith, you then discover
> that you are believing in something which is write, then
> you recieve great blessing.
Yes, only by having faith in The Toenail Clippings (there are many, so they beat your holy trinity... feet down) can you understand what's right. Living and experiencing stuff mean nothing. You have to bury your head in the glorious sand of faith, to numb your mind on the ice block of obedience, in order to fully understand right and wrong.
But faith only works if what you believe in is right. And how do we determine what's right? 1) By faith, so you have a circular argument. 2) By practice, which is what I've been saying all along. This demonstrates the uselessness of ordained morals.
--
Ralph MacFadden iloveu@maui.net http://maui.net/~iloveu