Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

But Really, Why Was Jesus Crucified?


Ben Masada

Recommended Posts

Dont know about the former, but when you look at the requirements on people during the census period and the power of the censors and censorial laws, eg to require all people to be married and produce children, then it would make sense, especially in the provinces, for people to return to their home places in order to verify the cenus requirements. It was not just a matter of having your name etc checked off. And with apologies the following is only a part of it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_censor

And... what does this prove exactly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And... what does this prove exactly?

Originally all roman citizens ahd to report to a central place in rome to have their details verified, Like you, I couldnt find the exact laws in the provinces, but it is likely that all citizens or subjects had to report to their place of birth for the census. That would enable the censors to check and validate the information claimed by each person. It would bring families together which was also a part of the census taking.I think it probable that roman subjects and citizens in the provinces were asked to report to central places and /or, to their place of birth, for each census. For most romans tha t would be rome. In the provinces it would be more scattered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally all roman citizens ahd to report to a central place in rome to have their details verified, Like you, I couldnt find the exact laws in the provinces, but it is likely that all citizens or subjects had to report to their place of birth for the census. That would enable the censors to check and validate the information claimed by each person. It would bring families together which was also a part of the census taking.I think it probable that roman subjects and citizens in the provinces were asked to report to central places and /or, to their place of birth, for each census. For most romans tha t would be rome. In the provinces it would be more scattered.

If you look at other Roman censuses... they essentially just told everyone to stay put.

The census was about numbers, not families.

Edited by Arbitran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you look at other Roman censuses... they essentially just told everyone to stay put.

The census was about numbers, not families.

didnt you read the info. Censors had to enforce the duty of romanss ot be maried and have children, as one examle of their duties. Hard to do that unless you get families together to check. Only military personnel were exempted as far as i can ascertain, because their details were already recorded.

This can be translated roughly as: "The Censors are to determine the generations, origins, families, and properties of the people; they are to (watch over/protect) the city's temples, roads, waters, treasury, and taxes; they are to divide the people into three parts; next, they are to (allow/approve) the properties, generations, and ranks [of the people]; they are to describe the offspring of knights and footsoldiers; they are to forbid being unmarried; they are to guide the behavior of the people; they are not to overlook abuse in the Senate."

These were the other duties of a roman censor and indeed included investigating and punushing things like failure to produce familys and heirs.

But the offences which are recorded to have been punished by the censors are of a threefold nature.

1.Such as occurred in the private life of individuals, e.g.

a.Living in celibacy at a time when a person ought to be married to provide the state with citizens.[66] The obligation of marrying was frequently impressed upon the citizens by the censors, and the refusal to fulfil it was punished with a fine (aes uxorium).b.The dissolution of matrimony or betrothment in an improper way, or for insufficient reasons.[67]

c.Improper conduct towards one's wife or children, as well as harshness or too great indulgence towards children, and disobedience of the latter towards their parents.[68]

d.Inordinate and luxurious mode of living, or an extravagant expenditure of money. A great many instances of this kind are recorded.[69] At a later time the leges sumptuariae were made to check the growing love of luxuries.

e.Neglect and carelessness in cultivating one's fields.[70]

f.Cruelty towards slaves or clients.[71]

g.The carrying on of a disreputable trade or occupation,[72] such as acting in theatres.[73]

h.Legacy-hunting, defrauding orphans, &c.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_censor

Edited by Mr Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

didnt you read the info. Censors had to enforce the duty of romanss ot be maried and have children, as one examle of their duties. Hard to do that unless you get families together to check. Only military personnel were exempted as far as i can ascertain, because their details were already recorded.

These were the other duties of a roman censor and indeed included investigating and punushing things like failure to produce familys and heirs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_censor

Yes, I read the page. But you are interpreting the information to support your ideas. The Censor of Rome held censuses in the Campus Martius: this is where families were called together. Are you suggesting that all of Israel was called into a 2 kilometer-wide space in Rome? Censuses conducted outside of Rome were explicitly enacted by commanding all people to stay where they were in preparation for the census. The families of Rome were important to record; they couldn't care less about which people belonged to which Israelite family. They just needed to know how many people they were dealing with--the families and tribes that the Israelites belonged to couldn't have been less important to the purpose of the Roman census.

Did you read the page?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I read the page. But you are interpreting the information to support your ideas. The Censor of Rome held censuses in the Campus Martius: this is where families were called together. Are you suggesting that all of Israel was called into a 2 kilometer-wide space in Rome? Censuses conducted outside of Rome were explicitly enacted by commanding all people to stay where they were in preparation for the census. The families of Rome were important to record; they couldn't care less about which people belonged to which Israelite family. They just needed to know how many people they were dealing with--the families and tribes that the Israelites belonged to couldn't have been less important to the purpose of the Roman census.

Did you read the page?

Imperial rome kept an acount of all its subjects for purposes of taxation military service etc. Of course they were concerned to get an accurate picture of their subject peoples as well as their citizens. I agree we may not KNOW how rome conducted censuses in the provinces. I could not determine this from a quick google, and i cant remember reading about it in my roman history classes many moons ago, either. But it would make logistical sense to have people where their credentials and statistics could most easily be checked and verified by cross referencing. This was done in rome with the roman citizens, so why NOT with roman subjects.

The nature of the roman census in many provinces was such as to provoke both short and long term uprisings. There are a number of possible reasons for this, but it seems unlikely that simply having to stay in one spot and have your name taken, would provoke such resistance.

I just dont think you should be so quick to dismiss a biblical reference, just because it IS a biblical reference :innocent: A lot of biblical references ARE confirmed by cross checking with records from roman and other civil authorities of the time.

We have no evidence, either, that rome did NOT require its subjects to travel to central locatons, or to their birth place, for these major censuses, which caeasar had newly reintroduced. I doubt the census gathers went into every minor vilage and hamlet to gather the information. People would have been expected to come to them at designated locations.

Ps i have read

in A.D. 104, Vivius Maximus issued an edict that states, "It is essential for all people to return to their homes for the census."

I cant confirm the validity of this, and it is certainly not the census of christ's time, but, if true, it illustrates that, indeed, roman laws did, at times, force people to travel to their home towns for the major census so it is possibly untrue just to state that roman subjects were not required to travel to their home town for census purposes.

Edited by Mr Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imperial rome kept an acount of all its subjects for purposes of taxation military service etc. Of course they were concerned to get an accurate picture of their subject peoples as well as their citizens. I agree we may not KNOW how rome conducted censuses in the provinces. I could not determine this from a quick google, and i cant remember reading about it in my roman history classes many moons ago, either. But it would make logistical sense to have people where their credentials and statistics could most easily be checked and verified by cross referencing. This was done in rome with the roman citizens, so why NOT with roman subjects.

The nature of the roman census in many provinces was such as to provoke both short and long term uprisings. There are a number of possible reasons for this, but it seems unlikely that simply having to stay in one spot and have your name taken, would provoke such resistance.

I just dont think you should be so quick to dismiss a biblical reference, just because it IS a biblical reference :innocent: A lot of biblical references ARE confirmed by cross checking with records from roman and other civil authorities of the time.

We have no evidence, either, that rome did NOT require its subjects to travel to central locatons, or to their birth place, for these major censuses, which caeasar had newly reintroduced. I doubt the census gathers went into every minor vilage and hamlet to gather the information. People would have been expected to come to them at designated locations.

I do not deny it simply because it is referenced in the Bible. I deny it because there is no evidence of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not deny it simply because it is referenced in the Bible. I deny it because there is no evidence of it.

Actually it appears there is. (Or to the skeptical mind, at the very least, may be. :innocent: )

The census of quintilius varus.

http://www.askelm.com/star/star014.htm I dont expect you to accept the source at face value. But the bloke makes a fairly convincing historical case; well argued, referenced, and documented.

Its a long article but interesting. I will just include his concluding statement here.

This means that the “census” of Quirinius which has eluded any positive identification by modern historians is now found in several historical sources and some of them right at the time the “census” occurred according to the chronology of the New Testament and that of secular history. In a word, the “census” of Quirinius associated with the nativity of Jesus has been found.

I think the onus now goes back on those who deny there was a "census" at that time, which required people to travel to it, register, and swear an oath of allegiance, to disprove it. :innocent:

Edited by Mr Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually - there is no record of any such tradition outside of the New Testament.

The New Testament is quite enough proof for me and you are correct, no record other than this but ...

The gospels are quite clear in their recording of Pilates pardoning and releasing of a prisoner at Passover. Although there are no sources outside the NT specifically involving Pilate taking part in this practice I have found sources that record the examples of Roman governors releasing prisoners even at Passover.

Josephus records that when the Roman governor Albinus was preparing to leave office he released prisoners who had been incarcerated for crimes other than murder (Ant 20.9.3)

In the Mishnah (Jewish oral tradition, written around AD 300) records that "they may slaughter the passover lamb for one....whom they have promised to bring out of prison" Now its not exactly clear but this certainly records a prisoner being released specifically for Passover!

A piece of papyrus records a Roman governor of Egypt: "You were worthy of scourging but I gave you to the crowds." (P.Flor 61, c. AD 85).

Author William Lane states ‘There is..... a parallel in Roman law which indicates that an imperial magistrate could pardon and acquit individual prisoners in response to the shouts of the populace’ (The Gospel according to Mark, pg 553)

Now although none of these examples are identical to the one in question they do however show us that it is indeed plausible that Pontius Pilate took part in a custom that stipulated the release of a prisoner at Passover. So for someone to say that the custom recorded in scripture is false requires a couple of things: 1) They have made the unfounded assumption that the Gospels are untrustworthy and unreliable when touching on things of history and culture. 2) They have to argue from silence rather than present positive evidence proving otherwise.

One more problem that must be dealt with is that if such a practice never took place and could be so easily falsified by those who lived in Jerusalem at the time, why would the claims of Jesus' disciples be taken so seriously and spread so quickly in the very place where it could all be so easily proved wrong? As I've stated before, the disciples were not in the job of reporting events that didn't occur or describing people whom didn't exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The New Testament is quite enough proof for me

Whereas, I tend to remain skeptical of any story that involves the casting out of Demon's and the wholesale raising of the Dead.

The gospels are quite clear in their recording of Pilates pardoning and releasing of a prisoner at Passover. Although there are no sources outside the NT specifically involving Pilate taking part in this practice I have found sources that record the examples of Roman governors releasing prisoners even at Passover.

Unless you have evidence that shows a tradition of Roman Governors in Jerusalem at the Passover during the time of Jesus doing so - then there is no record of any such tradition outside of the New Testament.

You might wish to start by working out whether it's a Jewish or Roman tradition that you're trying to provide evidence for.

To get you started, I've included a link to Pesachim 8, so you can see the full context of the sentence that I assume you've copy-pasted from, say, here (along with the rest of your response). You might find that it's actually quite clear, after all.

One more problem that must be dealt with is that if such a practice never took place and could be so easily falsified by those who lived in Jerusalem at the time, why would the claims of Jesus' disciples be taken so seriously and spread so quickly in the very place where it could all be so easily proved wrong? As I've stated before, the disciples were not in the job of reporting events that didn't occur or describing people whom didn't exist.

Just as there is no contemporary evidence that Jesus existed - there is also none for his (variously named) disciples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh there are dozens of places...

According to the Jewish texts of the time and Jesus own embracing of the concept as it pertained to him, he is considered the literal WORD of GOD, the very embodiement of God in human form. Amazingly, that is exactly how the Old Testament portrays the Messiah, which he admits to being, and it is exactly how many of the Jews saw him as well.

One of the oldest and most revered commentaries of the Torah, which is still used today shows us this quite clearly. It is also clearly reflected in many ancient texts that were found in Qumran.

The Word OF God is literally seen to be alive and is a personage distinct from God the Supreme Spirit, whom noone can see.

The Old Testament is intriguing in that it refers to "The Word of God" as a seperate entity. This view is quite clear especially if one looks at the early Targums such as the Targum of Onkelos or the Targum Palestine.

Who else do you know who is called the "Word of God"? The Logos.

Here is a snippet from the The Targum of Palestine and the Targum (Babylonian) Onkelos, a Jewish commentary of Genesis.

Targum Onkelos

And they heard the voice of the Word of the Lord God walking in the garden in the evening of the day; and Adam and his wife hid themselves from before the Lord God among the trees of the garden. And the Lord God called to Adam and said to him, Where art thou? And he said, The voice of Thy Word heard I in the garden, and I was afraid, because I (was) naked, and I would hide.

The Targum of Palestine

Walking in the garden in the strength of the day......And the Word of the Lord God called to Adam, and said to him, Behold, the world which I have created is manifest before Me; and how thinkest thou that the place in the midst whereof thou art, is not revealed before Me? Where is the commandment which I taught thee?

And he said, The voice of Thy Word heard I in the garden, and I was afraid, because I am naked; and the commandment which Thou didst teach me, I have transgressed; therefore I hid myself from shame.

Basically the targums are the oral tradition of the synagogues before even the time of the 2nd temple.

As can be seen above, there is a clear differentiation between the word and of God himself. The word was a living thing. Look up the term: The Memra of God.

This distinction is found a number of times in the Old Testament, thereby demonstrating a plurality that does not lead us to a simple idea of God with different facets. Each of those aspects had individual character and will.

One of these is Ecclesiastes 12:1, "Remember now your creator". The literal translation is "Remember your creators".

Here is what the direct unadulterated translation of Ecclesiastes 12:1, from Hebrew to English says:

"before when not she grows dark the sun and the light and the moon and they approach years when you will say there is not to me in them pleasure in days of youths of you before when not they come days of trouble and vigor meaningless and remember! ONES CREATING YOU."

John R. Kohlenberger III-"The Interlinear NIV Hebrew-English Old Testament"

Now in this literal word for word translation, we see the exclamation mark after remember and then "ONES CREATING YOU". If it was singular or just "one" then the literal translation would be "one creating you". If we have "one" who creates then this person would be a creator. If you have "ones" that create then we would have "creators". The correct meaning of Ecclesiastes 12:1 is "Remember now your creators".

"The very embodiment of a god in human form" was a Greek doctrine as part of the Olympian Pantheon of Greek Mythology. If you read The Iliad by Homer

you will see what I am talking about. The writers of the gospels copied the concept for Christianity as an evidence that they were Hellenistic Gentiles educated according to Hellenistic culture.

Ben

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you certain you are jewish?

Do you know of the concept of levirate marriage?

I know today it is not practiced, but that was not the case in past ages in Israel, before the fall of Jerusalem and in Jesus time.

He was of the tribe of Judah by Mary and by Joseph as adopted son by blood.

Both were descendants of David.

Yes, I do. What seems to me is that you don't. Are you trying to tell me that Mary had been married to a dead brother of Joseph's before she got married to him? Of course not! Therefore, that was not the case. According to Halachah (or Jewish law) a Jew adopted by any other family belonging to another Tribe would never inherit the Tribal genealogy of the adopting father. If Jesus was not a biological son of Joseph's, he was a Jew without Tribe affiliation. According to me, yes, Jesus was of the Tribe of Judah because I do believe that he was a biological son of Joseph's but, according to you he had no Tribe to belong to, because you don't believe that he was a biological son of Joseph's. Paradoxically, a Jew has come to the rescue of Jesus from the Christian hands of misunderstanding.

Ben

Edited by Ben Masada
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The very embodiment of a god in human form" was a Greek doctrine as part of the Olympian Pantheon of Greek Mythology. If you read The Iliad by Homer

you will see what I am talking about. The writers of the gospels copied the concept for Christianity as an evidence that they were Hellenistic Gentiles educated according to Hellenistic culture.

Ben

Hmm that would make the entire Old testament a cheap knock off of the Hellenistic mythos, my friend. It is simple.

A. Either the Jews (as per the actual examples I gave from Genesis) got their mythology from the Hellenist influences at that time as well, or

B. The Old Testament demonstrates that God did indeed appear in human form. Want me to give you a few more examples?

I can quote Genesis a little more, I can quote Exodus, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Jeremiah, Daniel, Psalms and another half dozen more. They all demonstrate the very same thing. God appearing to men, speaking to them and physically touching them. Are they all now liars too?

Make your choice... A or B.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you should read this and get reacquainted with further information...

The complicated and much debated issue regarding how the individual expired on the cross has generated widespread debate over the years. While many researchers have believed that death occurred as the result of a ruptured heart11 due to the story in John 19:34 of the water and blood flowing out of the wound, pathologists such as Zugibe, have ruled this out as medically untenable. Other scholars have regarded asphyxiation as being the cause of death, however the latest research findings have shown the issue to be more complicated, depending upon the manner in which the victim was affixed to the cross. A series of experiments carried out by an American medical examiner and pathologist on college students who volunteered to be tied to crosses, showed that if the students were suspended from crosses with their arms outstretched in the traditional manner depicted in Christian art, they experienced no problems breathing. Thus the often quoted theory that death on the cross is the result of asphyxiation is no longer tenable if the arms are outstretched. According to the physiological response of the students, which was closely monitored by Zugibe, death in this manner is the result of the victim going into hypovolemic shock. Death is this manner can be in, a manner of hours, or days depending on the manner in which the victim is affixed to the cross. If the victim is crucified with a small seat, a sedile, affixed to the uptight for minimum support in the region of the buttocks, death can be prolonged for hours and days. In fact, Josephus reports that three friends of his were being crucified in Thecoa by the Romans who, upon intervention by Josephus to Titus were removed from the crosses and with medical care one survived.

If, however, the victims are tied with their hands extended over their heads and left hanging, death can occur within an hour or, in minutes if the victims legs are nailed so that he cannot use his arms to elevate the body to exhale. For exhaling to occur in a normal manner two sets of muscles are needed, the diaphragm and. the intercostalis muscles between the ribs. With the victims being suspended by their arms directly over their heads, these sets of muscles cannot function properly which results in the victims inability to exhale and results in asphyxiation. Eyewitness accounts by prisoners of war in Dachau during WWII reported that victims suspended from beams by their wrist, which were tied, expired within ten minutes if their feet were weighted or tied down and within one hour if their feet were unweighted and the victim was able to raise and lower himself to permit respiration. Death in this manner, which is one form of crucifixion, was the result of suffocation.

Crucifixion in Antiquity

Details and History of Crucifixion

If Jesus was indeed dead when Jospeh of Arimathea took him off the cross, and laid him in his walk-in tomb, who removed him from there before the three days and three nights had passed? According to Matthew 12:40, only after three days and three nights Jesus would be raised. When the tombstone was rolled away, after no more than a day, the tomb was already empty. What happened? Then, Luke says that when Jesus started appearing to his disciples for 40 days, with convincing proofs that he was alive, it was not after resurrection but after his suffering or passion, which he meant the cross. (Acts 1:3) After one's passion is no proof that one even died, let alone that he resurrected.

Ben

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was tradition to let a prisoner go during the Jewish holiday. Pilot said he could find no fault with this man ( Jesus) but they wanted him Crucified for his claims of being the Messiah. Pilot washed his hands of the matter and freed Barabas and had Jesus Crucified. The messiahs coming was foretold in Ezekial. Jesus knew what was going to happen to him and did this for us.

Who said that Pilate could not find any fault with Jesus, the Hellenistic guy who wrote the gospel? Slander against the Jewish People to enhance the

transfer of the guilt on the death of Jesus from the Romans unto the Jews. If Pilate had not found any fault in Jesus he would not have written his verdict on that plaque he nailed on the top of Jesus' cross. That he had been crucified on political charges of being acclaimed king of the Jews in a Roman province, which was the Land of Israel at that time. That, for Rome, was reason enough to warrant crucifixion.

Ben

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because he tried to change the status quo.

Yes, but that change of the status quo was in terms of a revival of Judaism, according to Matthew 5:17-19, especially verse 19. That had nothing to

do with the Romans. Therefore, it was no reason to warrant crucifixion. Try again.

Ben

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was forced? Who exactly forced him?

Circumstances. God does not force any one to die for another. The opposite is rather true. When Moses asked God to erase his name from the book of

life to save the life of the People, the answer was that, "only the one who has sinned is striked out of the book of life." To be striked out of life

means death. Therefore, one cannot die for another. (Exo. 33:32) Also in Jeremiah 31:30 we have that "one shall die only through his own fault." And not the fault of another. The bottom line is that Jesus was forced to walk the via dolorosa for his own fault somehow.

Ben

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notice please that whether you accept or not that this refers to the Messiah (which is irrelevant to the point I am making) it is quite clearly demonstrating a parallel where a man is taking the place of the sin or guilt offering. I bolded the relevant parts. It also quite clearly mentions resurrection (in blue).

As for the jewish belief in the bodily resurrection, follow the link, point 13 is quite clear I believe.

What Do Jews Believe?

1.G-d exists

2.G-d is one and unique

3.G-d is incorporeal

4.G-d is eternal

5.Prayer is to be directed to G-d alone and to no other

6.The words of the prophets are true

7.Moses' prophecies are true, and Moses was the greatest of the prophets

8.The Written Torah (first 5 books of the Bible) and Oral Torah (teachings now contained in the Talmud and other writings) were given to Moses

9.There will be no other Torah

10.G-d knows the thoughts and deeds of men

11.G-d will reward the good and punish the wicked

12.The Messiah will come

13.The dead will be resurrected

Please, let me explain to you something about resurrection, once and for all, especially what Moses Maimonides means here in his 13th Principle of faith. He does not at all refer to bodily resurrection, which would be an insult to his intelligence. He was the greatest of Theologians, and a Philosopher par excellence.

According to Isaiah 53:8,9, when the Jews are forced into exile, it is as if they have been cut off from the Land of the Living, and graves are assigned to them in the Diaspora among the Gentiles. Then, at the end of the exile, according to Ezekiel 37:12, the Lord opens their graves and have them rise from those graves and brings them back to the Land of Israel. This is a metaphor for resurrection and not literal bodily resurrection. There is no such a thing in Judaism. That's what Maimonides referred to in his 13th principle of faith. I know you deeply believe in resurrection. Now, think. Why would you be brought to the Land of Israel after resurrection if you have never had any connection with the Land of Israel? It doesn't make sence at all, does it? I didn't think so.

Ben

Edited by Ben Masada
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Loyal to wha tpart of which jewish community? Obviously some segments of the the jews did not find him "loyal"; they had him crucified. :devil: Others found him a preacher /teacher and perhaps messiah within the understandings of their own faith and community. Those close to him had a loyalty and love which eventually surpassed even their fear of death although, in the context of the story, it tokk jesus' physical ressurection to give them that faith and courage.

And i do not read that simple statement as you do/ To me it just says that, in the end we are responsible for our own deaths through the way we live our lives (both in this life and in the next.) That does not preclude one man dying to save another nor a man /god dieing to save alll mankind. What that statement does say is that no innocent (or faultless) man should be put to death. It does not say that a "guilty" man cannot be saved from death.

Any man can die "for another" if they chose to. That is perfectly clear. In a fortnight we celebrate anzac day, and hundreds of thousands of men and women who died so that others might live.

Jesus illustrated this point perfectly.

I must assume you do not believe that, theologically, jesus could die as a sacrifice, and thus save humanity from their disconnection with god, which leads to our deaths, (by reuniting in body and spirit each one of us with god?)

I have god within me and god is all around me. I walk with god in the same way and form as the ancient jews. (But also as any man can do from any time) God has always been with us but jesus's sacrifice alow d US to apprecaite this and allowed US to reconnect to god on a physical and spiritual/metaphysical level.

It is possible to find and experience this reconnecton in other ways, (again because god is in us and all about us, always) but christ makes it explicit and simple. Open your heart and mind and let him in. Thats all it takes.

The answer to your question about Jesus' loyalty to Jewish laws is found in Matthew 5:17-19. His mission was to cause a revival in Judaism as he

would try to raise the Jewish conscience to the observance of the laws down to the letter, even to the dot of the letter. He did not distinguish a law from another.

And for your statement that "any man can die for another if he chooses to," it is but verbal juggling that explains nothing. Any man can even kill his own mother, if he chooses to. It says only of our free will.

Jesus did not die as a sacrifice to save humanity because humanity has become worse after Jesus was gone than before he was born. What did he do, if

according to you views he died to save humanity? Salvation from one's sins comes only as we decide to set things right with God through repentance

and obedience to God's Law. Read Isaiah 1:18,19. That's when our sins, from scarlet red become as white as snow.

Ben

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Psa 82:6

I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

Joh 10:34

Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

Joh 10:35

If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Joh 10:36

Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

In the answer of Jesus to the Jews who were annoyed for his saying that he was the son of God, the Hellenist who wrote the gospel of John committed a blunder by betraying himself with the words: "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" A Jew, whom I believe Jesus was one, would never address to other Jews about the Law in such terms: "Your law" but "our law." It means that Jesus was not Jewish. Otherwise, we have here a solid reference to the fact that indeed the guys who wrote the gospels were not Jewish.

Ben

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you know that God wanted to permit the crucifixion on Jesus if there was no answer to Jesus prayers for three times in the Gethsemane not to be crucified? Jesus prayed three times because it was not his will to be crucified. To prove resurrection? How could resurrection be proved if it was against the Scriptures? Jesus was Jewish and Jews do not believe in bodily resurrection. If Jesus needed pain to be perfect, it means that he was not perfect. If he was not perfect, he was a sinner. Is it what you want us to understand?

Jesus' death could not have been for the remission of sins because, according to Exodus 32:33 and Jeremiah 31:34, no one can die for the sins of another. And with regards to eternal life, Jesus could not have offered what he did not have. The attribute of eternal life belongs with God only. The attribute of eternal life was not granted to man. This truth is in Genesis 3:22 when Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden to prevent them from eating of the tree of life and live forever, which they were not supposed to.

Ben

But Adam and Eve did eat the fruit of life. Doesn't that mean that they were immortal like God when they were banished? :w00t::o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I do. What seems to me is that you don't. Are you trying to tell me that Mary had been married to a dead brother of Joseph's before she got married to him? Of course not! Therefore, that was not the case. According to Halachah (or Jewish law) a Jew adopted by any other family belonging to another Tribe would never inherit the Tribal genealogy of the adopting father. If Jesus was not a biological son of Joseph's, he was a Jew without Tribe affiliation. According to me, yes, Jesus was of the Tribe of Judah because I do believe that he was a biological son of Joseph's but, according to you he had no Tribe to belong to, because you don't believe that he was a biological son of Joseph's. Paradoxically, a Jew has come to the rescue of Jesus from the Christian hands of misunderstanding.

Ben

Let me ask you a simple question...

What did a Jewish family do, when all they had were daughters?

What people seem not to realize is that Levirate marriages apply to childless marriages, but they also apply to other circumstances as well, as in the case of son-less marriages.

The Tanakh, makes it clear that the tribal lineage follows the father's line, but the child's Jewish heritage, or place in the Jewish family, is matrilineal. Thus if a family only had daughters, that family would also cease to exist, within the tribal lineage.

According to ancient customs, a son could be adopted, but to make it binding, he would marry a daughter of the family, thereby, becoming a "son in law" as we know the term today. In ancient Israel, and the surrounding nations of which they were part, this was a common custom, which is now forgotten for the most part. In so doing, he would then carry the family heritage, even though he was not a biological son. The only hurdle, would be that he would alraedy have to be part of the same tribe and thus be related already in some way to the family in question.

The Talmud states emphatically that there is no difference between an adopted child and a child who was born into the household, and the genealogical tables in the Bible do not attempt to identify anyone as an "adopted son". Instead they are just called "sons".

Here is a biblical example...

1 Chronicles 4:17-18

17 The sons of Ezrah:

Jether, Mered, Epher and Jalon. One of Mered’s wives gave birth to Miriam, Shammai and Ishbah the father of Eshtemoa. 18 (His wife from the tribe of Judah gave birth to Jered the father of Gedor, Heber the father of Soko, and Jekuthiel the father of Zanoah.) These were the children of Pharaoh’s daughter Bithiah, whom Mered had married.

According to the Talmud, Jehudijah and Bithiah were one and the same person. She was the daughter of Pharaoh who took Moses out of the bulrushes and looked after him. She was a Jewish Proselyte, and the purpose of her trip to the river was to cleanse herself from the idolatry of Pharaoh's house. Jered is considered to be Moses, and it says she "bare" him, even though she only looked after him.

The quotes from the Talmud are as follows:

R. Simon b. Pazzi once introduced an exposition of the Book of Chronicles as follows: 'All thy words are one, and we know how to find their inner meaning'. [it is written], And his wife the Jewess bore Jered the father of Gedor, and Heber the father of Socho, and Jekuthiel the father of Zanoah, and these are the sons of Bithya the daughter of Pharaoh, whom Mered took. Why was she [the daughter of Pharaoh] called a Jewess? Because she repudiated idolatry, as it is written, And the daughter of Pharaoh went down to bathe in the river, and R. Johanan, [commenting on this,] said that she went down to cleanse herself from the idols of her father's house. 'Bore': But she only brought him [Moses] up? - This tells us that if anyone brings up an orphan boy or girl in his house, the Scripture accounts it as if he had begotten him. 'Jered': this is Moses. Why was he called Jered? Because manna came down [yarad] for Israel in his days.

Talmud Mas. Megilah 13a (pg 47, pdf)

And his wife Ha-Jehudiah bore Yered the father of Gedor [and Heber the father of Soco, and Jekuthiel the father of Zanoah] and these are the sons of Bithia the daughter of Pharaoh, whom Mered took. Now, 'Mered' was Caleb; and why was he called Mered? . - Because he opposed the counsel of the other spies. But was he [Moses] indeed born of Bithia and not rather of Jochebed? - But Jochebed bore and Bithia reared him; therefore he was called after her.

Talmud, Sanhedrin 19b

This is merely used as an example to demonstrate clearly that adoption, when it took place, was as binding as birth by blood and recognized universally to be so.

The point is this. Joseph was not the father of Jesus, but he was of the tribe of Judah. Mary was Jesus mother and she too was of the tribe of Judah. Thus Jesus could only be of the tribe of Judah, More than that, he inherited Josephs lineage automatically, whether or not Joseph was or was not his biological son. History shows this to be true of the customs of that time. The Talmud demonstrates it to be true. It is also the reason why Jesus has TWO geneologies in the New Testament.

geneology.gif

Jesus inherited the lineage by blood, on his mothers side, and lo and behold, he inherited his legal standing as a son of David from his fathers side. He satisfies all prerequisites of the Messiah, whether they are dynastic, legal or through the bloodline.

So sorry, but you didn't rescue anyone, but you did learn one or two things from your own heritage in all this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I think I understand. Your use of words is perhaps a little misleading because by saying that Constantine engaged in pious forgery implies that he is the one who committed the forgery (or at the least ordered said forgery to be made). Perhaps you intended to say that the texts he used were evidence of pious forgery, because they were dated so many years after Jesus' actual existence. Would this be accurate? I have two follow-up thoughts to consider:

1- Does 40-50 years after the event mean that a text is a "forgery"?

2- While circa 50 years represents the earliest gospel, it does not represent the earliest New Testament text. Some texts date only 15-20 years after Jesus' death. 1 Thessalonians, for example, is written about 20 years after the event, long before the destruction of the Temple. In chapter 1 of this text, we get several pieces of information, including that Jesus is identified as God's son who was raised from the dead in order to save humanity from the wrath to come. Philippians, likewise, comes from a near-identical date, and in chapter 2 acknowledges that Jesus Christ was "in very nature God", but came as a servant not a King, dying a painful death on the cross, after which God raised him from the dead in order that "every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord".

These all come from possibly less than 20 years after the events (and definitely less than 30), letters written to the various churches that had sprung up in the decade and a half after the Jesus movement began. I think it is a mistake on your part to focus only on the gospels. Even though these are the earliest of the biographies we have of Jesus, they are not the earliest texts we have that attest to Jesus' death and resurrection on a cross.

Just a few thoughts,

~ Regards,

I did not say that Constantine engaged in pious forgery. The Church did it in the 4th Century ACE. And my reference to the writing of the gospels 50+

years after Jesus had been gone was not for the forgeries, which were performed in the 4th Century when Christianity was adopted as the official

religion of the Empire. This is for the gospels. Now, for the letters of Paul, they started appearing about 30 years after Jesus had been gone. About

year 60 to 65 ACE. And he never consulted with any of the Apostles of Jesus, whose gospel he would, pejoratively, refer to as the "other gospel" which

he was ready to curse it even if an angels had brought it down from heaven. (Gal. 1:6-9, 17)

Ben

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Jesus was indeed dead when Jospeh of Arimathea took him off the cross, and laid him in his walk-in tomb, who removed him from there before the three days and three nights had passed? According to Matthew 12:40, only after three days and three nights Jesus would be raised. When the tombstone was rolled away, after no more than a day, the tomb was already empty. What happened? Then, Luke says that when Jesus started appearing to his disciples for 40 days, with convincing proofs that he was alive, it was not after resurrection but after his suffering or passion, which he meant the cross. (Acts 1:3) After one's passion is no proof that one even died, let alone that he resurrected.

Ben

Goodness, I see your confusion...

The tombstone was rolled away on the morning of the 4th day. He speant 3 complete days and nights in the tomb, fullstop.

14th Nisan, Day 0 - sundown Tuesday to sundown Wednesday - Erev Pesach (the day before the Sabbath), Preperation day, The night of the Last Supper. The day Jesus was crucified.

15th Nisan, Day 1 - sundown Wednesday to sundown Thursday - Pesach I (Passover), 1st day of Unleavened Bread.

16th Nisan, Day 2 - sundown Thursday to sundown Friday - Pesach II, 2nd day of Unleavened Bread

17th Nisan, Day 3 - sundown Friday to sundown Saturday - Pesach III, Sixth day Sabbath, 3rd day of Unleavened Bread

18th Nisan, Day 4 - Pesach IV, The day of Firstfruits, Resurrection in the early Morning. In rising from the dead, Jesus became the first-fruits of all those who die and yet will be resurrected to live forever.

People generally don't realize that Easter tradition has nothing to do with the biblical account of the Paschal week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a point I seem to have noted in a few of your posts, you seem to assert that many of these statements are unJewish, and therefore could not have been said or believed by Jews. I was just wondering then why the earliest followers of Jesus (those who professed Jesus' death and resurrection) were actually Jews. Saying that the Jesus story is not Jewish does not account for the many Jews who converted to Christianity, both then in the early days of Christianity, and even today those who call themselves "Messianic Jews", who are Christian converts from the Jewish faith. They would obviously disagree with you, would they not?

~ PA

Jews who convert to another faith or religion cease to be Jewish. To be Jewish is not an identity akin to ethnicity but a way of life. Therefore, there is more than one way to lose it; and one of them is by adopting the tenets of another religion. It means that "Jews-for-Jesus" and "Messianic

Jews" are not Jewish.

Ben

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.