- This topic is empty.
- Posts
This is often cluttered. You attempt to show many contradictions in this account. Please just show me one. Just one. Quote the two scriptures. explain why they are contradictions. Could you please do this. Just one. It shouldn't be a problem, if there are so many.
Quote The reason is that the Torah forbids us from pronouncing the four-letter Name of HaShem in other than ritual contexts, Please show where the Torah “forbids us from pronouncing” the name that God's people pronounced for thousands of years.
If God put his name in there 7000 times, does this not suggest he wants us to use it, even as he commands us to call upon his name?
Yes, I know you'll just attack the pronunciation Jehovah in an attempt to sidestep my question.
Use Yahweh if you like.God's personal name appears in the Hebrew scriptures more than all his titles (Almighty, creator, Lord, God, etc) put together.
This is not insignificant.
Quote (david @ Oct. 31 2007,01:40) This is often cluttered. You attempt to show many contradictions in this account. Please just show me one. Just one. Quote the two scriptures. explain why they are contradictions. Could you please do this. Just one. It shouldn't be a problem, if there are so many.
They were all there but it is futile to discuss this with you because you will not actually address my last post on the resurrection contradictions.Like I said many people live in denial. Don't feel bad the world is full of depressed people who won't admit they are depressed and addicts who won't admit they actually have a problem.
Quote (david @ Oct. 31 2007,01:40) This is often cluttered. You attempt to show many contradictions in this account. Please just show me one. Just one. Quote the two scriptures. explain why they are contradictions. Could you please do this. Just one. It shouldn't be a problem, if there are so many.
They were all there but it is futile to discuss this with you because you will not actually address my last post on the resurrection contradictions.Like I said many people live in denial. Don't feel bad the world is full of depressed people who won't admit they are depressed and addicts who won't admit they actually have a problem.
Quote (david @ Oct. 31 2007,01:45) Quote The reason is that the Torah forbids us from pronouncing the four-letter Name of HaShem in other than ritual contexts, Please show where the Torah “forbids us from pronouncing” the name that God's people pronounced for thousands of years.
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/jewfaq/name.htm
—————————————
Writing the Name of GodJews do not casually write any Name of God. This practice does not come from the commandment not to take the LORD's Name in vain, as many suppose. In Torah thought, that commandment refers solely to oath-taking and vain blessings, and is a prohibition against using God's Name falsely or frivolously (the word normally translated as “in vain” literally means for falsehood).
The Torah does not prohibit writing the Name of God per se; it only prohibits erasing or defacing a Name of God. However, observant Jews avoid writing any Name of God casually because of the risk that the written Name might later be defaced, obliterated, or destroyed accidentally or by one who does not know better.
The commandment not to erase or deface the name of God comes from Deuteronomy 12,3. In that passage, the people are commanded that when they take over the promised land, they should destroy all things related to the idolatrous religions of that region, and should utterly destroy the names of the local deities. Immediately afterwards, we are commanded not to do the same to our God. From this, the rabbis inferred that we are commanded not to destroy any holy thing, and not to erase or deface a Name of God.
It is worth noting that this prohibition against erasing or defacing Names of God applies only to Names that are written in some kind of permanent form, and recent rabbinical decisions have held that writing on a computer is not a permanent form, thus it is not a violation to type God's Name into a computer and then backspace over it or cut and paste it, or copy and delete files with God's Name in them. However, once you print the document out, it becomes a permanent form. That is why many observant Jews avoid writing a Name of God on web sites like this one or in newsgroup messages: because there is a risk that someone else will print it out and deface it.
Normally, Orthodox Jews avoid writing the Name by substituting letters or syllables, for example, writing “G-d” instead of “God”. In addition, the number 15, which would ordinarily be written in Hebrew as Yod-Heh (10-5), is normally written as Tet-Vav (9-6), because Yod-Heh is a Name. See Hebrew Alphabet for more information about using letters as numerals. In English letters, there is no need for these stringencies. On the other hand, especially for those who think that tricky spelling solves their problems, we remind you here of what we say on our introduction page:
Quote If God put his name in there 7000 times, does this not suggest he wants us to use it, even as he commands us to call upon his name?
That is in the Bible not in our own writing. Please differentiate the two.Quote Yes, I know you'll just attack the pronunciation Jehovah in an attempt to sidestep my question.
Use Yahweh if you like.God's personal name appears in the Hebrew scriptures more than all his titles (Almighty, creator, Lord, God, etc) put together.
This is not insignificant.
See above. We are talking about writing. Jews use the names of G-d in speech all the time.Quote (david @ Oct. 31 2007,01:05) Quote Of the Christian translations, the following translate the phrase 'a son of man': NASB, Darby, ERV, WEB, YLT, CEV, ESV, RSV, NIV, and HNV. There may be more but that is all I can find on the web. There is no definite article in the Hebrew and there certainly are no capital letters! Therefore the verse should read like this
Dan 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.
Yes, I agree.
Quote This person in the vision was just a representation, not an actual person. As stated earlier the interpretation of the vision is given in the rest of Daniel 7 and it is quite clear that the one 'like a son of man' is a representation of the 'saints of the Most High'.
Apparently it's not “quite clear” to many many people. [/quote]
Yes it is because they take the Christian idea of wanting to see this as Jesus.Quote One thing you might consider is that if you truly believe that the person in Daniel's vision was the Messiah (you would say Jesus) then you also have to believe that G-d truly has white hair and wears white clothing. Furthermore you must then believe that these four kings will be some manner of beasts, the last one with ten horns. You cannot be literal in one verse and turn that off in the rest of the verses.
What do the “Rulership and dignity and kingdom” represent? Not all things represent other things.
In your opinion, whywould the holy ones be called a son of man? What does this signify?
Because they were to be differentiated from earthly rulers. They were not secular kings and their people but people who like so many of G-d's chosen humble men (and women) were chosen because of their dedication to G-d and not conquest. “Son of man' is just another term for 'human', 'son of Adam'.Quote (Towshab @ Oct. 31 2007,06:13) Quote (david @ Oct. 31 2007,01:40) This is often cluttered. You attempt to show many contradictions in this account. Please just show me one. Just one. Quote the two scriptures. explain why they are contradictions. Could you please do this. Just one. It shouldn't be a problem, if there are so many.
They were all there but it is futile to discuss this with you because you will not actually address my last post on the resurrection contradictions.Like I said many people live in denial. Don't feel bad the world is full of depressed people who won't admit they are depressed and addicts who won't admit they actually have a problem.
Sorry david I see you HAVE responded. I just saw this last post and made the false assumption that you were not addressing my last post on contradictions in the resurrection accounts.Again, my apologies.
Quote (david @ Oct. 31 2007,01:30) Quote This is where Matthew’s account comes into play. According to that account the women including Mary M. saw an angel on the outside of the tomb sitting on the rolled away stone. This angel told that that Jesus had risen and that he was going to meet the disciples. If that is true how can Mary M. say that Jesus was taken away and that she did not know where they had taken him. Who is ‘they’? John 20:1-13
–Mary M–tomb early
–Notices stone gone
–ran to Peter and John
–Said: “they’ve taken Jesus”
–Peter and John run to tomb
–they entered tomb
–went home
–Mary stayed, weeping
-she saw 2 angels
[[This account doesn’t mention Mary going to tell the disciples about the angels or about Peter running back a second time to check the tomb]]
You've missed some vital points in this. According to Matthew the angel rolled the stone away and sat on it. Mary M. was with the other Mary in Matthew when this happened. So how could she see and hear the angel in Matthew but totally miss this in John?Contradiction 1.
Then you say she told them Jesus was gone. If you say she only saw the open tomb how could she know? Would it not seem that to know this she would have to look in the tomb? And if she had looked in the tomb would she not also see the angel and hear him like the account in Matthew?
Quote Then, continuing on, Matthew mentions some things that John doesn't.
Mat 28:1-10
…..–Jehovah’s angel had rolled stone away and was sitting on it.
–clothing white as snow.
[[This account doesn’t include Peter and the faster runner going to see the tomb the first time.]]
But Mary M. was there when the angel rolled the stone back according to Matthew. At least she saw the angel who did the rolling in Matthew. Did he roll the stone back again in Matthew after it was already rolled away in John?Quote Quote This angel told that that Jesus had risen and that he was going to meet the disciples. If that is true how can Mary M. say [[In John's account]] that Jesus was taken away and that she did not know where they had taken him. Who is ‘they’? At first, the first time there, Mary obviously didn't know where Jesus was or who [the “they”] took him. In her mind at first, obviously someone took him. This is the “they.”
But then she goes and tells Peter and probably John this and they come and see.
Then, the angels. Matthew leaves out the going to tell Peter the first time.
But this contradicts the Matthew account. Mary M. encountered the angel as soon as she came to the tomb. The angel told her that Jesus had risen and that he was going to meet the disciples.How do you hold that Mary knew Jesus was gone when (1) she saw and heard from the angel in Matthew (2) she would not have know Jesus was gone unless she actually looked in the tomb and to do that she would have had to stoop like Peter in Luke and the beloved disciple in John. If she got close enough to look she would have seen the angel who rolled the stone away just like she did in Matthew's account.
Quote Let's look at what you asked again. Notice that it is out of order:
This angel told that that Jesus had risen and that he was going to meet the disciples.
If that is true how can Mary M. say [[In John's account]] that Jesus was taken away and that she did not know where they had taken him.First, Mary said that Jesus was taken away [[in john's account]] and that she did not know where they had taken him. Later on in time, after going back and seeing the angels, she knew what had happened.
Wrong. In Matthew she comes to the tomb. Matthew says the angel rolls the tomb away, there is an earthquake, and Mary M. sees and hears from this angel.Angel rolls stone –> Angel sits on top of it –> Mary M. sees and hears from angel. This is totally absent in John but cant' be because the order of events listed in Matthew.
Quote So, straightening out what you said: “Jesus was taken away and she did not know where they had taken him.”
THEN, AFTER GOING TO TELL PETER AND COMING BACK, THE
“angel told that that Jesus had risen and that he was going to meet the disciples.”
Not according to Matthew. Matthew saysMat 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
Mat 28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
Mat 28:3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
Mat 28:4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
Mat 28:5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
Mat 28:6 He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
Mat 28:7 And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.
Mat 28:8 And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.All of these events happen in sequence. There is no time for Mary to run to the disciples because the stone is rolled away. So Mary sees the angel and hears what has happened to Jesus. In John none of this happens.
Quote Notice that when I just said that, I left the other guy out. I only mentioned Peter, even though there was a second guy. Did I just commit a contradiction or did I just leave out a detail?
That is not an issue. The sequence of events with Mary M. presents the contradictions.Quote “Jesus was taken away and she did not know where they had taken him.”
THEN, AFTER GOING TO TELL PETER AND COMING BACK, THE
“angel told that that Jesus had risen and that he was going to meet the disciples.”
Again this is not possible according to th
e Matthew account. This is merely a way for you to reconcile the stories but it cannot be supported because the order of events in Matthew will not allow it.Quote You had taken two things from different accounts and tried to put one in front of the other. The accounts do not contain all the same information. But they also don't contradict, unless you purposely try to jumble the information in the wrong order.
There is not wrong order. Mary M. goes to the tomb, stone is rolled away, Mary M. sees and listens to angel. Had Matthew not included the rolling of the stone away with the arrival of Mary M. there would be more wiggle room but Mathew has this in sequence.Quote Quote At this point I know you will try to say that Mary M. left before the other women but again you have to then make up for the fact that she told Peter that Jesus was gone when she could not have known this without looking in the tomb. And if she had looked in the tomb she would have seen the angel sitting on the stone. Right, except you're wrong about the tomb. Who said she didn't stoop over and look in the tomb? And why do you assume the angels were sitting there the whole time. The account certainly doesn't say this.
Please reread Matthew and the sequence of events.Quote Quote At this point I know you will try to say that Mary M. left before the other women but again you have to then make up for the fact that she told Peter that Jesus was gone when she could not have known this without looking in the tomb. And if she had looked in the tomb she would have seen the angel sitting on the stone. The same angel that told the women in Matthew what had happened. Had she come back and simply stated that the tomb was open, come look, all would be fine but she didn’t. She specifically said that Jesus was not there and she did not know where he had been taken. Not risen but taken. This is the contradiction. It fits all of your English definitions of the word.
By contradiction, I assume you mean this sentence: “She specifically said that Jesus was not there and she did not know where he had been taken.
Here is what I would like you to do. Find the two scriptures that contradict. Please actually quote them.
Yes, Jesus was not there the first time she was there, and of course she dind't know where he was. When back, the angel told her what had happened. So, then she did know.
But you still cannot match this up with the Matthew account. Did the angel roll the stone back in place after Mary came the first time and then in Matthew roll it back again?For Charity,
You asked about this verse some time back (I can't find the post)
Zec 8:23 Thus saith the LORD of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you.
I think after reading through the threads I started you can answer this for yourself
Laurel,
Since the other thread is supposed to be about the multitude of flaws in Matthew I wanted to move this over here. You seem to be caught between two religions. You sound like a Messianic Jew or at least someone who follows that line of theology. Here is my question to you: can you show good solid evidence that Jesus was the promised end time Messiah (not just an 'anointed' person although he was never properly anointed) using the Tanakh. Others have tried to list some prophecies but it appears they copied some list they found without even looking at the context of what was referenced. If that is the best one has then you are on very shaky theological ground.
So can you list passages from the Tanakh that show that Jesus is who people say he is? You at least appear to have a working knowledge of the Jewish scriptures.
Thanks.
Quote They were all there but it is futile to discuss this with you because you will not actually address my last post on the resurrection contradictions. –Towshab.
I asked for one actual simple contradiction. Not one that required several paragraphs in which by the end, I don't actually know where the contradiction is. You would think if there were so many, it would be easy to provide just one. For some reason, it's easier to provide many many little non-contradictions and try to make them appear as contradictions.
Fine, I will go through what you said, at each place, asking where the contradiction is.
OK David let’s take this a little bit at a time so that I can indeed show where there is a contradiction that fits definitions.
1)In Matthew there was an earthquake, guards, the stone was rolled away, and an angel told Mary M. and another Mary that Jesus had risen. This happened as they came to the tomb.
2)In Mark, pretty much the same except no earthquake, no guards, an the women went in and saw two angels.
3)In Luke no names are given but it is pretty much like Mark.
4)In John, Mary M. is the only one to go to the tomb. She runs back to tell Peter.That is the basis. Now placing aside the little things, note what Mary M. says in John 20:2
This is the “basis” you say. Fine. But no contradictions here, for if there had been, we could have stopped there. What we do see is both Matthew and John extra information.
Joh 20:2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.
——————–
We will base the next line of discussion on this very verse. If Mary did not enter the tomb, how would she know Jesus was not in the tomb? According to John 20:1 she came to the tomb and saw the tomb open. But that does not have to mean that Jesus was not inside.What do you know about these tombs, Towshab? While serving as a remembrance of the deceased person, the Jewish memorial tombs in general do not appear to have been ornate or ostentatious. Some were so unpretentious and inconspicuous that men might walk upon them without being aware of it. (Lu 11:44) I believe you are wrongly assuming it is some large cave. The tomb used for Jesus’ burial was a new one belonging to Joseph of Arimathea; it was not a cave but had been quarried in a rock-mass situated in a garden not far from the place of Jesus’ impalement. The tomb had an entrance requiring a big stone to close it, and this stone apparently was of the circular type sometimes used. (Mt 27:57-60; Mr 16:3, 4; Joh 19:41, 42) It may have had, within it, benchlike shelves cut into the walls or burial niches cut vertically into the wall on which bodies could be placed.—Compare Mr 16:5.
Anyway, if you look into a closet without going into the closet, can you tell if it is empty or not. If you “stooped” forward as she did, could you tell that the closet is missing someone?According to John 20:1 she came to the tomb and saw the tomb open. But that does not have to mean that Jesus was not inside.
Right, if these tombs happened to be such that they were huge or that they had hallways in them or something like that, then right, it wouldn't Mary seeing that the tomb were open wouldn't necessitate that she somehow knew Jesus was gone.
But still, no contradiction yet. I will keep reading.This is where Matthew’s account comes into play. According to that account the women including Mary M. saw an angel on the outside of the tomb sitting on the rolled away stone.
Lets get more specific now. When did they see the angel on the stone?
–Mary M–tomb early
–Notices stone gone
–ran to Peter and John
–Said: “they’ve taken Jesus”
–Peter and John run to tomb
–they entered tomb
–went home
–Mary stayed, weeping
-she saw 2 angels
[[This account doesn’t mention Mary going to tell the disciples about the angels or about Peter running back a second time after hearing this]]This angel told that that Jesus had risen and that he was going to meet the disciples. If that is true how can Mary M. say that Jesus was taken away and that she did not know where they had taken him. Who is ‘they’?
You are looking at TWO DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS AND TRYING TO CONNECT THEM WRONGLY. That's how!
First, this account does not conflict with itself. You are attempting to make it conflict with Matthew. Let's look at the two AND LINE THEM UP PROPERLY.Mathew records what he believes is relevent. He doesn't include Peter and other runner (I believe john) going to see the tomb the first time.
Mat 28:1-10
–Mary M went to grave
–Jehovah’s angel had rolled stone away and was sitting on it.
–clothing white as snow.John's account does include Peter and other runner (John) running there the first time because this is relevant to John.
John 20:1-13
–Mary M–tomb early
–Notices stone gone
–ran to Peter and John
–Said: “they’ve taken Jesus”
–Peter and John run to tomb
–they entered tomb
–went home
–Mary stayed, weeping
-she saw 2 angels
[[This account doesn’t mention Mary going to tell the disciples about the angels or about Peter running back a second time after hearing this.]]SO, IF WE DON'T ATTEMPT TO CONNECT THESE WRONGLY, THE STORY WE'RE TOLD IS THIS:
Mat 28:1-10
–Mary M went to grave
–Jehovah’s angel had rolled stone away and was sitting on it.Some things happened in between these two events that are not mentioned by Matthew.
The things not mentioned are these:
–Notices stone gone
–ran to Peter and John
–Said: “they’ve taken Jesus”
–Peter and John run to tomb
–they entered tomb
–went home
–Mary stayed, weepingThen, the angels.
Again, you had asked:
This angel told that that Jesus had risen and that he was going to meet the disciples. If that is true how can Mary M. say that Jesus was taken away and that she did not know where they had taken him.
The answer is that she said he was taken away. Then, after going to tell Peter and coming back, the angels told her what happened. Again, I say, NO CONTRADICTION. Just you wanting there to be one.
Since you have this very simply thing wrong–jumbling up the order of what happened and trying to connect the accounts wrongly, everything that comes after is based on a false assumption. So we will end it there.
I ask again, please just give me one contradiction.
david
Quote They were all there but it is futile to discuss this with you because you will not actually address my last post on the resurrection contradictions. –towshab.
Check page 20.
David bought a RED car.
David bought a MAROON car.
David bought a ORANGE car.
The fact…..David bought a car. Does it matter what color the car is, will that effect the car to get David from point A to point B?
The tomb was found EMPTY! I don't really care who found it first, who rolled the stone away, OR what color it WAS. The fact remains that it was EMPTY.
To think that the apostles removed Jesus' body then died for their LIE is ridiculous, period.
What purpose would it serve the priests or Romans to remove Jesus' body.
Then who removed Jesus' body? JESUS! Is their anyone left?
Quote It is worth noting that this prohibition against erasing or defacing Names of God applies only to Names that are written in some kind of permanent form, and recent rabbinical decisions have held that writing on a computer is not a permanent form, thus it is not a violation to type God's Name into a computer and then backspace over it or cut and paste it, or copy and delete files with God's Name in them. However, once you print the document out, it becomes a permanent form. That is why many observant Jews avoid writing a Name of God on web sites like this one or in newsgroup messages: because there is a risk that someone else will print it out and deface it. This reasoning astounds me. If anyone was intent on defacing God's name, they could write it themselves and deface it. You could make the same argument that we should not carry the Bible around because someone could take it from us and beat us to death. Yes, that is a possibility. But….
Why was God's name recorded in Hebrew several thousand times by the Bible writers?
Quote YOU must destroy their names from that place. YOU must not do that way to Jehovah YOUR God, Yes, obviously, the Israelites were not to “destroy” God's name.
But it says nothing here of never putting it down in writing for the possibility that someone else might.
Quote Normally, Orthodox Jews avoid writing the Name by substituting letters or syllables, for example, writing “G-d” instead of “God”. In addition, the number 15, which would ordinarily be written in Hebrew as Yod-Heh (10-5), is normally written as Tet-Vav (9-6), because Yod-Heh is a Name. See Hebrew Alphabet for more information about using letters as numerals. I see an elaborite system has been worked out. Unfortunately, it doesn't follow Bible principles. It is Satan that wants to see God's name forgotten, wiped out. We are to call upon God's name. The Bible writers used God's name thousands of times.
Quote If God put his name in there 7000 times, does this not suggest he wants us to use it, even as he commands us to call upon his name?–david That is in the Bible not in our own writing. Please differentiate the two.–towshab
Ok, I'll differentiate the two: The Bible and it's writers used God's name and didn't follow superstitious wrong tradition.
Your “own writing” I assume, believes tradition is the way to go, despite contradicting the Bible.
Quote See above. We are talking about writing. Jews use the names of G-d in speech all the time.
And the Jews who wrote Hebrew scriptures “wrote” the name of God “all the time.” But something has changed. What? God does not change.Quote Sorry david I see you HAVE responded. I just saw this last post and made the false assumption that you were not addressing my last post on contradictions in the resurrection accounts. Again, my apologies.
Oh, Iguess I'm guilty of the same. Oh well. I responded to you twice.Quote You've missed some vital points in this. According to Matthew the angel rolled the stone away and sat on it. Mary M. was with the other Mary in Matthew when this happened. So how could she see and hear the angel in Matthew but totally miss this in John? Contradiction 1.
I have a question. Does the following in any way contradict itself, or any of the accounts? The things that happened in these accounts is below. They have been put together. Is there anything in the following that is contradictory with any of the accounts? Is there anything that is missing?
When the women find Jesus’ tomb empty, Mary Magdalene runs off to tell Peter and John. However, the other women evidently remain at the tomb. Soon, an angel appears and invites them inside.
Here the women see yet another angel, and one of the angels says to them: “Do not you be fearful, for I know you are looking for Jesus who was impaled. He is not here, for he was raised up, as he said. Come, see the place where he was lying. And go quickly and tell his disciples that he was raised up from the dead.” So with fear and great joy, these women also run off.
By this time, Mary has found Peter and John, and she reports to them: “They have taken away the Lord out of the memorial tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.” Immediately the two apostles take off running. John is fleeter of foot—evidently being younger—and he reaches the tomb first. By this time the women have left, so no one is around. Stooping down, John peers into the tomb and sees the bandages, but he remains outside.
When Peter arrives, he does not hesitate but goes right on in. He sees the bandages lying there and also the cloth used to wrap Jesus’ head. It is rolled up in one place. John now also enters the tomb, and he believes Mary’s report. But neither Peter nor John grasps that Jesus has been raised up, even though He had often told them that He would be. Puzzled, the two return home, but Mary, who has come back to the tomb, remains.
In the meantime, the other women are hurrying to tell the disciples that Jesus has been resurrected, as the angels commanded them to do. While they are running along as fast as they can, Jesus meets them and says: “Good day!” Falling at his feet, they do obeisance to him. Then Jesus says: “Have no fear! Go, report to my brothers, that they may go off into Galilee; and there they will see me.”
Earlier, when the earthquake occurred and the angels appeared, the soldiers on guard were stunned and became as dead men. Upon recovering, they immediately went into the city and told the chief priests what had happened. After consulting with the “older men” of the Jews, the decision was made to try to hush up the matter by bribing the soldiers. They were instructed: “Say, ‘His disciples came in the night and stole him while we were sleeping.’”
Since Roman soldiers may be punished with death for falling asleep at their posts, the priests promised: “If this [report of your falling asleep] gets to the governor’s ears, we will persuade him and will set you free from worry.” Since the size of the bribe was sufficiently large, the soldiers did as they were instructed. As a result, the false report about the theft of Jesus’ body became widely spread among the Jews.
Mary Magdalene, who remains behind at the tomb, is overcome by grief. Where could Jesus be? Stooping forward to look into the tomb, she sees the two angels in white, who have reappeared! One is sitting at the head and the other at the foot of where Jesus’ body had been lying. “Woman, why are you weeping?” they ask.
“They have taken my Lord away,” Mary answers, “and I do not know where they have laid him.” Then she turns around and sees someone who repeats the question: “Woman, why are you weeping?” And this one also asks: “Whom are you looking for?”
Imagining this person to be the caretaker of the garden in which the tomb is situated, she says to him: “Sir, if you have carried him off, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.”
“Mary!” the person says. And immediately she knows, by the familiar way he speaks to her, that it is Jesus. “Rab·bo′ni!” (meaning “Teacher!”) she exclaims. And with unbounded joy, she grabs hold of him. But Jesus says: “Stop clinging to me. For I have not yet ascended to the Father. But be on your way to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.’”
Mary now runs to where the apostles and fellow disciples have gathered. She adds her account to the report that the other women have already given about seeing the resurrected Jesus. Yet, these men, who did not believe the first women, apparently do not believe Mary either. Matthew 28:3-15; Mark 16:5-8; Luke 24:4-12; John 20:2-18.
Back to Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks:
That prophecy would enable first-century Jews to know that the appearance of the promised Messiah was approaching.
The prophecy stated:
“From the going forth of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Leader, there will be seven weeks, also sixty-two weeks.” (Daniel 9:24, 25)
Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant scholars generally agree that the “weeks” mentioned here mean weeks of years. The 69 “weeks” (483 years) of Daniel 9:25 began in 455 B.C.E., when Persian King Artaxerxes authorized Nehemiah “to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem.” (Nehemiah 2:1-8) They ended 483 years later—in 29 C.E., when Jesus was baptized and anointed with holy spirit, thus becoming the Messiah, or Christ.—Matthew 3:13-17.
Whether first-century Jews knew precisely when the 483 years began is open to question. But when John the Baptizer began his ministry, “the people were in expectation and all were reasoning in their hearts about John: ‘May he perhaps be the Christ?’” (Luke 3:15) Some Bible scholars link this expectation to Daniel’s prophecy.
In commenting on this verse, Matthew Henry wrote: “We are here told . . . how the people took occasion, from the ministry and baptism of John, to think of the Messiah, and to think of him as at the door. . . . Daniel’s seventy weeks were now expiring.”
The French Manuel Biblique, by Vigouroux, Bacuez, and Brassac states: “People knew that the seventy weeks of years fixed by Daniel were drawing to a close; nobody was surprised to hear John the Baptist announce that the kingdom of God had drawn near.”
Jewish scholar Abba Hillel Silver wrote that according to “the popular chronology” of the day, “the Messiah was expected around the second quarter of the first century C.E.”The Encyclopaedia Judaica says: “The Jews of the Roman period believed [the Messiah] would be raised up by God to break the yoke of the heathen and to reign over a restored kingdom of Israel.” (Jerusalem, 1971, Vol. 11, col. 1407) They wanted liberation from the yoke of Rome.
Jewish history testifies that on the basis of the Messianic prophecy recorded at Daniel 9:24-27 there were Jews who expected the Messiah during the first century C.E. (Luke 3:15)
But that prophecy also connected his coming with ‘making an end of sin,’ and Isaiah chapter 53 indicated that Messiah himself would die in order to make this possible. However, the Jews in general felt no need for anyone to die for their sins. They believed that they had a righteous standing with God on the basis of their descent from Abraham. Says A Rabbinic Anthology, “So great is the [merit] of Abraham that he can atone for all the vanities committed and lies uttered by Israel in this world.” (London, 1938, C. Montefiore and H. Loewe, p. 676) By their rejection of Jesus as Messiah, the Jews fulfilled the prophecy that had foretold regarding him:
“He was despised, and we esteemed him not.”—Isaiah 53:3, JP.
Before his death, Moses foretold that the nation would turn aside from true worship and that, as a result, calamity would befall them.
DEUTERONOMY 31:27-29
“For I—I well know your rebelliousness and your stiff neck. If while I am yet alive with YOU today, YOU have proved rebellious in behavior toward Jehovah, then how much more so after my death! Congregate to me all the older men of YOUR tribes and YOUR officers, and let me speak in their hearing these words, and let me take the heavens and the earth as witnesses against them. For I well know that after my death YOU will without fail act ruinously, and YOU will certainly turn aside from the way about which I have commanded YOU; and calamity will be bound to befall YOU at the close of the days, because YOU will do what is bad in the eyes of Jehovah so as to offend him by the works of YOUR hands.””Remember, the covenant was a two sided agreement:
EXODUS 19:5
“And now IF you will strictly OBEY my voice and will indeed keep my covenant, THEN you will certainly become my special property out of all [other] peoples, because the whole earth belongs to me.”The book of Judges testifies that this occurred repeatedly. In the days of the prophet Jeremiah, national unfaithfulness led to the nation’s being taken into exile in Babylon. Why did God also allow the Romans to destroy Jerusalem and its temple in 70 C.E.?
Of what unfaithfulness had the nation been guilty so that God did not protect them as he had done when they had put their trust in him? It was shortly before this that they had rejected Jesus as the Messiah.
2 Corninthians 11:3, 4
But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ.For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.
OR….if someone comes preaching NO JESUS at all…….
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
