- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (david @ Nov. 01 2007,19:22) 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?John does not have her stooping forward. All it has is her seeing the stone rolled away. But Peter does have to stoop and does the other to look in. But if MM had to stoop she would have been close enough to see the angel on top of the stone. This has to be true because in Matthew it all happens sequentially! Or are you prepared to say that the stone was rolled away twice?
Quote 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
Stop. Wrong. In Matthew the stone is rolled away and angel sits on the stone right after rolling it away. So in Matthew she sees the angel right after the stone is rolled away. In John this does not happen. THIS IS THE POINT OF CONTRADICTION.Quote
–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]]
That is because it doesn't happen. You must believe it happened that way but there is absolutely ZERO proof that this is the case. NONE. You are delvng in the realm of heavy apologetics at this pointQuote 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.
Would this be the second time it was rolled away then?Quote 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
Is this the first or second time it was rolled away because in Matthew the angel comes, rolls the stone away, there is an earthquake, angel sits on stone and scares both guards and the women, angels speak with women.Quote –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 o
r about Peter running back a second time after hearing this.]]Because it didn't happen that way so why should it?
Quote 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.
No, you are reading your belief into the story. You have to or the house of cards starts to shake. Are you saying you have to 'read between the lines'?Quote 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.
Sorry but anyone who does NOT have to believe in the stories will be able to see that you are not being objective in the slightest. You are inserting things that are not there to reconcile what is not true.Quote I ask again, please just give me one contradiction. david
This will be the last post of the resurrection contradictions to you david because you just flat-out refuse to admit them. You do this because you have to in order to retain your faith in the infallibility of Christian scripture.To close out I will list the verses in the order of actual occurance.
Mat 28:1 Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb.
Mat 28:2 And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it.
Mat 28:3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow.
Mat 28:4 And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men.
Mat 28:5 But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified.
Mat 28:6 He is not here, for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay.
Mat 28:7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead, and behold, he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him. See, I have told you.”
Mat 28:8 So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples.Now compare
Joh 20:1 Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb.
Joh 20:2 So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.”How can the Matthew account jive with John's?
(1)MM comes to the tomb in Matthew and John.
(2)Stone is rolled away as they arrive (yes, reread Matthew)
(3) MM does NOT leave in Matthew but does in John
(4) MM sees and hears angel in Matthew but does not in John, not until later on her return. There is not return in Matthew, Mark, or Luke JUST ONE VISIT. Both Matthew and Mark show MM arriving and meeting the angel(s) upon arrival, not on return.
(5) In Luke when MM talks to Peter she has spoken with the angel(s). In John she has not. But this cannot be since Matthew shows she encounters the angel just as soon as the stone is rolled away.Quote (kenrch @ Nov. 01 2007,19:52) 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?
This is much more than the color of a car. This is a very poor analogy.
Quote 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.
Prove to me that they died outside of the Christian bible.
Quote What purpose would it serve the priests or Romans to remove Jesus' body. Then who removed Jesus' body? JESUS! Is their anyone left?
Who said it wasn't dumped in the pile of bodies that all crucified Jews were dumped on? There is not recorded history of the Romans allowing any criminals being allowed proper burial.From http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=905&letter=C
=============================
The greatest difficulty from the point of view of the Jewish penal procedure is presented by the day and time of the execution. According to the Gospels, Jesus died on Friday, the eve of Sabbath. Yet on that day, in view of the approach of the Sabbath (or holiday), executions lasting until late in the afternoon were almost impossible (Sifre, ii. 221; Sanh. 35b; Mekilta to Wayaḳhel). The Synoptics do not agree with John on the date of the month. According to the latter he died on the 14th of Nisan, as though he were the paschal lamb; but executions were certainly not regular on the eve of a Jewish holiday. According to the Synoptics, the date of his death was the 15th of Nisan (first day of Passover), when again no execution could be held (Mishnah Sanh. iv. 1; and the commentaries: Yer. Sanh. ii. 3; Yer. Beẓ. v. 2; Ket. i. 1). This discrepancy has given rise to various attempts at rectification. That by Chwolson is the most ingenious, assuming that Jesus died on the 14th, and accounting for the error in Matthew by a mistranslation from the original Hebrew in Matt. xxvi. 17 (, due to the omission of the first ; see his “Das Letzte Passamahl Christi,” p. 13). But even so, the whole artificial construction of the law regarding Passover when the 15th of Nisan was on Saturday, attempted by Chwolson, would not remove the difficulty of an execution occurring on Friday = eve of Sabbath and eve of holiday; and the body could not have been removed as late as the ninth hour (3 P. M.). Bodies of delinquents were not buried in private graves (Sanh. vi. 5), while that of Jesus was buried in a sepulcher belonging to Joseph of Arimathea. Besides this, penal jurisdiction had been taken from the Sanhedrin in capital cases “forty years before the fall of the Temple.”These facts show that the crucifixion of Jesus was an act of the Roman government. That it was customary to liberate one sentenced to death on account of the holiday season is not corroborated by Jewish sources. But many of the Jews suspected of Messianic ambitions had been nailed to the cross by Rome. The Messiah, “king of the Jews,” was a rebel in the estimation of Rome, and rebels were crucified (Suetonius, “Vespas.” 4; “Claudius,” xxv.; Josephus, “Ant.” xx. 5, § 1; 8, § 6; Acts v. 36, 37). The inscription on the cross of Jesus reveals the crime for which, according to Roman law, Jesus expired. He was a rebel. Tacitus (“Annales,” 54, 59) reports therefore without comment the fact that Jesus was crucified. For Romans no amplification was necessary. Pontius Pilate's part in the tragedy as told in the Gospels is that of a wretched coward; but this does not agree with his character, as recorded elsewhere (see Süchrer, “Gesch.” Index, s.v.). The other incidents in the New Testament report—the rending of the curtain, darkness (eclipse of the sun), the rising of the dead from their graves—are apocalyptic embellishments derived from Jewish Messianic eschatology. The so-called writs for the execution (see Mayer, “Die Rechte der Israeliten, Athener, und Römer,” iii. 428, note 27) are spurious.
===============================Quote (david @ Nov. 01 2007,20:04) 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.
Does your satan have a red suit and horns? How about a pitchfork? If a literal satan exists he only does what G-d allows him to do. See Job for more information.
Quote 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.
Is 'writing' calling on the name of G-d? ***buzz***. No. Bark up a different tree please.
Quote 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.
I do not write the scriptures. Again writing is not calling on. Is that not your contention?Quote 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.
We're only human
.Quote (david @ Nov. 01 2007,20:24) 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?
Yes it contradicts the Matthew account because he only lists two women but then goes on to say that the women hear the angel and they leave after this. One person is not plural.Quote 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.’”
At this point stop and think a moment. If the men know of all this then you are saying the chief priests 'know the truth' but refuse to acknowledge it. How do you explain this?Quote 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.
Are you really willing to believe that with the evidence of angels that the chief priests still do not want to believe? This is far-fetched.Quote 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!
How convenient for your story. Too bad this is not recorded but has to be inserted to reason the conflicts. No matter I totally understand.Quote 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.
Good thing you are not a lawyer. You wouldn't win too many cases. You had to insert many things to make the stories NOT conflict. But there is no single shred of evidence that what you present is valid. You must work of what is there not what you suppose is there. Apologetics. And you are using something that is the opposite of exegesis. I forget the term but its taking a preconceived belief and reading it into scripture rather than getting something from the scripture.Quote (david @ Nov. 01 2007,20:53) 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)
Stop. One large error here that most Christians make. It is NOT 69 weeks, it is 7 weeks and 62 weeks but NOT compounded. The first 7 weeks will be the period of time until the first anointed one. The RSV gets this right and it is a Christian bible. Daniel 9:25 speaks of another anointed one so there are two anointed ones in Daniel 9:25-26.Dan 9:25 Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the anointed one, the prince, shall be seven weeks: and threescore and two weeks, it shall be built again, with street and moat, even in troublous times.
Think to yourself. Why would Daniel write seven weeks and threescore and two weeks to represent 69 weeks? Why not threescore and nine weeks? Most Christian bibles get the punctuation wrong.
Quote 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.”
I need to still work on Daniel but there is another flaw in this reasoning.Dan 9:26 And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed.
If this was Jesus, the temple would have been destroyed that same year in 29 AD. But the temple and Jerusalem were not destroyed for another 40 years. What do you do with the extra almost 6 weeks? Thus this reasoning crumbles in light of Daniel 9:26 because it is to occur at the time of the anointed one being cut off.
As to the phrase 'cut off' there is something very important to note. The word used to translate to 'cut off' is 'karath'. If you do a word study of 'karath' when it is used as 'cut off' you will always find that it is a very negative thing because the person has defied G-d and His Torah. Thus the anointed person being 'cut off' in Daniel 9:26 is to be a person who has done evil in G-d's sight. Also, to be 'cut off' does not mean to be killed but means to be removed or ejected.
Towshab. You are bent on getting people to disbelieve the gospels.
I ask you, is there one angel in two angels? Or I will put it another way, is there one apple among 2 apples?
But you also now know that the gospels are eye witness accounts, or at least Luke is. So if you choose to not believe them, then you are free to not believe. But you have been shown that they claim no special direct revelation from God in the sense that an angel appears and says “write this down”.
Anyway, God gifted you with free will.
So why flog a dead horse. You choose not to believe, and I choose to believe that Jesus was the messiah and I follow his teachings.
What benefit is it to you to try and draw men away from Jesus the messiah?
I mean, do you get paid for every person you can stop from following Christ and his teachings? What do you hope to gain?
Even if you argue and say that the gospels are imperfect, well you would also have to admit that all of human history is not recorded to perfection because men are not perfect. Yet I bet you believe lots of historical events like WWII or the reign of Julius Caesar.
If so, I ask you to what perfect document do you refer to believe such things?
Quote (Towshab @ Nov. 02 2007,18:21) As to the phrase 'cut off' there is something very important to note. The word used to translate to 'cut off' is 'karath'. If you do a word study of 'karath' when it is used as 'cut off' you will always find that it is a very negative thing because the person has defied G-d and His Torah. Thus the anointed person being 'cut off' in Daniel 9:26 is to be a person who has done evil in G-d's sight. Also, to be 'cut off' does not mean to be killed but means to be removed or ejected.
The soul that sins will die.To die is to be cut off from God's Spirit who gives eternal life.
Jesus became sin for us.
He said “My God my God, why have you forsaken me”.
Jesus became sin for our sakes” and again: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law when he became a curse for us”.
The messiah is a saviour. He did this for you, but you have nothing but bad things to say about Jesus.
Are you better than him? Why speak bad against the Christ. This is certainly what it means to be antichrist.
But I guess you are already aware of this.
Verses where 'karath' is used for 'cut off' in relation to a person.
Gen 17:14 And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
Exo 12:19 Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a sojourner, or one that is born in the land.
Exo 30:38 Whosoever shall make like unto that, to smell thereto, he shall be cut off from his people.
Exo 31:14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that profaneth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
Lev 7:20 but the soul that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings, that pertain unto the LORD, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from his people.
Lev 7:21 And when any one shall touch any unclean thing, the uncleanness of man, or an unclean beast, or any unclean abomination, and eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings, which pertain unto the LORD, that soul shall be cut off from his people.
Lev 7:25 For whosoever eateth the fat of the beast, of which men offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD, even the soul that eateth it shall be cut off from his people.
Lev 17:4 and hath not brought it unto the door of the tent of meeting, to offer it as an oblation unto the LORD before the tabernacle of the LORD: blood shall be imputed unto that man; he hath shed blood; and that man shall be cut off from among his people:
Lev 18:29 For whosoever shall do any of these abominations, even the souls that do them shall be cut off from among their people.
Lev 20:17 And if a man shall take his sister, his father’s daughter, or his mother’s daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a shameful thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of the children of their people: he hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.
Num 15:31 Because he hath despised the word of the LORD, and hath broken his commandment; that soul shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him.
Psa 37:9 For evil–doers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the land.
Pro 2:22 But the wicked shall be cut off from the land, and they that deal treacherously shall be rooted out of it.
Isa 29:20 For the terrible one is brought to nought, and the scorner ceaseth, and all they that watch for iniquity are cut off:
Hos 8:4 They have set up kings, but not by me; they have made princes, and I knew it not: of their silver and their gold have they made them idols, that they may be cut off.
Amo 2:3 and I will cut off the judge from the midst thereof, and will slay all the princes thereof with him, saith the LORD.
Oba 1:10 For the violence done to thy brother Jacob shame shall cover thee, and thou shalt be cut off for ever.
Mic 5:9 Let thine hand be lifted up above thine adversaries, and let all thine enemies be cut off.
Nah 1:5 The mountains quake at him, and the hills melt; and the earth is upheaved at his presence, yea, the world, and all that dwell therein.
Mal 2:12 The LORD will cut off to the man that doeth this him that waketh and him that answereth, out of the tents of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the LORD of hosts.
==========================
The translators of the KJV obviously knew this and tried to be deceptive with the manner in which they translated the phrase 'but not for himself' in Dan 9:26. Many other Christian bibles have it closer to the real way to translate.
==========================
(CEV) At the end of the sixty-two weeks, the Chosen Leader will be killed and left with nothing. A foreign ruler and his army will sweep down like a mighty flood, leaving both the city and the temple in ruins, and war and destruction will continue until the end, just as God has decided.(Geneva) And after threescore and two weekes, shal Messiah be slaine, and shal haue nothing,, and the people of the prince that shal come, shal destroy the citie and the Sanctuarie, and the end thereof shalbe with a flood: and vnto the end of the battell it shalbe destroyed by desolations.
(NASB) “Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.
(RV) And after the threescore and two weeks shall the anointed one be cut off, and shall have nothing: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and his end shall be with a flood, and even unto the end shall be war; desolations are determined.
(YLT) And after the sixty and two weeks, cut off is Messiah, and the city and the holy place are not his, the Leader who hath come doth destroy the people; and its end is with a flood, and till the end is war, determined are desolations.
======================
In light of the scriptural evidence the the anointed one is not Jesus. If you still want to hold on to the idea that it is Jesus remember that being 'cut off' means that the person has been wicked in G-d's sight. Based on some of the things that Jesus supposedly did in his ministry I can almost go along with this. He spoke if drinking blood and eating flesh and he did not honor his mother and spoke poorly of fathers and mothers.Quote (t8 @ Nov. 02 2007,06:43) Towshab. You are bent on getting people to disbelieve the gospels. I ask you, is there one angel in two angels? Or I will put it another way, is there one apple among 2 apples?
But you also now know that the gospels are eye witness accounts, or at least Luke is. So if you choose to not believe them, then you are free to not believe. But you have been shown that they claim no special direct revelation from God in the sense that an angel appears and says “write this down”.
Why would Luke be an eyewitness account? Luke was a gentile and his disciples were not Gentiles.Quote Anyway, God gifted you with free will.
Yes that is the beauty and revelation that you will find in the Jewish scriptures. The Christian bible says you must believe in a man and rely upon him for your salvation not G-d. In the Jewish scriptures you rely upon G-d and not a man.Quote So why flog a dead horse. You choose not to believe, and I choose to believe that Jesus was the messiah and I follow his teachings. Hahaha, this from a person who participates in 830 some odd pages of a trinity thread?
Quote What benefit is it to you to try and draw men away from Jesus the messiah?
Because it is idol worship and misleading. Jesus takes man's adoration form YHVH and places it on a god-man.Quote I mean, do you get paid for every person you can stop from following Christ and his teachings? What do you hope to gain?
Do you get paid for making people believe in many gods with G-d as the head of them?Quote Even if you argue and say that the gospels are imperfect, well you would also have to admit that all of human history is not recorded to perfection because men are not perfect. Yet I bet you believe lots of historical events like WWII or the reign of Julius Caesar.
Imperfect? There is much more than that. There are many contradictions of Jewish scriptures and the things written in the Christian bible show that they add or take away from G-d's Torah.Quote If so, I ask you to what perfect document do you refer to believe such things?
This is not about perfection. It is about the many who have been mislead to place their trust in anyone else than the creator of the universe, YHVH G-d. You even have someone on here that goes by the name 'worshipingJesus'. Is that idol worship to worship a man?Quote (t8 @ Nov. 02 2007,06:51) Quote (Towshab @ Nov. 02 2007,18:21) As to the phrase 'cut off' there is something very important to note. The word used to translate to 'cut off' is 'karath'. If you do a word study of 'karath' when it is used as 'cut off' you will always find that it is a very negative thing because the person has defied G-d and His Torah. Thus the anointed person being 'cut off' in Daniel 9:26 is to be a person who has done evil in G-d's sight. Also, to be 'cut off' does not mean to be killed but means to be removed or ejected.
The soul that sins will die.To die is to be cut off from God's Spirit who gives eternal life.
Jesus became sin for us.
That sounds good but G-d's Word in the Jewish scriptures tells us that every man is responsible for his own sins. That and the fact that human sacrifice was forbidden in the Torah. Why would G-d break His own Torah?Quote He said “My God my God, why have you forsaken me”. Jesus became sin for our sakes” and again: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law when he became a curse for us”.
That is of course what you have been taught to believe. Please show me where G-d ever said this would be true. You cannot even in you own Christian bible because G-d only speaks a couple of times in your bible. All throughout the Tanakh G-d spoke to His people and spoke through his prophets. You often read “and the word of YHVH” but never once do you see that in the Christian bible. Paul who wrote the bulk of the Christian bible never once said “The word of G-d came to me”. Not once.Ask yourself why this is. Why is the Christian bible about a man while the Jewish bible is about YHVH and His people? Why is the is “God the father” someone that is only mentioned in name but only heard from a couple of times?
Quote The messiah is a saviour. He did this for you, but you have nothing but bad things to say about Jesus. 'a savior'? That is the first time I ever saw a Christian say he was 'a' savior. Will there be more?
G-d is our only savior. Believing in a man means to go against G-d and His Word.
Quote Are you better than him? Why speak bad against the Christ. This is certainly what it means to be antichrist. 'Christ' means in Greek what 'moshiach' means in Hebrew. It means 'anointed'. How many 'moshiachs' were there in the Jewish bible? 39 times and not a single instance is the word ever used of the end times Moshiach.
If you could go back in time to Jesus' day and ask “Where is the moshiach” they would ask you “which one?”. Anointed people could be any priest. Since there were no kings of Israel at the time it would only be priests.
Quote But I guess you are already aware of this.
The threat of being called anti-christ holds as much sway with me as telling me of the lochness monster, sasquatch, or the boogie man. You have to actually hold to the belief that Jesus the Nazarene was who they said he was and the Jewish bible attests to the fact that he could not have been.Quote (Towshab @ Nov. 02 2007,16:38) Quote (kenrch @ Nov. 01 2007,19:52) 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?
This is much more than the color of a car. This is a very poor analogy.
Quote 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.
Quote What purpose would it serve the priests or Romans to remove Jesus' body. Then who removed Jesus' body? JESUS! Is their anyone left?
Who said it wasn't dumped in the pile of bodies that all crucified Jews were dumped on? There is not recorded history of the Romans allowing any criminals being allowed proper burial.From http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=905&letter=C
=============================
The greatest difficulty from the point of view of the Jewish penal procedure is presented by the day and time of the execution. According to the Gospels, Jesus died on Friday, the eve of Sabbath. Yet on that day, in view of the approach of the Sabbath (or holiday), executions lasting until late in the afternoon were almost impossible (Sifre, ii. 221; Sanh. 35b; Mekilta to Wayaḳhel). The Synoptics do not agree with John on the date of the month. According to the latter he died on the 14th of Nisan, as though he were the paschal lamb; but executions were certainly not regular on the eve of a Jewish holiday. According to the Synoptics, the date of his death was the 15th of Nisan (first day of Passover), when again no execution could be held (Mishnah Sanh. iv. 1; and the commentaries: Yer. Sanh. ii. 3; Yer. Beẓ. v. 2; Ket. i. 1). This discrepancy has given rise to various attempts at rectification. That by Chwolson is the most ingenious, assuming that Jesus died on the 14th, and accounting for the error in Matthew by a mistranslation from the original Hebrew in Matt. xxvi. 17 (, due to the omission of the first ; see his “Das Letzte Passamahl Christi,” p. 13). But even so, the whole artificial construction of the law regarding Passover when the 15th of Nisan was on Saturday, attempted by Chwolson, would not remove the difficulty of an execution occurring on Friday = eve of Sabbath and eve of holiday; and the body could not have been removed as late as the ninth hour (3 P. M.). Bodies of delinquents were not buried in private graves (Sanh. vi. 5), while that of Jesus was buried in a sepulcher belonging to Joseph of Arimathea. Besides this, penal jurisdiction had been taken from the Sanhedrin in capital cases “forty years before the fall of the Temple.”These facts show that the crucifixion of Jesus was an act of the Roman government. That it was customary to liberate one sentenced to death on account of the holiday season is not corroborated by Jewish sources. But many of the Jews suspected of Messianic ambitions had been nailed to the cross by Rome. The Messiah, “king of the Jews,” was a rebel in the estimation of Rome, and rebels were crucified (Suetonius, “Vespas.” 4; “Claudius,” xxv.; Josephus, “Ant.” xx. 5, § 1; 8, § 6; Acts v. 36, 37). The inscription on the cross of Jesus reveals the crime for which, according to Roman law, Jesus expired. He was a rebel. Tacitus (“Annales,” 54, 59) reports therefore without comment the fact that Jesus was crucified. For Romans no amplification was necessary. Pontius Pilate's part in the tragedy as told in the Gospels is that of a wretched coward; but this does not agree with his character, as recorded elsewhere (see Süchrer, “Gesch.” Index, s.v.). The other incidents in the New Testament report—the rending of the curtain, darkness (eclipse of the sun), the rising of the dead from their graves—are apocalyptic embellishments derived from Jewish Messianic eschatology. The so-called writs for the execution (see Mayer, “Die Rechte der Israeliten, Athener, und Römer,” iii. 428, note 27) are spurious.
===============================Quote This is much more than the color of a car. This is a very poor analogy. You are right David's car was “white” However it still got David where he wanted to go!
Quote Prove to me that they died outside of the Christian bible. Prove to me that their is a GOD outside the bible.
Quote Who said it wasn't dumped in the pile of bodies that all crucified Jews were dumped on? There is not recorded history of the Romans allowing any criminals being allowed proper burial. Who said it was…you!
Truth is you have no answer for this simple common sense truth. So you start with the “prove” thing.
You can't prove that the bible is true except Faith that God gave it to the Israel. You can't prove outside the bible that the Jews are the chosen people. You can't prove that their are NO mistakes in the Old Testament.
Inspired by God “Humans” wrote the bible both Old and New.
If one historian said that Jesus was born in December and another said He was born between September and October does that mean that Jesus was NOT born?
That's why God gave us the Holy Spirit so we would have witness in our spirit. You know nothing of God's Spirit.
If one says that the tomb was found empty by Mary and another one says that the tomb was found empty by John, was Jesus' body still in the tomb? NO! IT was found EMPTY.
The message gets across no matter who found the tomb empty.
Have you ever heard the expression “IN OTHER WORDS”?
In other words the tomb was Empty. Any way you want to say it the tomb was empty.
IMO Stu wasn't getting far so he was sent help.
Jesus was of the blood line of David. Weather through Joseph or Mary
Blood is Blood. We are one in Christ their is no male or female in Christ, NO Jew or Gentile. This is the GOD I serve. I don't know the G_D you serve.You should come up to date with God's plan. We have God's Spirit to guide us WE are no longer under a school master.
I have graduated you are still in first grade according to God's plan. Spiritually Of Course!
Again:
1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.2Co 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
IMO the blood thing is for the pride of the Jews. Actually Gentiles have more faith than Jews. The Jews NEED fleshly proof but WE are of the Spirit.
Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
YOU can't prove that God created the worlds no more than I can prove that the apostles didn't remove Jesus' body.
But what does common sense tell you?
But I “HAD” faith that God created the worlds and “HAD” faith that Jesus is HIS Christ. But now ~I “KNOW”~ through the Spirit because of faith that Both the Father and Son are true.
Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
I'm not so sure that you have faith to believe in God but rather wish to “prove” all things wrong and you right.
Quote Does your satan have a red suit and horns? How about a pitchfork? If a literal satan exists he only does what G-d allows him to do. See Job for more information. You tell me to see Job (which speaks of a very real Satan who spoke with God) and hence isn't the evil in people [because God doesn't have satan in him] and yet you say “if a literal satan exists.” ? ?
Yes, Satan does what God allows him to do.
We do what God allows us to do.
God allows bad things to happen that are not in line with his will–because there is a larger issue at stake.
I had said that it's satan that wants to see God's name wiped out, forgotten. And your response it to question whether he exists and say that if it happens, it is because God allows it.
Well God allows suffering and wickedness to happen. He doesn't want it to happen. He allows it, for the time being while the issue of universal soveriegnty is being proven.Quote Is 'writing' calling on the name of G-d? ***buzz***. No. Bark up a different tree please. WERE THE HEBREW BIBLE WRITERS WRONG TO INCLUDE GOD'S NAME THOUSANDS OF TIMES? Please answer this question.
Quote I do not write the scriptures. Again writing is not calling on. Is that not your contention?
No you don't. But you state that it is wrong to write God's name. And since these ones did that, I have to assume you believe they were wrong in doing so….thousands of times. God's prophets, servants, etc, wrong, thousands of times. The ones he had pen the Bible, wrong.
But you are right. Ok. Makes perfect sense.Quote Yes it contradicts the Matthew account because he only lists two women but then goes on to say that the women hear the angel and they leave after this. One person is not plural.
If this is the only place where you believe there is any contradiction, then we are done, and you have been proven wrong. Maybe he does only list two women but he doesn't state that there are “only two women.” Matthew apparently leaves some people out, whereas Mark, for example lists them all, or more at least. We don't know, he might have left some out too.
You see showtab, when there is a group of people and some of them are more prominent than others, when telling the story, we will often only leave what we consider to be the most important information in.If Brittany spears and her mom go to the mall, the headlines read: “Brittany spears goes to the mall.” Sure, maybe some of the papers might read: “Brittany and mom go to mall.” But most, would focus on what is considered more important. [[Not that any of that is important in the least.]]
Get it?
And it's not a contradiction in the least if one paper says: Brittany goes to the mall and another says Brittany and mom go to the mall. Obviously, they both went, but one only included what it thought was most important.
People do this all the time. Yet, here, you WANT it to be a contradiction. It isn't. If the one paper said “only Brittany” or “Brittany by herself” or “brittany alone” etc. Then, it would contradict the other statements.
But it doesn't.
So, if this is the one contradiction you could come up with, I guess your case is dismissed, on insufficient grounds. No evidence, or a complete lack thereof.
david.
Quote At this point stop and think a moment. If the men know of all this then you are saying the chief priests 'know the truth' but refuse to acknowledge it. How do you explain this? Um.. They were bad bad people and they didn't want Jesus upsetting the control and power they had over people. Jesus was exposing them. They didn't like this. They are the ones who wanted him dead. They despised him and wanted him gone. While knowing what had happened, their hard hearts would not allow them to put faith in Jesus, as Messiah.
Quote Are you really willing to believe that with the evidence of angels that the chief priests still do not want to believe? This is far-fetched. With all the evidence of miracles and the prophecies Jesus fulfilled, it is no more far fetched. They should have known, more than anyone. Yet, something had gone terribly wrong with them. They had lost the spirit of the law, and didn't understand the principles behind it. This is why their house was abandoned to them, as Jesus said.
Quote Good thing you are not a lawyer. You wouldn't win too many cases. You had to insert many things to make the stories NOT conflict. But there is no single shred of evidence that what you present is valid.
So the truth is, as you sort of admit here, this story is plausible. There are no contradictions. It could have happened just this way and this way doesn't contradict with the accounts. In fact, this is the way it had to happen for these accounts to all be true. And this is the way it did happen. No contradictions. And while you say I “inserted” many things, I didn't change anything or take anything out to make it work. It all works, when PUT IN THE RIGHT ORDER AND NOT JUMBLED UP AND TRIED TO MAKE CONTRADICTORY. And I only inserted the things that were somewhat obvious based on what we're told.Quote I forget the term but its taking a preconceived belief and reading it into scripture rather than getting something from the scripture. I asked you for one contradiction. You finally came up with the fact that Matthew doesn't specifiy the excat number of people there and that other accounts (Mark for example) lists extra people.
Case dismissed.!
Quote One large error here that most Christians make. It is NOT 69 weeks, it is 7 weeks and 62 weeks but NOT compounded. The Masoretic text, with its system of vowel points, was prepared in the latter half of the first millennium C.E. Evidently because of their rejection of Jesus Christ as the Messiah, the Masoretes accented the Hebrew text at Daniel 9:25 with an ’ath·nach′, or “stop,” after “seven weeks,” thereby dividing it off from the “sixty-two weeks”; in this way the 62 weeks of the prophecy, namely, 434 years, appear to apply to the time of rebuilding ancient Jerusalem. The translation by Isaac Leeser reads: “Know therefore and comprehend, that from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the anointed the prince will be seven weeks: [the stop is represented here by a colon] and during sixty and two weeks will it be again built with streets and ditches (around it), even in the pressure of the times.” The translation of the Jewish Publication Society of America reads similarly: “shall be seven weeks; and for threescore and two weeks, it shall be built again.” In these two versions the words “during” and “for,” respectively, appear in the English translation, evidently to support the translators’ interpretation.
Professor E. B. Pusey, in a footnote on one of his lectures delivered at the University of Oxford, remarks on the Masoretic accenting: “The Jews put the main stop of the verse under העב? [seven], meaning to separate the two numbers, 7 and 62. This they must have done dishonestly, םינימה ןעמל (as Rashi [a prominent Jewish Rabbi of the 11th and 12th centuries C.E.] says in rejecting literal expositions which favored the Christians) ‘on account of the heretics,’ i.e. Christians. For the latter clause, so divided off, could only mean, ‘and during threescore and two weeks street and wall shall be being restored and builded,’ i.e. that Jerusalem should be 434 years in rebuilding, which would be senseless.”—Daniel the Prophet, 1885, p. 190.
As to Daniel 9:26 (Le), which reads, in part, “And after the sixty and two weeks will an anointed one be cut off without a successor to follow him,” the Jewish commentators apply the 62 weeks to a period up to the Maccabean age, and the term “anointed one” to King Agrippa II, who lived at the time of Jerusalem’s destruction, 70 C.E. Or some say this was a high priest, Onias, who was deposed by Antiochus Epiphanes in 175 B.C.E. Their applications of the prophecy to either of these men would rob it of any real significance or import, and the discrepancy in the dating would make the 62 weeks no accurate time prophecy at all.—See Soncino Books of the Bible (commentary on Da 9:25, 26), edited by A. Cohen, London, 1951.
In an attempt to justify their view, these Jewish scholars say that the “seven weeks” are, not 7 times 7, or 49 years, but 70 years; yet they count the 62 weeks as 7 times 62 years. This, they claim, referred to the period of Babylonian exile. They make Cyrus or Zerubbabel or High Priest Jeshua the “anointed one” in this verse (Da 9:25), with the “anointed one” in Daniel 9:26 being another person.
It may be noted, in this connection, that the Septuagint translation, made by Jewish scholars in the first three centuries B.C.E., reads, at Daniel 9:25, “From the going forth of the command for the answer and for the building of Jerusalem until Christ the prince there shall be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks: and then the time shall return, and the street shall be built, and the wall.” (LXX, Bagster) Thomson’s Septuagint reads, in part: “seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks. They shall indeed return and a street shall be built and a wall.”
Most English translations do not follow the Masoretic punctuation here. They either have a comma after the expression “seven weeks” or in the wording indicate that the 62 weeks follow the 7 as part of the 70, and do not denote that the 62 weeks apply to the period of rebuilding Jerusalem. (Compare Da 9:25 in KJ, AT, Dy, NW, Ro, Yg.) An editorial note by James Strong in Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Da 9:25, ftn, p. 198) says: “The only justification of this translation, which separates the two periods of seven weeks and sixty-two weeks, assigning the former as the terminus ad quem of the Anointed Prince, and the latter as the time of rebuilding, lies in the Masoretic interpunction, which places the Athnac [stop] between them. . . . and the rendering in question involves a harsh construction of the second member, being without a preposition. It is better, therefore, and simpler, to adhere to the Authorized Version, which follows all the older translations.”—Translated and edited by P. Schaff, 1976.
Numerous other views, some Messianic and some non-Messianic, have been set forth as to the meaning of the prophecy. Some attempt to change the order of the time periods of the prophecy, while others make them run simultaneously or deny that they have any actual time fulfillment. Also many efforts have been made to fit the events mentioned into the Maccabean period or even into the final time of the end. But those presenting such views become hopelessly entangled, and their attempts to extricate themselves result in absurdity or in an outright denial that the prophecy is inspired or true. Of the latter ideas particularly, which raise more problems than they solve, the aforementioned scholar, E. B. Pusey, remarks: “These were the impossible problems for unbelief to solve; it had to solve them for itself, which was, so far, easier; for nothing is impossible for unbelief to believe, except what God reveals.”—P. 206.
Quote If you still want to hold on to the idea that it is Jesus remember that being 'cut off' means that the person has been wicked in G-d's sight. Are you saying the Messiah has been “wicked in God's sight”?
LUKE 1:2
“just as those who from [the] beginning became eyewitnesses and attendants of the message delivered these to us,”Luke did not speak of himself as an eyewitness of the events in the life of Christ that are recorded in his Gospel account.
Some hold that Luke was a Gentile, basing this mainly on Colossians 4:11, 14. Because Paul first mentioned “those circumcised” (Col 4:11) and later referred to Luke (Col 4:14), the implication is drawn that Luke was not of the circumcision and hence was not a Jew. But this is by no means conclusive. Romans 3:1, 2 states that God entrusted his inspired utterances to the Jews. Luke is one of those to whom such inspired utterances were entrusted.
Quote (david @ Nov. 02 2007,17:19) Quote Does your satan have a red suit and horns? How about a pitchfork? If a literal satan exists he only does what G-d allows him to do. See Job for more information. You tell me to see Job (which speaks of a very real Satan who spoke with God) and hence isn't the evil in people [because God doesn't have satan in him] and yet you say “if a literal satan exists.” ? ?
Yes, Satan does what God allows him to do.
We do what God allows us to do.
God allows bad things to happen that are not in line with his will–because there is a larger issue at stake.
I had said that it's satan that wants to see God's name wiped out, forgotten. And your response it to question whether he exists and say that if it happens, it is because God allows it.
Well God allows suffering and wickedness to happen. He doesn't want it to happen. He allows it, for the time being while the issue of universal soveriegnty is being proven.Show me satan's character from the Tanakh, not the Christian bible. The Christian bible is mixed with mythology so its views on demons and satan are swayed to that idealogy. Therefore please show me that this satan of yours is the bad guy constantly trying to outdo G-d.
Tell me, in he thousands of years before Jesus why do we see no clue of demon possession in the Jewish scriptures. then why do we not see demon possession in the gospel of John? Were the demons waiting thousands of years before they could figure out how to possess people?
Satan and his demons are mythology. They make for fun stories and movies. And they also serve the purpose of keeping Christians in line. Oh yeah that and the lake of fire.
Quote Quote Is 'writing' calling on the name of G-d? ***buzz***. No. Bark up a different tree please. WERE THE HEBREW BIBLE WRITERS WRONG TO INCLUDE GOD'S NAME THOUSANDS OF TIMES? Please answer this question.
No why do you ask? Really what is you beef? Are you trying to divert my attention from showing the errors of the Christian bible?Quote Quote I do not write the scriptures. Again writing is not calling on. Is that not your contention?
No you don't. But you state that it is wrong to write God's name. And since these ones did that, I have to assume you believe they were wrong in doing so….thousands of times. God's prophets, servants, etc, wrong, thousands of times. The ones he had pen the Bible, wrong.
But you are right. Ok. Makes perfect sense.
Show me where I said it was wrong. Good luck finding it. Just like your refusal to see contradictions you read your own interpretation into me saying I do it out of respect.Quote Quote Yes it contradicts the Matthew account because he only lists two women but then goes on to say that the women hear the angel and they leave after this. One person is not plural.
If this is the only place where you believe there is any contradiction, then we are done, and you have been proven wrong.No I have not. You have proven nothing beyond the fact that you must insert and speculate. Reading what is written is not good enough for you because conflicts would shake your faith. Like I said I understand.
Quote Maybe he does only list two women but he doesn't state that there are “only two women.” Matthew apparently leaves some people out, whereas Mark, for example lists them all, or more at least. We don't know, he might have left some out too. Or none of them were eyewitnesses and they are merely working off of heresay and oral traditions if that. That is the most likely explanation.
Quote You see showtab, when there is a group of people and some of them are more prominent than others, when telling the story, we will often only leave what we consider to be the most important information in. If Brittany spears and her mom go to the mall, the headlines read: “Brittany spears goes to the mall.” Sure, maybe some of the papers might read: “Brittany and mom go to mall.” But most, would focus on what is considered more important. [[Not that any of that is important in the least.]]
Get it?
And it's not a contradiction in the least if one paper says: Brittany goes to the mall and another says Brittany and mom go to the mall. Obviously, they both went, but one only included what it thought was most important.
People do this all the time. Yet, here, you WANT it to be a contradiction. It isn't. If the one paper said “only Brittany” or “Brittany by herself” or “brittany alone” etc. Then, it would contradict the other statements.
But it doesn't.
So now you are equating the Christian bible with a tabloid. I'd agree with that analogy. Hey you said it. Would the Christian bible be the Enquirer or the Sun?
Quote So, if this is the one contradiction you could come up with, I guess your case is dismissed, on insufficient grounds. No evidence, or a complete lack thereof. david.
Haha you wish. At best you'd have a hung jury.Quote (david @ Nov. 02 2007,17:32) Quote At this point stop and think a moment. If the men know of all this then you are saying the chief priests 'know the truth' but refuse to acknowledge it. How do you explain this? Um.. They were bad bad people and they didn't want Jesus upsetting the control and power they had over people. Jesus was exposing them. They didn't like this. They are the ones who wanted him dead. They despised him and wanted him gone. While knowing what had happened, their hard hearts would not allow them to put faith in Jesus, as Messiah.
No its more like the fact that he didn't meet any of the requirements of the end times Moshiach. But this is all in assumption that he rose. Again no proof of Jesus outside of the Christian bible and certainly no records of the many things he did. If you can draw thousands at a time in the 1st century someone should have noticed.
But welcome to the world of Calvin, Luther and Hitler. They would be proud of you. It is exactly your attitude that has resulted in the death and persecution of millions of Jewish people in history since the anti-semitic Christian bible was written.
Quote Quote Are you really willing to believe that with the evidence of angels that the chief priests still do not want to believe? This is far-fetched. With all the evidence of miracles and the prophecies Jesus fulfilled, it is no more far fetched. They should have known, more than anyone. Yet, something had gone terribly wrong with them. They had lost the spirit of the law, and didn't understand the principles behind it. This is why their house was abandoned to them, as Jesus said.
Again the only evidence is in your bible. So if they make up miracles they can certainly make up Pharisees disbelieving. Fiction can do anything.
Quote Quote Good thing you are not a lawyer. You wouldn't win too many cases. You had to insert many things to make the stories NOT conflict. But there is no single shred of evidence that what you present is valid.
So the truth is, as you sort of admit here, this story is plausible.
Where do I admit that? I said 'there is no single shred of evidence that what you present is valid'. Doesn't look like I'm admitting that. Do you always misinterpret written words like this? No wonder you have been duped by the Christian bible.Quote There are no contradictions. It could have happened just this way and this way doesn't contradict with the accounts. In fact, this is the way it had to happen for these accounts to all be true. And this is the way it did happen. Just like that? No more details like Peter scratching his scalp? Seriously it happens like you'd like it to happen. You have to assume much to make up for the obvious contradictions. As I've already said I understand. Admitting these things is heart-breaking because I went through it all when I was a Christian.
Quote No contradictions. And while you say I “inserted” many things, I didn't change anything or take anything out to make it work. It all works, when PUT IN THE RIGHT ORDER AND NOT JUMBLED UP AND TRIED TO MAKE CONTRADICTORY. And I only inserted the things that were somewhat obvious based on what we're told.
I didn't jumble a thing. I am not the one who had to insert assertions and assumptions. I just worked with the written account and inserted or rearranged nothing.Quote Quote I forget the term but its taking a preconceived belief and reading it into scripture rather than getting something from the scripture. I asked you for one contradiction. You finally came up with the fact that Matthew doesn't specifiy the excat number of people there and that other accounts (Mark for example) lists extra people.
Case dismissed.!
Yes you lost but won't admit it. So case dismissed.Quote Show me satan's character from the Tanakh, not the Christian bible. The Christian bible is mixed with mythology so its views on demons and satan are swayed to that idealogy. Therefore please show me that this satan of yours is the bad guy constantly trying to outdo G-d. (See Job for more information.)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
