It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POPE: Interfaith Service, Bring All Religions Together, JESUS Failed At The Cross

page: 6
16
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 01:15 AM
link   
Religion smh I remember my believer days..




posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

they have to downplay Christ for the one world religion he will lead…

----------------------

yt: Lee Strobel - The Case for the Resurrection
www.youtube.com...
yt: The Bible Is True! ~ The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict
www.youtube.com...
yt: Walter Veith (13) Battle of the Bibles /Total Onslaught
youtu.be...
youtube: The Resurrection Argument That Changed a Generation of Scholars - Gary Habermas at UCSB youtu.be...

yt: Chuck Missler - How We Got Our Bible
youtu.be...



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

they have to downplay Christ for the one world religion he will lead…

----------------------

yt: Lee Strobel - The Case for the Resurrection
www.youtube.com...
yt: The Bible Is True! ~ The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict
www.youtube.com...
yt: Walter Veith (13) Battle of the Bibles /Total Onslaught
youtu.be...
youtube: The Resurrection Argument That Changed a Generation of Scholars - Gary Habermas at UCSB youtu.be...

yt: Chuck Missler - How We Got Our Bible
youtu.be...



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 12:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Kapusta

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
Is he really saying Jesus failed? Only a total fool would declare that to be true. Imagine the penalty for that on judgement day.


A total fool who has acess to more secret religious text then you have ever seen .

I am not Christian but i agree with what he's. Saying.






That doesn't mean he can make up his own rules.. I can say with an honest and clear conscious that Jesus did NOT fail. And anyone saying he did, does so at their own risk. This POPE does not represent God, or God's Son and is a blasphemous fool.

Oh, and that is also why you agree with him, you are not a Christian.. Makes perfect sense.


If you consider that Jesus did even exist as the tales are told, and that all went down as told, you are indeed a fool.

Secondly, if you cannot see that exactly NOTHING changed, or even made a small whisper in any direction after said events you have been had.

Consider that you know exactly jack squat about what this planet is, what we are, and what is REALLY happening here, and elsewhere....

But I know you cannot, no religious person I have met, can.


Spoken like a truly blind person. You are spiritually dead in your heart. It is as plain as day, but darker than night.
I hope you eventually see.



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 03:02 AM
link   
The Pope is against Christ because the Pope's father is Satan the Devil. Jesus Christ is King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Francis will be crying for someone, anyone to dip their finger in water and come cool his tongue in hell.

Jesus Christ is The Son of God, Jehovah. Pope Francis is a son of Satan, Lucifer and both Satan and the sons of Satan will all be burning in the lake of fire FOREVER, each in their turn.

Jesus Christ is King in eternity and will rule with his Father God forever.

Jesus Christ failed at the cross??? God will laugh at your calamity when it comes and believe me, it is coming quickly because Jesus Christ is coming quickly!!!



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 03:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kapusta

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
Is he really saying Jesus failed? Only a total fool would declare that to be true. Imagine the penalty for that on judgement day.


A total fool who has acess to more secret religious text then you have ever seen .

I am not Christian but i agree with what he's. Saying.




So are you as a Muslim willing to celebrate Jesus Christ as God's only son ?

Jesus Christ...man/God ?

Are you ?



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 08:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: randyvs

I disagree, humans have always been pretty crappy. Ever heard of Unit 731? It happened 70 years ago and it makes ISIS look like a bunch of preschoolers by comparison. It only looks worse because we get information almost instantly whereas in the past we didn't. Even the Romans did some pretty barbaric stuff in their time, the same goes for pretty much any superpower in history.


For those interested read what unit 731 did.



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: UnifiedSerenity

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: randyvs I disagree, humans have always been pretty crappy. Ever heard of Unit 731? It happened 70 years ago and it makes ISIS look like a bunch of preschoolers by comparison. It only looks worse because we get information almost instantly whereas in the past we didn't. Even the Romans did some pretty barbaric stuff in their time, the same goes for pretty much any superpower in history.
For those interested read what unit 731 did.


How does anyone even dream this stuff up?

My mind can't process these stuff even when spoken off. What can of mind can even come up these horrible acts?



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Cor Leonis

You wrote: "Jesus Christ failed at the cross ? God will laugh at your calamity when it comes and believe me, it is coming quickly - because Jesus Christ is coming quickly..."

Quckly ??!!

I think it would be appropriate in calling 'a failure' anyone who did not live up to their professed statements and expectations, in this case, the promises of 'glory' for the Bar-Enasha ('son of man').

The earliest Nazorean Jews that were part of the circle around Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean ("Jesus") believed that he would return from 'heaven' in their lifetimes - but it never happened according to plan, so what later became Christians down to the present day have this (among other) thorny problem to wrestle with -

R. Yehoshua did NOT come back as he promised more than 2000 years ago - see the use of the phrase Maranatha (maranâ thâ' or מרן אתא: maran 'athâ' ) a two-word Aramaic formula occurring only once in the New Testament ('May the Lord come quickly') and also in the Didache,which is the preamble to the longer phrase (edited out for security reasons in the 1st century) 'May the Lord quickly come to execute vengeance upon all the goyim...' which is a quotation from chapter 1 of 1 Henoch...

but See Mark 14:62 / Luke 22:69 and Matthew 24:27 / Luke 17:24

'You will see the bar-Enasha riding upon the clouds of heaven... sitting at the right hand of the Mighty [One]...with all of his holy ones with him...'for as the Lightning flashes from the East to the West of Heaven, so shall the Son of Man be in his day [of vengeance]...

In this quotation from Mark 14:62 one sees the phrase: YOU WILL SEE which is being addressed to an individual living in the early part of the 1st century CE and yet that person or group of persons standing in the room are long dead and buried without having seen anything like the Son of Man coming on the clouds.

Interestingly, the Transfiguration pericopes try to show that he appeared 'in glory' to his inner circle of disciples (John, Peter and James) with the booming voice declaring ' this is my son, LISTEN TO HIM' which is a direct reference to Exodus 23:20-21 and Deuteronomy 18:15

Behold, I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared. Pay attention to him and listen to what he says...and YHWH your clan-god will raise up for you a Prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him !"

see Deuteronomy 13:1ff
If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. "

In other words the function of the Transfiguratiion was to show that "Jesus" was NOT a false prophet or a failure, but that his prophecies of glory (like lightning bolts) came true...but it is clear that this was a 'vision' and not something that others could or would see 'in real life' but something that faded from view after a short time (see Matthew 17:1-13 / Mark 9:2-13 / Luke 9:28-40...

So the early church was trying to forestall the accusation that Jesus was a failure and a 'false prohet' with this story...which is a Midrash of various Old Testament verses ('the Righteous One shall shine like the sun' etc.) in a form of Apologia against detractors...

But the fact remains that the man was put to death by crucifixion for armed sedition against Rome, which carried with it the extreme penalty in the 1st century ('no god but Caesar') ... and therefore he failed in his mission to usher in the kingdom as he saw it (see Aram. Daniel 7:12-14)











edit on 4-10-2015 by Sigismundus because: stutterinnnggggg computerrrr



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Sigismundus


So the early church was trying to forestall the accusation that Jesus was a failure and a 'false prohet' with this story...which is a Midrash of various Old Testament verses ('the Righteous One shall shine like the sun' etc.) in a form of Apologia against detractors... But the fact remains that the man was put to death by crucifixion for armed sedition against Rome, which carried with it the extreme penalty in the 1st century ('no god but Caesar') ... and therefore he failed in his mission to usher in the kingdom as he saw it (see Aram. Daniel 7:12-14)

John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

The purpose of Christ Jesus upon this earth was not to magically forgive people for their sins. The world had that already in various religions and rituals.

The purpose of the Christ Jesus was to salvage those who would believe in Him and give them a way to enter the heavenly abode. Naturally in order to have access to the heavenly abode was through Christ Jesus and to adhere to His doctrine. That is what is meant by forgiving sins. You must have forgiveness of sins to be a candidate to enter the celestial abode.

Up to and including Jesus existing as a human, the spirits of the dead souls were contained in the earth and no human had been resurrected from the earth to His celestial kingdom. Jesus’ entire purpose for existence was to establish His kingdom of heaven. Jesus never revealed this kingdom of heaven till He gave the revelation to the Apostle John. In lite of this, it is not true that He ever intended to build a one world religion upon this earth. His intent was to establish His church (body) of those who want to accept Him and be with Him in His kingdom and nothing more.

Jesus was never tried or crucified for any armed resistance of any sort. He was accused and acquitted by the Sanhedrin and Rome both but was crucified by mob rule. There was no court order from Rome against Jesus. Less than five years later Pilate was deposed on usurping unauthorized authority in the name of Rome, exiled and committed suicide.



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede

You wrote: "Jesus was never tried or crucified for any armed resistance of any sort. He was accused and acquitted by the Sanhedrin and Rome both but was crucified by mob rule. There was no court order from Rome against Jesus. Less than five years later Pilate was deposed on usurping unauthorized authority ..."

The technical accusation would have been 'breach of 'LEX MAIESTATIS' the so-called 'No King but Caesar' law which if convicted (or in Pilate's case, heard an accusation) carried with it the death penalty. A Roman Crucifixion is reserved for armed sedition against the state. Mobs do not crucify Daviddic pretenders.

Perhaps you have glossed over some material evidence in the gospels, using the criterion of embarrassment would include the arming of his disciples with real swords

Luke 22:35-36

Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” “Nothing,” they answered. 36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, go sell your outer tunic and purchase one sraightaway...and they say to him 'here are two swords' and he said to them' do you really think 2 swords are enough?'"

Which led to some ear-slashing on the hill near Gayith-semaneh (John 18:10, Matthew 26:51 & Luke 22:50)

"And one of them drew his sword and struck the high priest's slave, slashing off his right ear..." So we know real swords were used.

Also notice the riot in the temple (whips and chords knocking over tables etc. in the Court of the Gentiles - see all 4 gospel accounts of this act of public disruption - John 2:13-16, Matthew 21:12, Mark

John 2:13-16
"When it was almost time for Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the Temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords and drove all from the Temple, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said: 'Get out of here..."

see also Matthew's gospel gives the same order of events.

Matthew 21:12-13)
"Jesus entered the Temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. 'It is written,' he said to them, 'My house will be called a 'house of prayer' but you are making it 'a den of robbers'.'"

The Purchase of swords is only found in Luke, but the slashing of the ear of the slave of the high priest and the riot in the temple are depicted in all four gospels, with the added feature of the criterion of embarrassment (where the church would hardly have made the story up since it does not cast their hero "Jesus" in a favourable light...

Most fundamentalist Christians either do not know the facts underlying the stories in the Gospels or they just have found it too uncomfortable to reflect upon, but those who have studied the material carefully can see that Roman Law was at stake and that Lex Maiestatis under Tiberius carried with it the death penalty.

Are you telling me you did NOT know these things?


edit on 5-10-2015 by Sigismundus because: stutterringg commputterrrr keyyyboarddd

edit on 5-10-2015 by Sigismundus because: stutterinnnng keyboardddd



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Sigismundus


TextAre you telling me you did NOT know these things?

No I am not telling you that I am ignorant of what you had posted. By mob rule is meant that Pilate was greatly influenced and controlled by the house of Caiaphas and the mob rule was but a show backed with the total influence of the House of Caiaphas. There was no legal trial of Jesus by Roman law. Only the whim of one man who decided the fate of another man. It is a well known and accepted tradition that Caiaphas/Ananus were great friends of Pilate and that Pilate was not in good standing with Rome as was later shown by his being deposed.

The Sanhedrin (Legal court of the Jews) acquitted Jesus of blaspheming God but the entire matter was then brought to Pilate through the contention of Caiaphas. If this were not true then Pilate would not have washed his hands of the matter so as to not be responsible. The matter would have then been dropped were it not for the mob who insisted that Jesus be killed. Pilate appeased his friend Caiaphas by offering the Jews a choice in this matter between a convicted thief and Jesus knowing that Jesus was marked for death. The sentenced was established not by Roman law nor a Roman judge but by mob rule controlled by Caiaphas/Ananus.

Therefore it could not have been "LEX MAIESTATIS' the so-called 'No King but Caesar' law" as you have postulated. If that were true then the charge would have been noted as such and Pilate would never have washed his hands of the entire matter. If it were true that this was a pardoned charge then Pilate would also have been guilty of the very same same charge as Jesus. This was why Pilate had the inscription "King Of The Jews" placed upon the tree. This made it very clear that this death was not for usurping any sort of Roman authority. It was a crime against Pilate's good friend Caiaphas.

As far as arming the Apostles with swords is concerned, this was noted for protection only against the natural elements of beasts and snakes. Jesus did not encourage any sort of armed resistance toward Rome or national Judaism. This also has nothing to do with Jesus scourging a Jewish temple. That was not an act against Rome whatsoever. It was an act against the corruption of the house of Caiaphas who controlled and reaped all of the proceeds of temple income. It all centered about the exchange of money from the civil value to the temple value.



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede

Your wrote: "QUOTE: By mob rule is meant that Pilate was greatly influenced and controlled by the house of Caiaphas and the mob rule was but a show backed with the total influence of the House of Caiaphas. There was no legal trial of Jesus by Roman law...

The Sanhedrin (Legal court of the Jews) acquitted Jesus of blaspheming but the entire matter was then brought to Pilate through the contention of Caiaphas....the matter would have then been dropped were it not for the mob who insisted that Jesus be killed....the sentenced was established not by Roman law nor a Roman judge but by mob rule controlled by Caiaphas/Annanus.

Therefore it could not have been "LEX MAIESTATIS' the so-called 'No King but Caesar' law" as you have postulated. If that were true then the charge would have been noted as such..." UNQUOTE

Where to begin? Your post is full of historical inaccuracies...and one must be very careful of going purely by Gospel accounts and treating them as unbiased historical sources - they are after all early Christian propaganda tools...

l. The Sanhedrin could not order a crucifixion, which is a Roman execution reserved ONLY for armed sedition against the State of non citizens (breach of Lex Maiestatis, which carried the ultimate penalty). If it was a Jewish execution it would have been stoning, being thrown from a precipice or beheading.

2. Pilate did indeed order crucifixions and other death penalties in an ad hoc manner without benefit of trial,

cf: Philo of Alexandria's testimony in his ("address to Caligula") :

" Pilatus was a cruel and stone-hearted [Praefect], rampant in his briberies and extortions, his embezzlement of Temple funds, his ad hoc executions without trial and his infinite savagery....." see his Legatio ad Gaium.

3. Pilatus was recalled to Rome for all of the atrocities listed above in 37 CE but the 'divine' Emperor Tiberius died shortly thereafter in March 37CE, more than a year after Pilate's mentor Sejanus was executed in Rome for treason...
There is a play on words in the story in John 19:11

(cf: "Pilate: 'Don't you know that I have the power to crucify you or to release you?
Jesus: You would have no power were it not granted to you from above,

which is double reference both to Sejanus who appointed him as Praefect and to YHWH the clan- god of Israel who was thought by Jews to control affairs of state as well as religious behavior...

I'm not sure of the absolute historicity of the prisoner exchange outlined in all four gospels but there seems to have been an early tradition of the two Jesuses - the seditionist Jesus Bar-Abba ('Jesus son of the Father") and "Jesus who is called the Messiah (Gk./ Christos) " - see Matthew 27:17)

Either way the mob could only carry the case so far - it was the Roman prefect who ordered the whipping and the carrying of the crossbeam and the crucifixion, not the mob... surely you should know these basic facts...

Was there even a trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin, the Jewish Court of 23 or even 71?

Chayim Cohn’s view is that on the night before his trial Jesus was indeed in the house of the High Priest. But there was no trial only a hearing.

Cohn gives six different reasons for his conclusion.

The first was that the Sanhedrin could not, and never did, exercise jurisdiction in the house of the High Priest or anywhere outside the Courthouse and the Temple precinct.

Secondly, criminal trials had to be conducted and finished during the daytime; no session of the criminal court was permissible at night.

Thirdly, a criminal trial was not allowed to take place on the eve of a feast day, nor on the feast day itself, and the setting is Pesach or Passover.

Fourthly, no man might be found guilty on his own confession.

Fifthly, a conviction must proceed from the testimony of at least two truthful and independent witnesses, who give evidence both as to the commission of the offence in their very presence and as to the knowledge of the accused that the act was punishable by a particular penalty.

And sixthly, the offence of blasphemy is not committed unless the witnesses testify that the accused had, in their presence, pronounced the tetragrammaton YHWH which might only be pronounced once a year on the Day of Atonement by the High Priest in the Holy of Holies in the Temple in Jerusalem, the Kodesh Kodashim. “The apparent violation”, justice Cohn goes on, “of all rules of procedure and all provisions of the substantive criminal law, furnishes the supporters of the Jewish trial theory with the well-nigh conclusive argument that both the hearing and the sentence were illegal.

But so far from disproving their theory, this illegality only adds infamy and opprobrium to the perversion and miscarriage of justice which characterized this night-hearing. On the other hand, however, it has been maintained that such wholesale violation of all the rules of law and procedure is not only highly improbable, but in view of the rigorous and formalistic exactitude for which the post exilic Pharisees were notorious and utterly inconceivable...

The Judaean authorities had no part in the hearing before Pilate - it was the soldiers under Pilate’s command who, as the Gospel writers themselves state, scourged him, led him to the place of execution and nailed him to the cross for capital offences against the Ronan maiestatis - something they took very seriously in those days...





edit on 7-10-2015 by Sigismundus because: stutttterringg keyyboardddd



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Sigismundus


Where to begin? Your post is full of historical inaccuracies...and one must be very careful of going purely by Gospel accounts and treating them as unbiased historical sources - they are after all early Christian propaganda tools...

Little more can be discussed with this attitude that the Gospels are nothing but inaccurate Christian propaganda tools.
This and your source of a Jewish Lawyer, Haim H. Cohn, can not be honored by my sources.

I did find it amusing that you would reference the Gospel of John in suggesting a comparison (cf) after the statement that the Gospels were Christian propaganda tools.

(cf: "Pilate: 'Don't you know that I have the power to crucify you or to release you?
Jesus: You would have no power were it not granted to you from above,

John 19:10 Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?
John 19:11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

I believe Cohn was a biased Jewish Lawyer who could not agree with Christianity under most circumstances and being such could never present the true concept that the Gospels show.

By the account of the Gospel of Nicodemus and other apocryphal sources, Jesus did stand trial before the Sanhedrin of 71 in the Chamber of Hewn Stones and was acquitted from the charge of blasphemy. The vote is noted as 40 to 31. Rome had no quarrel or part in this charade till Caiaphas then brought the matter to Pilate under a different charge of sedition. Pilate was forced to attend this charge as it was voiced against Caesar. If Pilate had refused then he too would have been guilty of embracing sedition. Believe as you will but our sources are vastly different. By the way a short time later Pilate was found guilty of sedition and relieved from his post.

Thanks for your time. I wish you well.



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 11:29 AM
link   
It is mankind who has failed.



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede

You wrote: "By the way a short time later Pilate was found guilty of sedition and relieved from his post. "

I'm not sure if you understand the word 'sedition' which refers to armed rebellion, in this case against Caesar and the state; Pilate was recalled by Tiberius for just about everything but sedition (e.g. cruelty, bribery and extortion etc.) but definitely not sedition.

Here is a dictionary definition of SEDITION: 'Conduct, activity or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of the State...'

Pilate was hardly a rebel, whereas R. Yeshoshua armed his disciples with real swords and caused a riot in the court of the gentiles in the Temple (the whips and cords episode), which is the activity of a seditionist fanatic who oversteps the bounds of 'decent conduct'.

The term Lestae in the Greek refers to seditionists who were crucified with 'Jesus' so he was in good company. Did he fail in his mission? Alas, yes, his life ws cut short before his imaginary Daviddic kingdom got off the ground...

I'll answer some of your other misinformed points in a separate posting...



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 02:49 PM
link   
The long-standing underlying prejudices from Protestants against Catholics becomes crystal clear in this thread.

How refreshing that the pretenses are being dropped, finally.



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Sigismundus


I'm not sure if you understand the word 'sedition' which refers to armed rebellion, in this case against Caesar and the state; Pilate was recalled by Tiberius for just about everything but sedition (e.g. cruelty, bribery and extortion etc.) but definitely not sedition. Here is a dictionary definition of SEDITION: 'Conduct, activity or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of the State...'

Yes I very well understand the meaning of sedition and it can but does not necessarily mean armed resistance which in this event it did not. Pilate was also charged with plotting the murder of the Caesar among other charges.

sedition
noun se·di·tion si-ˈdi-shən - the crime of saying, writing, or doing something that encourages people to disobey their government

Tiberius died as Pilate was en route back to Rome but was still charged with sedition by Gaius (Caligula) --

As was shown in above post, The temple was not of Roman interest to defend nor was it of any interest to Rome except the tributes that it garnished. It was the responsibility of the temple authorities and their temple guards to keep order in the temple proper. Short swords or daggers were common among travelers for numerous reasons from hunting and preparing food to protection from the elements. As I stated before, the NT literature does not show Jesus as ever inciting armed resistance towards any faction. Your sources (Cohn etc.) are greatly mistaken.



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 09:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede

You wrote: QUOTE "The temple was not of Roman interest to defend nor was it of any interest to Rome except the tributes that it garnished. It was the responsibility of the temple authorities and their temple guards to keep order in the temple proper. Short swords or daggers were common among travelers for numerous reasons from hunting and preparing food to protection from the elements. As I stated before, the NT literature does not show Jesus as ever inciting armed resistance towards any faction. Your sources (Cohn etc.) are greatly mistaken..." UNQUOTE

The Fortress of Antonia held temples to the gods of Rome and was physically attached overlooking the Temp[le Complex (a vantage point which was of importance to the Romans) ...so they could see what was going on in the open air layout of the Temple precincts itself... According to Josephus. Romans allowed them to be exempt from most of the religious obligations that were imposed on other inhabitants of the cities (sacrificing to the Roman gods and to the Emperor as a Divine god-king) and Jews agreed to a compromise by offering sacrifices and prayers for the emperor in their own Temple in Jerusalem.

But before going on, maybe it would be helpful for you to examine the evidence within the gospels themselves a l;ittle more closely on the subject of Jesus' failed insurrection against Rome...

'Short swords/daggers being common among travelers' does not explain the mandatory acquisition of swords on the hill by express order of R. Yehoshua (Luke 22:36 "Let him who has no sword go out, sell his outer tunic and purchase one right away")

R. Yehoshua named many of his disciples with Zealot nick-names e.g. Kephah (Shimeon bar Yonah, aka the Rock, Gk. ho Petros) or Jacob & Yohanon bar Zavdai (James and John sons of Zebedee) called Benei-Regesh ('sons of Thunder') and then of course there was listed as one of the 12 a certain man called Shimeon ha Qana [Zelotes / Kananaios] aka Simon the Zealot...

Notice the preponderance of zealot-warrior titles among the 12 that we see within the texts of the council approved gospels ...during the arrest, it is not therefore surprising that swords were used when the slave of the high priest's ear was slashed off in a scuffle with the Temple Police.

See Luke 21:22 'These are the Days of Vengeance of our clan-god when all things must be fulfilled..."' - which is a slogan of the Zealotes after 6 CE. See references to the Days of Vengeance in the Dead Sea Scrolls in their pesher commentaries on Isaiah 38 and 61.

That 'Jesus" was no shrinking violet when it came to standing up to the Romans (which the DSS calls Kittim) see below:

Matthew 10:34
Do you imagine that the Bar Enasha ('Son of Man') was sent to bring peace to the land [of Yisro'el] ? - Nay but Amen Amen I say unto you, the Bar Enasha was not sent to bring Peace, but a Sword, not harmony, but division...see Micah 7:6

see Luke 12:51
"Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two, and two against three...

A significant amount of War / Warrior / Zealot language permeates many of the sayings placed into the Greek mouth of 'ho Iesous' - the Year 36 CE was also the 100th anniversary (2 Jubilees) of the successful Macabbean Revolt against the Syrian overlords(c. 164 BCE) so some sort of Holy War timetable was being considered at the time of the Arrest...

[Later in 66CE when the 1st Failed Jewish Revolt against Rome broke out, it was the 70th anniversary of the death of Herod 'the Great' in 4 BCE - another holy-war timetable that was being watched closely by zealots)...

Scholars who have studied these texts in close detail not that a 'warrior Jesus' exists at the core of the council approved Gospel material but is cleverly masked by the writers which only sometimes allow older layers of the original colours to leak through the over-painting - the writers clearly wished to tone down / downplay his zealot-like rhetoric in their propaganda-laden compilations of his words and deeds - but you have to be able to do a close reading of the text with un-biased eyes to see it.

See Luke 13:31-32

At that time some members of the Pharisees came to Jesus and said to him, “Leave this place and go somewhere else. Herod wants to kill you.” but he replied, “Go tell that [cowering]-jackal, ‘I will keep on driving out demons and healing people both today and tomorrow, until I am ingathered ..."

Jackals were known to haunt remote unpopulated areas like cemeteries, being naturally timid - the insult to Herod here was that Herod was too soft with the occupying power, and the disciples 'thought the Kingdom of Heaven was going to appear at any moment...'

Anyone trying to paint "Jesus" as some kind of mamby-pamby peacenik riddle-spinning story teller is in for a big surprise once he studies the Greek MSS evidence up close and personal.

There were legal/criminal consequences of assembling gangs of persons brandishing swords at 100 year anniversaries marking a successful Rebellion as was the case with 'ho Iesous". It ight be helpful for you to read some of the work of Reza Aslan which brings out this theme in great detail.

'






edit on 8-10-2015 by Sigismundus because: stutterrrring computterr keybbboardd



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Sigismundus
It ight be helpful for you to read some of the work of Reza Aslan which brings out this theme in great detail.


It ight be helpful for you to read some of the work of Reza Aslan which brings out this theme in great detail.

Surly one can do better than the uncertain mindset of Aslan. If one reads this man's work it would be totally confused just as he is. Your choice of people such as Aslan and Cohn is really not the best in this biblical theological mindset.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join