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.

 

Obey the authorities or you will be punished!

page: 9
7
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by borntowatch
How could it be treason, thats absurd.


Perhaps you missed these quotes in my previous posts.



Jesus was arrested on a charge of treason and was crucified, a common form of execution for condemned criminals. To the Romans, Jesus was a troublemaker who had got his just desserts.
www.pbs.org...



Arrested on a charge.......
Where was Jesus charged for treason.
Where is the evidence he was convicted of treason.
Its a simple question




posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by borntowatch

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by borntowatch
How could it be treason, thats absurd.


Perhaps you missed these quotes in my previous posts.



Jesus was arrested on a charge of treason and was crucified, a common form of execution for condemned criminals. To the Romans, Jesus was a troublemaker who had got his just desserts.
www.pbs.org...



Arrested on a charge.......
Where was Jesus charged for treason.
Where is the evidence he was convicted of treason.
Its a simple question


UHM, ........... His crucifixion?
edit on 24-7-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by borntowatch

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by borntowatch
How could it be treason, thats absurd.


Perhaps you missed these quotes in my previous posts.



Jesus was arrested on a charge of treason and was crucified, a common form of execution for condemned criminals. To the Romans, Jesus was a troublemaker who had got his just desserts.
www.pbs.org...

You have no evidence the charge was upheld and


Arrested on a charge.......
Where was Jesus charged for treason.
Where is the evidence he was convicted of treason.
Its a simple question


UHM, ........... His crucifixion?
edit on 24-7-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)


Pilate washed his hands of the Innocents blood, called Him innocent yet?.
Well done, still nothing

Read the story, please

even go watch the passion film if you cant be bothered reading. I think that was half decent story wise.(I could be wrong)



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by borntowatch
 


I don't get your point? Jesus was dead, crucified for treason. Who cares if he was guilty or not? Pilot didn't. He was crucified for the crime!



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by borntowatch
 


Pilate approved his crucifixion on the grounds of him committing treason, a.k.a. claiming to be the "King of Jews" and "Son of God". Whether Pilate "washed his hands" doesn't matter, he still approved his death.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that Pilate sentenced him to death by crucifixion based on the charges that the Jews brought forth, a.k.a. treason and blasphemy. Why are you ignoring those obvious facts?


John 19
7 The Jewish leaders insisted, “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.”



John 19
15 But they shouted, “Take him away! Take him away! Crucify him!”

“Shall I crucify your king?” Pilate asked.

“We have no king but Caesar,” the chief priests answered

16 Finally Pilate handed him over to them to be crucified.


I know, you want to ignore the facts because they go against your already held belief system.

edit on 24-7-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-7-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



Romans 13
4 For the one in authority is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.



John 18
36 Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”


Enough said.

Jesus did not consider this kingdom his own, meaning he disagreed that the (Jewish) leaders/authorities were God's servants.
edit on 24-7-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 





Yes, he did, and that is the point of the scene with Pilate -- Jesus completely submitted to the authority that Pilate thought that he had, even though he pointed out that Pilate had no authority apart from that which was given to him by God.


I disagree.

I hardly see that a life ministry of criticising the pharisees, calling them "Satan's sons", and a brood of vipers, while breaking Jewish laws, healing on the Sabbath, not washing his hands, teaching it's okay to eat unclean meats, etc., avoiding being stoned and thrown off a cliff by angry crowds, only to have that life culminate in his arrest and conviction, equates to a willful submission to their earthly authority.

By this time, what choice did Jesus have? He was under arrest. Besides that, he launched no defense, which was his right! Is that our example? Give up our rights too, even while innocent? Take up your cross and follow him to the slaughter, without defense?

If this is the message, why are Christians political activists? Under the philosophy of Romans 13, shouldn't they passively submit to authority, even if it's appears corrupt? God knows Jesus did/didn't.







edit on 25-7-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by borntowatch
 


Pilate approved his crucifixion on the grounds of him committing treason, a.k.a. claiming to be the "King of Jews" and "Son of God". Whether Pilate "washed his hands" doesn't matter, he still approved his death.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that Pilate sentenced him to death by crucifixion based on the charges that the Jews brought forth, a.k.a. treason and blasphemy. Why are you ignoring those obvious facts?


John 19
7 The Jewish leaders insisted, “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.”



John 19
15 But they shouted, “Take him away! Take him away! Crucify him!”

“Shall I crucify your king?” Pilate asked.

“We have no king but Caesar,” the chief priests answered

16 Finally Pilate handed him over to them to be crucified.


I know, you want to ignore the facts because they go against your already held belief system.

edit on 24-7-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-7-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)


Pilate allowed it without condoning the crucifixion
But hey you read the bible...maybe....once



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen
 




I disagree.

I hardly see that a life ministry of criticising the pharisees, calling them "Satan's sons", and a brood of vipers, while breaking Jewish laws, healing on the Sabbath, not washing his hands, teaching it's okay to eat unclean meats, etc., avoiding being stoned and thrown off a cliff by angry crowds, only to have that life culminate in his arrest and conviction, equates to a willful submission to their earthly authority.

By this time, what choice did Jesus have? He was under arrest. Besides that, he launched no defense, which was his right! Is that our example? Give up our rights too, even while innocent? Take up your cross and follow him to the slaughter, without defense?

If this is the message, why are Christians political activists? Under the philosophy of Romans 13, shouldn't they passively submit to authority, even if it's appears corrupt? God knows Jesus did/didn't.



edit on 25-7-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)


What earthly authority, the Pharisees laws (Jewish laws, Gods laws???), come on you are not suggesting that are you.
Also if you could tell me what were the laws made for.
Sheesh

Dont all US citizens submit now to a corrupt government, dont you?


edit on 25-7-2013 by borntowatch because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by borntowatch
 





What earthly authority, the Pharisees laws (Jewish laws, Gods laws???), come on you are not suggesting that are you.


I don't have to. The Bible makes it clear.


Also if you could tell me what were the laws made for.


Social control.


Sheesh Dont all US citizens submit now to a corrupt government, dont you?


To an extent. I have practiced civil disobedience. So did Jesus, according to the Bible.

I certainly don't believe what's put forth in Romans 13. that all rulers are placed there by God, for our own good.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 09:23 AM
link   
I think he's talking about being a good person, for we are to strive to have integrity and be a good person, to understand there are no coincidences in our lives, that everything is working towards our greater good, even if some things were hard, and this does not mean the government are angels, they could be inspired by the opposite, it means that there are no coincidences, for everything is arranged for our tests based on our frequency and grade. It does not say we are not to legally and peacefully change things, work for positive change, for that is what good people do. But that becoming the dark side to accomplish change isn't going to work.

That is what I got out of that, not a rosy glowing pat on the back for the government.

Our situations are hand picked and there are no mistakes in the school, ie the ones that we had no choice over.

This does not mean integrity doesnt ask for us to change things in a positive way, and that we should not seek within, for example. Because there are things that are crimes against humanity if you obey. Because they don't have those rights over people. But this is more about open rebellion and how you respond to the government, being a good upright person who keeps his word, pays back what he owes.

While I can see a possible good, in this, I also see Rome in it.

I could see how they may have taken a passage and distorted it, so it now reads like this, but it could have been about working for change, and not obeying crimes because Goodness doesn't expect that either.

Also what possible inner metaphorical process could this be about? Men and woman of peace and love and good conscience generally don't need passages like that said to them, so who is the target audience?
edit on 25-7-2013 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by borntowatch
 





What earthly authority, the Pharisees laws (Jewish laws, Gods laws???), come on you are not suggesting that are you.


I don't have to. The Bible makes it clear.


Also if you could tell me what were the laws made for.


Social control.


Sheesh Dont all US citizens submit now to a corrupt government, dont you?


To an extent. I have practiced civil disobedience. So did Jesus, according to the Bible.

I certainly don't believe what's put forth in Romans 13. that all rulers are placed there by God, for our own good.


That was a very good guess, sadly you show that though you may have read the bible, you didnt understand it.
What earthly authority are you talking about. I dont understand what you mean


and how does the social control effect us, the bible is clear the laws are made for men, not men for the law. Understand?
I dont think so.

Submitting to a corrupt government is irrelevant, we all do it. If you want to live in peace try live accordingly
Simple isnt it, no guarantee though. The bible doesnt guarantee a long and happy life here.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 





Also what possible inner metaphorical process could this be about? Men and woman of peace and love and good conscience generally don't need passages like that said to them, so who is the target audience?


As I stated earlier, I tend to think that this passage has been tampered with. However, if we take it at face value, who was the target audience? Perhaps disgruntled Christian Jews who were convinced that their faith in Jesus could topple the Roman stronghold over them, and were ready to take matters into their own hands.

It must have been very depressing for early Jewish Christians, and a hard pill to swallow, that the messiah came and went without restoring the Jewish kingdom.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by borntowatch
 





That was a very good guess, sadly you show that though you may have read the bible, you didnt understand it.


Yeah, I've read it, but don't take every bit of to be metaphysically important. The Bible has been written and rewritten, mistranslated and interpolated. Not every word of the Bible, especially the Pauline doctrines, was inspired, in my opinion.


What earthly authority are you talking about. I dont understand what you mean and how does the social control effect us,


I'm talking about this:


1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended.
4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.


I don't agree with it, and I don't think it's inspired by anything other than keeping the status quo of the TPTB; "The divine rights of kings"


the bible is clear the laws are made for men, not men for the law. Understand? I dont think so.


No. Laws are written by men, for men.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by borntowatch
 


If he didn't condone it, he showed it in a funny way. He flogged him then mocked him by putting "King of the Jews" on the cross even though Jesus never admitted to the title.

He allowed the crucifixion on the basis of Jesus claiming to be king and the son of God. If you can't see that then you are ignoring it.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


I think this is one of my favorite quotes from a very gifted gnostic teacher, ie brings it down to grass roots understanding in a very positive way.

www.spiritofthescripture.com...
Detachment: Yes Jesus Taught it Too


It’s a shame how many religious leaders still don’t understand the reason ancient religious texts like the Bible were written; it certainly wasn’t to establish a religion!



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Deleted due to those rare double posts.



edit on 25-7-2013 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by borntowatch
 


He allowed the crucifixion on the basis of Jesus claiming to be king and the son of God. If you can't see that then you are ignoring it.


Erm...that's missing a lot of the picture. Pilate didn't condone the execution so much as was coerced into it. Not only did Pilate say that he found no guilt in Jesus, his posting of the King of the Jews sign didn't appear to be viewed as a mockery by the Jewish religious authorities, who insisted that he take it down. (Pilate, in a moment of awesomeness, said "I have written what I have written.") A reading of the Biblical account (or even his Wikipedia page) makes it clear the Pilate's actions were based on his fear of the mob, not anything Jesus claimed or was charged with. I think it's pretty obvious that Pilate would never have executed Jesus on his own initiative, but in the end "delievered Jesus to their [the mob's and the chief priest's] will." (Like 23:25)

At any rate, not only did Pilate attempt to avoid all responsibility in the final execution, he also said on numerous occasions that he found no reason to execute Jesus. (Read Luke 23) As a Roman governor, I expect riots and insurrections were probably something he was trying to avoid.
edit on 26-7-2013 by StalkerSolent because: Clarification...



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by StalkerSolent
 


Yet the Jewish authorities are the ones who told Pilate more than once that Jesus was not their king and the only king they had was Caesar. So why would Pilate, after hearing from those that wanted Jesus crucified that he was NOT their king, still put "King of the Jews" on the cross? It was either to mock the Jews or to mock Jesus. Which do you think it was? Because he didn't put it there for no reason.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by StalkerSolent
 


Yet the Jewish authorities are the ones who told Pilate more than once that Jesus was not their king and the only king they had was Caesar. So why would Pilate, after hearing from those that wanted Jesus crucified that he was NOT their king, still put "King of the Jews" on the cross? It was either to mock the Jews or to mock Jesus. Which do you think it was? Because he didn't put it there for no reason.


Maybe he figured Jesus was the King of the Jews, or maybe he thought that, since the Jewish authorities were accusing him of that "crime" then it was only fair to Jesus to put that there. But it seems to me that he definitely had no problem mocking the chief priests. He didn't take down the sign, and later when the chief priests requested guards to secure Jesus' tomb, he cynically said "you've got your own guards, make it as sure as you can." Perhaps it's just me, but Pilate's attitude towards the chief priests appears very cynical and curt to the point of being almost hostile. I think if he was mocking anyone, it was the chief priests.

Which makes sense, considering that, as a Roman, he was probably frustrated with them killing (innocent) people, undermining his authority, and inciting mobs to make it all happen. I doubt that they appealed to his Roman upper-class sensibilities anyway.
edit on 26-7-2013 by StalkerSolent because: Added a point.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join