Conspired Plot To Have Jesus Murdered

originally posted by: Joecroft
a reply to: vethumanbeing

JC: Well if it aint the “Veteran of the (Human?) Specie” lol

VHB: And you thought I was 60.

JC: Actually no…I just knew you were very wise in spiritual years…that’ all lol

VHB: I need Utnapisditim; (I am not sixty).

THAT HEROD! Knew he was given the GIFT that would keep on giving IN a most negative way yet for some reason accepted as *Satan's vigilante*; (you realize he was rewarded in that current life for looking aside; purposeful/blindness; giving everything political back into Pilot's bloodied hands. These two are the greatest stooges of all time on record making the most illustrious horses behinds of themselves for history to record and repeat the misnomer over and over again. A recording; that becomes louder and more entrenched every time its remembered. I cannot think of more hated persons of interest regarding Jesus demise (Judas was a hired hand only, played a necessary role).

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: enterthestage

Right on, glad to make your acquaintance too.

Both of us see the truth, not because someone told us or we read it, but because the same source of truth about things and events is inside each of us. Lots of others, too.

Heres to the real source of discerning.

Let it be so!!! The Spirit chooses the ones who choose the Spirit.

a reply to: Joecroft

Why I say Herod admired John is because I remember reading that he enjoyed listening to him talk and was saddened that he had given his promise (to the unnamed Salome, see: Josephus) and now his "honor" demanded he follow through with the beheading of John the Baptizer.

He did it but I remember him being saddened by it. This is off memory so forgive me if I get a detail wrong.

a reply to: Joecroft

I think I said it wrong with "Herodias mom..."

It was Herodias herself who told (says Josephus) Salome to request John's head on a plate.

That's the confusion I think we had.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

I cannot think of more hated persons of interest regarding Jesus demise (Judas was a hired hand only, played a necessary role).

He knew where Jesus was and what he looked like. Could point him out in the dark. Fingered Jesus. No wonder he hanged himself. What a lout.

a reply to: intrptr

You don't think that Jesus telling Judas that he would betray him was an order?

If Jesus says you will do something and it is bad but what Jesus says God wants, you have to do it.

Judas was about to change plans and not do it so Satan had to possess him.

So he was possessed by the Prince of Darkness and I think he was more of an agent with a top secret mission that he wanted no part of and was forced to do against his will.

Plus if you're a salvationist you owe Judas for taking one for the team and the salvation of humanity is available thanks to Judas and Satan.

Just something to ponder. Also his Hebrew name is Judah so that adds some significance to the tale. Judah is "the betrayer" of the Lion of the tribe of Judah.

I think Judas was under orders and the fact that Christ told him he would do it leaves him no choice but to obey. It was an order.

a reply to: enterthestage

It doesn't say that. It does say he plotted wth Jews to capture him, led them to where he was and fingered him so he could be put to death. That whole plan was carried out by a "multitude" that came along wth torches and weapons to arrest him.

Only a man filled with resentment could see that all the way through. For whatever reason Judas heart was set against Jesus, there are no specifics about why he did it. But you could point me to scripture...

a reply to: intrptr

It does say Satan entered him.

And Jesus does tell him he will do it.

He couldn't do it so Satan had to enter him and make sure he got the job done.

It was God's plan and Judas helped. I don't see him as a traitor at all because if he didn't do it then the Crucifixion that is the crux of soteriology in Christianity never happens.

And we would not be discussing it right now, there would be no Christianity and no Messiah. He would have failed at his whole purpose of coming to earth.

It's alright, plenty of people see it both ways I just see it how I described it based on what the Gospels say. It's an alternative viewpoint but both are valid points of view I guess I just can't hate Judas for following God's will. He was a pawn.

a reply to: enterthestage

It does say Satan entered him.

Where?

originally posted by: enterthestage
a reply to: chr0naut

Just because you can produce prop pieces doesn't erase what I know. You would go to any measure to "prove" Nazareth was a place but it wasn't and I don't care who says otherwise no historically reliable evidence exists.

Except for the 1st century excavated caves (which could either be part of dwellings or be tombs, although no remains have been found in the caves) in Nazareth.

... and several 1st Century houses (purportedly, the archaeologist working the site, Stephen Pfann of the University of the Holy Land, suggested "Nazareth was tiny, with two or three clans living in 35 homes spread over 2.5 hectares".

... and an engraved slab of marble found in Caesarea, talking about the assignments of the 24 courses of the priesthood but directly mentioning a priest of the order of Elkalir who made his home in "Nasareth in Galilee".

... and numerous 1st century pottery fragments, found at many locations in Nazareth.

... and a mikvah ceremonial bath dated to the first century and probably indicating a synagogue.

... and several probable aqueducts leading to water storage tanks.

... and a column-drum type crushing stone roller (and the threshing floor where it was found).

... and an inscription by Caesar warning that those who disturb graves and tombs will be punished (found in Nazareth but now stored in the Louvre in Paris).

... and the remains of a lined basin used as a winepress and its collecting vat both dated from the first century (found in the grounds of Nazareth Hospital).

... and the terraced walls around the Hospital which pre-date the first century.

... and the bases of three watchtowers which surmount the terraced walls.

"Despite Nazareth's obscurity (which had led some critics to suggest that it was a relatively recent foundation), archeology indicates that the village has been occupied since the 7th century B.C., although it may have experienced a 'refounding' in the 2d century b.c. " ([MJ]A Marginal Jew--Rethinking the Historical Jesus, (vol 1), p.300-301)...cites Meyers and Strange, Archeology, the Rabbis, and Early Christianity, Abingdon:1981. pp.56-57

Might I suggest that "historically reliable evidence" now exists.

a reply to: chr0naut

I don't think so, sorry but Nazareth was not a town then and you're the only person I know who isn't aware of this. It's not something I even care about you are just obsessing over it while I could care less about your refusal to believe anything that contradicts the Bible.

As long as I walk in Truth you can think whatever you want. It's known to everyone who cares about the truth that Nazareth wasn't a town until Rome made it one to agree with the Gospel.

It is not like Rome was known for honesty, they don't mind the occasional "pious fraud."

Truthfully, IF it was a town...there is no proof of it in any historians testimony of the era and cave inscriptions can't be reliably dated so you're just %hit out of luck.

The Nazarenes themselves, the people who wrote and stashed the DSS around the first century, speak of many places and not once do they mention Nazareth.

That's basically proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Why don't you read the War Scroll and count the places mentioned and then think how unlikely it is that they don't ever mention a town called Nazareth.

Because it didn't exist. Nazarene was mistralated to Nazareth so deal with it or don't.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: enterthestage
a reply to: chr0naut

Just because you can produce prop pieces doesn't erase what I know. You would go to any measure to "prove" Nazareth was a place but it wasn't and I don't care who says otherwise no historically reliable evidence exists.

Except for the 1st century excavated caves (which could either be part of dwellings or be tombs, although no remains have been found in the caves) in Nazareth.

... and several 1st Century houses (purportedly, the archaeologist working the site, Stephen Pfann of the University of the Holy Land, suggested "Nazareth was tiny, with two or three clans living in 35 homes spread over 2.5 hectares".

... and an engraved slab of marble found in Caesarea, talking about the assignments of the 24 courses of the priesthood but directly mentioning a priest of the order of Elkalir who made his home in "Nasareth in Galilee".

... and numerous 1st century pottery fragments, found at many locations in Nazareth.

... and a mikvah ceremonial bath dated to the first century and probably indicating a synagogue.

... and several probable aqueducts leading to water storage tanks.

... and a column-drum type crushing stone roller (and the threshing floor where it was found).

... and an inscription by Caesar warning that those who disturb graves and tombs will be punished (found in Nazareth but now stored in the Louvre in Paris).

... and the remains of a lined basin used as a winepress and its collecting vat both dated from the first century (found in the grounds of Nazareth Hospital).

... and the terraced walls around the Hospital which pre-date the first century.

... and the bases of three watchtowers which surmount the terraced walls.

"Despite Nazareth's obscurity (which had led some critics to suggest that it was a relatively recent foundation), archeology indicates that the village has been occupied since the 7th century B.C., although it may have experienced a 'refounding' in the 2d century b.c. " ([MJ]A Marginal Jew--Rethinking the Historical Jesus, (vol 1), p.300-301)...cites Meyers and Strange, Archeology, the Rabbis, and Early Christianity, Abingdon:1981. pp.56-57

Might I suggest that "historically reliable evidence" now exists.

You worked hard for nothing because none of that is proof. Just speculation.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: enterthestage

It does say Satan entered him.

Where?

Luke 22:3

a reply to: intrptr

Also before the Last Supper Satan had already tempted Judas it says right before Judas takes the inaugural "body of Christ."

Judas took the first Communion so I think it is like every word significant and full of meaning. People take Communion millions of times every day and Judas was the first to take it. Because Christ gave it to him as an honor for doing the incomprehensible but evidently necessary as a part of God's divine plan.

He wasn't pleased to do it and it seems as soon as Satan left him he figures out what happened and returns the money. He was possessed when he did it but when Satan left him his own conscience kicked in and he mysteriously perished.

a reply to: intrptr


If it helps make sense think of this:


Abraham is called the friend of God and is a major hero Patriarch phenom of a prophet.

All because of his willingness to kill his son if it was what God asked. For this faith Abraham is blessed with descendants that number the stars and he fathers Isaac and Jacob/Israel.

Now Judas was told by the Son of God that he was going to betray him. Judas pleaded no but it was insisted as part of God's plan. Judas or Judah sacrificed the Son of God because God was showing "Abraham" the same faith Abraham showed him × infinite.

Because God is greater. Judas helped God with his plan to sacrifice his Son. To despise Judas is to despise God's plan as all Judas was was a chess piece doing what God made him do. He didn't give him a break last second like Abraham he had to go through with it.

a reply to: enterthestage

Thanks for the verse above. My problem is how the people that wrote the bible 70 years later knew this. What i mean is people are treacherous all by themselves, especially when it comes to control and especially, Organized Religion. people become incensed when you challenge their belief systems.

The church of his day sought to kill Jesus, their minion was Judas. How or why he reasoned to do this isn't shown. I.e., what he was thinking.

Simply saying the devil made me do it is so in denial of the more complex nature of criminal acts, even today.

a reply to: intrptr

In real life absolutely. I am speaking from myth and legend and offering a different interpretation of Judas by comparing him with Abraham who I actually never cared for, I actually like Judas.

What I am saying is God's Son and God had a plan to get the Son crucified. The Son enlisted the help of Judas and as terrible as it seems it is the foundation of salvation theology that Jesus be crucified for the sins of man. If Judas didn't do what Christ told him to do then he would have been a traitor.

a reply to: enterthestage

I also have a problem with god did it. That makes god evil don't you think, de facto responsible for all the evil things people do to each other down here, because its all part of gods plan?

Thats like saying good men are responsible for evil acts because they did nothing to stop it. So lets blame good people for the evil, too? People do evil things, out of greed, envy, anger, avarice, etc. Anger is not the devil, per se, its people who are angry and seeking revenge for something instead of forgiving.

a reply to: enterthestage

Originally posted by enterthestage
I think I said it wrong with "Herodias mom..."

It was Herodias herself who told (says Josephus) Salome to request John's head on a plate.

That's the confusion I think we had.

Actually no…it was my bad…I thought you were referring to Jesus actual resurrection…but now I realize you were talking about the verse Mark 6:16

Mark 6:14-16
14 King Herod heard about this, for Jesus’ name had become well known. Some were saying, “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead, and that is why miraculous powers are at work in him.”
15 Others said, “He is Elijah.” And still others claimed, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of long ago.”
16 But when Herod heard this, he said, “John, whom I beheaded, has been raised from the dead!”

I completely forgot about that verse, but thanks for bringing it up, because it shows that Antipas saw Jesus as being very similar to “John the Baptist”, which is just further evidence of reason and motive for Antipas wanting to dispose of him.


- JC

originally posted by: enterthestage

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: enterthestage
a reply to: chr0naut

Just because you can produce prop pieces doesn't erase what I know. You would go to any measure to "prove" Nazareth was a place but it wasn't and I don't care who says otherwise no historically reliable evidence exists.

Except for the 1st century excavated caves (which could either be part of dwellings or be tombs, although no remains have been found in the caves) in Nazareth.

... and several 1st Century houses (purportedly, the archaeologist working the site, Stephen Pfann of the University of the Holy Land, suggested "Nazareth was tiny, with two or three clans living in 35 homes spread over 2.5 hectares".

... and an engraved slab of marble found in Caesarea, talking about the assignments of the 24 courses of the priesthood but directly mentioning a priest of the order of Elkalir who made his home in "Nasareth in Galilee".

... and numerous 1st century pottery fragments, found at many locations in Nazareth.

... and a mikvah ceremonial bath dated to the first century and probably indicating a synagogue.

... and several probable aqueducts leading to water storage tanks.

... and a column-drum type crushing stone roller (and the threshing floor where it was found).

... and an inscription by Caesar warning that those who disturb graves and tombs will be punished (found in Nazareth but now stored in the Louvre in Paris).

... and the remains of a lined basin used as a winepress and its collecting vat both dated from the first century (found in the grounds of Nazareth Hospital).

... and the terraced walls around the Hospital which pre-date the first century.

... and the bases of three watchtowers which surmount the terraced walls.

"Despite Nazareth's obscurity (which had led some critics to suggest that it was a relatively recent foundation), archeology indicates that the village has been occupied since the 7th century B.C., although it may have experienced a 'refounding' in the 2d century b.c. " ([MJ]A Marginal Jew--Rethinking the Historical Jesus, (vol 1), p.300-301)...cites Meyers and Strange, Archeology, the Rabbis, and Early Christianity, Abingdon:1981. pp.56-57

Might I suggest that "historically reliable evidence" now exists.

You worked hard for nothing because none of that is proof. Just speculation.

It is far more than you (or anyone else) has offered to show that Nazareth was not there in the first century. Quite literally, you, and they, have offered NO proof.

It is not unreasonable that a little backwater, Jewish only, township of about 35 houses would be overlooked. Nearby Sepphoris itself was originally believed to have been uninhabited during Jesus youth (having been razed by Judas Ezekias and then subsequently burnt to the ground and its inhabitants enslaved and deported by the Roman Govenor Varus, in 4 BC). Sepphoris was then planned to be rebuilt as an "ideal city" by Herod Antipas about 20 AD (along with his other cities of Tiberius and Betharamphtha). In comparison, Jesus left Nazareth and began his ministry in 27 AD, so at the time, Sepphoris was likely still largely a construction site.

There is quite a lot of history and archaeology about the existence of Nazareth in the 1st century, just no documenting texts. In contrast, you only have an opinion and an absence of non-Biblical textual references about it.

Not to mention how rationally stupid the idea is that someone would go about building a town that didn't exist to fit a story.

If the gospels were so contrived, why didn't they just pick an existing town? There certainly are enough of them that could fulfil the requirements.

Why would anyone invent an imaginary town and then spend enourmous resources to build it, especially while they are under persecution of the government of the day?

Sorry, but the opinion (unsupported by ANY evidence) - not well reasoned.