Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2013 2:55:26 GMT -5
and yet He did had time for those Romans who had time for Him Your turn to show me where he had time for the Romans who had time for him -- and who the Romans were who had time for him. Matthew 8:5 And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him, Matthew 8:8 The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed. Matthew 8:13 And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour. Matthew 27:54 Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God. Acts 10:1 There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, Acts 10:22 And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 9, 2013 2:56:43 GMT -5
I have no pictures to show you. But picture this. First of all, understand that not all the Jews were considered rebels. The Jews who controlled the temple were totally in compliance with the Romans. Jesus was therefore an enemy to the Romans because he was an enemy to the only Jews allied with the Romans to maintain order. So: According to the Bible, he rode into Jerusalem to the cheers of crowds that hated the Romans -- a clear warning to the Romans to watch for trouble, According to the Bible, he was reputed to be the King of the Jews -- which in Roman law was considered rebellion. According to the Bible, he caused a riot in the temple in the face of Roman peacekeepers -- that is civil disobedience. Mind you, it wasn't just any day in the temple. It was Passover, the most chaotic time in the temple when pilgrims visiting from all over the known world came to sacrifice animals in the temple. Interestingly the Bible declines to mention what Judas had to tell them about Jesus, but they found it to be worth paying for. We do not read that any Jews condemned Jesus before he annoyed the Romans, but in those days one saved one's neck by making sure they reported any mention of sedition to the Romans lest they themselves be accused of covering it up. But none of that really matters that much. The simple fact that he was crucified means that he was accused by the Romans of sedition. I know, many people don't believe that. But I will take the Bible at its word and believe he was crucified for the normal reason, and not try to imagine some cocakamey excuse for why the Romans would want him killed for blasphemy. The Romans loved nothing more than someone who would blaspheme against the Jewish god. They should have saved him if that were the case. is there any where in the Bible that Jesus states clearly that He considered the Romans as His enemies? Of course not. Neither is there any place where he called himself the Son of God either.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 9, 2013 3:04:02 GMT -5
Your turn to show me where he had time for the Romans who had time for him -- and who the Romans were who had time for him. Matthew 8:5 And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him, Matthew 8:8 The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed. Matthew 8:13 And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour. Matthew 27:54 Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God. Acts 10:1 There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, Acts 10:22 And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee. But it doesn't say that they were Romans. One cannot assume they were Romans just because they were in the Roman Army. Most people in the Roman Empire were not Romans. But what the Bible does say, and you quoted it, the centurion was a god fearer -- which made him a Jewish sympathizer. At that time "god fearers" were gentiles who believed in Judaism but had still not been circumcised. In fact you don't need to know that, because circumstantially you can figure that out. Had the centurion not been a believer in Judaism he would never have been referred to as a god fearer because all non Jews were Pagan polytheists at that time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2013 3:09:32 GMT -5
is there any where in the Bible that Jesus states clearly that He considered the Romans as His enemies? Of course not. Neither is there any place where he called himself the Son of God either. Jesus speaking Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2013 3:15:10 GMT -5
Matthew 8:5 And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him, Matthew 8:8 The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed. Matthew 8:13 And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour. Matthew 27:54 Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God. Acts 10:1 There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, Acts 10:22 And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee. But it doesn't say that they were Romans. One cannot assume they were Romans just because they were in the Roman Army. Most people in the Roman Empire were not Romans. But what the Bible does say, and you quoted it, the centurion was a god fearer -- which made him a Jewish sympathizer. At that time "god fearers" were gentiles who believed in Judaism but had still not been circumcised. In fact you don't need to know that, because circumstantially you can figure that out. Had the centurion not been a believer in Judaism he would never have been referred to as a god fearer because all non Jews were Pagan polytheists at that time. ok then "sigh" and yet He did had time for those Romans Pagan polytheists who had time for Him
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 9, 2013 3:15:53 GMT -5
Of course not. Neither is there any place where he called himself the Son of God either. Jesus speaking Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
Sounds familiar. I don't know where you read it, but I do know it was in the gospel according to John -- the Roman gospel. He did not call himself the son of god in any of the others. Sorry about that. I'm not impressed with the accuracy of the gospel according to John because it contains a chapters-long sermon that is supposed to be Jesus' word for word. Did someone save the shorthand for 90 years until someone transcribed it. That's as far as I will go in guessing how to defend the accuracy of that sermon.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 9, 2013 3:17:30 GMT -5
But it doesn't say that they were Romans. One cannot assume they were Romans just because they were in the Roman Army. Most people in the Roman Empire were not Romans. But what the Bible does say, and you quoted it, the centurion was a god fearer -- which made him a Jewish sympathizer. At that time "god fearers" were gentiles who believed in Judaism but had still not been circumcised. In fact you don't need to know that, because circumstantially you can figure that out. Had the centurion not been a believer in Judaism he would never have been referred to as a god fearer because all non Jews were Pagan polytheists at that time. ok then "sigh" and yet He did had time for those Romans Pagan polytheists who had time for Him Not according to your quote. God fearers could never have been Pagans -- that simple.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Dec 9, 2013 8:36:22 GMT -5
Of course not. Neither is there any place where he called himself the Son of God either. Jesus speaking Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
Virgo ~ Good answer! I also found a portion of scripture in Matthew 26:51-56 which also brings out that Jesus wasn't leading a rebellion against Rome in his remarks upon his arrest. The Romans, however, considered him a threat due to his popularity with the people and perhaps the treatment of him as royalty when he entered Jerusalem? It seems that because the people looked to him as the promised Messiah, he probably created fear among the ruling class of the Romans as well as the Jewish Sanhedrin, leading to his arrest and crucifixion? www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2026%3A47-75%3B%3B%20Mark%2014%3A43-72%3B%3B%20Luke%2022%3A47-71%3B&version=NIV;AMP;KJV
|
|
|
Post by faune on Dec 9, 2013 8:42:01 GMT -5
Jesus speaking Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
Sounds familiar. I don't know where you read it, but I do know it was in the gospel according to John -- the Roman gospel. He did not call himself the son of god in any of the others. Sorry about that. I'm not impressed with the accuracy of the gospel according to John because it contains a chapters-long sermon that is supposed to be Jesus' word for word. Did someone save the shorthand for 90 years until someone transcribed it. That's as far as I will go in guessing how to defend the accuracy of that sermon. Bob ~ Here are some answers from Ask Yahoo.com which deals with this same question and the answers given speak for themselves, IMHO? answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100730040415AAtSiEp
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 9, 2013 10:19:22 GMT -5
I have no pictures to show you. But picture this. First of all, understand that not all the Jews were considered rebels. The Jews who controlled the temple were totally in compliance with the Romans. Jesus was therefore an enemy to the Romans because he was an enemy to the only Jews allied with the Romans to maintain order. So: According to the Bible, he rode into Jerusalem to the cheers of crowds that hated the Romans -- a clear warning to the Romans to watch for trouble, According to the Bible, he was reputed to be the King of the Jews -- which in Roman law was considered rebellion. According to the Bible, he caused a riot in the temple in the face of Roman peacekeepers -- that is civil disobedience. Mind you, it wasn't just any day in the temple. It was Passover, the most chaotic time in the temple when pilgrims visiting from all over the known world came to sacrifice animals in the temple. Interestingly the Bible declines to mention what Judas had to tell them about Jesus, but they found it to be worth paying for. We do not read that any Jews condemned Jesus before he annoyed the Romans, but in those days one saved one's neck by making sure they reported any mention of sedition to the Romans lest they themselves be accused of covering it up. But none of that really matters that much. The simple fact that he was crucified means that he was accused by the Romans of sedition. I know, many people don't believe that. But I will take the Bible at its word and believe he was crucified for the normal reason, and not try to imagine some cocakamey excuse for why the Romans would want him killed for blasphemy. The Romans loved nothing more than someone who would blaspheme against the Jewish god. They should have saved him if that were the case. is there any where in the Bible that Jesus states clearly that He considered the Romans as His enemies? Here is a site with some thoughts about the biblical record of the trial.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 9, 2013 11:41:05 GMT -5
That web page is pretty much what is related in the Zealot book. All very good points as to why Jesus was against the Romans, why he was considered a Zealot and the possible Messiah that would free the Jews from the Roman rule and why he was tried and found guilty of sedition.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2013 21:47:52 GMT -5
Just wondering, Some time ago, I noticed a discussion of whether or not Jesus actually died for our sins. Took our place and so forth. I was surprised at a number of individuals whom I've felt are deep abiding Christians felt that no, he didn't actually die the death of our sins. God raised him up again as we sing. Yikes! it's sort of like "He died for our sins!!! All praise and thanksgiving" And then later, Uhhhm, well not exactly. Anyway, just was wondering. Any conclusions here, any doubts? Almost seems like all the "doctrine" issues are insignificant compared to this one. Oops, I didn't quite state my question exactly as intended. It sounds like I meant if Jesus was raised after 3 days, he didn't Exactly die for our sins, take our place etc. Actually, although this would be Exactly true, I can accept the 3 days death as representative. Three days are enough to do the deed and make the point. What has surprised me is that some don't ever feel he died the sinners death for those three days either!? God didn't turn his face away, didn't say depart from me you worker of iniquity, didn't deny him. I guess it's just too much to take in. There seem to be some elaborate construct guesses about what he was doing, remaining the Son of God those 3 days. Unfortunately, for me that would mean Jesus didn't die for our sins. Actually, since Him being a worker of iniquity would be a lie anyway, unlikely to be believed by God, that He died for our sins is just as unlikely.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2013 21:57:56 GMT -5
It seems much of the discussion has been about who killed Jesus and for what reason(s). May I suggest God did it. The Romans and Jews were his tools, to accomplish what he had in mind to begin with. forgive them because they know not what they do.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 9, 2013 22:50:01 GMT -5
It seems much of the discussion has been about who killed Jesus and for what reason(s). May I suggest God did it. The Romans and Jews were his tools, to accomplish what he had in mind to begin with. forgive them because they know not what they do. That's like saying God is Satan. Clearly Christ was killed because he threatened the status quo, and I do agree that this was God's will. One will not begin to grasp the mystery of JC apart from a Trinitarian theology that anticipates shared prerogatives and shared responsibilities with God for every human being.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 10, 2013 0:48:12 GMT -5
Theists have fear or respect for acts of God and tend to be more prepared. This is BS. Many theists look at acts of god as god's will and accept it. If you are a theist and think you can prepare to avoid the will of god, by moving, hiding, etc. then you have to question your belief in god. On the contrary it affirms one's belief in God. I was thinking of things like building codes and insurance but running away from disasters works too.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 10, 2013 0:58:21 GMT -5
Whats the difference between MN&G If you are talking about the difference between Mother Nature and the Christian God then that can be summed up easily. Mother Nature is the entity which makes the rain fall, creates life, makes the grass grow and is behind the beauty and splendour of the natural world. The Christian God is the entity who loves and cares for you, who is all seeing, all knowing and all powerful, who will save your soul if you believe in Him and follow Him and who will send you to everlasting hell if you don’t, who can cure all your ailments if you have sufficient faith in Him and who takes an peculiar interest in what you get up to in the bedroom. No, when preached faithfully Christianity says salvation originates from the imputed righteousness of JC. At least that’s what those who believe in the Christian God will claim … but of course there is no evidence to support any of these claims whatsoever. Matt10 Yes and no. No, people do not initiate salvation any more than they initiate their own lives. Yes, people do facilitate righteousness through prayer (petition and thought) and action.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 10, 2013 1:09:01 GMT -5
Whats the difference between MN&G One we can see and the other we cannot. False. We only see the effects of MN, not MN herself. Mother Nature is a name for the environmental issues we deal with living on this planet. MN is a personification of the causative nature of meteorological phenomenon. We see what happens. With the word God, we have no understanding of what that might even look like because we can't see anything that provides proof of it's existence. How does weather prove the existence of MN? If you are using the word God the same way I'm using Mother Nature, then there is no difference between the two. On the other hand, if you are using the word God to mean a being that rewards and punishes us for what we do, then we are talking about two different types of things. MN is punishing depending upon what we do and don't do, such as whether we make houses out of straw or stone.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2013 1:13:46 GMT -5
ok then "sigh" and yet He did had time for those Romans Pagan polytheists who had time for Him Not according to your quote. God fearers could never have been Pagans -- that simple. why not? doesn't converting too happen in this case? maybe you should have said [God fearers could never be Pagans at the same time]
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2013 1:15:32 GMT -5
Jesus speaking Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
Sounds familiar. I don't know where you read it, but I do know it was in the gospel according to John -- the Roman gospel. He did not call himself the son of god in any of the others. Sorry about that. I'm not impressed with the accuracy of the gospel according to John because it contains a chapters-long sermon that is supposed to be Jesus' word for word. Did someone save the shorthand for 90 years until someone transcribed it. That's as far as I will go in guessing how to defend the accuracy of that sermon. do you think it matters to God if you are impressed or not?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2013 1:19:17 GMT -5
from the site Jesus equipped his followers with swords in anticipation of trouble. (Lk 22:36-38) and at least one of Jesus' supporters scuffled with the Temple police to aid in resisting Jesus' arrest. (Mk 14:47)
no where in the Bible does it show that this is true therefore for me the site is suspect
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2013 1:21:35 GMT -5
It seems much of the discussion has been about who killed Jesus and for what reason(s). May I suggest God did it. The Romans and Jews were his tools, to accomplish what he had in mind to begin with. forgive them because they know not what they do. God didn't literally do it but had man do it to fulfill scripture
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2013 1:23:04 GMT -5
It seems much of the discussion has been about who killed Jesus and for what reason(s). May I suggest God did it. The Romans and Jews were his tools, to accomplish what he had in mind to begin with. forgive them because they know not what they do. That's like saying God is Satan. Clearly Christ was killed because he threatened the status quo, and I do agree that this was God's will. One will not begin to grasp the mystery of JC apart from a Trinitarian theology that anticipates shared prerogatives and shared responsibilities with God for every human being. Jesus said it was to fulfill scripture, He gave no other reason
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 10, 2013 1:35:25 GMT -5
Not according to your quote. God fearers could never have been Pagans -- that simple. why not? doesn't converting too happen in this case? maybe you should have said [God fearers could never be Pagans at the same time] Who converted?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2013 2:38:42 GMT -5
why not? doesn't converting too happen in this case? maybe you should have said [God fearers could never be Pagans at the same time] Who converted? maybe said centurions
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 10, 2013 8:43:20 GMT -5
Clearly Christ was killed because he threatened the status quo, and I do agree that this was God's will. This is not surprising. Isn't this required by your belief? Is there anything that happens that is not god's will?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 10, 2013 8:46:44 GMT -5
God didn't literally do it but had man do it to fulfill scripture That puts god right up there with people like Louis Buchalter and Albert Anastasia!
|
|
|
Post by botany on Dec 10, 2013 9:44:28 GMT -5
Just wondering, Some time ago, I noticed a discussion of whether or not Jesus actually died for our sins. Took our place and so forth. I was surprised at a number of individuals whom I've felt are deep abiding Christians felt that no, he didn't actually die the death of our sins. God raised him up again as we sing. Yikes! it's sort of like "He died for our sins!!! All praise and thanksgiving" And then later, Uhhhm, well not exactly. Anyway, just was wondering. Any conclusions here, any doubts? Almost seems like all the "doctrine" issues are insignificant compared to this one. Well, hey, of Jebus died for our sins, then let's start sinning so he didn't die for nothing!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2013 10:25:37 GMT -5
[/quote]That's like saying God is Satan. Clearly Christ was killed because he threatened the status quo, and I do agree that this was God's will. One will not begin to grasp the mystery of JC apart from a Trinitarian theology that anticipates shared prerogatives and shared responsibilities with God for every human being. [/quote]
Well, at least in part He is Satan. God created Satan of himself, so Satan is part of God. So God and Satan are one and the same with the trinity.
For me the main mystery of JC is that Christians declare Jesus guilty of their sins, and tolerate, even celebrate, God crucifying him for it... by whatever means. You'd think Christians would have a problem with such intentional false accusation. But then again, since He created us too, He actually IS guilty of our sins.
|
|