"The Passion" and Historical Accuracy

[Goose]

Shalom,

Assuaging Controversy Over Gibson's New Movie -- More Reliance on History, Less on Tradition



Controversy over Mel Gibson's movie, The Passion of the Christ, overlooks the movie's failure to achieve its main goal: shedding inaccurate, faith-biased tradition alien to the first-century Judaic perspective of the movie's main character and incorporating recent discoveries (e.g., the Dead Sea Scrolls) that demand updating our historical perspective.



The Jews who shouted for the Romans to execute Ribi Yehoshua were the Temple-based Sadducees (Hebrew Mt. 26.57ff). ("Ribi" is different from rabbi or rebbe. Ribi designated Pharisaic rabbis ordained in Judea during the time of the Temple.) Generalizing from the Temple-based Sadducees to "the Jews" is either a logical fallacy or misojudaism. The pivotal question, the answer to which may solve the controversy, is "Which Jews were, and weren't, standing with the Temple-based Sadducees shouting for the Romans to execute him?"



The late Oxford historian, James Parkes, demonstrated (The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue) that the antinomian Jesus of Christianity, defined by the fourth century Church, was the antithesis of the first-century Pharisee of the Jewish community, Ribi Yehoshua Ben-David (son of David). The Christian view of Jesus traces back no earlier than the Roman crushing of the Bar Kokhva Rebellion in 135 C.E. It was then, according to Eusebius, that the Romans deposed the 15th and last Jewish leader of Ribi Yehoshua's original followers (Yehudah), displacing him with the first gentile "bishop" (Marcus). Correspondingly, the Christianity of Jesus is the antithesis of the first century Judaism taught by Ribi Yehoshua. Confusing Ribi Yehoshua with his antithesis, Jesus, is self-contradicting.



Beyond Parkes' findings, Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT is recently discovered, hard evidence confirming, in the words of Prof. Ya'aqov Sussman, that, for all three sects of first century Jews, the Jewish Torah (Pentateuch, interpreted by Jewish religious courts as Oral Law) was "the central factor in Jewish life," which "stood in the center of their spiritual world." MMT clarifies the distinctions between the three main sects of Judaism: the Pharisees and two branches of Sadducees -- Temple-based and Essene (Qumran). The Essene Sadducees were legitimate genealogical Jewish priests who had been deposed and exiled from the Temple. The author of MMT was an Essene Sadducee.



How the Hellenist Temple Sadducees deposed the legitimate Essene Sadducees, Hellenizing the priesthood and Temple, and how they were then regarded by the other two sects, requires some background history that precedes the story of Hanukah. Before the Maccabbees rebelled against the Syrian occupiers of Judea, the Hellenization of the Temple and priesthood had already propelled the Temple Sadducees into ascendancy and dispersed the legitimate, Essene, Temple priests, primarily to Qumran.



Hellenization of the Temple and priesthood began with two brothers, one of whom was the High Priest. About B.C.E. 175, Antiochus IV Epiphanes sought to secure control over Judea by imposing Hellenism -- the antithesis of Judaism. Khonyo ("Onias III") and Yehoshua ("Jason") Ben-Shimon were descendants of Tzadoq, Biblically legitimate Jewish priests. Khonyo was a pious High Priest, but his brother was a zealous Hellenist. Yehoshua (Ben-Shimon) went to king Antiochus, promising to impose Hellenism and paying a substantial price to remove Khonyo as High Priest and install himself High Priest instead. Khonyo was the last Scripturally legitimate High Priest in Jewish history. Yehoshua then replaced the legitimate Sadducee priests with Hellenist Sadducees, becoming the first Hellenist -- apostate -- High Priest and banishing the legitimate Sadducee priests from the Temple (most of whom retired to Qumran). Soon, another Hellenist Sadducee non-priest, not even genealogically qualified, bribed King Antiochus and replaced Yehoshua as High Priest. The priesthood deteriorated from there and the Khanukah story begins soon after. Even the Maccabbees didn't satisfy the Scriptural requirements for the office of High Priest. Finally, the Hellenist Romans took over the practice of selling the priestly offices to the Hellenist Sadducees.



The Temple-based Sadducees were an elitist and aristocratic sect of Roman-appointed, and backed, Hellenists; Jews who, at the pleasure of the Romans, controlled the Temple and High Priesthood. Purchasing their priestly positions, including the office of the High Priest, from the Romans, these Hellenists were often genealogically unqualified, Scripturally illegitimate 'priests' By the time of Ribi Yehoshua, "the Jews" abhorred the Temple Sadducees, regarding them as religiously apostate traitors polluting (Hellenizing) the Temple.



To be historically accurate, Mr. Gibson's movie must move the audience to sympathize with "the Jews", who loathed the illegitimate Sadducee false-priest apostates who conspired with their Roman backers to execute Ribi Yehoshua.


END


Yirmeyahu Ben-David, ne Clint Van Nest, is a Mensan, an Orthodox Jew and former Baptist preacher who is a citizen of both the U.S. and Israel and Paqid of the Netzarim (Nazarene Jews, www.netzarim.co.il).

Note: Mr. Ben-David is also a former intelligence analyst with the USAF Air Intelligence Agency, a veteran of the Israel Defence Forces (ret.) and safety engineer (ret.). His books on early Judaism and the emergence of Christianity include "Who Are the Netzarim? - Advanced Level," "Atonement In the Biblical 'New Covenant'," "The Netzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityahu," "The 1993 Covenant" (Biblical Prophecies) and "The Unveiling" (the NT book of Revelation).

Cordially,
Paqid Yirmeyahu
(Yirmeyahu Ben-David, Paqid 16)
The Netzarim
Raanana, Israel

Netzarim... Authentic (http://www.netzarim.co.il)

[Dimo]

Do you mean we are not supposed to hate Jews?

[Goose]

Thoughts anyone?

[Mr Potato Head]

To be historically accurate, Mr. Gibson's movie must move the audience to sympathize with "the Jews", who loathed the illegitimate Sadducee false-priest apostates who conspired with their Roman backers to execute Ribi Yehoshua.

From what I know it seems to me that Mr. Gibson's aim is not to get the audience to sympathize with the Jews and their anti-hellenism, but to portray the sacrifice of Christ. That's what the point is. Not so much helping us understand the socio-political feelings of the Jews.

[Mateo]

Zec 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

[Goose]

Originally posted by Mateo

Zec 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn. That would help prove that "the Jews" as a whole didn't condemn Jesus, but only a select few. And according to the DSS, the Saduccees would have condemned Jesus for political/financial gain.

[Mateo]

John 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

[SOTK]

Originally posted by Mr Potato Head

From what I know it seems to me that Mr. Gibson's aim is not to get the audience to sympathize with the Jews and their anti-hellenism, but to portray the sacrifice of Christ. That's what the point is. Not so much helping us understand the socio-political feelings of the Jews.

That's my understanding as well. :up:

[Goose]

Mr Potato Head and SOTK,

But shouldn't Mel strive for historical accuracy.

[Goose]

Mel Gibson's movie is traditional, not historical.

[Dave Miller]

Originally posted by Goose

That would help prove that "the Jews" as a whole didn't condemn Jesus, but only a select few.

I don't see how that's not obvious, even from scripture. The
crowd of Jews before Pilate had politics in mind, otherwise
they wouldn't have been there. Its like condemning the
entire United States for the acts of a small group of political
activists. They were probably zealots more interested in
Barrabas' release than the death of Jesus.

djm

[Goose]

Originally posted by Dave Miller

I don't see how that's not obvious, even from scripture. The
crowd of Jews before Pilate had politics in mind, otherwise
they wouldn't have been there. Its like condemning the
entire United States for the acts of a small group of political
activists. They were probably zealots more interested in
Barrabas' release than the death of Jesus.

djm Dave,
I'm glad you see that, but from 2000 years of miso-judaism in Christian history, proves that Christianity as a whole isn't as smart as you.

see "The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue" by James Parkes

[1Way]

Goose – You said The late Oxford historian, James Parkes, demonstrated (The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue) that the antinomian Jesus of Christianity, defined by the fourth century Church, was the antithesis of the first-century Pharisee of the Jewish community, Ribi Yehoshua Ben-David (son of David). How many times do we have to remind folks that man’s history is not the sources for eternal truth, God is. Even the 12 disciples and Paul had nomian anti-nomian doctrinal arguments that included the way of salvation! We should NOT be seeking to emulate the early historical church, we should be seeking to emulate the faith taught in scripture.

Jesus was NOT an antinomian prior to His raising up Paul and giving Him the dispensation of Mystery and Grace, He plainly taught a works based faith (nomianism) during His earthly ministry and even after that and up to God cutting of the Jews for national unbelief, He remained a consistent nomianist.

This stuff about separating the various sects of the Jews apart from the masses is rubbish. The bible says that the masses rejected Jesus, only the few became saved, and that Israel as a nation was cut off due to national unbelief. Sadducees, Pharisees, all the way from the King to the peasant, national unbelief.

Goose, why do you raise other considerations above God’s word as though it is not sufficient for our understanding about what happened at the cross? And why do you put into doubt the wholesale unbelief of national Israel? You can read anything from anyone teaching whatever, but you only have ONE word of God and it is THE authority for such matters. At least the last I checked, it was.

[1Way]

Goose – Also, why do you say “Torah” studying and not studying all of God’s word? Do you think there is some problem with NT or whole word of God studies? Why highlight just a focus on the Torah?

God, the authentic God of the bible teaches that all scripture is profitable and God breathed, that man does not live by bread alone but by EVERY word that proceeds from the mouth of God.

Do you think that Jesus Christ Lord God the son is any less God than God the father? Do you think that the OT is more authoritative than the NT? Jesus said that you must have room in your heart for His word, or risk being a child of the devil because of not accepting His word.

[SOTK]

Originally posted by Goose

Mr Potato Head and SOTK,

But shouldn't Mel strive for historical accuracy.

I didn't realize that it wasn't historical. I haven't seen the movie, but from what I've read in the Bible, religious Jewish leaders were responsible for Christ's crucifixion. I understand that this is depicted in Mel's The Passion. Do you have access to historical documents which show that Jewish religious leaders did not conspire to have Jesus crucified?

[1Way]

SOTK4ever - I may be wrong to some details, but it’s not just historical in any normal sense, he means historical according to his sources. He is trying to point out that there was a difference between the religious leaders and widespread Judaism especially amongst the whole of Israel. Was it mainstream normal Jews who wanted Jesus dead, or was it more like a radical fringe group, that sort of thing.

His comment about it being traditional instead of historical is strange, because he is trusting in his tradition of which history to trust in. His point is not so much about history verses tradition, it’s just an excuse for him to promote this authentic Jewish binge he is on.

It's like he is trying to paint a better picture about the Jews than what God did in the bible. It is true that Israel had competing religious sects, but that does not matter, God cut off “Israel” due to national unbelief from the king on down, not from one sect or another on down. God stipulates that the few who were saved were not part of this national casting away. Evidently, Goose has some interest in making it seem like the Jews were not so against God in the crucifixion. But I don’t know why he is doing this.

[1Way]

To me the question is simple. Are you more concerned about man’s understanding which include history and tradition, or the truth of the matter, via God’s word.

Just think about it for a minuet, consider two (religious orthodox) Jews arguing today about the appropriate way to consider theology, should it be with a greater emphasis on history or tradition. We Christian’s know that the Jews are cut off from God as a national people precisely because of their national unbelief and a stiff necked determination to view God according to what seems right in their eyes, according to their traditions, according to their historical views.

The answer is not historical accuracy verses traditionalism. God’s word is the answer.

May the truth set them free.

[jeremiah]

To Goose:

I will heartily concede the point that the small remnant of non hellinized Torah observant Jews, and true Levitical priests, did not have Yeshua put to death. In fact many of them came to be believers in Him as Messiah ben Yosef.
Will those who see Mel Gibson's movie as anti semitic, concede the point that the true remnant observant followers of Christ, have not put any Jews to death?
The corrupt Sadducees and corrupt Catholic and Protestant leaders who have taken over the positions of worldly and spiritual power have orchestrated the Murder of innocents.
Remember most importantly that Yeshua himself said that He gave His life, of His own accord. He said, "Father forgive them", why, "because they know not what they do."
From my understanding of the Bible, I can no more hate those who actually had Yeshua put to death, than I can hate myself for putting Him on the cross. All of us our guilty of placing God in the position where he had to shed His pure and innocent blood in order to redeem us. In this world, those who believe in not blaming and scapegoating others for their own sins, are as rare as Torah observant Jews are both then and now.

[Dave Miller]

Originally posted by 1Way

To me the question is simple. Are you more concerned about man’s understanding which include history and tradition, or the truth of the matter, via God’s word.

Just think about it for a minuet, consider two (religious orthodox) Jews arguing today about the appropriate way to consider theology, should it be with a greater emphasis on history or tradition. We Christian’s know that the Jews are cut off from God as a national people precisely because of their national unbelief and a stiff necked determination to view God according to what seems right in their eyes, according to their traditions, according to their historical views.

The answer is not historical accuracy verses traditionalism. God’s word is the answer.

May the truth set them free.

God's word as you interpret it. Your lack of humility is alarming.

Some of us Christians know that God's Grace extends to all
if His children, Jew and Gentile alike. Some of us, in our quest to
know Jesus Christ, actually value Judaism as a way to better
understand who Jesus Christ was and is; after all, Jesus Christ
was Jewish. It seems your sense of Divine Wisdom cuts Him off
from God as well.

Man oh man, the amount of antisemitic prejudice here at TOL
is getting downright alarming.

djm

[SOTK]

Originally posted by 1Way

SOTK4ever - I may be wrong to some details, but it’s not just historical in any normal sense, he means historical according to his sources. He is trying to point out that there was a difference between the religious leaders and widespread Judaism especially amongst the whole of Israel. Was it mainstream normal Jews who wanted Jesus dead, or was it more like a radical fringe group, that sort of thing.

His comment about it being traditional instead of historical is strange, because he is trusting in his tradition of which history to trust in. His point is not so much about history verses tradition, it’s just an excuse for him to promote this authentic Jewish binge he is on.

It's like he is trying to paint a better picture about the Jews than what God did in the bible. It is true that Israel had competing religious sects, but that does not matter, God cut off “Israel” due to national unbelief from the king on down, not from one sect or another on down. God stipulates that the few who were saved were not part of this national casting away. Evidently, Goose has some interest in making it seem like the Jews were not so against God in the crucifixion. But I don’t know why he is doing this.

I agree with you. I don't think there is any "historical documents" which show that Jews are not responsible for Christ's crucifixion. I also think Goose is attempting to "paint" a better picture of the Jews versus the picture we're given in the New Testament.

[Dave Miller]

Great points Jeremiah. True humility requires a meditation upon
every character who participated the death of Christ. I am Peter, the
man who loved Him like a brother, knew Him as Lord, and ultimately
denied Him. I am the soldier who scourged and spat on
Him. I am the bystander who bore His cross. I am the soldier
who nailed His wrists and feet to the cross. I am the woman
who cried at His feet. I am the passer by who reviled Him as He
gasped His last breath. I am the thief who died at His side. I am
Jew, Roman, man, Woman, Gay, Straight, Priest, Prophet, shephard,
merchant, King, peasant etc. I am the undeserving person whom He
died for.

Anyone who views the Passion looking for someone to blame,
needs take a good look in the mirror. Its not about "them," its
about "us."

Dave Miller

[Goose]

Originally posted by 1Way

How many times do we have to remind folks that man’s history is not the sources for eternal truth, God is.Are you saying the Dead Sea Scrolls, written by the Tzedoqim(temple priests) don't tell Godly history, or are somehow historically inaccurate? What about the "old testament". Written by the same line of men, is that also considered man's history to you? I would choose the Dead Sea Scroll Community's writings(existed 150BCE-68BC (which also include a manuscript of Isaiah, a Godly ducoment) over the redacted writings of the early Catholic Church(post-137BC) any day. If a pin drops, and I write on paper that a pin dropped, can't writing be trusted? Is that not to be trusted, because it's not written in what you designate as the Bible?

Even the 12 disciples and Paul had nomian anti-nomian doctrinal arguments that included the way of salvation! We should NOT be seeking to emulate the early historical church, we should be seeking to emulate the faith taught in scripture.Not true. What you're referring to as the whole law is actually concerning a few minor halachic arguments(judgements) concerning orthodox Jewish law. Never once was the whole of Torah put into question on whether to keep or not to keep it. Never would have any of Yehoshua's true talmidim(disciples) have rejected the Torah(instruction - doesn't mean "law"). The Netzarim Yehudim(Nazarene Jews) instructed new believers everywhere to begin their walk with the simple laws ordered in Acts 15.

Jesus was NOT an antinomian prior to His raising up Paul and giving Him the dispensation of Mystery and Grace, He plainly taught a works based faith (nomianism) during His earthly ministry and even after that and up to God cutting of the Jews for national unbelief, He remained a consistent nomianist.This is another misconception of Christianity. Judaism isn't a works-based faith. That's an oxy-moron. Judaism a faith-based faith. What you do is a reflection of your faith. The Meshiach(anointed one) will never call for the nullification of Torah(instruction). There was/is/and will always be a lone dispensation of faith. Any other teaching is gnosticism. There is nothing you "must know" or some "new and improved" thing to get to heaven(nor is their two ways to get there).

This stuff about separating the various sects of the Jews apart from the masses is rubbish.If you think that mass documentation and historical accuracy is rubbish, then you have bigger problems then I can help you solve, and there is little point in keeping this conversation, as every ounce of evidence I show, will have no effect.

The bible says that the masses rejected Jesus, only the few became saved, and that Israel as a nation was cut off due to national unbelief. Sadducees, Pharisees, all the way from the King to the peasant, national unbelief.If I found a 1700 year old document and it said things that could have happened, does it mean they did? And if I found 1,000s of contradicting manuscripts reference the same material, would you still believe the first document you found to be 100% accurate? I'd like to know which bible you deem as the prestine document, and why.
Goose, why do you raise other considerations above God’s word as though it is not sufficient for our understanding about what happened at the cross?Can God's word contradict?
And why do you put into doubt the wholesale unbelief of national Israel?I don't believe the writings that you do are accurate.
You can read anything from anyone teaching whatever, but you only have ONE word of God and it is THE authority for such matters. At least the last I checked, it was. You need to check again. You're missing the logic. I could just as easily ask you the same question about your NT. You can read any old NT manuscript, but why do you choose that one over the thousands of others that clearly contradict, sometimes drastically? If you don't use scientific/historic data to make your decision(as you seem to not accept) then how are you going to make your decision? You are going to make your decision, using your way of thinking(circular reasoning), by going with whatever you believe to be true. Not by what is known to be true. In this case, historic data like the DSS, written by Godly men.

[Goose]

Originally posted by 1Way

Goose – Also, why do you say “Torah” studying and not studying all of God’s word?I don't believe your NT is God's word.
Do you think there is some problem with NT or whole word of God studies?There are a great many problems with the "NT".
Why highlight just a focus on the Torah?The Torah is more then just words. It's also action. Torah does not mean "law". It means "instruction". Torah is the only accurate instruction from God.

God, the authentic God of the bible teaches that all scripture is profitable and God breathed, that man does not live by bread alone but by EVERY word that proceeds from the mouth of God.Even with a pure Christian way of thinking, it's obvious that Paul was talking about the Torah and not the NT, as the NT wasn't even canonized until centuries after Paul's death.

Do you think that Jesus Christ Lord God the son is any less God than God the father?I don't believe Yehoshua to be Alohiym(de-judaized to "GOD"). The Jewish Messiah was never ever ever ever ever thought to be God. This is actually a pagan idea, which was later syncretized by hellenists centuries after Ribi Yehoshua's death.
Do you think that the OT is more authoritative than the NT?I hope you realize now that I don't reguard the NT as authoritative. I'd also like to know just which version of the NT you deam as authoritative, and why.
Jesus said that you must have room in your heart for His word, or risk being a child of the devil because of not accepting His word. Are you sure Jesus really said that, or is it an early Christian redactor scaring people like you into submission.

I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just trying to get you to think. :think:

[Goose]

Originally posted by SOTK4ever

I didn't realize that it wasn't historical. I haven't seen the movie, but from what I've read in the Bible, religious Jewish leaders were responsible for Christ's crucifixion. I understand that this is depicted in Mel's The Passion. Do you have access to historical documents which show that Jewish religious leaders did not conspire to have Jesus crucified? SOTK,

You would be correct in saying that some of the Jewish leaders judged him. I'm not saying that some didn't. I'm saying that not all the Jews condemned Jesus. The source material used is the earliest extant sources of the gospels, as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls, which show who was in charge, why they were in charge, and how they got there. It's actually a lot of evidence that starts from about 200BCE to 30CE (of course). Here's an excellent site that covers about all you wanted to know:
http://www.netzarim.co.il

I'd love to have the time to write you a book about it, but why write a book when it's already been written. If that's not enough for you, I'll write more when my browser lets me access more resources. I'm currently recompiling my whole Gentoo Linux system, and things are crashing.

[Goose]

Originally posted by Dave Miller

God's word as you interpret it. Your lack of humility is alarming.

Some of us Christians know that God's Grace extends to all
if His children, Jew and Gentile alike. Some of us, in our quest to
know Jesus Christ, actually value Judaism as a way to better
understand who Jesus Christ was and is; after all, Jesus Christ
was Jewish. It seems your sense of Divine Wisdom cuts Him off
from God as well.Precisely. It's called displacement theology.

Man oh man, the amount of antisemitic prejudice here at TOL
is getting downright alarming.

djm I agree. What's more alarming is that the TOL Admins don't do anything about it. Just look at Crytavhn's(sp?) threads.

[SOTK]

Originally posted by Goose

SOTK,

You would be correct in saying that some of the Jewish leaders judged him. I'm not saying that some didn't. I'm saying that not all the Jews condemned Jesus.

I can agree with that. I don't think anybody here is stating that all Jews in that period of time were responsible for the crucifixion of Christ. Are you saying that that is what is portrayed in the film? If yes, how so? How do you arrive at that conclusion?

[1Way]

Dave – You couldn’t be more wrong. I spoke nothing anti-Jewish, only for God’s word as a higher authority than man’s word. And I didn’t even present a single biblical view, other than to say that God’s word should rein even over man’s word.

Your sense of alarm and false judgment would be alarming if you had any credence to your claims. God did not cut off every Jew without exception, He cut of the nation as a whole, thankfully the few believed.

As to your “antisemitic prejudice here at TOL” comment, someone splash Dave with a glass of cold water, his is delirious and projecting some crazy inner plight within himself.

[1Way]

SOTK4ever – Thank you kindly. But I don’t know why he is wanting to do this. :think: Perhaps he’ll clue us in as we read on.

Wow, reading on is going to be a tough task!

Heads up, Goose just invalidated Himself as an orthodox (I almost hate using that word) Christian, plainly denying the NT as being part of God’s word. I can’t believe the land mines he just dropped in his previous post, so watch where you step!!!

[1Way]

Dave and Jeremiah – Ok, this is better.

1) We agree that what Christ did voluntarily was for the sake of all of us, no one is any less in need of God’s grace than anyone else.

2) Aside from the universal and same need for redemption amongst men, there are differing levels of sin in each man. Jeremiah was right for establishing their ignorance in what they did, because they knew not what they were doing, thus, whoever it was that was wanting Jesus dead was for the most part ignorant about what they were doing. Christ must have counted on that fact so that His plan could be carried out. But do not go so far as saying that “all” blame for wrong doing should be equally spread because we are all sinners, that is too broad of a stroke. But again, I agree that the case of the cross is not a good place to look to for a source of blame against the Jews or any particular sect. Where the blame does come is was in their national unbelief from the King on down, which was a sin not forgiven them by God and we should not be nicer than God.

Thanks Jeremiah for that timely insight and in my case, welcomed guidance, however passively offered, I well receive. I did not mean to overstate the case against the Jews, your comments helped set things quite right.

[jeremiah]

Originally posted by Dave Miller

Great points Jeremiah. True humility requires a meditation upon
every character who participated the death of Christ. I am Peter, the
man who loved Him like a brother, knew Him as Lord, and ultimately
denied Him. I am the soldier who scourged and spat on
Him. I am the bystander who bore His cross. I am the soldier
who nailed His wrists and feet to the cross. I am the woman
who cried at His feet. I am the passer by who reviled Him as He
gasped His last breath. I am the thief who died at His side. I am
Jew, Roman, man, Woman, Gay, Straight, Priest, Prophet, shephard,
merchant, King, peasant etc. I am the undeserving person whom He
died for.

Anyone who views the Passion looking for someone to blame,
needs take a good look in the mirror. Its not about "them," its
about "us."

Dave Miller

.............................................
:first: You get my POTD.

..... its not about "them", its about "us", and then its not about us its about Him, and His great love for us!
Notice how the unbelieving, are trying to distract and obfuscate from the central meaning and message of the Passion. The Son of God suffered a horrible physical and Spiritual substitutionary death for us, because we are worth that much to Him!
But those who have already seen the film are moved by its message and not by its attempted hijacking by those promoting their own victim status. There is one innocent victim in the Passion and His deliberate victimization is for the benefit of all of us who belong to the human race.

[1Way]

Goose – You said Are you saying the Dead Sea Scrolls, written by the Tzedoqim(temple priests) don't tell Godly history, ... No, you quoted me, I find it hard to understand your inability to understand. When comparing God and man, God should be trusted, even over man, that is my point, that was my comparison, not that no history or no manmade tradition should be trusted.

Goose quoted me saying Even the 12 disciples and Paul had nomian anti-nomian doctrinal arguments that included the way of salvation! We should NOT be seeking to emulate the early historical church, we should be seeking to emulate the faith taught in scripture. and then Goose said Not true. What you're referring to as the whole law is actually concerning a few minor halachic arguments(judgements) concerning orthodox Jewish law. Never once was the whole of Torah put into question on whether to keep or not to keep it. Never would have any of Yehoshua's true talmidim(disciples) have rejected the Torah(instruction - doesn't mean "law"). The Netzarim Yehudim(Nazarene Jews) instructed new believers everywhere to begin their walk with the simple laws ordered in Acts 15. to which I now say, hu?

Goose, I was arguing from the bible, the NT historical record of the believers in the first century. I remind you that I was not talking about some other sects or groups of people, I was talking about Paul and the 12 and their doctrinal problems involving nomian and antinomian issues that even involved salvation. If you are going to discuss things with me, try to at least remain on the same page as the discussion.

Goose said This is another misconception of Christianity. (1) Judaism isn't a works-based faith. That's an oxy-moron. Judaism a faith-based faith. What you do is a reflection of your faith. The Meshiach(anointed one) will never call for the nullification of Torah(instruction). (2) There was/is/and will always be a lone dispensation of faith. Any other teaching is gnosticism. There is nothing you "must know" or some "new and improved" thing to get to heaven(nor is their two ways to get there). Wow, so now you’re a comedian. This is getting entertaining. A works based system of faith is an oxy-moron, Judaism is a faith based faith.

(1) So you beg the question of what a nomian sort of faith even is. Nomianism is a faith that is based on or emphasizes works. To say that a faith based on works is an oxy-moron is to beg the very question of the existence of any works based faith, and trust me, you are not that influential, works based faith/nominanism is a faith based in works, they do exist and it is not an oxy-moron.

Secondly, a faith based faith is a nonsense statement, a redundancy that clarifies nothing is not helpful nor clarifying.

(2) That is weird, if you don’t believe in the NT, then where do you get off in teaching about “dispensations” anyway? To my understanding, it is most expounded upon from the Pauline epistles (NT text). I see from your other post that you are apparently not a Christian, you disallow the word of God for your life, so I guess discussing any NT theology is a mute point with you.

Wait a minuet, you said something very strange, what did you mean when you said There is nothing you "must know" or some "new and improved" thing to get to heaven(nor is their two ways to get there). I don’t get the extent of what you said, can you know the right way to God and reject it and still such faith will not keep you from heaven? Anyone knowing and believing whatever they want to can get to heaven? Please explain what you meant and are you a universalist of some sort?

You ripped the meaning of my comment with your next comment, so I will not respond.

Goose next said. If I found a 1700 year old document and it said things that could have happened, does it mean they did? And if I found 1,000s of contradicting manuscripts reference the same material, would you still believe the first document you found to be 100% accurate? I'd like to know which bible you deem as the prestine document, and why. If you are referring to what I think you are referring to, it’s not about any one single pristine document, it’s about primarily two NT manuscript families. One is called the majority or received text, and the other is called the minority or the critical text. Long story short is, the majority text has the vast majority of material, it consists of a (nearly) unprecedented amount of internal accuracy (to my knowledge, only the OT has a more glorious tradition of care and accuracy), but, the NT scribes were under Roman occupation and great and terrible persecution, the fact that we have problems in preserving that Greek text when the people paid with their lives over this document, should not be surprising. But such is not the main point. The area of great and detestable contradiction rests solely in the critical text, and not in the majority text. So I rest my confidence of accuracy with the family of text known as the majority or the received text, this new fangled scholarship behind the critical text is a bunch of bunk as I think your analogy would affirm. Was that what you were getting at with your analogy?

Goose quoted me saying Goose, why do you raise other considerations above God’s word as though it is not sufficient for our understanding about what happened at the cross?

then Goose said Can God's word contradict? In what manor of speaking? God does repent from what He said and thought He was going to do, Jer 18 the potter and the clay makes this perfectly clear, as does Jonah and Nineveh chapter 3.4&10 as an example of God executing divine repentance against what He said He would do, so in that manor of speaking, yes, God can contradict what He said He would do, and not do it.

Goose said You need to check again. You're missing the logic. I could just as easily ask you the same question about your NT. You can read any old NT manuscript, but why do you choose that one over the thousands of others that clearly contradict, sometimes drastically? If you don't use scientific/historic data to make your decision(as you seem to not accept) then how are you going to make your decision? You are going to make your decision, using your way of thinking(circular reasoning), by going with whatever you believe to be true. Not by what is known to be true. In this case, historic data like the DSS, written by Godly men. I do allow for scientific historical data, but not in a way like evolutionists do for example. They distort true science and raise theory to the level of fact when it is convenient for them to do so, whereas true science needs no such manipulation. I’m satisfied with my inquiry into the science of textual criticism and manuscript evidence for the authenticity of the received text of the NT. Although I have studied that issue much more than the average Christian, I am not expert, and it has been years since I’ve studied it, but the issue is a fascinating and controversial one. But now that you are correlating your analogy to the NT, I would agree with you whole heartedly concerning the critical text, the ones that the liberal love and we conservatives distrust. Dare say, what do you say, if anything, is wrong with the received text?

[1Way]

Goose – In your next post, you said Even with a pure Christian way of thinking, it's obvious that Paul was talking about the Torah and not the NT, as the NT wasn't even canonized until centuries after Paul's death. Not so, the NT writers considered Paul’s writings as scripture, and there are other examples where God through the NT writers was affirming that the NT was also scripture. Who cares when it was canonized if the NT itself says that it is scripture, then it is scripture, God did not have to wait for the councils to decide if the NT should be included as scripture.

You have come this far in rejecting the NT as being God’s word, and you are THAT ignorant. Please explain this grievous oversight.

Goose, you are getting hard to deal with. I said Do you think that Jesus Christ Lord God the son is any less God than God the father? to which you said I don't believe Yehoshua to be Alohiym(de-judaized to "GOD"). The Jewish Messiah was never ever ever ever ever thought to be God. This is actually a pagan idea, which was later syncretized by hellenists centuries after Ribi Yehoshua's death. Your first entire sentence is Greek to me, but I’m sure it’s Hebrew to you, come on man, if I say Jesus, you know what I am talking about, your diversionary exclusivist terminology is not helping anyone. But to the point, you said that the Jewish Messiah was never ever thought to be God. That is about as bogus as could be. From the OT, we read things like, there is only one God, only one savior, and, His name shall be mighty God, prince of peace, everlasting father, etc. Jesus, the one born of a virgin is named mighty God from the OT, and in the OT the savior of the world would only be God Himself. Do you reject the OT also?

Goose, didn’t you used to be a Christian? Didn’t you previously believe in the entire word of God? Didn’t you previously put your faith in Jesus Christ? If so, then exactly what made you give that all up?

And stop giving us all this redactict yashu, navidad bit, you have a command of the English language, you are communicating to normal everyday common folk, speak to me with terms that openly promote a common understanding or know that your excessive use of exclusivist communications are a thinly veiled attempt at obfuscation. An occasion fitting reference here and there explained or accompanied within an understandable context is just fine. But you are being a bit too “I'm smart and authoritative because I use high falutine scholarly and ancient linguistic terms”. God’s word, OT and NT, establish a predominant common man’s mode of communication quite unlike what you are starting to promote.

So, spit it out, what exactly is your authority for what is God’s word, what do you hold as being God’s word? Are you an orthodox or competing strand of Judaism? Or what?

[1Way]

Jeremiah - I don't watch TV and I don't see much movies, I didn't even know when the passion came out. I'm not as dumb as the following question might imply, but, I was told that it was going to be made in Latin only, but such a thing would be practically like making a movie without sound. So, they did provide captions or they did do it in English, didn't they?

So, how was it? Any surprising elements, anything especially good or bad? General stuff, no need to give the plot away, :darwinsm: Just kidding.

[Behira]

Assuaging Controversy Over Gibson's New Movie -- More Reliance on History, Less on Tradition

This is an excellant historical piece, thanks for sharing. I have heard a brief explanation of what has been written. Also it is thought by some that the one called "John the Baptist", not his real name was of the Essenes; and that part of the big uproar was that the "real guys were back in town"; when the one Christians called Jesus came on the scene; also there were "lost tribe" representatives (Samaria) who where shut out from "Jerusalem" ; so those that say if Jesus were the Messiah; he was a "failed Messiah" because the tribes did not all return; are in error; some had and were refused entry; Jesus paved the way for the "lost tribes" to come home. To Rome; if the tribes returned, the temple built; and Messiah came; that would put Israel as the "new world" power.

It's also interesting to note that when the Jews were allowed to return to Israel in '49; the Brittish (old Rome) approved the first High Priest; much has not changed since 2,000 years ago.
So one thing is for sure the Real High Priest; Y'hoshua Ben Joseph Ha Messiah, has entered the Heavens; and the priesthood can't be fiddled with anymore; just the games on the ground; and He will return again; just as Moses had twice acended and deceded Mt. Sinia; only the Glory is Israel will Have An Eternal Priest/King for ever.

[Behira]

As stated by Peter, Paul's writtings were difficult to understand. Paul often had a mixed bag of people; some Jews, together with total pagans; some were lost tribes; who once knew the Torah. We could more clearly understand is response; if we had the reasons for the questions posed to him.

Those who never knew the covenant of Elohim; had to start somewhere; as was previously stated in Act the 4 prohibitions; those were the minimum necessary requirements for people to come into the meeting with other Torah observant people; since they would be coming into the teaching; on Shabbat; they would have received futher Torah instruction.

The New Testament is a misnomer for the writtings; the 4 gospels as they are called were the written testimonies of the authors as to the legitamacy of the one called Jesus as being the Messiah. Those written testimonies are not a Covenant; the remaing books are regarding how to live out the faith of Fathers' Abraham, Issac and Jacob as was given to them by Elohim.

If there were a New Covenant in the NT; it would appear as a writen legal document; just like the others; the sages looked for one in whom the covenant was written (Jesus); that is a new way for the Covenant to be transmitted through Jesus; (on the heart and mind); rather than stone.

And no where does G-d calle His people, His HOly Nation by any other name than Israel; not Christian; the term Christian; was given to the Notzrim; by pagans; who saw them annoint with oil (Christos annointed) and the laying of of hands. You might say it was a handle; by certainly not the name G-d called His people; if my people who are called by my name.....Jesus name was not Christ; His name was Yohashua Ben Joseph; the name by my name; could have been Israel. That is not to say that Elohim did not use the "Christian" system for good all the year's it's been around; but it's time to call in His people and restore them to His Kingdom; to their rightful culture; the Torah, to His Holy Days, To His Shabbat.

[jeremiah]

Originally posted by 1Way

Jeremiah - I don't watch TV and I don't see much movies, I didn't even know when the passion came out. I'm not as dumb as the following question might imply, but, I was told that it was going to be made in Latin only, but such a thing would be practically like making a movie without sound. So, they did provide captions or they did do it in English, didn't they?

So, how was it? Any surprising elements, anything especially good or bad? General stuff, no need to give the plot away, :darwinsm: Just kidding.

...............................................
jeremiah

I have not seen it yet. I think it comes out toward the end of this month for the general public. There have been several "screenings" for the VIP's and religious leaders, to receive their input. I was referring to the quotes of such people who have already seen it. Most say it is a tremendously powerful movie even with the subtitles.Why wouldn't it be?!

BTW, the last I heard from Goose, he was converting to an orthodox sect of Judaism. He used to be a " Christian "! Pray for Him! I used to be a Baptist but now I worship on Saturdays, with a Messianic fellowship. We worship Jesus, Yeshua, We believe the Lord God is one God in unity, Father, Son, and Spirirt. We observe the feasts of the Lord and rest on the Sabbath.
Gooses's study and teachers led him away from believing that Yeshua was either Messiah or God. My study and teachersled me to a deeper faith in Jesus as Messiah and God. He is the one who lived the Torah and fulfilled the spring feasts, because it is all about Him. Upon his return, He will fulfill the fall feasts.
The Movie the Passion, shows Yeshua, fulfilling the Passover as the perfect sacrificial lamb, killed at the exact time, and day, as the passover lambs were killed.

[Sozo]

Originally posted by jeremiah


BTW, the last I heard from Goose, he was converting to an orthodox sect of Judaism. He used to be a " Christian "! That is not possible.

[Goose]

Originally posted by SOTK4ever

I can agree with that. I don't think anybody here is stating that all Jews in that period of time were responsible for the crucifixion of Christ. Are you saying that that is what is portrayed in the film? If yes, how so? How do you arrive at that conclusion? I believe that the movie will represent that all the Jewish leadership condemned Jesus, also with the backing of the lay Jews. This is tradition. I highly doubt that it will accurately portray only the one sect, the wicked tzedoqim(wicked Sadducees), condemning Jesus for political gain. Jesus was a Ribi(1st Century Rabbi) under the Perushim(Pharisees) and created his own upstart sect known as the Netzarim(Nazarenes(Acts 24:5)), that worked within the Orthodox Jewish Community of that time period, and continued to live in harmony with the Torah observant community until their scattering in 137CE, by the hands of the Romans, and then forcefully assimiliated by the Romans again in 333CE, by order of the Christian Roman Emperor.

[Goose]

Originally posted by Sozo

That is not possible.
http://www.netzarim.co.il

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Goose

http://www.netzarim.co.il

What am I looking for?

[Lighthouse]

Any true Christian knows that Christ died for ur sins, and therefore we are the ones who killed him. That is all people are responsible for His death.

[Sozo]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Any true Christian knows that Christ died for ur sins, and therefore we are the ones who killed him. That is all people are responsible for His death.


"I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father."

[Goose]

1Way,

You didn't even answer my questions. Although ,you made it abundantly clear that:

1) You use circular reasoning
2) You know nothing of 1st Century Judaism or present day Judaism
3) You use namecalling like a 7 year old and are disrespectful

You can't use the NT supported by your circular reasoning(The NT says it's right, therefore it's right because the NT says it's right, etc). You're going to have to use actual evidence to support your case. And any evidence that you try to present will be blown away by my richer, older and extant documentation (like the Dead Sea Scrolls).

You mention your texts for the NT. You just clearly shown that there are differences in the NT. And since God does not contradict in his word, then all (except for one, maybe) are going to be wrong. It's simple logic. Therefore, you have no grounds for saying I'm wrong, using your NT.

Besides, you being a dispensationalist, the things that we can prove, you agree with me on to an extent. And that is that Yehoshua(Jesus) was an orthodox Jew and so were his followers. This is something that most all manuscripts and all history agrees on. Therefore, when looking at ancient manuscripts with our understanding of 1st Century Judaism, we can logically deduce which manuscripts are probably more accurate then others. The ones you are using for your majority text, are probably wrong. And looking at all the information, it starts to become extremely apparent that most of what Christianity thinks really happened, is backed by heavily redacted manuscripts, written by people who use logic like yourself.

[Freak]

Originally posted by 1Way


So, how was it? Any surprising elements, anything especially good or bad? Your idol, Enyart makes a cameo apperance. :chuckle:

[1Way]

Goose - I can't make you deal responsively and directly with the questions and arguments I've thoughtfully given you. Your response is shall we say, a bit light on the convincing side, a mountain bit light in the area of countering what I have said.

When ever you feel ready to deal with these issues, I’ll be glad to hear from you. For example, what is wrong with the majority text, that was my answer to you, but your counter point shows no reasonable amount of understanding. Any three year old can say, no, your wrong, I’m right, it takes a man of understanding to answer the reasons for the hope you have.

You appropriately used NT support for your reasoning, and so did I. Also, I had not read your NT invalidation post until after I responded to your first post. So of course I was not fully dealing with that issue. For example, you said Even with a pure Christian way of thinking, it's obvious that Paul was talking about the Torah and not the NT, as the NT wasn't even canonized until centuries after Paul's death. to which I said Not so, the NT writers considered Paul’s writings as scripture, and there are other examples where God through the NT writers was affirming that the NT was also scripture. Who cares when it was canonized if the NT itself says that it is scripture, then it is scripture, God did not have to wait for the councils to decide if the NT should be included as scripture.

You have come this far in rejecting the NT as being God’s word, and you are THAT ignorant. Please explain this grievous oversight. This is not a hard question or line of reasoning. You should have had a full grasp of this issue long before you judged against the NT as you have. If you shrink from answering this, then it is plain for everyone to see that you are not standing on solid ground, you don’t even know much about the ground you stand on.

Also, as for me, I explained my understanding of my faith in the NT not using circular reasoning. I gave textural criticism analysis, which the last I checked was a field of science, for why I trust in the NT, not just because the NT says I should trust it. A bit more realistic, if you please.

??? Name calling, abundantly clear that I am name calling. What are you talking about?

The only thing I could find was a comment I made about you attempting to be a comedian, because of denying that a system of faith can not be nomian because that would be an oxy-moron, which is begging the entire question of what a nomian system of faith is. And then you also asserted the redundancy, a faith based faith, which in light of what you had just said was pretty funny, as though nomian and antinomianism is a mute point with you. All that was not far from that infamous politician (the name escapes me right now) who said something to the effect of,

tolerance, the only thing I won’t tolerate is intolerance.

You were addressing the issue of anti-nomianism, supporting it, while defining it away at the same time. It was comedic, yet you may not think it funny, but that hardly justifies your slander against my person as being

“You use namecalling like a 7 year old and are disrespectful”

I don’t think I even called you a single name for that matter. But within the space of three bulleted points, you attempted to make me into a rather illegitimate poster and thinker. If you disagree with what I have said, then deal with it directly, don’t worry about my ego, I can deal with a point counterpoint exchange, really, I can.

[Dave Miller]

Originally posted by lighthouse
Any true Christian knows that Christ died for ur sins, and therefore we are the ones who killed him. That is all people are responsible for His death.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sozo

"I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father."

Woo hoo! Great exchange! You each make a great point, but
together, its a one two punch! Awesome, thankyou!

Too bad this debate is way down in archeology, I think
everyone would benefit from this exchange!

Sozo, how about chapter and verse so we don't have to
dig it up ourselves?

Dave

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Dave Miller


Sozo, how about chapter and verse so we don't have to
dig it up ourselves?



I'll do whatever it takes to get some of you people to actually study your bibles.

:D

[1Way]

Goose has left the Christian faith

He says that the NT is full of contradictions and thus is not God’s word

I’ve provide a reasonable response for why the NT is reliable

I’ve asked why Goose has no reasonable response for his inaccurate claims

and what gets my goat, is not so much that Goose put me on his ignore list after a misunderstanding over in the Windows Nerds forum about ms.net framework. In other words, since I evidently pushed a hot button about the fact that he used to be a Christian and exposed how week his argument was against the NT, no one has picked up the cause and tried to help Goose see the error of his way.

Now, it could be that most people do not know much about manuscript evidence and such, nor about what I claimed which was that the majority and minority texts represent to very different textual families or traditions, and that only the minority/critical text matches Gooses attack, which I gave him credit for so doing, yet he has not differentiated between the minority and the majority text! I plainly asked him what is wrong with the majority text, and he never answered back. Instead he decided to take matters personally against me and so now he has set me to ignore, whatever that means.

From my standpoint the issue is pretty simple, Goose has thrown out the NT because it is untrustworthy, but he has not demonstrated why when considering the two very different main text families, the received/majority, and the critical/minority.

I hope for the sake of Goose and for the sake of all whoever you may run into about this topic, that we can learn to present a reasonable answer for why we trust in the NT as being accurate. Goose was right in asking me why I trust it, and I admit that I am no pro about defending it, but there are some very clear facts and historical considerations about the two very different text families that you all should have at least some basic understanding of, and especially so with Goose, since he has supposedly judged against the NT from a standpoint of understanding, and not ignorance.

It seems somewhat obvious to me that Goose has several followers here, and maybe a leader or so.

Come on TOL, take a stand for righteousness. Pick up your bible, look at it, and ask yourself, do you know why you trust it. How do you answer against Goose who knows that it contradicts itself wildly when you take all the various manuscripts into consideration. Evidently he won’t talk to me anymore, that’s his free will choice, just like him rejecting Jesus and His word for himself. I hope and pray that folks will carry a torch of caring, that the truth may prevail for Goose, and for yourself. Goose may be a lost cause, but if you can’t answer his questions, then maybe it’s you who needs the help.

[1Way]

Does anyone have a good quick sheet run down of the differences between the two families? Maybe a web site with some of the more practical stats and info.

I'm not thinking so much about the KJV only issue, although my studying that issue was how I got my feet wet into this topic. I don't want to turn this into a “KJV only” issue, which can get really ugly really quickly. I just talking about being able to answer Gooses charges that the NT is seriously in contradictory conflict. And I don’t mean your English translation, other than to say that if your NT bible was based on the more modern scholarship, then usually on just about every page on your NT will be footmarks notating that some of the text is placed into question by saying one of the following things, better or earlier manuscripts read, or, better earlier manuscripts omit, or some manuscripts say such and such instead of so and so, or some manuscripts don’t even have this portion included.

What I’d specifically like to see is the following concerning the majority and minority text families. And if it is provided by a KJVer, that is fine as long as the discussion does not go there. Also, the KJV only camp would refer to a special subset within the majority text family, generally called the textus receptus, (received text). I also provide my basic understandings of the data, but without the specific numbers and citations from memory.

Number of manuscript articles, from small to large, or at least the percentage of one to the other
The percentage of divergence and disagreement strictly within their own family
The nature of the disagreement within each family, i.e. the minority texts two main resources, the Vaticinus and the Siniaticus (spellings?) disagree with each each other wildly, entire passages omitted or included, contradictory or conflicting word and ideas, even thematic alterations are common, etc.

While in the majority text, the vast majority of the disagreement is over mundane things like the spelling of proper names, and letter transpositions known from common human error. Etc.

Any such helpful data would be most appreciated.

Thanks

[Mateo]

Several authors have undertaken the task of text comparison that you refer to; the lastest of which was done by Gail Riplinger. There are others as well. She's a bit strident and in the habit of trying to rhyme at inapropriate times but the majority of her book is a visual side by side comparison of the versions and texts in question.

[1Way]

Mateo, thanks for the info. I will need to do some searching online to find postable examples and stats. We don't really need the minute details behind the stats; we mostly just need the stats, along with the critical analysis of the nature of the internal integrity differences between the two very different text families.

Is she a Ruckman KJV only type, or a non-KJV’er? And does she lay out the basic statistical differences in short form, something that could be relatively easily posted here on TOL?

If it is so, then maybe I could get a hold of that book somehow and reference that info for all to consider, or, maybe you could if you had the inclination to do so.

I think this issue is a wonderful issue which addresses very forcefully the questions about which translation to use for example. There is a terrible reality within modern scholarship in the field of biblical studies, especially since Wescott and Hort produced their greek text from the critical/minority texts. One of the chapters, if not the last one in Mark has the entire end of that passage omitted, also, in the minority family, if I have my facts correct, there are thematic alterations and contradictions between various individual texts! The history behind these two families are also extremely telling, where the majority text stayed with the blood of the Christians and was openly used and “accepted”, while the critical text’s star examples were kept behind closed doors stored away and not openly used, hence their unusual yet natural preservation in larger portions. And they were mostly found in areas where the people were known to hate God. These statistics and accompanying critical analysis helps us today to be confident in why we can trust the extreme internal consistency of the accepted majority text family and thus the scholarship and translations that are based upon that, and not for such which is based upon the minority texts.

Thanks again for understanding the importance of this issue, and for lending a hand the best you can.

And again, I don't mean to stray off the topic, I would be pleased to have these posts moved to their own thread even if Goose and his like minded does not follow. Yet if the thread's creator will admit this change in direction, it is tangentially related to the issue of historical verses traditional verses God's eternal truth. Either way is fine with me. :o

[1Way]

Wow, this from one web site which spoke especially harsh against the KJV only position. It is even less logical to pay heed to Gail Ripplinger after she was exposed as having no formal academic credentials in manuscript history or Hebrew and Greek textural criticism, to the point that the Christian Research Institute forced her to admit that she herself could not even read the Greek language. Going to someone like Ripplinger for professional opinion on textual criticism is like going to a make-believe physician who never studied anatomy, for medical opinion. Not to completely discredit her, but just to say, she is noted as a KJV only type. Sorry, I forgot the get the web address.

[Mateo]

1Way,

This is not the first of Goose's threads to get hijacked by textual concerns.

:chuckle:

I do not offer Ms. Riplinger's book as a be all and end all on the subject but it is well footnoted and one can build a respectible library on the subject both pro and con from said notes.

While I prefer the KJV and use the Companion Bible as my primary resource I would be the first to admit that it has translational warts, some of which appear to be innocent and some of which appear to be the result of trying to bend what it says to conform to doctrines prevalent in the day in which it was born.

That said, I use the KJV as it has as it's base the Textus Receptus and the Massoretic texts which I have come to see as the most reliable that we have available to us. It also has the most thurough and reliable ancillary texts with which to dig further into the native tounges of the afore mentioned texts as well as the granddaddy of all Concordances.

This is my take on the subject... that and a few quarters will get you a cup of coffee.

;)

[Dave Miller]

I agree with the concordance and cross reference value of KJV,
given how long its been around. I would add that I value it
because of the poetic beauty of the language used. Maybe
not a great text for basic understanding, but great for inspiration.

Dave

[Dave Miller]

Goose makes some great claims, and I think 1way has missed the
point on many of them. But 1way makes some valid claims as
well, as painful as it is for me to admit that...

Paul did not have an NT in hand. He had a gospel which he preached,
orally. Tradition presumes the gospel that Paul preached to have
been recorded as the gospel according to Luke.

On the whole antinomian vs nomian debate, I think Paul's early
interpretation of gospel created antinomian atmospheres in the
churches he started, which resulted in some of his documented
letters appealing for good behavior, and trying to explain his
understanding of Grace more clearly.

The original 11 disciples were clearly kosher, and preached a
Christianity which remained kosher, but not kosher in a nomian
sense. I think they viewed obedience to the law as a fruit of
salvation, not a source of salvation, and that is consistant with
what Paul preached as well. Paul added the dimension that
"kosherness" is not the only fruit of the Spirit, there are many
others.

Paul's whole line of thinking on the law serving to convict rather
than save on the surface seems counter to the Judaic tradition of
the the Torah
being the Word of God, and therefore the source of salvation.

But, as I think Goose states, Torah tradition is not that
salvation is found through absolute obedience to the law,
but rather through recognizing God's presence through His Word
in the Torah. Torah is a prescious gift from God.

In that light, I think Paul's nomianism argument, as was Jesus
Christ's argument, was against biblical literalism, not against
Judaic law. Jesus came to fulfill the law, not remove it, and
again, obedience to the law as a sign of one's love for God
is blessed, but thinking that literal obedience to the law is a
ticket to salvation is mistaken.

Dave Miller

[Goose]

Dave,

You're getting there, but not quite. One thing, is that Torah doesn't mean "law". It means "instruction". Plus, this isn't a nomian, anti-nomian debate. I'm just proving the facts in the article. And the facts are, that it was a wicked priesthood(based on DSS 4Q MMT) that made a judgement under an illegal court(a capital crime judgement in Judaism has to last for 40 days, let alone one night). This is what the thread is about. I'm showing the facts, that Jesus wasn't tried by the Jews as a whole, but by a wicked priesthood that the main body of Jews rejected anyways. The real priesthood, was waiting it out in the desert, known as the Qumran/Essene Community.

[1Way]

Where does he get the 40 days bit? Is Goose now invalidating the OT also? :think: Remember, God said to not subtract from, nor add to His laws/commands, and God did not command a 40 day waiting period prior to execution. If Goose ignores me, then maybe someone will kindly relay this info to him to see if he will explain where he gets the forty days bit. :o

[Dave Miller]

Originally posted by 1Way

Where does he get the 40 days bit? Is Goose now invalidating the OT also? :think: Remember, God said to not subtract from, nor add to His laws/commands, and God did not command a 40 day waiting period prior to execution. If Goose ignores me, then maybe someone will kindly relay this info to him to see if he will explain where he gets the forty days bit. :o

Will you knock it off with the personal attacks? Goose is
obviously educated regarding Judaism far beyond you or I.
Does this threaten you in some way? Are you afraid to learn
something?

And don't give us that "its not in the bible" argument, its invalid.
Any exegete worth his salt knows that just one verse in the
bible contains so many truths that a lifetime of meditation
and prayer cannot reveal all of them. The Word of God in
Scripture has infinite depth, there's plenty of room for harmony
with the findings of scholars, historians, archeologists, and
even scientists of all faiths. These people are truth seekers,
and the Bible contains ultimate truth, so in the long run, real
truth can be found in harmony between these sources and
disciplines, not taking one source at face value and rejecting
all others.

Christ Himself INVALIDATED LITERALISM in many many places,
one example being the good Samaritan story. The Priest and
Levite were BIBLICAL LITERALISTS, so by the law they could
not help a dieing man in a ditch. The disciples not performing
ritual washing, breaking traditional fasting, Jesus dwelling
among and working with prostitutes and tax collectors, all the
same message. Biblical Literalists have a screw loose, because
they choose narrow minded literal face value interpretation
of scripture over God's Intent for humanity, which is to love God
and love each other.

Dave

[LightSon]

Originally posted by Dave Miller


Christ Himself INVALIDATED LITERALISM in many many places,
one example being the good Samaritan story. The Priest and
Levite were BIBLICAL LITERALISTS, so by the law they could
not help a dieing man in a ditch. The disciples not performing
ritual washing, breaking traditional fasting, Jesus dwelling
among and working with prostitutes and tax collectors, all the
same message. Biblical Literalists have a screw loose, because
they choose narrow minded literal face value interpretation
of scripture over God's Intent for humanity, which is to love God
and love each other.


Dave,
I'm not sure what exactly you are trying to undermine. Our obligation "love God and love each other," is arrived at through a literal interpretation of scripture. Ignoring that, you attempt to undermine the very literalness by which we arrive at that high ideal. The priest and Levite should have helped the man in the ditch; that is what love demands.

You apparently see literalism as an evil thing, and I suspect it is because certain "literal" interpretations cut across your view of how love ought to show itself. Perhaps your view of literalism is too literal. Do you equate literalism with fundamentalism? Fundamentalisms goal, simply stated, is to reverence and interpret scripture as God's Word, so as to understand "God's Intent for humanity". Is God able to reveal Himself through scripture?

[Dave Miller]

Originally posted by LightSon

Dave,
I'm not sure what exactly you are trying to undermine. Our obligation "love God and love each other," is arrived at through a literal interpretation of scripture. Ignoring that, you attempt to undermine the very literalness by which we arrive at that high ideal. The priest and Levite should have helped the man in the ditch; that is what love demands.

You apparently see literalism as an evil thing, and I suspect it is because certain "literal" interpretations cut across your view of how love ought to show itself. Perhaps your view of literalism is too literal. Do you equate literalism with fundamentalism? Fundamentalisms goal, simply stated, is to reverence and interpret scripture as God's Word, so as to understand "God's Intent for humanity". Is God able to reveal Himself through scripture?

Literalism, fundamentalism, liberalism, all can be evil if they
ignore the Spirit of the law in favor of using the letter of the law
to oppress, ridicule, harm others.

My problem with literalism is that it can castrate the power and
depth of scripture.

I accept the call to love God and others literally, yes, but I
also respect and open myself to the infinite depth of
understanding that embracing those commandments can
provide.

Dave

[1Way]

So, where did he get the forty days concept? God said to not add to, nor take away from His commandments. Is Goose invalidating God's word in the OT also?

(This is a sincere non-personal attacking inquiry) Should I provide references for the part about God commanding to not add nor subtract from His commandments? Maybe you can find them on your own.

[Dave Miller]

Originally posted by 1Way

So, where did he get the forty days concept? God said to not add to, nor take away from His commandments. Is Goose invalidating God's word in the OT also?

(This is a sincere non-personal attacking inquiry) Should I provide references for the part about God commanding to not add nor subtract from His commandments? Maybe you can find them on your own.

Apparently Goose has some historical evidence in mind that the
tradition at the time of Jesus was for people being tried for
capital crimes be given 40 days before judgement is passed.

Contrary to your criticism, if this is the case, I find it exciting. It
might add some new insight into the account of Christ's
trial at the hands of Satan for 40 days in the desert...

Dave

[Goose]

Originally posted by Dave Miller

Apparently Goose has some historical evidence in mind that the
tradition at the time of Jesus was for people being tried for
capital crimes be given 40 days before judgement is passed.

Contrary to your criticism, if this is the case, I find it exciting. It
might add some new insight into the account of Christ's
trial at the hands of Satan for 40 days in the desert...

Dave But Dave, some people don't like pragmatism and evidence. ;)

[1Way]

Dave

Goose may have lifted up non-biblical research, I do not know, he did not specify his sources, but I did not address that issue as being an issue with me, because, it is not an issue with me. What I asked about was whether or not Goose was going against the OT, since God says not to add nor subtract from His word, and He does not teach a 40 day waiting period, my question is only reasonable and without your incongruent comments, I was not criticizing as much as seeking clarification for Gooses sources and why his information does not agree with God's word in the OT.

The bible is replete with example after example of how terribly Israel failed God and yet how the few remained true to Him. That being the case, I would not be the least bit surprised to find secular sources that demonstrated some Jews holding to teachings and traditions that do not conform to God's teachings as recorded in the OT. If this report from Goose is true, then I appreciate such secular research, unlike your estimation of my response otherwise.

[Mateo]

"It
might add some new insight into the account of Christ's
trial at the hands of Satan for 40 days in the desert...

Dave"

... and His being seen of men forty days after His resurrection... and then there was Jonah warning Nineveh that it would be destroyed in 40 days... and then there was Ezekiel being directed to lay on his side for 40 days... and then there was Elijah going 40 days on the strength of one meal to Horeb... and then there was Goliath who presented himself 40 days before the Jews before getting his little spanking... and then there was Moses... who fasted that long twice before receiving the law... and then there was Noah...


Yeah... 40... an interesting number

[Goose]

"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen." - Jhn 21:25

There is more to the Almighty's Word then just what is written.

[Dave Miller]

I just posted a Lenten poem I wrote a couple years ago
under Exclusively Christian Theology - Lenten Meditation.

I would appreciate it if my good friends Goose and Mateo
and others would give it a gander (oh, I just made a pun, goose and
gander!) and comment.

thanx,

Dave Miller

[Goose]

Hahaha :)

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Goose

Mel Gibson's movie is traditional, not historical. But Mr. Gibson is a conservative Roman Catholic. Such folks place much greater emphasis on tradition than history.

[Goose]

Originally posted by Zakath

But Mr. Gibson is a conservative Roman Catholic. Such folks place much greater emphasis on tradition than history. Very true. But I'm not worried about Gibson, I'm worried about the people who thought "Titanic" was a documentary.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Goose

Very true. But I'm not worried about Gibson, I'm worried about the people who thought "Titanic" was a documentary. :chuckle:

Oh, you were serious... :(

[LightSon]

Originally posted by Goose

Very true. But I'm not worried about Gibson, I'm worried about the people who thought "Titanic" was a documentary.

What? Titanic wasn't a documentary. :shocked:

[Zakath]

Originally posted by LightSon

What? Titanic wasn't a documentary. :shocked: :doh:

[Sozo]

Get to know the real Jesus, not Hollywood's "Catholic" version.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Sozo

Get to know the real Jesus, not Hollywood's "Catholic" version. I tried, he's dead.

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Zakath

I tried, he's dead.

You are the one who is dead to Him.

[Mateo]

Originally posted by Sozo:

"Get to know the real Jesus, not Hollywood's "Catholic" version. "


To which Zakath replied:

"I tried, he's dead. "


To which Mateo inquires:

I'm curious as to what epiphany led you to this juncture.

[Dave Miller]

Originally posted by Goose

Very true. But I'm not worried about Gibson, I'm worried about the people who thought "Titanic" was a documentary.

Keen observation. Same goes true for "Disneyizing" history
as well.

But the same can be said of any depiction of history, whether
intended to entertain or inform. No story can be told without
the mark of the teller, its called subjectivism, and its
inescapable.

Dave

[1Way]

De 4:2 "You shall not add to the word
which I command you, nor take from it,
that you may keep the commandments
of the LORD your God which I
command you.

De 12:32 "Whatever I command you,
be careful to observe it; you shall not
add to it nor take away from it.

Pr 30:6 Do not add to His words, Lest He
rebuke you, and you be found a liar. – God

[Goose]

Originally posted by Dave Miller

Keen observation. Same goes true for "Disneyizing" history
as well.

But the same can be said of any depiction of history, whether
intended to entertain or inform. No story can be told without
the mark of the teller, its called subjectivism, and its
inescapable.

Dave In Nazi Germany, it was also used to brainwash and murder. Believe it or not, "The Passion of Christ" is going to brainwash people (not totally, but theologically) who don't know their facts. I can't wait for someone to say, "You mean, Satan wasn't really holding a hairy backed midget in the crowd?".

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Goose
... I can't wait for someone to say, "You mean, Satan wasn't really holding a hairy backed midget in the crowd?". You mean he wasn't????? ;)

[Goose]

Originally posted by 1Way

De 4:2 "You shall not add to the word
which I command you, nor take from it,
that you may keep the commandments
of the LORD your God which I
command you.

De 12:32 "Whatever I command you,
be careful to observe it; you shall not
add to it nor take away from it.

Pr 30:6 Do not add to His words, Lest He
rebuke you, and you be found a liar. – God So why are you holding your shamefully redacted NT as scripture.

[Goose]

Originally posted by Zakath

You mean he wasn't????? ;) Hahaha. I'm sorry, but did anyone laugh at the site of that thing? I was like,"What in the freak?!"

[1Way]

goose – Answer - I find the NT in glorious harmony with itself and the OT.


In light of my response which was a point counter point to your earlier suggestion that the NT is not trustworthy, I’m still seeking your understanding of the differences between the majority and minority text families.

I am no expert, but I’ve read up on some who are experts, some not much, and not recently. But there is a significant (perhaps overwhelming, virtually unanimous) consensus within “Christian” scholarship (especially conservative) for the unity and trustworthiness of the NT, especially when it comes to the majority text, again, I don’t vouch for the trustworthiness of the critical text at all, in fact in general I denounce it as compared to the Majority text. So my basic question is, what is “your” understanding of the difference between the majority and minority text families in light of your criticisms that the NT is “shamefully redacted”, it is not God’s word? Do you agree or reject my understanding about the differences between the minority and majority texts?

I looked up the word so that myself and others can understand your claim.

Webster’s
Redacted = To force; to reduce to form.

More specifically, why do you have a problem with the majority text family/tradition?

I hold to translations that hold to the majority text family (the vast majority of the time), and I find no problems with those translations. Please present some key considerations (general problems, specific examples) for your view, that would be helpful.

What’s all this about Disney and Satan and a

“hairy backed midget in the crowd?"

?

[1Way]

TOL - Again, I'm being responsive to the thread's evolving discussion, I don't mean to divert away from the topic. I would be glad to start another thread if need be. I don't even know if Goose has shared these things here at TOL before or not, so please forgive if this has already been covered elsewhere. Thanks.

[Goose]

1Way,

Your hatred of me is starting to hijack yet another thread. You're not forgiven. Take it somewhere else.

[Lucky]

Originally posted by Goose

Believe it or not, "The Passion of Christ" is going to brainwash people (not totally, but theologically) who don't know their facts.
Oh puhlease, you really think this movie is going to do that much damage? I think you are giving it way too much credit.

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Lucky

Oh puhlease, you really think this movie is going to do that much damage? I think you are giving it way too much credit.

It's turned Freak into an idolator!

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Sozo

It's turned Freak into an idolator!

I think he idolized Britney Spears way before this.

[1Way]

Goose – I don’t hate you. I plainly answered your question in response to our otherwise seemingly respectful and sincere discussion. But after repeated failed attempts at seeking your response to my inquiry about

the two very different NT text families/traditions,

you remain unresponsive to me. (Other than obfuscate with a personal attack.)


All – So will someone please tell me what Goose was talking about concerning Disney and Satan and a “hairy backed midget in the crowd?"

[1Way]

Goose I don't believe your NT is God's word. There are a great many problems with the "NT". ...

I'd also like to know just which version of the NT you deam as authoritative, and why.
1Way Long story short is, the “majority” text has the vast majority of material, it consists
of a (nearly) unprecedented amount of internal accuracy (to my knowledge,
only the OT has a more glorious tradition of care and accuracy), ... . The
area of great and detestable contradiction rests solely in the “critical” text,
and not in the “majority” text. So I rest my confidence of accuracy with
the family of text known as the majority ... text, this new
fangled scholarship behind the critical text is a bunch of bunk as I think
your analogy would affirm. Was that what you were getting at with your analogy?
Goose You didn't even answer my questions. Although ,you made it abundantly clear that:

1) You use circular reasoning
2) You know nothing of 1st Century Judaism or present day Judaism
3) You use namecalling like a 7 year old and are disrespectful
...
You mention your texts for the NT. You just clearly shown that there are differences
in the NT. And since God does not contradict in his word, then all
(except for one, maybe) are going to be wrong. It's simple logic.
1Way I did not call you names. I gave you textural criticism for why I trust the NT, and told
you which one I trusted. So what is wrong with the Magority text NT?
Unanswered Question (1)

No direct answer


Goose it was a wicked priesthood(based on DSS 4Q MMT) that made a
judgement under an illegal court (a capital crime judgement in
Judaism has to last for 40 days, let alone one night). This is what
the thread is about. I'm showing the facts, that Jesus wasn't tried
by the Jews as a whole, but by a wicked priesthood that the main
body of Jews rejected anyways. The real priesthood, was waiting
it out in the desert, known as the Qumran/Essene Community.
1Way So where does Goose get this 40 day waiting period from? Is Goose invalidating the OT also?
Unanswered Question (2)


Dave Miller Will you knock it off with the personal attacks? Goose is obviously
educated regarding Judaism far beyond you or I.
1Way So where does Goose get this 40 day waiting period from? Is Goose invalidating the OT also?
Unanswered Question (2)
Unanswered Question (2)


Dave Apparently Goose has some historical evidence in mind that the
tradition at the time of Jesus was for people being tried for
capital crimes be given 40 days before judgement is passed.

Contrary to your criticism, if this is the case, I find it exciting.
Goose But Dave, some people don't like pragmatism and evidence.
1Way God says not to add nor subtract from God’s words. ...

The bible is replete with example after example of how terribly
Israel failed God and yet how the few remained true to Him. So I
would not be the least bit surprised to find secular sources that
demonstrate some Jews holding to teachings and traditions that
do not conform to God's teachings as recorded in the OT. If this
report from Goose is true, then I appreciate such secular
research, unlike your estimation of my response otherwise.
No clear direct response.


1Way God says not to add nor subtract from God’s words.
De 4.2, De 12.32, Pr 30.6
Goose So why are you holding your shamefully redacted NT as scripture.
1Way Because I find the NT in glorious harmony with itself and the OT.

Again I ask, what is wrong with the NT majority text tradition?
Unanswered Question (1)
Unanswered Question (1)
Unanswered Question (1)


Goose Your hatred of me is starting to hijack yet another thread. You're
not forgiven. Take it somewhere else.

I'm responsive, your evasive.

[Dave Miller]

Since the subject is the movine, I assume the midget is a
character in the movie. I haven't seen it yet, but that's my
guess. And since the subject is the historical accuracy of the
movie, I would have to agree that I haven't read about any
midets in the gospels...

I'm hoping to see the movie this afternoon. Well, I'm kind of
dreading it also, but its something I need to do.

Dave

[Dave Miller]

QUOTE]Originally posted by Goose

So why are you holding your shamefully redacted NT as scripture. [/QUOTE]

Goose,

I can't defend the NT against your accusations, you're probably
right in many ways.

I can say that the intent that Jesus put forth was to fulfill
rather than overthrow the Hebrew scriptures which are,
admittedly, sometimes misquoted in the gospels.

This concept has been misused over time, but my understanding
is that for example, in the case of maintaining Kosher lifestyle,
Jesus had no problem with it, He maintained it Himself.

His problem was with people who misused the Word of God
to justify unloving behavior, as is illustrated in the story
of the Good Samaritan. His problem was also with people
who mistakenly misrepresented Scripture as a replacement
for the Grace of God.

In other words, its the Grace of God that saves, not strict
adherence to the law. Reverence for and adherence to
the law can be a sign of one's obedience to God, if done
humbly, not hypocritically.

Dave

[Freak]

Originally posted by Sozo

It's turned Freak into an idolator!

Originally posted by Freak

Sozo, you saw the movie. Were you deceived?



Originally posted by Sozo

Yes.


I had honestly hoped that the movie would give the message of the gospel, but it fell short.

Maybe some good will come of it, but I doubt it.

I think the facts speak for itself--Sozo hates the gospel. :nono:

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Freak

I think the facts speak for itself--Sozo hates the gospel. :nono:

Jay Bartlett, you are a liar!!

This movie does not present the gospel. You are an idolator, and a hater of Jesus, the Son of the living God.

[Freak]

Originally posted by Sozo

Jay Bartlett, you are a liar!!

This movie does not present the gospel. You are an idolator, and a hater of Jesus, the Son of the living God.

Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.

The movie declares the gospel according to Paul. Sozo your heart is cold. No wonder you don't serve Christ. :down:

[Sozo]

Go to hell Jay Bartlett.


It is Jesus alone who owns my heart, so you have insulted Him... again.

[Freak]

Originally posted by Sozo

Go to hell Jay Bartlett. I can't for I belong to the Lord Jesus Christ.


It is Jesus alone who owns my heart, so you have insulted Him... again. Originally posted by Freak

Sozo, you saw the movie. Were you deceived?



Originally posted by Sozo

Yes.


I had honestly hoped that the movie would give the message of the gospel, but it fell short.

Maybe some good will come of it, but I doubt it.

[Goose]

Originally posted by 1Way

Goose I don't believe your NT is God's word. There are a great many problems with the "NT". ...

I'd also like to know just which version of the NT you deam as authoritative, and why.
1Way Long story short is, the “majority” text has the vast majority of material, it consists
of a (nearly) unprecedented amount of internal accuracy (to my knowledge,
only the OT has a more glorious tradition of care and accuracy), ... . The
area of great and detestable contradiction rests solely in the “critical” text,
and not in the “majority” text. So I rest my confidence of accuracy with
the family of text known as the majority ... text, this new
fangled scholarship behind the critical text is a bunch of bunk as I think
your analogy would affirm. Was that what you were getting at with your analogy?
Goose You didn't even answer my questions. Although ,you made it abundantly clear that:

1) You use circular reasoning
2) You know nothing of 1st Century Judaism or present day Judaism
3) You use namecalling like a 7 year old and are disrespectful
...
You mention your texts for the NT. You just clearly shown that there are differences
in the NT. And since God does not contradict in his word, then all
(except for one, maybe) are going to be wrong. It's simple logic.
1Way I did not call you names. I gave you textural criticism for why I trust the NT, and told
you which one I trusted. So what is wrong with the Magority text NT?
Unanswered Question (1)

No direct answer


Goose it was a wicked priesthood(based on DSS 4Q MMT) that made a
judgement under an illegal court (a capital crime judgement in
Judaism has to last for 40 days, let alone one night). This is what
the thread is about. I'm showing the facts, that Jesus wasn't tried
by the Jews as a whole, but by a wicked priesthood that the main
body of Jews rejected anyways. The real priesthood, was waiting
it out in the desert, known as the Qumran/Essene Community.
1Way So where does Goose get this 40 day waiting period from? Is Goose invalidating the OT also?
Unanswered Question (2)


Dave Miller Will you knock it off with the personal attacks? Goose is obviously
educated regarding Judaism far beyond you or I.
1Way So where does Goose get this 40 day waiting period from? Is Goose invalidating the OT also?
Unanswered Question (2)
Unanswered Question (2)


Dave Apparently Goose has some historical evidence in mind that the
tradition at the time of Jesus was for people being tried for
capital crimes be given 40 days before judgement is passed.

Contrary to your criticism, if this is the case, I find it exciting.
Goose But Dave, some people don't like pragmatism and evidence.
1Way God says not to add nor subtract from God’s words. ...

The bible is replete with example after example of how terribly
Israel failed God and yet how the few remained true to Him. So I
would not be the least bit surprised to find secular sources that
demonstrate some Jews holding to teachings and traditions that
do not conform to God's teachings as recorded in the OT. If this
report from Goose is true, then I appreciate such secular
research, unlike your estimation of my response otherwise.
No clear direct response.


1Way God says not to add nor subtract from God’s words.
De 4.2, De 12.32, Pr 30.6
Goose So why are you holding your shamefully redacted NT as scripture.
1Way Because I find the NT in glorious harmony with itself and the OT.

Again I ask, what is wrong with the NT majority text tradition?
Unanswered Question (1)
Unanswered Question (1)
Unanswered Question (1)


Goose Your hatred of me is starting to hijack yet another thread. You're
not forgiven. Take it somewhere else.

I'm responsive, your evasive. 1Way,

I ignored you for a reason. You hate me and it clearly shows in all your threads with me in them. If you're showing love, then please quit "loving" me. I don't want it.

The answers to your questions can be summed up in the following. The NT is not true based on historical evidence and also the logical fact that if you have manuscripts that contradict, yet are held to be God's Word, then all except for maybe one, is false, as God's Word can't contradict.

Historians like Eusebius and Justin state that there was only one manuscript that was accurate and considered authoritative (but still not held on par with the Torah), which was a Gospel of Matthew written in Hebrew. Is your Gospel of Matthew written from this Hebrew Gospel? No. Hence, the books you use were not held as scripture by the earliest followers of Jesus. It wasn't until later, when hellenization and syncretization started to spread through out the church, was your present day bible born, which became a new religion called Christianity.

[LightSon]

"only by pride comes contention".

"By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." -Jesus

I wonder if it pains the Lord Jesus to have His own disciples hurling insults at each other, and in front of the lost.

It pains me. :(

[1Way]

Lightson – I wonder if you know that saying I wonder if it pains the Lord Jesus to have His own disciples hurling insults at each other, and in front of the lost. is insulting on at least two clear levels. 1) I am not “hurling insults” at each other, I am respectful and responsive. 2) Goose and his type plainly do not serve the Lord Jesus, they reject Him as their Lord and savior. So you managed to be somewhat insulting to everyone involved.

I can not and should not be held to blame for trusting Goose was sincere over his discussion with me.

Lots of people misunderstand one another all the time, so I don’t take offense at what you said other than to simply correct the misunderstanding involved. Goose on the other hand does not seek resolution/reconciliation; instead he creates offenses where none clearly exist, while avoiding the question that was probably the real point of contention between us.

I realize that most people do not follow everyone else’s discussions, so I provided a basic reader’s digest recap of our discussion and highlight the main aspects of what we had been discussing. It is startling how unresponsive Goose is, especially in light of his otherwise respectable and informed input. Thanks for caring that we treat each other respectfully, to that extent I fully agree.

[Goose]

1Way is not my brother and we do not follow the same Christ.

[1Way]

Goose – I do not hate you, your attempts at placing hatred in me for you is not true, I do not hate you, and I do not cut you off from relationship (set you to ignore mode) because I don’t require others to meet so many personal loving needs that I desire from others. I hope for them, but if I they are not caring towards me, then such is life, disappointments happen. When misunderstandings happen, deal with it in a productive way, don’t seek such occasions to tear down and destroy relationships. Whenever possible buildup, edify, exhort, hope, bless, encourage, etc.

Thank you for responding to my observations, and I am very happy to see you directly respond to our discussion over my questions to you (however incomplete), at least you responded.

You said.

The answers to your questions can be summed up in the following. (1) The NT is not true based on historical evidence and also (2) the logical fact that if you have manuscripts that contradict, yet are held to be God's Word, then all except for maybe one, is false, (3) as God's Word can't contradict.

(4) Historians like Eusebius and Justin state that there was only one manuscript that was accurate and considered authoritative (but still not held on par with the Torah), which was a Gospel of Matthew written in Hebrew. Is your Gospel of Matthew written from this Hebrew Gospel? No. Hence, the books you use were not held as scripture by the earliest followers of Jesus. It wasn't until later, when hellenization and syncretization started to spread through out the church, was your present day bible born, which became a new religion called Christianity.

(1) My understanding is that the NT’s historical considerations are held in the highest esteem compared to any ancient document. If you are referring to issue 4, then perhaps we all have much to learn, I do not know about this info and am curious about it.

(2) I do not hold to manuscripts that contradict, that is fundamentally why I reject the minority text. The majority text is characterized by the vast majority of the written portions, and they also have the vast majority of agreement and harmony. It is mostly when you get to the minority text that your argument has sway, and there I totally agree with you. So fundamentally, you are not answering my question. You are saying that there is one NT, at since it is contradictory, then it is invalid. My point counter point is that effectively the NT is not one, it is two, and if you just take your standard of internal consistency to each NT tradition, then the majority is fine while the minority fails miserably. So the question remains, what is wrong with the majority text family as an overwhelmingly consistent and verified document? If your answer is within your response where you said, except for perhaps one, then you would be agreeing with me that the NT according to the majority family is not contradictory and is therefore acceptable as being God’s word. But since you still reject that conclusion, then my question has not been answered as mentioned.

(3) Amen, it does not contradict. The NT that the Christian’s carried with them and used has a glorious history in terms of volume and internal and external agreement. The minority text is not proud of it’s history and unique shaded circumstances, instead they try to simply claim that their manuscripts are old, thus better, even though their agreement and attestation is horrible.

Note, again, I am not a scholar, and although these remarks are from previous research into this issue, I have by no means ruled out every minority text as being untrustworthy. I feel I know enough general information about the differences between the majority and the minority texts to be suspicious of say two other schools of thought on textural criticism, 1) KJV only, which only affirms a subgroup of the majority text, which has not been found (although has been “arrived” at via reconstruction) does not argue convincingly for the extent of their conclusions, however they do a pretty good job of exposing the problems with the minority text. 2) Various forms of eclecticism. The differences between the minority and majority text seem important enough to be suspicious of crossing the lines between these two very different text groupings. But if some of these examples agree in great harmony with the majority text, then there could be arguments for partial validity, but I have not remotely dived that far into this debate.

There has been so much historical and archeological support for the NT, that claims of it’s contradictory nature seem unrealistic. Except of course there does seem to be a significant argument against the validity of the minority text as mentioned.

(4) Ok, I am willing to consider these ideas, but first we should settled the issue of the two divergent families and how that significantly alters the framework of this contention. There is a tremendous amount of historical support for the trustworthiness of the NT. So lets give that evidence a fair hearing prior to dismissing it. Or, if you grant the two family differences in general, then you can not invalidate the NT (according to the majority text) via contradiction, you would need to use some other reasoning.

[1Way]

Lightson and ALL - After just receiving a friendly third party note of observation, it seems likely that Lightson was referring to Freak and Sozo's “go to hell”, “your not saved” tirade.

So my comments only apply to the extent that Lightson included me in his remarks.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Mateo

Originally posted by Sozo:

"Get to know the real Jesus, not Hollywood's "Catholic" version. "


To which Zakath replied:

"I tried, he's dead. "


To which Mateo inquires:

I'm curious as to what epiphany led you to this juncture.
Epiphany - A revelatory manifestation of a divine being.

I was assured that "Jesus" was omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent deity. When I had no epiphany, my conclusion was that the object of my search didn't exist.

Of course billions of Christians could be wrong about the attributes of the deity they've been conversing with and serving for almost 2000 years... :think:

[Dave Miller]

I just saw it for the first time.

First let me say that it was scriptural, and Catholic. From the
scripturally accurate parts, the story was told mostly from the
perspective of Luke.

I don't have any problem with any of the Catholic traditions /
nuances included in the movie.

If I do have any problems with the movie, they are the same
problems I have with Luke's account of the Gospel. And they
are 1. The vilification of Jews and 2. Luke's apparent embarassment
he has with and denial of the humanity of Christ.

Luke expresses this in the differences between his gospel and
the others. In Luke, Jesus has alot more dialog, and is much
more in control of the events that surround him, than in any of
the other gospels. Where in the other Gospels, Jesus barely
speaks to defend Himself, in Luke he declares openly a great deal
more. In Luke the symbols of Jesus as royalty are much more
pronounced, with sceptres and crowns, and robes and such.

For me, a major part of the power of the Christ story is His absolute
humanity. Christ chose to remain faithful to His humanity through His
death, and so should any depiction of His story, in my opinion.

The Passion depicts a super-human Jesus, who after being scourged
to near death, to a point which should have caused any mere mortal
to bleed to death if nothing else, manages to carry the cross a good
distance, alone. After Jesus finally drops the cross, it takes no less
than 2 soldiers, plus Simon the Cyrene, plus Jesus to lift the
cross back up and get the journey going again. In my opinion, this
super human picture of Jesus is theologically problematic.

The depiction of Pilot and his first guard as being sympathetic is
scriptural from the gospel of Luke, but probably not historically
accurate, and as the gospel describes, it does place the blame
squarely on the shoulders of the Jewish people who were present
in the square. More could have been done to depict the crowd
as a zealous politically motivated minority, as would have been the
actual case.

As for favorite, most powerful scenes, without spoiling the movie
by giving too many details, I would say look at Jesus praying in
the beginning of the film and what it represents, and look to his
mother Mary when He falls while carrying the cross.

Dave Miller

[1Way]

Dave Miller - However, seeing how you use the NT as a historical document, the NT seems to assume that the Jews as a nation were guilty of rejecting Jesus. So you have a problem with honoring one part of the NT where you seem to like to do so, but then you dishonor the NT when it goes against your view. A consistent respectable historic view should not violate the source it supposedly esteems. If it is held in contempt, even then you should remain consistent and thus the comments about Luke should also be dismissed as not being a respectable resource.

When you said

"Luke's apparent embarassment he has with and denial of the humanity of Christ."

I believe the rebellious perhaps revisionist within becomes evident. Lifting up an aspect of Jesus does not support your notion that he did not appreciate other aspects of God. If as the NT holds, the 4 gospels each show a different emphasis about Christ, then it is actually a brilliant multifaceted work demonstrating the importance of understanding who Jesus really is. Unlike your criticism, Luke’s contribution does not indicate embarrassment towards any aspect of who God (Jesus) is.

[Dave Miller]

Comments not meant for you 1way, they are meant for people
who take scripture seriously enough to read it carefully, and try
to really understand it instead of prattling dogmatic nonsense.

Sorry that was mean of me, but this particular forum was created
to discuss the historicity of the movie, not your judgement upon
how good of Christians everyone who discusses the subject are.

If you see the movie and have specific issues with either how well
it correlates with scripture or its historical accuracy, which are not
necessarily the same things, your comments are welcome.

djm

[avoice]

"The Passion" has made over 100 million dollars in just 5 days! What does that say for we as a people?

[Dave Miller]

One more comment about the movie. Jesus was very Hollywood,
i.e. tall, buff, and handsome. His time in the gym was well
displayed even when he was covered with blood and marks of
the scourging.

I'm reminded of comments concerning the turn of the
previous century writings regarding the historical Jesus, about
20 years after Schweitzer and others wrote their depictions,
people noticed how much the historically accurate Jesus looked
like the individual authors.

This Jesus looks alot like a Mel Gibson kind of character, buff,
defiant, in control, someone who Mel aspires to be. But that's
not so much a criticism of Gibson as it is an admission of his
humanity, and how he does the same thing we all do, look
to Jesus as an ideal character of who we would like to be.

Dave Miller

[Sozo]

Originally posted by avoice

"The Passion" has made over 100 million dollars in just 5 days! What does that say for we as a people?

I wonder what 100 million dollars would have done in the hands of thousands of sincere missionaries who have the real Jesus to proclaim?

[Mateo]

"One more comment about the movie. Jesus was very Hollywood,
i.e. tall,"...


"This Jesus looks alot like a Mel Gibson kind of character"



Sorry Bro,

You know I love ya but I couldn't resist. Mel's a runt.



:chuckle:


Can you say "Napoleonic complex"?

[1Way]

Dave - That's ok, you have nothing reasonable to say about my counterpoints to your points, so be it. By your analogy, since you did not see the crucifixion then you have no standing to comment about it. Also, your exclusivist and emotionally subjective responses are well noted.

[1Way]

I imagine that the following would not indicate that Jesus was in very good shape. Mt 4:2 And when He had fasted forty days and forty nights, afterward He was hungry. What if Jesus was relatively strong or good looking? Did Jesus ever complain about physical problems? Did anyone ever mention about His visage as being somehow uncomely? Is He shown limping His way through life, or does the primary documents about Jesus tend to show a powerful courageous, even vicious opponent against all unrighteousness? The truth is clear, with a whip and His fierceness alone He chased the money changers along with their livestock out of the temple (he must have been pretty physically intimidating), He apparently often walked for apparently long distances without one record of Him holding everyone else up, etc. Fasting for 40 days, there seems to be good reason to believe that Jesus was in good physical shape, and was probably very fit, perhaps cut as they say, not much flab on the bones after a 40 day fast, Jesus was a common worker, no record of problems there, so He was likely in very good shape.

Buff, chuckles, he’s buff so it’s probably not authentic. :darwinsm:

[Turbo]

Originally posted by 1Way

Did anyone ever mention about His visage as being somehow uncomely?
For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant, And as a root out of dry ground. He has no form or comeliness; And when we see Him, There is no beauty that we should desire Him. Isaiah 53:2


(I agree that he was likely quite healthy and physically strong.)

[Dave Miller]

Originally posted by Mateo

"One more comment about the movie. Jesus was very Hollywood,
i.e. tall,"...


"This Jesus looks alot like a Mel Gibson kind of character"



Sorry Bro,

You know I love ya but I couldn't resist. Mel's a runt.



:chuckle:


Can you say "Napoleonic complex"?

Maybe so, but the point is he WISHES he were tall :chuckle:

[Dave Miller]

Originally posted by 1Way

I imagine that the following would not indicate that Jesus was in very good shape. What if Jesus was relatively strong or good looking? Did Jesus ever complain about physical problems? Did anyone ever mention about His visage as being somehow uncomely? Is He shown limping His way through life, or does the primary documents about Jesus tend to show a powerful courageous, even vicious opponent against all unrighteousness? The truth is clear, with a whip and His fierceness alone He chased the money changers along with their livestock out of the temple (he must have been pretty physically intimidating), He apparently often walked for apparently long distances without one record of Him holding everyone else up, etc. Fasting for 40 days, there seems to be good reason to believe that Jesus was in good physical shape, and was probably very fit, perhaps cut as they say, not much flab on the bones after a 40 day fast, Jesus was a common worker, no record of problems there, so He was likely in very good shape.

Buff, chuckles, he’s buff so it’s probably not authentic. :darwinsm:

He was probably alot shorter. And no matter how strong he
was, the process of sculpting every muscle group to perfection
through carefully enumerated exercises is a modern pursuit,
though people were to some extent idealized as such in ancient
Greek sculptures.

As a user of hand tools in carpentry, I would guess he might have
had powerful forearms, like Popeye, if you've ever seen a
real practicing blacksmith, you know what I mean.

The point of the movie is to focus on the suffering, not the
physique of Christ, so my points in this regard are both on and
off target. The suffering was well portrayed.

Dave

[1Way]

Dave - Thanks, I agree, then my points were also somewhat off topic, and thanks for taking it light and pleasant.

A lot shorter. Wow, this makes it sound like Jesus was a short guy, or the guy in the movie was stilts.

So He was a “big and strong” type with good looks to boot. Perhaps you are on to something about Hollywood projecting it’s agenda into the film as you say. Your point is well taken.

Although beauty is often a subjective thing, it does seem that Turbo’s mention would make out His visage to be more or less average, or not especially attractive, perhaps even not attractive. ?

What were the Catholic aspects?

Turbo – Thanks for the corrective observation, much obliged.

[LightSon]

Originally posted by avoice

"The Passion" has made over 100 million dollars in just 5 days! What does that say for we as a people?

It suggests that allot of people wanted to pay 100 million dollars collectively to see The Passion.

What conclusions do you draw?

[LightSon]

Originally posted by Turbo

For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant, And as a root out of dry ground. He has no form or comeliness; And when we see Him, There is no beauty that we should desire Him. Isaiah 53:2


(I agree that he was likely quite healthy and physically strong.)
I've always taken the "no form or comeliness" to be in the context of after His being scourged and disfigured.

[1Way]

Lightson - Interesting point, that passage seems very focused on what Jesus would do for us on the cross, being bruised for us, stricken, smitten of God, afflicted, ,,, wounded for our transgressions.

Verse 2 slips very naturally into verse 3 where the cross becomes evident. But isn't Turbo an excellent admin? Helpful, objective, and always right to the point. Bless his sole. His avatar is a bit foreboding though, it sort of reminds me of when I was young and was being too rambunctious playing whatever with way too much energy, and so some serious minded adult type would try to make me mind with a stern face like that one. But I was having so much fun... Just kidding, I never was too rambunctious. :o

[Mateo]

Congrats Turbo,

You've vaulted from anonimous Mod to Admin in a single bound.

;)

[Dave Miller]

Originally posted by 1Way

Dave - Thanks, I agree, then my points were also somewhat off topic, and thanks for taking it light and pleasant.

A lot shorter. Wow, this makes it sound like Jesus was a short guy, or the guy in the movie was stilts.

So He was a “big and strong” type with good looks to boot. Perhaps you are on to something about Hollywood projecting it’s agenda into the film as you say. Your point is well taken.

Although beauty is often a subjective thing, it does seem that Turbo’s mention would make out His visage to be more or less average, or not especially attractive, perhaps even not attractive. ?

What were the Catholic aspects?

Turbo – Thanks for the corrective observation, much obliged.

I went with a friend that's more versed in Catholic tradition than
I, he noticed a couple things. The journey to the Cross
followed the Catholic tradition regarding the stations of the
Cross. In that tradition, Jesus stumbles 3 times, and he did in
the movie. At one of those stumblings, he encounters
St. Veronica, who offers him water, which is another traditional
aspect.

These traditions come from apocryphal writings, one's not
specifically included in the Canon, but revered as tradition at
the time the definition of Canon was created. Canon being
the books of the Bible we accept as Scripture now.

One of the more bothersome traditions is specifically associating
Mary Magdelene with the prostitute who was being stoned.
Some people say that tradition was formed later on in the
church to squash the reverence MM was receiving as a Saint early
on in the church.

Dave

[1Way]

Dave - Very interesting, and thanks much for the assistance. Were there any other
notable areas of departure from canon toward tradition?

Also, perhaps more to the point of this thread,

was there any departure from Christ willingly doing what He did by voluntarily
giving His life that all might be saved (according to the protestant scriptures,
John 15:13’s “no greater love”, & especially Joh 10:18

"No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down,
and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My
Father.")?

Credit goes to Sozo for first mentioning this excellent point in his post #42.

Also of special note, and one that has not been much dealt with here was Goose’s
foundational post #38. A very loaded and provocative post. I admit that I must
have glossed over it earlier. Although Goose has not been very comprehensive nor
convincing for why the NT majority text should be rejected(*) as God’s word, he
does present reasoning for his interesting and unique views. I am glad to see him
being so forthcoming.

(*) My last post on that issue remains unanswered, which is neither here nor there,
sometimes answers are somewhat hard to come by.

If anyone is willing to spend time on Goose’s post 38, I bet he would appreciate it,
and others too. I am week in these sciences, but it would be helpful if the support
reasoning or reference works for these views would be freely offered so as to help
those of us who are not “in the know” better evaluate such ideas.

[Dave Miller]

Originally posted by 1Way


was there any departure from Christ willingly doing what He did by voluntarily
giving His life that all might be saved (according to the protestant scriptures,
John 15:13’s “no greater love”, & especially Joh 10:18

"No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it
down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.") ?



To my recollection, no, other than, as Luke does in contrast to
other gospels, parading Jesus past Herod, which indicts Judaism
in general from the Priestly, the Royalty, and the general
population in the mob scenes. But He endures these
indictments of His own free Will.

Dave

[1Way]

Dave - Ok. Right, Jesus was a very public figure, it is natural that He would have undergone
public humiliation because of His controversial celebrity, miracles, healings, entire towns and
cities following after Him, claimed to be God, etc.

Just a mention about the official website for the movie, it opens prominently with the words
of John 15:13. Joh 15:13 "Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s
life for his friends. It seems as though (at least on their website) they appreciate the importance of conveying
Christ's sacrifice as being voluntary. Which is a good thing.

It is terrible how people have a noticeable prejudice against the Jews, or a decided prejudicial
lack of caring for them. When I stand up for Israel against the Palestinian (etc.) terrorists
(mostly on the CB, but even in person at a truck stop) I frequently got stupid responses like,

“Hey, those son’s of ... ‘s been at war with each other for thousands of years now, we aren’t
going to stop them from killing each other, so who cares about all them idiots, just let them all
kill each other and be done with it, we have no business stepping into their affairs.”

This was a very common response especially during the recent wars on terrorism we executed
over their in the Middle East. It burns me deeply to listen to Americans spout a lack of caring
for others simply because the murders and terrorism is not happening (primarily) to us. And
now the terrorists seek to widen their attacks by targeting the US and not just Israel.

Many people are so blind, and when I speak out against this sort of propaganda and
unrighteousness, for the most part, they back down, so I feel that the popular media must be
feeding them some of their mindset, it is so pervasive. However, I am not a media person, I
don’t watch tv nor listen to the radio, too busy mostly, and I don’t like most tv anyway.

I usually give the “murder in your neighborhood” example, and how we can sit back and do
nothing about it, sure we have that right, yet one day it may happen to us or a friend, and if we
have the power and desire to rescue our neighbor from murderous terrorists, then we are right
for so doing. If it’s good to stop a (national) murderer for killing anyone (national), then by
extension it’s good to stop the (international) terrorist murder even if they try to hide behind
national/political refuge across the world somewhere.

I have no doubt that some of the Jews did not reject Jesus, but to discredit the NT record,
namely that the nation was cut off for national unbelief seems like a position that has a huge
daunting task of invalidating the most validated of ancient writings there is, it would take a
very substantial finding that so far seems to have missed the attention of the world. Forgive
the natural inclination of suspicion, but if the sources for these findings are kept so secret, the
authenticity and integrity of these sources are naturally brought into question.

Just as anyone would doubtful if say the entire theory for electricity was supposedly all wrong,
without natural forthcoming revelation of the replacement truths involved in such a discovery,
which would shake the foundations of the world, the world would tend to reject the notion
simply because the previously accepted models have been well tested and proven accurate.
It seems that some validation and credibility is in order, but then again, maybe that’s just me,
evidential, reasonable, scientific. ;) So what do you think Dave, is the NT God’s word or?

[Dave Miller]

1WAY,

I want to answer your question, but first I need to ask you a
question.

After the resurrection, in Matthew, the disciples were
instructed through the women whom He appeared to,
to go to Galilee where Jesus would meet them on a
mountain. And they did, and He met them and gave them
the great commission, but no ascension.

In Mark, Jesus met two of them on the road to Emmaus,
had dinner with them, after which they ran back to Jerusalem,
and Jesus was there as well. Then Jesus ascended. No
trip to Galilee.

In Luke, there was Emmaus, back to Jerusalem, then out to a
mountain in Bethesda, then the ascension. Again, no Galilee.

In John, there was just the night in Jerusalem, no Emmaues. Then
a week later, still in Jerusalem, Jesus appears again, with Thomas in
the room. Then what must have been a week later, Jesus shows
up in Galilee. This kind of agrees with Matthew, but not really,
Jesus never appeared to the disciples in Jerusalem
at all according to Matthew.

Then there's Acts, which is supposed to be a continuation of Luke,
in which Jesus ordered them to stay in Jerusalem, no Galilee at all,
and then ascension from a mountain a days walk from Jerusalem.

So what happened? Galilee or Jerusalem? Ascension or not?
Emmaus, Bethany? There's no way to resolve these exact
eye witness accounts. They either went to Galilee or they didn't.
Jesus either appeared in Jerusalem or He didn't. What do you
think?

Dave Miller

[Dave Miller]

Here's a little story for you.

When I first started in engineering 20 years ago, I had a
friend at my first job, who was clearly of middle eastern
descent. One afternoon over coffee, I asked him what his
native land was. He refused to answer. In fact he said he
had no native land. I replied "then you must be Palestinian."
He replied "you got it right, I'm Palestinian. Before the
Israeli state, my father had a beautiful farm. Palestine was the
Riviera of the middle east, beautiful hotels along the coast,
people from all the world came and enjoyed it. Palestinians
were the most educated of all the Arab states. We were
at peace."

I asked him about all the murder in the middle east. He replied
" When everything you ever had, every person you ever loved,
is taken and destroyed and killed, there is nothing left to live for."

Then I began to realize there are two sides to every story.

Dave

[Mateo]

"Then I began to realize there are two sides to every story."


Maybe even three...

[Dave Miller]

Originally posted by Mateo

"Then I began to realize there are two sides to every story."


Maybe even three...

Rightly observed, "more than one side" would have been
a better observation.

Dave

[1Way]

Dave

1) I don’t know the answer to your question. I don’t remember hearing about this before and so I’ve never studied it.

2) By only taking into account your scant perhaps biased extrapolation (nothing personal against you, or wrong with presenting a brief synopsis), I would have no way to resolve the conflicting stories.

3) Without more and sufficient information than your account, there is no way to reasonably doubt or trust what actually happened.

If you want more of an answer from me, please provide the necessary information for verification and more importantly, enough information to validate what actually happened as opposed to your personal conclusions drawn. I leave this continuance fully up to your discretion because although it is interesting it does not seem very important. The entire bible has stood the test of time and remains the most historically validated book, especially for those who place their faith in the good book, they find it overwhelmingly reasonable to trust it’s accuracy and harmony (maybe your interpretations are wrong), and it is possible that God allowed for this seeming incongruity without problem (your right about the facts but wrong about evaluating what that means), but again, without more info this is simple conjecture on my part.

However, if your account relies upon the risen Jesus as having the same physical limitations as any other human, via traveling and such like as in the one day’s walk comment, etc., then haven’t you considered that His sudden wellness was evidently because of having a new improved body?

Last, is this issue something that most Christian scholars just do not want the masses to think about since it is a glaring invalidation for the NT? ;)

[Dave Miller]

1) I don’t know the answer to your question. I don’t remember hearing about this before and so I’ve never studied it.


Well pick up a bible! I didn't make this stuff up! Its not rocket
science, its all there!


2) By only taking into account your scant perhaps biased extrapolation (nothing personal against you, or wrong with presenting a brief synopsis), I would have no way to resolve the conflicting stories.


I summarized. Please, examine the text closely and tell me where
I've mistrepresented it.


3) Without more and sufficient information than your account, there is no way to reasonably doubt or trust what actually happened.


Again, open a Bible! I never ask anyone to take my word
for anything! Be from Missouri, show yourself!


If you want more of an answer from me, please provide the necessary information for verification and more importantly, enough information to validate what actually happened as opposed to your personal conclusions drawn. I leave this continuance fully up to your discretion because although it is interesting it does not seem very important. The entire bible has stood the test of time and remains the most historically validated book, especially for those who place their faith in the good book, they find it overwhelmingly reasonable to trust it’s accuracy and harmony (maybe your interpretations are wrong), and it is possible that God allowed for this seeming incongruity without problem (your right about the facts but wrong about evaluating what that means), but again, without more info this is simple conjecture on my part.


Who are "they?" What about "you?" I too have faith in the good
book, enough faith to accept it for all that it has, all that it does
not have, and all the mysteries it contains. To deny the existance
of inconsistancies is as much to deny Scripture, and to lack faith,
as is to accept the "good stuff," whatever the good stuff is to you.
I don't like the terror texts of Joshua or the minor prophets, I
don't like the threates of Revelation, I don't like alot of things in
the bible, but I accept them all, and struggle with them, as do all
of us, that's part of the reason we are here all here at TOL.


However, if your account relies upon the risen Jesus as having the same physical limitations as any other human, via traveling and such like as in the one day’s walk comment, etc., then haven’t you considered that His sudden wellness was evidently because of having a new improved body?


No argument that the risen Jesus could appear in several places
at the same time. The problem is with the other 11, who are said
to gather in all these places with Him.


Last, is this issue something that most Christian scholars just do not want the masses to think about since it is a glaring invalidation for the NT?


On the contrairy, Christan Scholars want the truth to be known.
These mysteries don't invalidate anything, they call us into deeper
relationship with God. Its like Jacob struggling with the angel,
how are we to get through the night without struggling with
the mystery? We may dislocate a hip in the process, but oh
the reward!

The danger is not in the reading and struggling with the
inconsistancies. The danger is in ignorance, in playing off of one
sided interpretations fed to vast groups of people in ignorance.

Jesus came as a light in the world, He never called us to ignorance,
He called us to faith. Sometimes faith requires us to accept the
mystery, the occasional inconsistancy, and look through it instead
of just looking at it. The mystery calls us into deeper relationship
with God, if we dare answer the call.

Scholars don't throw this into people's faces, but they don't deny it
either. People stumble upon the mysteries as they get deeper and
deeper into it. Most try to ignore it, dismiss it as unimportant, but
I ask you, what could possibly be more important to a Christian during
the Easter season than the Bible, and the Resurrection of Christ?
Some do find it disturbing, and maybe do fall away for awhile. The
faithful are always called back, and for some of us, its the very bread
of life...

Dave

[1Way]

Dave – Oh, ,,, I see.

You have conclusions but nothing worthwhile to contribute in backing them up, thanks (but no thanks) for asking me to do what I assumed you had already done. I disagree with your danger statements. Your lack of presenting sufficient reason for concern (let alone the allegation that scripture is inconsistent by way of unresolved contradiction) and not establishing the matter prior to making judgments is the danger. From what you have presented, which is as I said before, insufficient for a reasonable conclusion, I see no reason to be specifically concerned about these unfounded insinuations and extrapolations.

If you can do no better than what you have provided so far, then your “scant perhaps biased extrapolation” remains insufficient for further consideration. Consider the following to better understand why folks need not care about your conclusions of biblical inconsistency. Not that you are necessarily wrong, or that the topic is not potentially important, but that you simply have not presented much beyond subjective opinion.


- several different writers involved so a robust investigation of each writers particular style and concerns would be necessary in order to get the time sequencing clues correctly interpreted,

- and show clear understand of the different accounts recorded of perhaps different events

- with likely at least some loose or non specific time sequencing indicators,

- that each event, and each separate reason for writing about these events should be considered, and that some seemingly corresponding events and/or time indicators “may or may not be” about the same but actually different events,

- or same or different people,

- or given in a before hand perspective

- or in an after the fact perspective,

- or given in a strictly documentary fashion or are some supposed “timeliness indicators” given in a general sense where their accuracy for establishing specific sequencing of events was not the intention, etc.


See, all of these considerations along with the not exactly remote possibility of you(*) having a personal bias or simply misunderstand what God’s word actually says about all this, makes your(*) conclusion of the bible being inconsistent, questionable.

(*) (or your resourc-ing, we don’t even know if this is your idea or if you adopted this from elsewhere)

If “you” have something more substantial to contribute, then by all means your more than welcome to do so, continuation is up to your discretion and I assume your ability to substantiate reasonable support for your claims. Also, I’m still looking forward to your response that you said you would give prior to this aside.

[Dave Miller]

1WAY,

First of all, I want to apologize for bating you with the question.

You've actually given very good answers to the questions, yes,
there are differing perspectives from different authors, yes,
scriptures were recorded some time after the original events
were witnessed, yes, yes, yes. And I truly appreciate your
struggling with the question.

I will argue that my interpretation like anyone's is subjective,
but not with regard to these particular details. In
Matthew Jesus says "Go to Galilee" and in Luke / Acts He says
"don't go to Galilee."

This inconsistancy is glaring, but not alone. Paul debates Peter
about the necessity of Christians keeping Kosher, Paul debates
James about the merit of Grace vs Works, Paul changes his
own mind about eating meat sacrificed to idols, the list goes on and
on.

So the original question you asked, I believe was, do I believe that
the NT is the Word of God? The answer us Yes, resoundingly.

How so if there are inconsistancies? Is God inconsistant?

As Paul would say No! Of course not!

So if God's Word is not inconsistant, and the NT is God's Word, then
maybe He is calling us to something beyond what we normally
associate with reading scripture. Maybe, just maybe, the debate is
in there because He wants us to enter into a dialog with the
Holy Spirit. Maybe He wants us to enter into relationship with
Him through Scripture, and the occasional question or inconsistancy
is His way of calling us into deeper relationship. Maybe He
wants us to go into prayer and ask Him "What's it all about,
Lord?"

So back to the original discussion, in going to Luke and asking the
question "why the apparent anti-semitism?" may not be an act of
questioning God's truth, it may be an absolute act of Faith, Faith that
God in the Holy Spirit is present in Scripture and waiting for
someone to come to Him in prayer, and engage in the dialog, the
relationship.

And when we engage in the discussion, together we participate with
the Holy Spirit in engaging the mystery and getting closer to God.


Take care,

Dave

[1Way]

Dave- I disagree with your response about the NT being God’s word and yet is inconsistent in terms of “irresolvable contradiction” (my words you apparently do not disagree with). You now site other examples of the NT that are supposedly in conflict, so I see a pattern developing where you make a claim and then do little or nothing to substantiate it = hit and run. (tsk, tsk, tsk)

But, I suppose that is somewhat natural since you seek a spiritualized answer to literal contradictions, i.e. instead of literally resolving real contradictions, you accept “contradiction” and find such “issues” to be an invitation from God to come to Him in prayer and thereby deepen one’s relationship with Him. God bates us and hopes to trick us into loving and trusting Him more via contradictory nonsense. Sort of reminds me of all those “so ugly” jokes, i.e. that the parents had to tie a steak around the bib in order to get the dog to come close... etc. God has to trick us with “contradiction” to draw us into a deeper walk with Him. ugh. LOL

Any belief system that accepts logical contradiction is fundamentally self refuting. If God’s word, which is the highest authority for matters of eternal life, if His word can not be held in a consistent way, God can not be trusted at His word, then by extension, any lesser authority (your understanding of God) can not be trusted neither, in fact, I embrace your understanding of God as being contradictory nonsense and seek to deepen this truth in you to help you stand corrected on the truth that can set you free.

Also, if you find a dishonest business for example, do you go out of your way to do business with them again instead of doing business with an honest and consistent one(?), because such inconsistencies are evidently a godly call to a deeper rip off, opps, relationship with them? And therein we see where you do not really believe what you are saying, at least you do not live it. In all practical ways, an inconsistency with truth, especially important spiritual truth, is the hallmark of something not to be trusted or embraced, while the opposite is actually true, that teachings that is consistent is what we should trust and embrace. (You got that wardsback, opps, back/wards = 100% wrong.)

So for you, God’s word is contradictory, on purpose, that’s a new one on me. But seriously, thank you for treating me with personal respect and perhaps unusual humility, I am honored, and I am learning in the process things I never would have according to our early discussion.

Here’s another angle.

Brake it down to the very nature of logical contradiction and inconsistency. You can not get around this.

You have statement A

And you have statement B

Statement A says something very inconsistent with statement B, such that statements A and B contradict each other. Here are the statements.

A = Statement B is true
B = Statement A is false

Try it out, it’s a wonderful irresolvable contradiction just beconing us to seek the deeper spiritual meaning. (chuckles) A contradiction is by it’s very nature, meaningless nonsense. It can not be true, it can not be God’s word.

As to your new added examples
Paul did not “debate” with Peter about dietary matters, I can’t (hardly) believe you could suggest such a thing by simply reading the scant passage involved in that example! Paul set Peter straight, He harshly rebuked him for even mishandling the gospel message, Peter was wrong and Paul was right, no debate implied.

Paul and James did not “debate” anything, they taught two very different sets of beliefs which are for two very different groups of believers via the circumcision and the uncircumcision. Paul explains all this throughout his writings, but none of the circumcision writers explain this nor correct Paul, because Paul’s new teachings were given to him not them and for us (uncirc) not them (circ).

Paul did not change His mind about eating meats sacrificed to idols nor about circumcising, etc. This claim in particular represents a serious problem in your understanding. Your hole is only getting deeper and you should stick with the Jesus and Galilee bit, or perhaps the single strongest contradictory issue otherwise. Changing examples prior to settling the first one can unnecessarily cloud the issue. Please one doable issue at a time.

While I appreciate your honesty and openness, your views do not pass the muster of logic, let alone biblical consistency, i.e. God’s word is a house not divided, “debates” are not “harsh corrective rebukes” nor do “different teachings” for “different dispensations” represent a “debate” between irresolvable contradiction.

Ok, I’m going to search and copy and paste the only tidbits of info you have given about this Jesus and Galilee thing, and hopefully somewhere in there you will pick and choose what you are talking about, Hopefully I got enough scripture, I really don’t know since you do not offer the passages involved. Very clever, we cant defeat you because you hold all the cards. The Mt account seemed easy to find by searching for “go” and “Galilee”, not so for the Luke and Acts. I’ve done this much, given that so far you have presented few example words for your view, you are somewhat indebted I believe. ;)


Mt 26:32 "But after I have been raised, I will go before you to Galilee."
Mt 28:7 "And go quickly and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead, and indeed He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him. Behold, I have told you."
Mt 28:10 Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell My brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see Me."


To get Luke and Acts, I had to just search for Galilee. Let me know what you parts you mean are in contradiction, or if I got the wrong parts in Mt.


Lu 1:26 Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth,
Lu 2:4 Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David,
Lu 2:39 So when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own city, Nazareth.
Lu 3:1 Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene,
Lu 4:14 Then Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit to Galilee, and news of Him went out through all the surrounding region.
Lu 4:31 Then He went down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and was teaching them on the Sabbaths.
Lu 4:44 And He was preaching in the synagogues of Galilee.
Lu 5:17 Now it happened on a certain day, as He was teaching, that there were Pharisees and teachers of the law sitting by, who had come out of every town of Galilee, Judea, and Jerusalem. And the power of the Lord was present to heal them.
Lu 8:26 Then they sailed to the country of the Gadarenes, which is opposite Galilee.
Lu 17:11 Now it happened as He went to Jerusalem that He passed through the midst of Samaria and Galilee.
Lu 23:5 But they were the more fierce, saying, "He stirs up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee to this place."
Lu 23:6 When Pilate heard of Galilee, he asked if the Man were a Galilean.
Lu 23:49 But all His acquaintances, and the women who followed Him from Galilee, stood at a distance, watching these things.
Lu 23:55 And the women who had come with Him from Galilee followed after, and they observed the tomb and how His body was laid.
Lu 24:6 "He is not here, but is risen! Remember how He spoke to you when He was still in Galilee,


Ac 1:11 who also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven."
Ac 5:37 "After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census, and drew away many people after him. He also perished, and all who obeyed him were dispersed.
Ac 9:31 Then the churches throughout all Judea, Galilee, and Samaria had peace and were edified. And walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, they were multiplied.
Ac 10:37 "that word you know, which was proclaimed throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee after the baptism which John preached:
Ac 13:31 "He was seen for many days by those who came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are His witnesses to the people.

Ac 13:31 seems involved but practically without timeliness indicators, and I thought that Lu 24:6 might be what you are referring to, “but” the surrounding verses do not seem very relevant. So help us out here please. What are you talking about?
:o

[theEndisNear]

I just have ONE question 1 Way...

Don't your fingers ache from typing that much consistently! I know if i finished up a monster of a post like that I would be takin a break from typing for a few years :)

[LightSon]

It is amazing. 1Way is arguably TOL's most fecund apologist.

[1Way]

theEndisNear

Now, to be fair, approximately 1/3 of that post was just copy and paste from my bible study program, so that part was easy to accomplish. But your right, my posts have been somewhat more in depth than many others. (ugh, also, brevity is not my strongest point) My fingers keep up pretty well, but my back gives me problems lately, and my heart aches for folks, so those things bother me way more than typing out posts. (chuckles)


LightSon (also)

Also, I am not working right now, so that gives me more time to post, but that will soon change after I get a job again. You know, in perhaps just a few years from now, I suspect that due to broad band ISP and massive storage technology improvements, we could be doing voice and video correspondence instead of just text. (!!!) But the discipline of writing will not go away, because the constant lingering of the message given forces us to make sure we say what we meant to say, but in spoken or live communication, we naturally forgive (subtle) inconsistencies and correct ourselves along the way. So, much like books, written text forums are here to stay, but I very much look forward to the advent of wide spread multi-media interaction in these sorts of forums. Since getting DSL again, I’m just getting back into PalTalk, which is a voice chat room type place where you can even do video cam stuff as well. But the video cams really bog down the audio throughput so I stick with the audio.


LightSon (specifically)

It is nice to know that some folks appreciate my input in some way. ;) I am so thankful and indebted to TOL and BEL, because without them my (chuckles) “fecund” ministry efforts (you are too kind) would be mostly untrained, and unpracticed. I must say that this particular area of study is pretty new to me, especially the historical considerations brought forth by Goose and Dave etc.

You see, I’ve had the wool pulled over my eyes Christians everywhere for my whole life and so my ability to reach others for God and with absolute truth has been dramatically hindered for so long. So, if I seem as though I’m in redeeming the times mode times 10, it’s just because I care and that I think that God loves it when we do a better job reflecting Him. (chuckles) I had to get out the dictionary to see if you were complimenting me or not. You might be interested to know that “perhaps” a half a dozen or so other posters here on TOL (out of a thousand) might feel similarly as you on this issue. :o (LOL)

Thank you.

[Dave Miller]

Acts 1:4 On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. 5For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit."

Mt 28:10 Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell My brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see Me."


Seems pretty clear to me...

djm

[1Way]

Dave Miller – You quoted two verses and then plainly said Seems pretty clear to me... Please explain what seems pretty clear to you. You quoted 2 verses and then just said what I just quoted. You didn’t even make an attempt to say what you think you see as a contradiction.

Like I said before, and I suspect most others here feel similarly, I have not studied this issue before, so whatever supporting background and associated information you are assuming into this picture must be shared if we are to understand what it is you are trying to convey.

Here is what I got out of those two verses.

Acts 1:4
A few days before Pentecost, Jesus commanded them to not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift of the baptism of the HS. That is a pretty clear sequence indicator, a few days before Pentecost, don’t leave, stay here.

Mt 28:10
Jesus had evidently just been risen from the dead, and an angel who I’m guessing was likely the one who rolled away the stone was there, and then Jesus was discovered alive on their way back to the disciples, and He told them to tell His disciples to meet Him at Galilee, and then they did.

So, what contradiction are you referring to?

Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t there a 50 day waiting period before the day of Pentecost? And didn’t that 50 days start not before Jesus and the cross? So if this is correct, then Mt 28:10 is in reference to a time which might be about 46 or 50 days away from the day of Pentecost. I’m not sure which day would be the marker for the start of the 50 days, whether it was the day Jesus was killed or the day He was risen, I do not know. I could be all off on this, but that is my general conception of the two different events, the cross and the day of Pentacost, that they were something like 50 days apart.

If that much is pretty much accurate and your concerned about a one way day’s journey to Galilee, then it appears to me that they had about 5 weeks to accomplish that meeting. Actually according to Mt 28, this meeting may have happened very soon after the resurrection. Leaving over a month for the Acts command to stay, don’t leave.

Also, what part of Luke fits all this?

???

This is a friendly bit of observation and a request for your thoughtful assistance. Two posts in a row (excepting your last intermediary post), you have presented your thoughts in a somewhat incongruent and very insufficient way. The first time I had to give you several posts just to get you to say what you are getting at, and now here we go again doing the same sort of thing things.

I admit that this is more interesting as it goes along, the topic may not be as huge and comprehensive and so on. With the exception of you finally providing the passages you infer is an irresolvable contradiction, instead of freely advancing the discussion concerning your side of the story, which is what we are all trying to understand, you are regressing to the point of stating your case without even stating it.

At least you are not running down the path way ahead of me as many often do. Thanks for your patient understanding and still anticipated explanation of what you mean.

[theEndisNear]

Hey i went and saw the movie today......

I liked it.... gruesome and sad but a good movie!

[1Way]

Dave - BTW, I might have answered you days ago if I had known you had responded. I do a universal check for all posts directed to me by simply searching for my username in the "keyword field", then I click on "posts" instead of threads and then specify the last day or week or whatever, and get all responses to me in one swift retrieval.

If you do not address me by my handle, I may be delayed in responding. This delay may be longer or shorter depending upon how active I am here online and at home as well.

It’s an unpublished running request of mine that folks use my handle (correctly spelled and with no extra formatting) so that I can most effectively respond to their various responses and requests to me. It’s why I do have a clear habit of placing no coding or extra characters next to user handles so that if they search for their handle as I do, they may find my response just as easily. This courtesy is a two way street. Last I checked, “Dave” finds “Dave”, but it does not find “Dave,” or {b}Dave{/b} for example.

I think this is a design flaw in this program or the way TOL admin runs it, except that some like to have an email sent when their subscribed threads are responded to, but I don’t think many people like to have their email filled up with even more fluff mail, and obviously heavy users would get tons of TOL (perhaps nondescript) email notices. Maybe I’m wrong but that is why I do not receive email notification. And why use two separate programs when this program has the capability to inform you of your own activity.

I think that when a person responds to someone directly, a notice should be automatically generated and given upon that person’s return, something different, but similar to the way PM notices are given. I think that would conform better to the idea that if you say something to someone, you care that it is directed to their attention, not otherwise. Compared to other issues, it is perhaps a small point, but it may be a good function to implement. There’s nothing quite like the feeling you get after spending (investing!) lots of time with someone on an intense discussion, and then making an especially crucial post, only to have that person not respond for a long time and then all of a sudden say, oh, sorry, I didn’t realize...
:doh:
It’s a similar feeling you get when TOL goes through a major software or server upgrade of some sort and then suddenly everything is lost and usually without much of a warning. Anyway, looking forward to your response.

[1Way]

theEndisNear - Good for you. I still haven't seen it yet, not sure that I will. Domestic life is rather unusual and difficult lately.

So how about your take on this issue. Did the movie remain consistent with the idea that Jesus voluntarily laid down His life, or did they make it look as though it happened against His will?

[LightSon]

The following was shared on another forum and is a review of The Passion that was written by Chuck Pools, a Baptist Pastor and published in Baptist Today. I found it to be insightful beyond the run-of-the-mill appraisal.


Movie is the Caricature of the Real Passion
By Chuck Pools

MACON, Ga. - Yes, I have seen the movie. To its credit, it has some impressive music and some riveting scenes. It does a very good job of capturing the complexity of Pilate and the grief of Mary. It also has a few brief, beautiful reflections on the Last Supper and the Sermon on the Mount.

Yes, I have seen the movie. But I have also read the Book, which is why I think that churches who are so enamored with The Passion of the Christ might want to interrupt their rush to rent the theatres long enough to remind their parishioners that this movie is just that; a movie. The Passion is to Gethsemane and Calvary what Pearl Harbor (the movie) is to Pearl Harbor (the tragedy); a dramatic presentation of a real event, with all the dramatic additions that it takes to make history work as a movie. The Passion embellishes upon the Biblical voice, and the embellishments all serve to evoke emotions from movie-goers: The demonic children chasing Judas, the ancient infant in Satan's arms, Satan weaving in and out among the high priests, the extra-Biblical extra beatings all the way to Calvary, the blood-dripping cross-flipping scene at Golgotha. If you have read the Book, you know that none of that is in the Bible. And if you have seen the movie, you know that all of that only serves to make the movie-goers cringe, cry, gasp, and flinch.

Many people say they found it all quite moving. I found it all a bit
troubling, because it seemed to me that our most sacred story had been exploited for purposes of making the most moving movie possible. For that, one cannot fault the movie-maker. It is a movie-maker's job to make movies, and to make them as moving as possible. In the case of The Passion, the result is a movie that is a caricature of the real Passion of the real Jesus, which is the movie-maker's right.

My question is not for the movie-maker. My question is for the church.

Why are we assigning such sacred significance to this movie? Are we, the Christians of America, so star-struck by making it big at the box- office that we cannot find the voice to speak the truth that this movie, like all movies, is only a caricature of reality? The church needs to speak the simple, plain truth about The Passion of the Christ: Where the Bible whispers, the movie shouts. Where the Bible exercises restraint, the movie takes liberties. Where the Bible falls silent, the movie makes up things.

That is no indictment of the movie or the movie-maker. The movie-maker did what movie-makers are supposed to do; he made a movie. That is not a problem. The problem is that North-American Christianity has sacrificed so much of our theological discernment on the altar of our consumer culture that we cannot find the voice to say that Jesus' suffering and death are not transferable from the gospels to the movies, even if making it big at the movies boosts Jesus' ratings and gets him on CNN, Fox, Newsweek, and Time.

All of that is not to say that Christians should avoid the movie. It is to say that those who go should know that what they are going to see is just that; a movie. If it is the real Passion of Christ for which they are looking, they will have to read the Book.

(Chuck Poole is a former Baptist pastor who now works among the poor through Lifeshare Community Ministries in Jackson, Miss.)

[Sozo]

LightSon :thumb:

[1Way]

Lightson – Sozo – Are you sure about all that? Nothing catch your attention for disagreement? Here, let me try, I’m pretty critical and bible based if I want to be. (chuckles)

Exploiting, or promoting,

Taking advantage, or giving advantage,

?

Jesus said, don't stop them from proclaiming His message just because they were not an authorized orthodox venue, right?
Lu 9:49 Now John answered and said, "Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow with us." 50 But Jesus said to him, "Do not forbid him, for he who is not against us is on our side." I think that Jesus would accept the idea that the secular media is peddling the story of His crucifixion. Sure the secular media is not a godly pro Jesus entity, but the basic message of the movie was apparently from scripture and without any clear doctrinal problems. Was there something immoral or wrong because of this movie making? Hardly. So I do not agree with Chuck Pools, especially where he said The problem is that North-American Christianity has sacrificed so much of our theological discernment on the altar of our consumer culture that we cannot find the voice to say that Jesus' suffering and death are not transferable from the gospels to the movies, even if making it big at the movies boosts Jesus' ratings and gets him on CNN, Fox, Newsweek, and Time. Seems pretty off base and legalistic to me. I think this might be that same guy who proverbially says that; playing cards,
going to the movies,
and dancing,

are all “inappropriate Christian activities”. :eek: (Someone set that traditionalist down with an open bible years ago already.) As for me, Jesus is welcome in every area of my life, including movies.

I agree that we should not make this event any more important than the events richly and freely given in God’s written word, but I don’t think that is what is going on. Instead, the message of Jesus is being promoted in a positive and constructive way.

Would this naysayer have found himself in agreement with John and against Jesus (Luke 9:49) before considering Jesus’ response?!?
:chuckle:

This well intended voice of concern was well couched in godly concerns, but ultimately is off the mark. :down:
God’s :1Way: = the right way, it is so easy to be seduced by godly sounding legalism.

[LightSon]

1way,
I have been following the movie and the controversial issues intently. Yet, I retain an open mind, that is, I have not made a final decision as to whether I will watch the movie or whether it is an appropriate vehicle for the gospel.

I offered the review to stimulate conversation. You dismissed the author as a "naysayer" and one seeking to "[seduce] by godly sounding legalism." You will forgive me if I don't immediately accept your dismissal. I am trying to avoid being tossed to and fro. Were I to abandon spiritual discernment, I could take your dismissal and use it as a precedent to accept dancing, drinking and any other sort of "vice", because to argue against these would be "godly sounding legalism." Or, I could say "As for me, Jesus is welcome in every area of my life, including [drinking]."
"As for me, Jesus is welcome in every area of my life, including [recreational drug use]".

I realize you are not advocating these, but my point is, that I need to ferret out the Biblical wisdom of your proposed principles, or they can be warped by my own selfish penchants.

Have you reviewed and considered the issues surrounding the movie?

[Lovejoy]

Originally posted by LightSon

1way,
I have been following the movie and the controversial issues intently. Yet, I retain an open mind, that is, I have not made a final decision as to whether I will watch the movie or whether it is an appropriate vehicle for the gospel.

I offered the review to stimulate conversation. You dismissed the author as a "naysayer" and one seeking to "[seduce] by godly sounding legalism." You will forgive me if I don't immediately accept your dismissal. I am trying to avoid being tossed to and fro. Were I to abandon spiritual discernment, I could take your dismissal and use it as a precedent to accept dancing, drinking and any other sort of "vice", because to argue against these would be "godly sounding legalism." Or, I could say "As for me, Jesus is welcome in every area of my life, including [drinking]."
"As for me, Jesus is welcome in every area of my life, including [recreational drug use]".

I realize you are not advocating these, but my point is, that I need to ferret out the Biblical wisdom of your proposed principles, or they can be warped by my own selfish penchants.

Have you reviewed and considered the issues surrounding the movie?

Hey Lightson! It is a pleasure to respond to you again (I have been unavailable for awhile). As to the movie, I sat through it with my mini-church (I had to know). Afterward, I wondered if Peter or Paul would have? Would Christ have? I doubt it. On the other hand, I have heard of groups of people being saved at the end of the film, and the presence of the Holy Spirit. Of course, this happens every day in the missionary field, and usually in all sorts of horrible circumstances! In the end, the movie is, at best, art. Beautiful (perhaps), moving (maybe), but not an ideal means of evangelism, and certainly not Holy. That's my take on it!

[1Way]

Lightson – I did not intend that he was “seeking” to seduce by godly sounding legalism, I’d expect that he has been seduced thus knows no better. Nor did I support the inappropriate use of wine or alcohol or any other substance. You can kill yourself (early or quickly) by eating the most choice and healthy food in too much excess, even choking to death if you go that far with it. Vices are not the issue of this discussion, although it is a valid and important tangent, the claim was that movies are an inappropriate venue for God. That is not a statement from vice, that is an outright legalistic falsehood wrapped in godly sounding ideas.

Movies & alcohol, vices, or good things?
Jesus proved that wine from water was worthy of being His first biblically recorded miracle, surely God did not promote a vice or moral wrong by supplying the very article of the offense. There is no way of getting around this fact, or the numerous uses of godly people, like Jesus and Paul, who used wine themselves upon occasion. But consider an OT example where God commanded that they were to celebrate because of Him, and the word they used for drink means a “strong (alcoholic) drink”. De 14:24 "But if the journey is too long for you, so that you are not able to carry [the tithe, or] if the place where the LORD your God chooses to put His name is too far from you, when the LORD your God has blessed you, 25 "then you shall exchange it for money, take the money in your hand, and go to the place which the LORD your God chooses. 26 "And you shall spend that money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen or sheep, for wine or similar drink {=strong drink}, for whatever your heart desires; you shall eat there before the LORD your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household. In the KJV, it is more properly rendered “strong drink” = shekar = Strongs 7941 and is used consistently as strong drink, see Pr 20:1, 31:6. In other places, God requires drink and wine offerings. So all this, as well as those two Proverb passages, teaches us that even “strong drink” is recommended by God to be used in an “appropriate” way, including celebrating our hearts desire (because of God).

Scripture for our faith’s conformity, not manmade tradition.



Lovejoy – “The movie is certainly not holy.” The movie’s message is the voluntary self sacrifice of Christ who died for us that we may live forever with Him.

I’d say that is one of the most holy messages available to mankind.

[Lovejoy]

1WAY, I believe that that is exactly the message that you came away with, and that is beautiful. I could see that in the movie as well! Mel, however, states that the movie is Marian, and he has made many statements regarding how the movie demonstrates her status as co-redeemer and co-mediator. I could easily see that as well. Also, it is not based strictly on scripture, but rather on the visions of a 19th century nun regarding the Passion. We all know this and have all heard this. Most of us, though, have enough background in our faith to discern the false from the true (to a greater or lesser extent). Not everyone can do this.

As far as what is Holy goes, the action (self-sacrifice) of Christ was Holy, Christ Himself is Holy, but a movie is not Holy, however well intentioned. But you did not argue that it was, and I can see that you understand that it (the film itself) is not. Once again, though, not everyone is able to see that. My concern is for the young in Christ! I think we all share that. Thank you for your response, I hope more is to come!

[LightSon]

Originally posted by Lovejoy

Hey Lightson! It is a pleasure to respond to you again (I have been unavailable for awhile). As to the movie, I sat through it with my mini-church (I had to know). Afterward, I wondered if Peter or Paul would have? Would Christ have? I doubt it. On the other hand, I have heard of groups of people being saved at the end of the film, and the presence of the Holy Spirit. Of course, this happens every day in the missionary field, and usually in all sorts of horrible circumstances! In the end, the movie is, at best, art. Beautiful (perhaps), moving (maybe), but not an ideal means of evangelism, and certainly not Holy. That's my take on it!

Hi David. I was wondering if you fell off the planet. Good to see you back on TOL.

Thanks for sharing your observations about the movie.

And how are your mother-in-law and wife doing?

[Lovejoy]

I am sorry to say that my mother-in-law did not make it. She had already progressed into stage four of lung cancer by the time she had been diagnosed. It was only 6 weeks from the beginning of treatment till she was sent to hospice. My wife took time from work and went to Portland to stay in the center with her, and was there when she passed. I can say that she accepted the Lord before she went, and I had the opportunity to speak on that at her service. My own mother had just lost her younger brother a couple of weeks before that, and he accepted the Lord in much the same circumstances. I spoke at his service on that as well! It has been a trying couple of months (neither had yet reached 50 years of age). However, out of all this my wife and I are stronger and have matured in Christ, and we know that two of our family are to be among the Beloved in the resurrection. Oh, and I have been taking two different cross-sectional cadaver anatomy and physiology courses at night while working during the day, so TOL was off limits until after finals! I actually am not working anymore (I have 17credits in classes this coming quater), so I hope to increase my outreach ministries and spend a little time here.

As far as the movie goes, I desperately need to get some discussion going on the implications of the Protestant (as well as American Catholic) community giving such unqualified support to this movie. It is openly based on the visions of a 19th century nun rather than Gospel. These visions are unabashedly Marian in nature (she is actually described as Divine in the visions). I can cite endlessly from Paul on this issue. Lets start with Mel believing that Mary is the co-redeemer and portraying her as picking up His blood, symbolic of her taking up His flock after His death. Is this idolatrous? If so, than his admission on this matter equates to handing us food sacrificed before an idol, if you follow me. We are not to partake of food of this sort, after the admission has been made. Look to Corinthians 10:28. It is a matter of conscience: ours, Mels, and the young Christians that look to us. I know that you have not seen the movie, but please tell me if I am on the right track, as far as accountability and not stumbling the young are concerned.

[Lovejoy]

I just realized what forum I am posting in! Sorry, Goose, I lost all my manners in the last two months. Lightson, you can private message me on this, or perhaps there is a place we can start a thread on this general topic?

[JosephofMessiah]

Originally posted by 1Way


I have read this thread through and just wanted to give a few links in reference for those interested. In seeing 1Way's ability to be so absolutely moronic in his apologetics toward the NT's flaws, it is more than irritating than to even deal with him in any scholarly or critical evaluation way, he can bring up more moronic bull than I have had the inpleasure to dig through.

For those who want critical evaulation of the NT I will offer these sites for reference:

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/resurrection.html#date

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/resurrection.html#true

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/crucifix.html

http://www.messiahtruth.com/anti.html

http://www.messiahtruth.com/analysisc.html

http://www.messiahtruth.com/notchristian.html

http://www.messiahtruth.com/divine.html

http://www.messiahtruth.com/onslaught.html

http://www.messiahtruth.com/atonement.html

The next link is of vital importance to anyone who believes upon pagan vicarious atonement:

http://www.messiahtruth.com/blood.html


The fact remains. Nowhere even in the New Testament is it taught that Jesus is part of a triune godhead. Nowhere does he make the claim that he was G-d. Nowhere in the New Testament is there the reason to believe that he is G-d.


It is a wonderful thing to realize that the blood god of Rome's church is mythos, that YHVH is not the blood god of Rome and that the billions which this false doctrine condemns is a lie, egotistical manipulative and mistranslational lie of pagan syncretism.

And I stand by my continued statement that truthful scholarly investigation reveals this as true SIMPLY by reading the law of YHVH which outlaws all forms of vicarious atonement outright.

Christianity only works upon a secular pagan populace which lacks the justice of YHVH in their hearts and minds.

Oh, I just finished this part and figured I would add this to it:


http://www.outreachjudaism.org/resurrection.html#date
(from bottom of page)
I know there have been many frantic attempts to respond to some of the countless inconsistencies that exist in the Gospels. These answers, however, are so plainly forced and contrived that even a perfunctory examination of these rationalizations lets its reader know that they were written by desperate men, hopelessly trying to swim with shoes made of concrete. God doesn’t suffer from human fallibility and certainly wouldn’t present such a garbled account of what Christians consider the most crucial event in world history.

[1Way]

JoshephofMessiah – I offer my thoughts and insight in a respectable, intelligent, verifiable fashion, readily admitting wherever I may be lacking in studies, and as of yet I have not heard a single commensurate counterpoint response against 1) the reliability of the NT based upon the “majority” or “received text” family/tradition, nor 2) about “supposed” NT irresolvable inconsistencies concerning the meeting at Galilee. All of which has left the NT standing perfectly in tact without any reasonable charges of contradiction or untrustworthiness, except that my discussion with Mr Miller is still in progress, although :chuckle: he still seems to be scrambling for a case to actually present.

Now maybe you know of something that I said that was wrong or ungodly or particularly immoral, but for you to read all that I have said here, and instead of making an intelligent remark or objection, you say I have read this thread through and just wanted to give a few links in reference for those interested. In seeing 1Way's ability to be so absolutely moronic in his apologetics toward the NT's flaws, it is more than irritating than to even deal with him in any scholarly or critical evaluation way, he can bring up more moronic bull than I have had the inpleasure to dig through. which makes you out to be a particularly slanderous individual. Have you checked your “emotional stability” and “heart functions” latterly?

They wanted to kill Jesus, and they tend to treat His like minded followers with the same hatred, so in that regard, thanks for affirming godly “Christ likeness” in my life.

“Inpleasure” = JoshephofMessiah

What? :confused: Are you “inbred” :eek: with an “intense” desire for “inreasonable” “inhatred”? :chuckle:

[JosephofMessiah]

Originally posted by 1Way

JoshephofMessiah – I offer my thoughts and insight in a respectable,


Since Goose has placed you on ignore, that is not defendable.


...intelligent,


The scripture clearly says at one point to not go, another place it say to go. And yet you attempt some absolutely moron defense through misdirectly and over complication of the statements. So you are far from intelligent in your dealings with such a simple critical evaluation of the NT and your viewpoints lacks the ability to understand simple conflict.


...verifiable fashion,...


Far from being "verifiable" the entire story of the NT is nothing more than the statements a the followers of a Rabbi a few thousand years ago. Instead of being "verifiable" the entire story is held under critical viewpoint from any scholarly critical approach due to the far reaching conflicts of the various accounts of what happened prior, during, and after the death of Rabbi Yehshua. There is nothing "verifiable" about the NT inthat they are historical references to a man that cannot be proven any more than any other historical reference. This is even more in contempt on a critical level when the writings are said to come from followers and not unbiased observers.


...readily admitting wherever I may be lacking in studies,


Good, then perhaps you could at least admit that upon a scholarly evaluation the NT does contain contradicting story-lines of the pre-during-after happenings surrounding Yehshua end-of-life events.


...and as of yet I have not heard a single commensurate counterpoint response against 1) the reliability of the NT based upon the “majority” or “received text” family/tradition,


The NT is not a single book written by a single author. Nor do all the texts hold to the same viewpoint of any given subject (reason for vast sectation within the Christian faith). The writers of the NT instead of being in harmony teach vastly different theological stances, from Paul's move away from a Semetic religion and the destruction of the Torah observances (while the 11 held strongly to the Torah) and even further from the original faith during the helenization of this syncretic religion which came to be under the Church of Rome. In fact, of the manuscripts which exist there are some very clear and detailed problems:


http://www.outreachjudaism.org/matthew.html
Furthermore, this contention becomes even more preposterous when we consider that the same missionaries who attempt to explain away Matthew’s mistranslation of the Hebrew word alma by claiming that Matthew used a Septuagint when he quoted Isaiah 7:14 also steadfastly maintain that the entire first Gospel was divinely inspired. That is to say, these same Christian missionaries insist that every word of the New Testament, Matthew included, was authored through the Holy Spirit and is therefore the living word of God. Are these evangelical apologists therefore claiming that God needed a Greek translation of the Bible and therefore quoted from the Septuagint? Did the passing of 500 years since His last book cause God to forget how to read Hebrew that He would need to rely on a translation? Why would God need to quote from the Septuagint?



...nor 2) about “supposed” NT irresolvable inconsistencies concerning the meeting at Galilee.


Either they were told to go or not to go.
There are two versions, one is wrong, one is right.
You cannot have "do not go, go" and be logically coherent.
Of course I realize I am speaking to a man who believes that a godman (Omniscient, non-Omnscient at once) can exist so I realize you are not basing your faith upon reason and logic, but upon blinded servitude to a false mangod and Rome's church, so I am wasting my time mostly.

But this is for those that will take the time and seek beyond their enculturation and ignorance to the God of Israel.

Paul's conversion. At one point, they heard. At another point, they did not hear. Which is it?

Matthew states,

Mat 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.


Give me reference where it says that the messiah shall be "called a nazarene" by the prophets. Here is a clue, it doesn't exist, Matthew made up a false prophecy.

Another example:

Matthew states:


Matthew 2:15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son. (KJV)


This is a misuse of the Tanakh. Clearly and without equivocation this is a quote Hosea 11:1 used out of context and falsely claiming it is a messianic verse.


http://www.messiahtruth.com/notchristian.html
{quoted in part}
....of When you look for the verse being quoted here, you find this passage:


Hosea 11:1 When Israel [was] a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt. (KJV)


In case a Christian reader might object, saying that we are quoting the incorrect verse, it must be stated that Christian Bibles that are annotated for quotes between the Jewish Scriptures and the Christian Bible clearly label that Matthew 2:15 is quoting from this verse in Hosea. This verse has nothing to do with the Messiah. The author of Matthew took the verse out of context and misused it.

So, even if we do read the New Testament in-depth, the Jews should in no way be compelled to convert.


About now is when I turn to Hebrews in order to have an easy target. This author is a very clear liar, and one of the fundamental claims of the Christian doctrine is refuted quite clearly when using simple scholarly approach and investigation.


http://www.messiahtruth.com/blood.html

The New Testament quoted the following Psalm:


Psalms 40:6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required. (KJV)


This Psalm carries an important message. Coupled with other verses from throughout the Bible, we learn that while G-d does place an importance on blood sacrifice, He puts more importance on penitence and the resolve to do better. This Psalm presented a theological problem for the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews:


Hebrews 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: [6] In burnt offerings and [sacrifices] for sin thou hast had no pleasure. (KJV)


How does "mine ears hast thou opened" change to "but a body hast thou prepared me?" This is not the only time one will come across this kind of behavior went into the penning of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the entire New Testament for that matter. How are we to trust a document that exhibits this sort of behavior?


Far from the liar of Hebrews claim that only through blood is remission gained the Tanakh teaches a different doctrine all together, even the Law itself has within it the flour offering and charity offering [Exodus 30:16]. There is no-where in all of the Judaic scripture the claim that God cannot simply forgive the repentent sinner. In fact, Ezekiel [18:20] and Solomon [2 Chronicles 7:13-14], as well as Hosea [Hosea 14:1], Jeremiah[Jeremiah 7:3-7, 21-23],


So says the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel, “Add your burnt offerings upon your sacrifices and eat flesh; for neither did I speak with your forefathers nor did I command them on the day I brought them out of the land of Egypt concerning a burnt offering or a sacrifice.


...and David [Psalms 40:6] all speak to this very doctrine clearly and without equivocation:


2 Chronicles 7:13 If I shut up heaven that there be no rain, or if I command the locusts to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among my people; [14] If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. (KJV)


Your mangod is a pagan syncretic mythos of a false church. And you are in an abomination worshiping flesh, death, vicarious atonement, and a pagan false mangod just as those in Egypt were doing when Moses showed up. You honestly have the ignorance to believe that an abomination under the Law of YHVH is your salvation.

You are misled and wrong.

[Jabez]

Joseph of "Messiah"

Every verse you post to rebut,is taken out of context to be used as you wish,and you know that is wrong.Joseph dont ignore your heart,dont be lukewarm you know what happens if your lukewarm right?

[JosephofMessiah]

Originally posted by Jabez

Joseph of "Messiah"

Every verse you post to rebut, is taken out of context to be used as you wish,


Please explain how the verses in question were "used out of context."
They were quoted in full (each verse) stating exactly what each verse meant by the original author's intent. Then each verse is applied in due course to the Tanakh and the meaning is then deemed trustworthy or not based upon whether the useage of the prophetic voice of the NT author was in truth or a lie. I stand by the statements that Matthew mis-used the Tanakh in various ways, including but not limited to misquoting a non-messianic verse as if it was messianic and inventing a prophecy which did not exist. Far from using anything "out of context" I have given direct quoted statements incontext and with Christian-backed references within the NT as what Tanakh verses were being quoted by Matthew's author.


...and you know that is wrong.


All I know at present is you are a liar saying false things about me and what I have written.
Care to try for round two?


Joseph dont ignore your heart,


Trust me, my heart is not of concern, historical accuracy and scholarly learning is at the HEART of this discussion. It is your ignorance to the actual statements of the liars of Rome and you inability to question these lies which continues you in servitude to a false godman daily.


...dont be lukewarm you know what happens if your lukewarm right?

If there is one thing that could insult me so great it is the ideology or theory that I am lukewarm. Let me be perfectly clear outright.

Your false godman of the church of rome is an abominational syncretic religion dogma born out of a Persian dualism and false doctrine of a pagan church. It is a lie, a blasphemous lie.

I hope that is enough to dictate that I am not in any way "lukewarm" toward your false god.

[1Way]

LightSon - Looking forward to your response.

[Dave Miller]

Originally posted by JosephofMessiah

Since Goose has placed you on ignore, that is not defendable.

The scripture clearly says at one point to not go, another place it say to go. And yet you attempt some absolutely moron defense through misdirectly and over complication of the statements. So you are far from intelligent in your dealings with such a simple critical evaluation of the NT and your viewpoints lacks the ability to understand simple conflict.

You are misled and wrong.

Thankyou Joseph. I might debate some of the points you make,
but these observations are spot on.

Dave Miller

[Dave Miller]

Either they were told to go or not to go.
There are two versions, one is wrong, one is right.
You cannot have "do not go, go" and be logically coherent.
Of course I realize I am speaking to a man who believes that a godman (Omniscient, non-Omnscient at once) can exist so I realize you are not basing your faith upon reason and logic, but upon blinded servitude to a false mangod and Rome's church, so I am wasting my time mostly.



Interesting point about the nature of Christ. I take issue with any
stance that limits the humantiy of Christ, I believe its of utmost
importance Theologically that God chose to become human. Hence
my problem with Luke's problem with Christ's humanity.

God freely chose first to lay down His omniscence in becoming
flesh, and then chose to lay down His flesh as well in death, all
on behalf of humanity.

Dave Miller

[JosephofMessiah]

Originally posted by Dave Miller

Interesting point about the nature of Christ.


YHVH is Omniscient or He does not know that He alone is God.
YHVH is Omnipresent or He does not know that He alone is God.
YHVH is Omnipotent or He does not know that He alone is God.

Yehshua was limited in mind, limited in space-time, and had zero power of his own according to the New Testament record.


I take issue with any stance that limits the humantiy of Christ, I believe its of utmost importance Theologically that God chose to become human.


YHVH of the Tanakh teaches us clearly and repeatedly:


Num 23:19 God [is] not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do [it]? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?


There is even more statements of this truth, such that YHVH told us that HE would never give His glory to another, but the pagans and the church of rome has attempted to do just that for centuries.

YHVH commanded us long ago:


Exd 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth:


The problem that Orthodox Christianity has in their syncretic pagan adoption of the idea that "God the Son" exists when according to Yehshua's doctrine, his Father is greater than him, there is only one good, God, and that we are to label no man upon the Earth Father, for One (Singular) is your Father (God) who is in heaven.

Yehshua never claimed to be YHVH, far from it.


Hence my problem with Luke's problem with Christ's humanity.

God freely chose first to lay down His omniscence in becoming
flesh,


God is without change. God is perfect.
For God to become that which He is not, is for God to not be God.

What you are saying is basically blasphemy.


...and then chose to lay down His flesh as well in death, all
on behalf of humanity.

Dave Miller


No human vicarious atonement is possible according to the prophets of the Tanakh. Ezekiel's justice inherently outlaws all/any form of vicarious atonement outright while the teachings of the Psalm of David tells us that YHVH does not require sin sacrifice in order to forgive. Solomon's path of atonement is as simple as humbling yourself unto YHVH, turning from your wickedness, and He (The LORD) shall forgive your sins. Hosea tells us clearly that when the temple is gone that we shall offer the offering of our lips (prayer) as the fat of rams in order to find atonement when the temple is gone.

The prophets never speak of a godman, in fact the prophets' teachings outlaw such a blasphemous claim. And the doctrine of Solomon, David, Jeremiah, Hosea, and Ezekiel all tell us the actual path of salvation, and no pagan godman's death is require for no man can be atonement for another, the righteousness of the righteous is upon him alone.

For further study:
http://www.messiahtruth.com/blood.html
http://www.outreachjudaism.org/jesusdeath.html

Contrast these teachings to the liar of Hebrews which claims that "without blood is no remission" and you can understand that this doctrine is a lie, and blasphemous to the truth of the Tanakh's prophetic voice.

[Dave Miller]

I think of Christ as a fleshly projection of God within this
universe.

I guess we will continue to disagree. Forgive the blasphemy you
preceive on my part, as I forgive that which I perceive on your
behalf...

Dave

[1Way]

Dave Miller – Your last post to me was post #139, and here it is quoted in full.


*******************
Quote post #139
*******************

Acts 1:4 On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. 5For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit."

Mt 28:10 Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell My brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see Me."


Seems pretty clear to me...

djm
*******************
End quoting post #139
*******************

My last post to you was post #140, and here it is quoted in full sans responsiveness concerns.

*******************
Quoting post #140
*******************

Dave Miller – You quoted two verses and then plainly said Seems pretty clear to me... Please explain what seems pretty clear to you. You quoted 2 verses and then just said what I just quoted. You didn’t even make an attempt to say what you think you see as a contradiction.

Like I said before, and I suspect most others here feel similarly, I have not studied this issue before, so whatever supporting background and associated information you are assuming into this picture must be shared if we are to understand what it is you are trying to convey.

Here is what I got out of those two verses.

Acts 1:4
A few days before Pentecost, Jesus commanded them to not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift of the baptism of the HS. That is a pretty clear sequence indicator, a few days before Pentecost, don’t leave, stay here.

Mt 28:10
Jesus had evidently just been risen from the dead, and an angel who I’m guessing was likely the one who rolled away the stone was there, and then Jesus was discovered alive on their way back to the disciples, and He told them to tell His disciples to meet Him at Galilee, and then they did.

So, what contradiction are you referring to?

Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t there a 50 day waiting period before the day of Pentecost? And didn’t that 50 days start not before Jesus and the cross? So if this is correct, then Mt 28:10 is in reference to a time which might be about 46 or 50 days away from the day of Pentecost. I’m not sure which day would be the marker for the start of the 50 days, whether it was the day Jesus was killed or the day He was risen, I do not know. I could be all off on this, but that is my general conception of the two different events, the cross and the day of Pentacost, that they were something like 50 days apart.

If that much is pretty much accurate and your concerned about a one way day’s journey to Galilee, then it appears to me that they had about 6 weeks to accomplish that meeting. Actually according to Mt 28, this meeting may have happened very soon after the resurrection. Leaving well over a month for the Acts command to “stay, don’t leave”.

Also, what part of Luke fits all this?

???

(See original post for the remainder which was concerned with commensurate responsiveness.)
*******************
End quoting post #140
*******************


I am still looking forward to your response.
1Way

[Dave Miller]

1. Look in the first chapters of Luke and Acts. Both addressed to
Theophilus. This is why its generally accepted that both books are part of one continuous document written by Luke. Luke applies
because, especially in the time immediately following the Resurrection
that we are discussing, its a contiguous part of the same document.

2. Pentacost happened 40 days after the Ressurection, yet another
one of those pesky 40's.

3. Depending on the translation you choose to read, Jesus appears
to have commanded them not to leave Jerusalem either soon
following the Resurrection (NRSV), or at some time closer to
Pentacost (NIV.) From this perspective alone, this is ambiguous.

4. But, knowing that Acts is a continuation of Luke, going back to Luke 24: 33 So they rose up that very hour and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven and those who were with them gathered together, 34saying, "The Lord is risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!" 35And they told about the things that had happened on the road, and how He was known to them in the breaking of bread. 36 Now as they said these things, Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them, and said to them, "Peace to you."

This shows that according to Luke / Acts Jesus appears first to the men in Jerusalem...

As I stated earlier, Matthew clearly indicates that Jesus first appeared
to the disciples in Galilee.

5. Luke / Acts being a contiguous story, there is no indication in Luke
or Acts that the disciples ever ever returned to Galilee between the
Resurrection and the Pentacost. Luke was fairly fastidious about
having researched things and he tried to pay attention to detail
(Luke 1: 3 it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, 4that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed. )

Had the disciples returned to Galilee, Luke would have recorded it...

Dave

[LightSon]

Originally posted by 1Way

Lightson – I did not intend that he was “seeking” to seduce by godly sounding legalism, I’d expect that he has been seduced thus knows no better. Nor did I support the inappropriate use of wine or alcohol or any other substance. You can kill yourself (early or quickly) by eating the most choice and healthy food in too much excess, even choking to death if you go that far with it. Vices are not the issue of this discussion, although it is a valid and important tangent, the claim was that movies are an inappropriate venue for God. That is not a statement from vice, that is an outright legalistic falsehood wrapped in godly sounding ideas.

Movies & alcohol, vices, or good things?
Jesus proved that wine from water was worthy of being His first biblically recorded miracle, surely God did not promote a vice or moral wrong by supplying the very article of the offense. There is no way of getting around this fact, or the numerous uses of godly people, like Jesus and Paul, who used wine themselves upon occasion. But consider an OT example where God commanded that they were to celebrate because of Him, and the word they used for drink means a “strong (alcoholic) drink”. In the KJV, it is more properly rendered “strong drink” = shekar = Strongs 7941 and is used consistently as strong drink, see Pr 20:1, 31:6. In other places, God requires drink and wine offerings. So all this, as well as those two Proverb passages, teaches us that even “strong drink” is recommended by God to be used in an “appropriate” way, including celebrating our hearts desire (because of God).

Scripture for our faith’s conformity, not manmade tradition.



Lovejoy – “The movie is certainly not holy.” The movie’s message is the voluntary self sacrifice of Christ who died for us that we may live forever with Him.

I’d say that is one of the most holy messages available to mankind.

1way, Is this the thread about which you chided me? I don't see anything here new. You have your position about "the passion", and also about those who have exceptions about the passion. I doubt that I will change your mind. I'm not even certain that I want to; I was simply cautioning myself (publically) not to misapply, or to overgeneralize from the specifics you were promulgating. I meant no slight to you.

You said "Scripture for our faith’s conformity, not manmade tradition." Well I agree. But much of your argument is supra-scriptural anyway, as is "the passion". It seems that you are the one poised to blur the distinction between scripture and tradtion.

I used the alcohol reference as an example; I was surprised you took off on the alcohol rabbit trail. If you want to argue that strong drink is appropriate in certain situations, I won't fight you, other than to say that you are walking a fine line between liberty and abuse. There are lots of people who cannot handle strong drink. For them, abstinance is a wiser choice. If eating meat offered to idols causes a weaker brother to stumble, you ought not eat. I think the same principle can be applied to strong drink.

[LivniHaNetari]

Goose – You said How many times do we have to remind folks that man’s history is not the sources for eternal truth, God is. Even the 12 disciples and Paul had nomian anti-nomian doctrinal arguments that included the way of salvation! We should NOT be seeking to emulate the early historical church, we should be seeking to emulate the faith taught in scripture.

Jesus was NOT an antinomian prior to His raising up Paul and giving Him the dispensation of Mystery and Grace, He plainly taught a works based faith (nomianism) during His earthly ministry and even after that and up to God cutting of the Jews for national unbelief, He remained a consistent nomianist.

This stuff about separating the various sects of the Jews apart from the masses is rubbish. The bible says that the masses rejected Jesus, only the few became saved, and that Israel as a nation was cut off due to national unbelief. Sadducees, Pharisees, all the way from the King to the peasant, national unbelief.

Goose, why do you raise other considerations above God’s word as though it is not sufficient for our understanding about what happened at the cross? And why do you put into doubt the wholesale unbelief of national Israel? You can read anything from anyone teaching whatever, but you only have ONE word of God and it is THE authority for such matters. At least the last I checked, it was.


This is an example of the anti-semitism that that C*h*r*i*s*tian (The Torah states to now speak or write the name of foreign deities or false idols). You have hijacked the Jewish Scriptures and purposely mistranslate and misinterpret to give raise to your heretical and pagan ideas such as t*r*i*n*i*t*y which denies the absolute monotheism of the Tanakh (Or most offensively misnomred "Old Testament" and the Diety of Moschiach (or Messiah).
The promises of of Avram and Yaakov and Dawid ( Abram, Jacob and David) were eternal covenents.

[Jefferson]

You have hijacked the Jewish Scriptures and purposely mistranslate and misinterpret to give raise to your heretical and pagan ideas such as t*r*i*n*i*t*y... How do you explain the fact that the literal translation of Genesis 1:1 is , "In the beginning Gods He created."

[Turbo]

How do you explain the fact that the literal translation of Genesis 1:1 is , "In the beginning Gods He created."
To clarify what Jefferson is saying, the Hebrew for Genesis 1:1 has a plural subject with a singular verb.

In English there is no distinction between plural and singular verbs in the past tense, so it's hard to get these subtleties across in an English translation, but in Hebrew Genesis 1:1 effectively reads, "In the beginning, Gods creates...." except that it is in the past tense instead of the present tense.


To add to Jefferson's point, God also refers to Himself with plural pronouns later in the chapter:
26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

And in the second verse of the Scriptures we find the first mention of the Holy Spirit:
The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.