 |
|
|
|
|
August 6th, 2014
08:59 AM ET
Blood libel: the myth that fuels anti-SemitismBy Candida Moss and Joel Baden, special to CNN (CNN) - Last week a video of Hamas spokesman Osama Hamdan emerged in which he claimed that Jews use the blood of non-Jewish children to make matzo for Passover. The translation of Hamdan’s interview with the Lebanese television station Al-Quds on July 28 reports him as saying:
When confronted about his statements by CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Monday, Hamdan did not retract his claim or distance himself from the blood libel slur. His only defense was that he “has Jewish friends.” Whatever “historical evidence” or “facts” Hamdan believes himself to be remembering, this is nothing more than the infamous blood libel: the most persistent and longest-lived anti-Semitic myth in history, aside from the claim that the Jews killed Jesus. The blood libel originated in medieval England with the death of William of Norwich. William was a 12-year-old tanner’s apprentice who was killed in 1144. At the time of his death, his parents accused the local Jewish community of responsibility, but investigations revealed nothing. Six years later Thomas of Monmouth, a Benedictine monk, decided to investigate and sensationalize the murder. Drawing purely on anti-Semitic hearsay and sensationalism, he wrote a martyrdom account, "The Life and Miracles of William of Norwich," in which he said local Jews, acting as part of an international conspiracy, crucified the young boy as part of a ritual to reclaim control of the Holy Land. Monmouth’s work was used to garner financial support from pilgrimages to the boy’s grave and laid the foundations for the blood libel. Similar stories crop up throughout Europe in the Middle Ages, often accompanied by episodes of violence and retaliation toward Jews. Stories of mob lynchings and illegal trials abound, especially during the Crusades, when these stories were used to justify pogroms. In the case of the disappearance of 2-year-old Simon of Trent in March 1475, the entire Jewish community was arrested and 15 men burned at the stake after being forced to confess under torture. Until 1965, Simon of Trent was regarded as a saint in the Catholic Church. Throughout history the specifics of the blood libel varied and expanded. It primarily involved the baking of Christian blood in Passover matzo, but early accounts also occasionally described the crucifixion of children, the poisoning of wells, and the use of Christian blood to heal cuts from circumcision. It should go without saying that these lurid stories in all their manifestations are patently untrue. But these accusations of ritualistic murder and cannibalism are found not only in anti-Semitic propaganda. Early Christians faced their fair share of slander, too. The Christian writer Minucius Felix records one rumor, which spread widely in the second and third centuries, that early Christians would ritually kill and consume infants as part of their initiation rites. These accusations are effective because they strike at the heart of society’s fears about outsiders. They involve the most vulnerable (children), the destruction of public resources (wells), or the presence of secret organizations in society's midst. Accusing those who are religiously different of attempting to undermine society by engaging in the ultimate taboo of cannibalism provides a justification for dislike of and violence toward small nonconformist groups. But the shadows of history are long, and the longevity of this particular slander is impressive. As recently as 1928, Jews in Massena, New York, were victims of blood libel. And in 2005, 20 members of the Russian Duma attempted to ban all Jewish organizations on the grounds that Jewish groups were anti-Christian and practiced ritual murder. References to the Nazis are irresponsibly bandied about in modern discourse, but in the case of blood libel these myths helped sow the seeds of the Holocaust. In his interview Hamdan linked blood libel to current events in Israel. He said, “The Israelis concentrate on killing children. … This is engraved in the historical Zionist and Jewish mentality, which has become addicted to the killing of women and children.” Blood libel is only one chapter in the violent history of anti-Semitism, but it resurfaces throughout as a means of encoding anti-Jewish sentiment and justifying violence toward and mistreatment of Jews. As Osama al-Baz, an adviser to former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, observed in 2013, some “Arab writers and media figures … attack Jews on the basis of … racist fallacies and myths that originated in Europe.” Hamas may be doing no more than repeating tired cultural clichés and long-debunked slander, but myth and action go together. The history of Europe is a testimony to the devastating power of the blood libel. People and cultures are defined by the myths they create, but also by the myths they accept and propagate. Joel S. Baden is professor of Hebrew Bible at Yale Divinity School. Candida Moss is a professor of New Testament and early Christianity at the University of Notre Dame.
« Previous entryLearning to love the 'enemy' in Iraq
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Christians partake of the communion and there are tools that don't understand what this means.
The bread and wine represents the sacrifice that Christ made on the cross.
Why? Don't those "tools" realize every time they drink a glass of milk they are drinking actual animal secretion?!? and they feign shock at bread and wine both of which are vegan??
The whole Christ-sacrifice story, a pillar of the idiotic Christian supersti.tions, is a steaming pile of nonsense. How is it again that an omnipotent being couldn't do his saving bit without the whole silly Jesus hoopla? And how was Jesus' death a "sacrifice", when an omnipotent being could just pop up a replacement son any time with less than a snap of his fingers?
It could still represent that sacrifice while also being the actual transubstantiated body and blood of Christ. Nowhere in the gospels does Jesus say "This is like my body/blood".
Christians symbolically drink the blood and eat the flesh of the Jewish messiah. Even symbolically it's a creepy thing to do.
There's nothing symbolic about the Catholic eucharist, nor did Jesus imply that it was symbolic when he said "This is my body/blood".
This so called "Jesus" and Drax the Destroyer would probably have a very confused conversation.
Talk about ruining a good glass of Pinot Noir, Jeremiah (the bullfrog) and Dionysus would be horrified, what kind of creep would change a decent wine into blood, gross?
From Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters
Mr. D: [Mr. D (Dionysus) poured some wine into a glass but it turned to water immediately – a punishment from Zeus]
You know, the Christians have a guy who can do this trick in reverse,
[looking up at the sky, as if speaking to Zeus]
Mr. D: now that's a god.
No, we're not symbollically eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ...
1)We remember Christ’s saving work on the cross
2)We see the common partaking of Christ’s presence
3)At the Lord’s Table, we commune with one another as saints
4)The Lord’s Table brings us to the place of purification
5)By this, we proclaim the cross
6)The Lord’s Table anticipates the Kingdom
(Scriptural references available upon request)
Theo
As simply as it can be put, you have not spent thirty plus years of studying the scriptures, what you have done is spent that time studying the apologists for the scriptures. The scriptures are full of obvious holes and contradictions, that you are so deluded not to see that, well, you should be embarrassed for your bias.
As simply as it can be put, you have not spent thirty plus years of studying the scriptures, what you have done is spent that time studying the apologists for the scriptures.
-----------------------
I quote theologians, sure. For the same reason that anyone quotes an expert on any subject. But for you to pretend to know how I spend my study hours is extremely presumptuous of you. If you claim to know how I spend my study time, then tell me, how many times a year to I read through the Bible?
The scriptures are full of obvious holes and contradictions, that you are so deluded not to see that, well, you should be embarrassed for your bias.
---------------------------
No, the supposed problems with the Bible are easily resolved by a proper reading of the text, which most people refuse to do.
Theo, just in case you missed it below:
This pretty much sums up theology in my opinion.
“The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion”
-Thomas Paine
Theo
Oh dear you are the one that pontificates about what an expert you are on anything biblical. About god screwing over the Jews for breaking their covenant with your tool of a god and thus deserving any and all kind of horrific punishment; if you claim to have never posted that type of comment, you are a liar a desp!cable liar and bigot. You are a disgrace to any belief system that mankind has made up and the world would be a better place without you; take the hint.
@theo.. ..."..For the same reason that anyone quotes an expert on any subject."..
yes, of course, you are quoting experts on mythology, the bible is MYTHOLOGY
Theo
Yes, you will be back tomorrow same old BS, same old bigotry, just who do you think you impress ?
theo
"No, the supposed problems with the Bible are easily resolved by a proper reading of the text, which most people refuse to do."
SUPPOSED? hilarious...and I suppose YOU are reading them right...and that is why after over 2000 years, they are still argued about.
Face it theo, those silly books can be interpretted any way you want to. 40,000 versions of christianity...they cannot all be right, but they can all be wrong.
You are just too funny.
Theo
"No, the supposed problems with the Bible are easily resolved by a proper reading of the text, which most people refuse to do."
"Proper" meaning an imaginative interpretation of the text, usually with a dogmatic theology already assumed so that scripture must be forced to agree with it, and not the other way around, correct?
No, "we" don't. This is one cause of the protestant reformation – the Roman church teaches substantiation (bread and wine change to body and blood, literally). The Luther rejected that, and says it is the "real presence." There are other Christian sects which hold other beliefs, such as that it's purely symbolic.
Good luck. I refused to be confirmed because I would not become one of the blood drinker, flesh eaters even symbolicly. I have no need to enact such a ritual to remember someone. That aside, myth is misleading, and though it can be potentially useful in teaching morals, it must always be clear that myth is an imaginary construct, a framework, like a stage for a play, and is not the message, and nor is it reality. Beliefs are risky business. People are capable of believing almost anything at all, as evidenced by the masses of humanity who tenaciously adhere to the whatever dogma they were trained to believe growing up. Forget fact! Forget truth! Forget reality! Belief rules? Since most beliefs contradict each other, they all may be totally false. Can you build and launch a rocket to the moon based on untrue facts? How many billions of people try to build their lives on piles of false assertions? Is it any wonder why this world is a mess spinning wildly out of control? Not to me. Again, Good luck.
ALL religions/gods/strange unproven fictional belief systems are DISTURBING.
My first reaction to this article was:
"Does anti-Semitism have no bounds?"
"But these accusations of ritualistic murder and cannibalism are found not only in anti-Semitic propaganda."
And this made me think of Gehenna,
2 Chronicles 28
"3 Moreover he burnt incense in the valley of the son of Hinnom, and burnt his children in the fire, after the abominations of the heathen whom the Lord had cast out before the children of Israel."
Ironically this might have been part of historical Canaanite Ba'al and Moloch worship but it fits into the narrative of one religion demonizing another by references to infanticide.
"Yes, you JUSTIFIED it, skippy, and as a supporter of your interpretation of the Bible, you SUPPPORTED the" should be "supported IT."
I always thought it was matso ball soup.
Wouldn't that be disturbing ....
Goodness, I haven't had lunch yet. Now you're giving me ideas. Blood sausage in a soup in place of matzo balls. I suppose with the right spices, it could be a variation on an Italian wedding soup...
Now I'M hungry! Mmm, doughnuts...
Doris
Deli bought meat b@lls heated up, throw in with a boiled box of Kraft dinner, a little Parmesan and Romano and some sp!cy salsa, all ready in 10 minutes. Just don't waste a decent bottle of red wine on it, better to get a cheap wine in a box.
There's a delicacy out here called Prairie Oysters that you might want to look up, and I grew up eating blood sausage. Too rich for my blood these days, but very tasty.
I don't do oysters on the half shell, I think I'll pass on this.
...the key word being "prairie" (oyster).....how many can YOU eat?!
Isn't a Prairie Oyster a drink? Of you're talking about a Rocky Mountain Oyster, no. Not ever.
There's all kinds of sweetbreads.
Waste not, want not, eh?
🚫 sweetmeat.
Lmao, sweetbreads.
Tsk tsk " professor" Baden, no mention of my grandfathers , mendel beilis, blood libel accusation a century ago in Kiev?
Professors Baden and Moss's omission notwithstanding, you are helping to keep your grandfather's story alive...and it is an important one.
The whole blood libel myth is a new one to me. What came to mind after reading about here was how could that be Kosher?
I have heard of this before...and it's insidious.
@LaBella, you believe this spectacular piece of BS?? Sad. Very sad.
It comes from Matthew 27:24-25
24 So when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this man’s blood; see to it yourselves.”
25 And all the people answered, “His blood be on us and on our children!”
Now, who actually believes that this happened?
Oops, disregard that. Wrong issue.
34 ¶Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.
Luke 23:34 (KJV)
That would be Jesus asking his God (not simply doing it himself) to forgive the Romans, right?
The Jews who supposedly rejected him were another matter entirely.
It also means that in the judgement call guidelines there is personal accountability and that personal accountability includes knowing what you did is wrong.
kevinite
And what did "the Jews" do wrong? If Jesus claimed, or didn't deny that he was God then that would have been a clear violation of the First Commandment, which would be blasphemy, correct?
Actually, what makes you think that all the Jews at the time figured that they belived that Jesus was the messiah and that they all knew that calling out to crucify Jesus was wrong?
I personally do not know how many were actually held accountable or not, but then again it's not really my place to make that judgement call. I do believe that The Lord would know who was actually held accountable and that he would forgive whom he would forgive but that it is required of believers to forgive all since we don't have all the contingencies to consider in making such a judgement call.
It's a favorite meme of antisemites of every stripe...
You are so right, it's not kosher and during the trial of Mr. Beilis' grandfather three Christians and the Crown Rabbi of Moscow pointed this out in open court. That's the whole issue. Haters tell lies to support their hate, not because it's true but because it's nasty. Whenever you hear/read something gratuitously nasty, you can pretty much bet a hater is behind it. All the more so when you know the truth.
To be a little more accurate, "haters" tell their lies to recruit other people to their side by demonizing the object of their hate. Unfortunately, people who are inclined to believe those lies are willing audiences, and will believe any lie which fits with their own worldview. Blood libel has been debunked for literal generations, but antisemites will still latch onto it as if it's true...
One of the 'Do's & Don'ts' in U.S. politics is to never utter the words 'Blood Libel,' it is a taboo. No presidential hopeful can ever survive such a political flub.
TruthPrevails1 says: "Cool and I own the reincarnate of Darwin." (gasps) What, you have a cricket in a little bamboo cage?
for a good laugh: 76 things banned by the bible......and punishable by death.
LINK: http://boingboing.net/2012/12/11/76-things-banned-by-the-bible.html
I am not in favor of Jews slaughtering Christian children and eating them.
would you be in flavor if the children were really badly behaved?
Absolutely not. Eating children is bad.
Eating children is right out!
Unless you are a candy-house witch...
Deuteronomy 21 says to stone disobedient children to death.
I bet pelting them with rocks is a good way to tenderize them...
While 'Blood Libel' is a tired cliché against the Jews, here is something for Mr. Hamdan to answer for:
Muslims supported Nazi Germany's pogrom on the Jews and the Holocaust which was made official by the meeting of the Muslim Leader in Jerusalem and Adolf Hitler in 1941.
Muslims aren't the only ones. Many Christians did, too.
A horrendous chapter of world history that seems to be repeated regularly.
Yup and nut jobs like Austin claim slaughter of the jews is god's punishment...... very sick stuff.
The Catholic Church also didn't come off well. It handed over genealogical records to the Nazis to help them trace Jewish ancestry and Hitler was never excommunicated.
Nor the Lutheran sects which provided Hitler with most of his manpower...
It was IBM who helped the Third Reich the most in their 'census' by selling them Hollerith machines to calculate exactly how "Jewish" the citizens of Germany were.
This is well written:
IBM and the Holocaust : The Strategic Alliance Between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation (Edwin Black)
And the inanity of Islam continues unabated !!
Yep. Relative to other human progress, Islam even seems to be getting worse.
But you probably think women who pose for pictures with rifles and bibles in front of American flags are okay?
Actually, no. I find Christianity and its horrid man-made owners' manual AKA the bible almost as awful and detestable as Islam and the quran. The rifle part and the extremists behind it just makes that all worse.
I wonder if the Christian-infused matzo would be organic... or be considered having artificial ingredients...
I think that I read that most people in the US and Canada have plastic floating in our blood.
I would have said Bubble-Yum from the 80's... still floating around in there...
93% of Americans have some form of plastic floating in their blood. Depending on how much, it is related to a variety of health issues.
Look at a plastic bottle of water. There is an expiration date. Water does not expire, it is billions of years old. The issue is the outgassing from the plastic into the water gets too high for safe drinking. If you ever drank or at anything where the plastic touches the substance, you are injesting plastics.
Worrying about plastic in your blood is worse for you than having plastic in your blood.
Wouldn't worrying about plastic in our blood be the first step in getting it out of our blood?
They're not going to do anything about it if nobody is concerned, right?
Based on the headline, I thought this piece was going to be about the writing and compilation of the books of the Bible. I'm so disappointed!
I lowered my expectations when I didn't see a recipe...
Let the battle of the religious myths begin! LOL.
It will be interesting to watch each cult argue the ridiculousness of each others beliefs.
We don't need scholars to clarify anything for us biblically. We have the Bible to go to.
1) Jesus blood had to be shed for the remission of sins.
2) This supreme sacrifice was part of God's plan for redeeming mankind.
3) Although the Jews and the Romans were part of this, they had NO power over the life of Jesus. Jesus clearly states this.
4) If Jesus would have been born anywhere else, for eg., in China then it would have been the Chinese who would have crucified Him, if He was born in Australia, it would have been the Aussies who would have crucified Him.
For a Christian it's not about who crucified Jesus, rather it's all about the precious blood of Jesus that washes away the sins to pave the path of reconciliation to Almighty God.
Without this supreme sacrifice of Jesus, mankind has no way of reconciling with Almighty God.
We understand this fully and no candida or hamas or anybody else need to tell us what we believe and don't believe in.
A Christian believes that it was the sins of mankind that was the cause of Jesus crucifixion.
Christians understand this and accept the atoning sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Without accepting the atoning sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ, no man can hope to be reconciled with Almighty God.
The clock is ticking...your time on planet earth will come to an end eventually...every heart beat is one step closer to facing Almighty God for ultimate judgment.
Make a wise choice that affects your eternity, today!
"Make a wise choice" and let go of ridiculous mythology.
Step one...convince the people they have a disease (sin) ...check.
step two...sell them the cure ( your version of god)...check
standard indoctrination technique.
Considering the FACT that the whole jesus nonsense disappears if the resurrection never occurred, and the FACT that there is no evidence that Jesus was anything more than a man, and no evidence he was ever resurrected, all you have to go on is what you imagine.
You should probably consider the high likelyhood that the myths are not true.
In other words, LALALALA I can't hear you!!! Like the frightened little child refusing to accept the truth. Very typical Christian...complete refusal to look outside the giant book of fables for answers.
Adam
"Without this supreme sacrifice of Jesus, mankind has no way of reconciling with Almighty God."
So, God can't do anything for people without first getting some kind of sacrifice?
That is absurd. The Aussies crucifying him? Hilarious, but the native tribes not only had their own beliefs, but they didn't crucify anyone. They had their own gods to deal with.
It is truly amazing what people will convince themselves is true, based entirely on what they imagine.
"We have the Bible to go to" Well there you go...
LET's Religiosity Law #9 – If you think the bible is historical fact of the creation of the Universe, Earth or Mankind and believe without a doubt that some Jewish zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat of his flesh, drink of his blood, and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master; so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a sinful woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree! Then you are an award-winning retard.
We don't need scholars to clarify anything for us. We have the Deathly Hallows to go to.
1) Harry Potter's blood had to be shed to save the world from evil..
2) This supreme sacrifice was part of Dumbledore's plan for redeeming mankind.
3) Although the Muggles and the Deatheaters were part of this, they had NO power over the life of Harry. Harry clearly states this.
4) If Harry would have been born anywhere else, for eg., in France then it would have been Beauxbatons that would have trained Him for his destiny, if He was born in Northern Europe, it would have been Durmstrang that would have trained Him.
"This supreme sacrifice was part of God's plan for redeeming mankind."
Righhhhhhhhhhhhttttttttt...cause nothing says "I love you world" like allowing your own child to be killed. Sounds more like a sadistic monster than a loving parent.
Relying on the bible merely shows that you are narrow-minded and weak.
Well in Yahweh's defense, when he killed his child, they both knew beforehand that it wasn't really any sort of sacrifice since Jebus was gonna come up and fuse into a 3 headed monster with him and Space Ghost. Not to mention, even if Yahweh decided to send Jebus to Hades in order to take punishment that humans deserved for their "sins", Yahweh could just whip up any other number of sons since he's all powerful and such.
What verse in the NT says it's permissible to persecute the Jewish based on blood libel? Because some Christians started that.
Adam, the whole Jesus-sacrifice story, the foundation of your crazy supersti.tion, is a steaming pile of bull-do. How is it again that your omnipotent being couldn't do his saving bit without the whole silly Jesus hoopla? And how was Jesus' death a "sacrifice", when an omnipotent being could just pop up a replacement son any time with less than a snap of his fingers? Pretty pathetic "god" that you've made for yourself there.
And then, regarding this book of horrors AKA the bible that you cling to as such a fine reference text, let's take a closer look at the awful guidances in there from your vicious, vengeant sky fairy, your "god". From both foul testaments, and note the text following the quotes:
Numbers 31:17-18
17 Now kiII all the boys. And kiII every woman who has slept with a man,
18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Deuteronomy 13:6 – “If your brother, your mother’s son or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul entice you secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death”
1 Timothy 2:11
"Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor."
Revelation 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
Leviticus 25
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Note that the bible is also very clear that you should sacrifice and burn an animal today because the smell makes sicko Christian sky fairy happy. No, you don't get to use the parts for food. You burn them, a complete waste of the poor animal.
Yes, the bible really says that, everyone. Yes, it's in Leviticus, look it up. Yes, Jesus purportedly said that the OT commands still apply. No exceptions. But even if you think the OT was god's mistaken first go around, you have to ask why a perfect, loving enti-ty would ever put such horrid instructions in there. If you think rationally at all, that is.
And then, if you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.
So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.
Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
Mmmmm... tasty christian matzo
Isn't that the stupidest thing you've ever heard?
Actually... the Catholic bread/body & wine/blood of Christ is also pretty stupid...
true, but that's not the literal, body and blood, the matzo on the other hand....... some secret kitchen with vats of blood... wow....
Well actually, through Catholic copyrighted techniques, the wine and bread are Transmogrified into the actual/literal body and blood of Christ...
The matzo thing is total nonsense.
@L.E.T........... "Transmogrified" LOL!!!
I prefer Calvin and Hobbes' take on transmorgification.
What's funny is that I had "transmorgified" and my spellcheck insists it is "Transmogrified"
It's funny either way...... (grin)
"the most persistent and longest-lived anti-Semitic myth in history, aside from the claim that the Jews killed Jesus."
------------------
Hey, Candida Moss and Joel Baden, your ignorance is showing...
The Jews DID have Jesus killed. No one who is a student of history denies this. First get your facts straight, then write an article based on truth, not what you think is truth. It's NOT anti-Semitic, it's historical fact.
LOL... comedy gold. Also, as a student of actual history there is no proof that Jesus ever existed except in your singularly biased book. You are the last person that I would reference as knowing factual historical truth.
I have proof Jesus exists! I write him a check every other week after he trims my hedges!
Cool and I own the reincarnate of Darwin.
You do realize of course that only the red-headed step children of the outliers of the fringe of liberal theologians claim that Jesus never existed, right?
I didn't claim your Jesus existed or not... I said there is no historical proof, there is only christian hearsay... which is pretty biased and mostly worthless.
I said there is no historical proof...
---------–
Whoever told you this lied to you.
First and foremost you have the histories recorded in the Bible. Then you have the extra Biblical writings of Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, Julius Africanus and Tallus, Lucian of Samosate, and Seutonius just to name a few.
According to James Dunn, nearly all modern scholars consider the baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion to be historically certain. He states that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent" and "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical facts" that they are often the starting points for the study of the historical Jesus.
> Jesus Remembered by James D. G. Dunn, page 339
Oh I'm sure a Jesus existed, taught some nice things (later corrupted by Paul), fomented unrest in a Roman Territory, was put on a cross like any number of other non-Roman citizens that threatened the peace of a province, and died. End of Story.
Rynomite, tell me, what is it exactly that Paul corrupted? What of Paul's letters contradicts any other part of Scripture, OT or NT?
Theo, the whole Jesus-sacrifice thing, the foundation of your idiotic Christian supersti.tions, is a steaming pile of bull-do. How is it again that your omnipotent being couldn't do his saving bit without the whole silly Jesus hoopla? And how was Jesus' death a "sacrifice", when an omnipotent being could just pop up a replacement son any time with less than a snap of his fingers? Pretty pathetic "god" that you've made for yourself there.
Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
"Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, Julius Africanus and Tallus, Lucian of Samosate, and Seutonius"
Of course none of those were contemporary accounts. All were reporting hearsay and most also talk about other gods in their writings as well. So I'm cool with their writings being used as proof of Jesus existence and godhood as long as you are ok with them also being proof of Hercules existence and godhood.
Rynomite,
We have no contemporary doc.uments of Homer, Demosthenes, Herodotus, Plato, or Aristotle either. Do you also say they never existed?
Theo – all of the sources you mentioned are hearsay accounts with no facts to back them up. This includes Prof. Dunn's opinion, since he is a Prof of Theology.. so therefore also a useless source
Theo – all of the sources you mentioned are hearsay accounts with no facts to back them up. This includes Prof. Dunn's opinion, since he is a Prof of Theology.. so therefore also a useless source
-----------------
In that case, Homer, Demosthenes, Herodotus, Plato, and Aristotle were not real people either, since we don't have any writings from their lifetime. All of the writings of "Plato" are just heresay. No one should actually take them seriously. Or Herodotus for that matter. He was entirely make believe.
Also, based on your logic, we should pay NO HEED whatsoever to Lawrence Krauss when he speaks on the origins of the universe since he is a theoretical physicist. He is a useless source.
@Theo – This is my last comment in this thread.. mostly because I don't like arguing with a religiously deadened intellect. Your dismissal of historical figures to excuse the nonsense of your fictional historical figures does not move your argument forward. In fact it just makes you sound silly. Lastly, including Prof. Krauss (a world-renowned theoretical physicist and cosmologist) in your tirade to make your tired point also makes you look foolish.
LET,
Actually, I merely used your logic and reasoning, I just changed the names of those involved so that the application is just to other men. If it looks silly, it's because your logic is silly.
It also fails in the sense that nobody claims that your everlasting soul rests on believing in Aristotle. Could he have not existed, sure, but in the end it doesn't even matter. However, Christians claim that I will spend eternity in hell for not believing in Jesus, and for that I require proof.
Ok, I fibbed... THIS is my last comment on this thread.
It is not MY logic... it is just logic. Your attempt to 'dis' me falls short.
You do realize of course that only the red-headed step children of the outliers of the fringe of scientists dispute evolution?
Wait Theo, I thought you said it doesn't matter how many people believe something? Oh right, you only get to use your line of reasoning when it supports your view. Got it.
Theo, Theo, Theo.
All of the sources that you use as "proof" of Jesus' existence were written hundreds of years after Jesus supposedly existed.
A story, told by word of mouth, is barely accurate within hours of the first telling. Do you actually think that stories, told over hundreds of years, have any accuracy at all?
Man invented god to explain all that man could not. Other men, used the concept of god to control populations. That controlling aspect of religion still exists today.
Theo Phileo
Thousands of Jews were crucified back then, so that's not too difficult to believe. John the Baptist likely existed to baptize Jesus, but causes a problem for Christianity. If John were the lesser of the two, oughtn't it have been he who came to Jesus for validation?
Of course, the gospels have a workaround for that, claiming that they were cousins, and that the fetus of the Baptizer actually leaped for joy after coming into proximity to the pregnant Mary, as though something like that could ever be confirmed!
Anyway, conceding these two things doesn't make Jesus the son of God any more than conceding that Davy Crockett was an actual congressman doesn't mean that he actually wrestled bears as a child, right?
People and cultures are defined by the myths they create, but also by the myths they accept and propagate.
People who study actual history deny it.
You know – those who recognize that The Bible is not exactly an accurate historical tome...
The New Testament gospels were written for what was primarily a Roman audience after the fall of Jerusalem.
At that point, Judaism was not a popular religion at all.
In order to gain Roman converts, it helps if you shift blame for the death of The Messiah away from the Romans and onto the heads of another group. As you read the NT, from the first Gospel of Mark to the last Gospel of John there is a noticeable and steady increase in the scapegoating tone when it comes to the Jews' culpability.
The Jews under Roman Imperium had no power to influence capital punishment. During Herod's reign especially, the Jews weren't listened to or treated very kindly. Herod had to go to great lengths to wrest Palestine away from the Parthians, who had seized control.
After being run out, he went to Octavian for support. Octavian decreed Herod King of Judea and gave him a couple of legions of troops to go unite the 5 provinces – but Octavian was no fool. In order to make that Herod would be loyal to him and not the Jewish people, he held Herod's two sons hostage and raised them as Romans, not Jews.
Herod was recognized by his subject as a raving, homicidal lunatic from the get-go. As such, the Jewish people put very little trust in him, his government, or the religious insti/tutions he controlled (like the Sadducees) – unofficial leaders like
Himmel and Shamai had far, far greater influence than the official, self serving government apparatus.
It wasn't the Jewish people as such – it was it was the "Temple aristocracy" and a few supporters of the figure Barabbas who were responsible.
Pope Benedict wrote a Gospel by Gospel study of the Jew's role in Christ's crucifiction called "Jesus of Nazareth-Part II" in which he comes to the same conclusion.
Are you saying that the Jews used the Romans to kill Jesus? Then yeah, you agree with the Bible.
Surely it was god's plan so why blame the Jews or the Romans?
No.
I'm saying that the Sadducees were under the direct control of Herod, the guano insane, murderous King for whom the Jews had no great love. The great majority of Jewish people at that point were going to independent, unofficial spiritual leaders like Himmel and Shamai for guidance and payed little heed to the government stooge church.
Imagine for a moment that the United States government appointed an official church in which all the clergy are beholden to governmental oversight committees. While free to preach the Gospel, they are required to slant their sermons in such a way as to convince parishoners that all the White House's decisions and decrees are good and Holy.
The majority of Christians see right through the charade and attend their own, independent services on Sunday.
Now imagine that the President calls for the execution of Billy Graham because he won't tow the line and insists on teaching Christianity straight from the Bible and without government bias.
Would you blame all Christians for the death of Billy Graham?
Rome may have had their thumb on a religious party, but the Sadducees were only one party that wanted Jesus dead. The Pharisees and the Scribes also wanted Jesus dead.
Actually, after Jesus' teaching in Matthew 22:29-33, the Sadducees began to fade out of existence. Since they didn’t believe in the resurrection because they thought that Moses didn’t say anything about it, Jesus made it obvious that the Sadducees were sorely mistaken, that they did not have any idea what they were talking about because they didn't know the scriptures. They then began to lose their status and confidence with the people, and after 70AD, you never hear from them again.
Christ's admonishments of the Sadducees as presented in the Bible are just echoes of the popular sentiments amongst the Jewish people at the time.
Christ's admonishments of the Sadducees as presented in the Bible are just echoes of the popular sentiments amongst the Jewish people at the time.
--------------–
I don't find that at all.
In fact, in John 7:13, 30, 44, 9:22-24, 12:42, 19:38, 20:19 – the people feared the power of the religious leaders who could put someone out of the synagogue (they believed that the religious leaders had charge over their eternal souls, their destiny, and their place in the Kingdom), so they desired to please their leaders and honor their decisions, and anyone who confessed that Jesus was the Christ would be put out of the synagogue. And it was for this reason that the Jewish people screamed for the blood of Jesus.
Because the Pharisees, Scribes, and the Sadducees all were screaming for his death because they felt that he threatened their power over the people because he exposed their hypocrisy (Matthew 23:13-36, John 2:13-24), the people, fearing their leaders, agreed with them in hopes of not being put out of the Synogogue.
Even though the deity of Christ was attested to by many signs and miracles (John 5:18, 8:52-59, 10:19-33), and the Jews openly said that they recognized that He was from God because of His miracles (John 3:2), because He had constantly exposed their hypocrisy, when He verbally made Himself out to be God to the Jews, they wanted to kill Him.
Oddly enough, although the people overwhelmingly regarded John the Baptist as a prophet (Matthew 3:1-17, 11:9, 14:5, 16:13-14, 21:25-26, 6:20, Luke 1:76, 20:6) – which meant that they regarded what he said as coming from God – because they felt threatened by Jesus, when John testified to the deity of Jesus (John 1:1-51, John 3:26-30), they still would not believe him – revealing even more of the Jewish leader’s hypocrisy.
Deuteronomy 13 – since the penalty for a false prophet is a death sentence, if they regarded John as a true prophet of God, why didn’t they believe him when he testified to the divinity of Jesus? If they felt that John was a false prophet, why didn’t they kill him?
Theo –
You're trying to use the Bible as proof of the Bible's historical accuracy.
Would you use the Book of Mormon to prove that the Book of Mormon is accurate?
I reiterate:
"In order to gain Roman converts, it helps if you shift blame for the death of The Messiah away from the Romans and onto the heads of another group. As you read the NT, from the first Gospel of Mark to the last Gospel of John there is a noticeable and steady increase in the scapegoating tone when it comes to the Jews' culpability."
I know you despise Catholics and think they're tools of Satan and that the Popes are all anti-christs, but they do tend to be pretty well versed theologians.
Why don't you take the time to go through the paper I mentioned and study for yourself the points that Benedict makes based on scripture.
You're trying to use the Bible as proof of the Bible's historical accuracy.
----------------------
The Bible IS historically accurate. I know you don't believe that, but then, atheists are usually biased to think that everything in the Bible is untrue – not just the supernatural stuff, but that's a lie. For instance, until the 90's when the Tel Dan Inscription was found, atheists were steadfast in thinking that the House of David didn't exist. And I remember having some pretty heated debates with atheists over that. Then they were forced to apologize to me about it, and admit the Bible was right after all. And this happens over, and over again.
Would you use the Book of Mormon to prove that the Book of Mormon is accurate?
--------------------------
Don't have to. Because I have the Word of God to prove the Book of Mormon is a lie.
I know you despise Catholics and think they're tools of Satan and that the Popes are all anti-christs, but they do tend to be pretty well versed theologians.
-----------------–
I never said I despise Catholics. I just hate their doctrine. The people on the other hand I love very much, and I would that they would repent of their Catholicism. And I have just the opposite experience with Catholic authors – I find that they often write their books in favor of their traditions, not the Bible. Which authors have you read to draw the conclusion that they are Biblically accurate, or are you basing that statement on what others have told you?
Why don't you take the time to go through the paper I mentioned and study for yourself the points that Benedict makes based on scripture.
-------------------
Because as long as the author believes in a synergistic salvation, anything else that they have to say is tainted.
I've already Biblically proven to you that the Jews were actually in agreement with the leaders – this includes the Scribes, Pharisees, and the Sadducces – because the people feared them because they had the power to put them out of the synagogues. Actually, the Jews were so determined to have Him killed, that even though Rome would not permit them to put anyone to death (John 18:31), during His mock trial, “all of the people” openly took the blame for it (Matthew 27:24-25 – “His blood be on us and our children”)
If, after knowing what the Bible says someone then says that the Jews actually DIDN'T want Jesus killed, then they are denying Scripture. If a Catholic theologian (I use that term very lightly) says that, it is because they do not have God.
@Theo
The Bible is rife with historical inaccuracies, some of which we've previously discussed – such as how the Romans didn't take a census in the way the Bible describes. Further to that, according to Luke, the census was during the reign of the Roman governor Quirinius and both Luke and Matthew say it was also during the reign of king Herod. But Herod was dead for a decade before Quirinius' census! This is well doc/umented in Syrian historical records that are still available for study.
Not to mention that the census taken while Quirinius was Legate in Syria didn't include Galilee.
Next – the gospels say that Christ was arrested by the Sanhedrin on the night of Passover – but Judaic law prohibits their meeting at night, during Passover or anywhere but the confines of the Temple.
such as how the Romans didn't take a census in the way the Bible describes.
----------------–
I already addressed this yesterday and proved you wrong. I cannot believe how often I find myself answering these same lame, long disproven complaints over scripture. You'd think that Satan would have some new tricks by now, but alas, there is nothing new under the sun.
You in no way "proved me wrong".
The wandering Jews would not have been required to trace their ancestry back to some random, unspecified point (1,000 years in the case of Joseph) so that they could make a long trek away from where they actually lived to visit the land of their great great great great great great great great great great grandfathers to be "taxed and counted".
Your only response to that absurdity was that the Jews are obsessed with their lineages.
But Jews knowing the geneologies is one thing – how would the census takers, who were not Jewish, have known that a thousand years ago, a particular person's ancestor lived in a particular place?
Doc. I'm tired of this. Believe what you want to believe. Have a nice day.
I need Ibuprofen, and a LOT of it... If you own stocks, buy some in Advil, I'm about to make their stock go up.
Also, census takers and tax assessors did not (and still do not) setup a static shop and demand that everybody come to them.
They are the ones who do the travelling – otherwise, they would not be able to get accurate data.
Is Benedict a red-headed step child of the outliers of the fringe of liberal theologians?
If he claims that Jesus never existed, then yes.
It also makes him unsaved.
But then, if he's Catholic, he's already unsaved because he believes in a synergistic salvation that is nowhere taught in scripture rather than monergistic salvation which is taught. (See Ephesians 2:8-9)
If you had bothered to read Doc's post, you would see that Benedict does nothing of the sort.
So, your point is moot.
LaBella,
Stop being so accusatory. It was YOU who made reference to my previous post of those who claim that Jesus never existed, and then applied that to Benedict. I merely followed the idea through even though his post didn't say that.
Placed correctly:
LaBella
Accusatory? No. Stop being so defensive.
I find that red-headed comment amusing, so I used that in my original post to Doc.
Further, I employed one of your common debate statements to you: "your point is moot."
Because it is; gratuitous slam to the Catholics aside, Benedict doesn't deny that Jesus existed.
To evangelical whackadoodles like Holocaust Supporter Theo, anyone not an evangelical whackadoodle is an outlier...
like Holocaust Supporter Theo...
---------------–
You are a liar. Plain and simple. I challenge you to quote me as ANYWHERE saying that I supported the holocaust. I DARE you to quote me as saying that.
All that I have EVER said was that it happened in accordance to Biblical prophecy.
Justification equals support, and you JUSTIFIED the Shoah by your monstrous argument about some kind of broken covenant, even for the children and babies murdered thus. I stand by my claim–you support the Holocaust...
Theo
You interpret everything to your benefit, so pompous and arrogant, however others interpret your comments coming from a bigoted, delusional pig. Deny all you want you are a bigot in heart and mind.
"The Jews DID have Jesus killed."
You believe they had a choice? If Jesus wasn't crucified, how would salvation have come about. If it was god's will that Jesus be crucified, how can you condemn the ones that carried out his will?
God’s decrees are not the necessitating cause of the sins of men, but rather are the fore determined and prescribed bounding and directing of men’s sinful acts.
God does not take up a good man, instill an evil desire into his heart, and thereby force him to perform the terrible deed in order to execute His decree. Instead, God decreed the act, and then selected the one who was to perform the act, but He did not “make him evil” in order that he should perform the deed.
On the contrary, when we look at the life of Judas, the betrayer of Jesus for instance, he was “a devil” at the time the Lord Jesus chose him as one of the twelve. (John 6:70) And in the manifestation and exercise of his own devilry, God simply directed Judas’ actions – actions that were perfectly agreeable to his own vile heart, and performed with the most wicked of intentions.
By this way, man is still accountable to God for his sins.
But how was crucifying Jesus an "evil" or "sinful" act if it was in line with God's will? I'm not saying god made anybody do anything necessarily. Besides, doesn't god define "good" and "evil" – can anything done according to his will be "evil"?
"he was “a devil” at the time the Lord Jesus chose him as one of the twelve"
And an alternate translation I've heard claimed the 'devil entered into him [Judas]". So which is it and why would Jesus knowing employ him as one of the 12 if he didn't know the ultimate fate?
G to the T,
"In the case of Judas, it is clear from scripture that God decreed from all eternity that Judas should betray the Lord Jesus (Zechariah 11:12). In Biblical prophecy, God makes known to us what will be, and by revealing to us what will be, He is but revealing to us what He has ordained shall be. So what needs to be asked is “was Judas a responsible agent in fulfilling this decree of God?” The reply is that he most certainly was. Responsibility attaches mainly to the motive and intention of the one committing the act. This is recognized on every hand. Human law distinguishes between a blow inflicted by accident, without evil design, and a blow inflicted by malice of forethought. Apply then this to the case of Judas. What was the design of his heart when he bargained with the priests? Although he had no desire to fulfill any decree of God, though, unknown to himself he was actually doing so. On the contrary, his intention was evil only, and therefore though God had decreed and directed his act, nevertheless his own evil intention rendered him justly guilty as he afterwards acknowledged himself. He said: “I have betrayed innocent blood.”
– "The Sovereignty of God" by A.W. Pink
Not really an answer to my mind. God decreed it would be so – so it cannot be an "evil" act. Plain and simple. Was it evil when the jews killed those of the neighboring kingdoms? No – because it was god's will.
Again – if Judas hadn't "betrayed" Jesus (even though Jesus clearly told him to go and do what needed to be done) – there would be no crucifixion. No crucifixion, no salvation.
Not really an answer to my mind.
---------------–
Let me give you a definition then.
Concurrence – this refers to the coterminous actions of God and human beings. We are creatures with a will of our own. We make things happen. Yet the causal power that we exert is only secondary. God’s sovereign providence stands over and above our actions. He works out His will through the actions of human wills, without violating the freedom of those human wills.
In the end, God did not create evil, but He allows it to exist because He has a purpose for it.
Remember the story of Joseph being sold by his brothers into slavery, and after a time, Joseph would save an entire nation from starving to death? He had this to say at the end of his experience...
“You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives” (Genesis 50:20).
"We are creatures with a will of our own. We make things happen. Yet the causal power that we exert is only secondary. God’s sovereign providence stands over and above our actions. He works out His will through the actions of human wills, without violating the freedom of those human wills."
Like he did with the Pharaoh? And what did Jesus tell Judas just before he left to tell the priests where Jesus was?
Personally, I think it's possible that Judas got bad press. He did what Jesus/God told him to do and then felt an enormous amount of regret about it. But the other disciples were not aware, so their versions of the stories paint Judas in a particular light.
And again – I don't see how you can say God doesn't interfere with free will when he has definitely "hardened hearts" in the past to make his will come about (as portrayed in bible at least).
So again I'll ask – what would have happened if Judas hadn't done what he was told to do by Jesus?
theo:
"Apply then this to the case of Judas. What was the design of his heart when he bargained with the priests? Although he had no desire to fulfill any decree of God, though, unknown to himself he was actually doing so. On the contrary, his intention was evil only, and therefore though God had decreed and directed his act, nevertheless his own evil intention rendered him justly guilty as he afterwards acknowledged himself. He said: “I have betrayed innocent blood.”
GOSPEL OF JUDAS:
The Gospel of Judas also explores the realm of idea that the eleven other disciples spread a misnomer of the teachings of Jesus. While the disciples taught that those who were martyred in Jesus’ name would be resurrected in body and spirit, this was not something Jesus ever said. The eleven other disciples also still believed in the physical world and animal sacrifices which ultimately pleased the lower gods but not the one true god. The finale of the Gospel of Judas concludes with the idea of that Jesus’ sacrifice was not needed to tone for humanities sins. The one true god was a gracious and forgiving god and therefore, sacrifice was not required. The death of Jesus was inevitably a way for him to leave the world of flesh and return to the indestructible and imperishable realm.
-----------------------
gospel of judas; no need for sacrifice; no need for religious leaders or churches.
"God hardened Pharaoh's heart"
You must understand what this means in light of Biblical understanding.
Since we know that God cannot tempt man with evil (James 1:13-15), then we know that God does not make men evil. But, in the sovereignty of God who works all things according to the council of His own will (Ephesians 1:11), that no purpose of His will be thwarted (Job 42:2), He will remove His presence from some men, so that the wrath of God’s justice may be revealed in them (Romans 9:22-24).
When a man’s heart is hardened, he has only himself to blame. In 1 Timothy 4:1-3, Paul tells us that there are men whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron, their sensitivity to sin has been lost due to a lifetime of dedication to it…
Do not think that God wrought evil in the heart of Pharaoh; God simply commands man’s naturally evil will to do what comes naturally to it. When God “hardens Pharaoh’s heart,” it is because God has removed His presence from him that he may not repent (Romans 9:17) and that he would reap the unintended consequences of his actions.
The gospel of Judas is heretical Gnosticism, and doesn't even come close to the Biblical tests for canonicity.
Gnosticism is a group of ancient heresies that attempted to combine Greek philosophies and Christianity by stressing that escape from this material world comes through the acquisition of esoteric knowledge known as “Gnosis.” (The English translation of “Gnosis” is knowledge, but is more closely represented by the word “enlightenment.”) Thereby the spiritual element in man could be released from its bondage within matter – they felt that all matter was evil, and only the spirit is good. Because of that, they denied the deity of Jesus, because Jesus was a man, made of matter, and to them, all matter was evil, and God couldn't be evil…
Theo Phileo
"God hardened Pharaoh's heart"
No, if you read Exodus in context it's clear that God is using Pharaoh to demonstrate something to the Hebrews.
Then the Lord said to Moses, “Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his officials so that I may perform these signs of mine among them that you may tell your children and grandchildren how I dealt harshly with the Egyptians and how I performed my signs among them, and that you may know that I am the Lord.” Exodus 10:10
Regarding your horrid Christian holy book AKA the bible that you keep referencing, why is it that your pathetic sky creature, your "god", a purportedly omnipotent creature, can't do better than a book to get its message out, especially one for which the words can be so readily differently interpreted by sincere, diligent readers. Where is your god's website (and no, religious shill sites don't count), and why can't he even push a few tweets out? Furthermore, 2000+ years without a peep from him is more than sufficient grounds for doubt, to say the least.
This is rich coming from the one who told us the Holocaust was justified. Antisemite much? Or are you going to tell us "some of my best friends..."?
like Holocaust Supporter Theo...
---------------–
You are a liar. Plain and simple. I challenge you to quote me as ANYWHERE saying that I supported the holocaust. I DARE you to quote me as saying that.
All that I have EVER said was that it happened in accordance to Biblical prophecy.
You JUSTIFIED it, therefore you SUPPORT it. I stand by the claim...
I stand by the claim...
-----------–
I know. That's because you do not know the scriptures.
Theo
So many denials you have to make day after day, you are pathetic.
Theo
If "the Jews" wanted Jesus killed wouldn't they have simply stoned him in the street?
Crucifixion was a Roman form of execution and Jesus clearly posed a threat to the peace if he acted as he did in the Gospels.
If "the Jews" wanted Jesus killed wouldn't they have simply stoned him in the street?
---------------
No, because no one could find him guilty of violating the law, so in order to officially and legally kill Him, they had to bring false witnesses to testify against Him.
When Rome took over Judea and began direct rule through a prefect in 6AD, capital jurisdiction was taken away from the Jews and given to the Roman governor. Capital punishment was the most jealously guarded of all the attributes in Roman provincial administration.
Theo Phileo
Come on, they could have stirred up a crowd with the same false witnesses pretty easily. Besides, the charge would have been blasphemy in calling himself "God", or at least not denying it, which would have been a clear violation of the First Commandment, right?
They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?" He replied, "You say that I am."
Then they said, "Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips." Luke 22:70-71
Surely you're not saying that any crowd of pious Jews wouldn't have stoned someone on the spot for saying that?
If the Jews weren't allowed capital punishment then the crowd wouldn't have been ready to stone the prost.itute in the gospel of John, right?
If the Jews weren't allowed capital punishment then the crowd wouldn't have been ready to stone the prost.itute in the gospel of John, right?
--------------------–
That doesn't mean that it would have been legal according to the Roman authorities. Lots of people begin to do things that are not legal when angered to the point of being beyond control. Besides, they brought her to Him as a test.
Since it was the religious leaders themselves who wanted to put Jesus to death, they were in the public eye, so they needed to do it "legally."
If it were Roman law that condemned Jesus, it seems to be pretty disingenuous to keep blaming the Jews for putting Him to death. Which is the myth that this whole article is referring to.
And your original position, Theo.
Theo Phileo
Who cared if it was "legal" according to the Romans? The point of stoning is that a mult.itude of the community becomes responsible for vigilante justice, thus taking the blame away from the individual. The crowd would have just melted away after the stoning was done, and nobody would have been around to arrest.
They may have brought her to him as a test, but that isn't to say that they wouldn't have stoned her anyway. If Jesus didn't know that they would have proceeded to kill her it wouldn't have been much of a test, now would it?
If Pilate really didn't find any fault in Jesus, which is simply ridiculous if the story of his claiming to be the king of the Jews is true, then it doesn't follow that they got the stamp of legitimacy that they were looking for. Why would Pilate spare one Jewish man if we trust what Josephus has to say? No, your apologetic just doesn't hold any water.
Reblogged this on Loredana and commented:
https://myspace.com/lights
Who still uses MySpace?
12-16 year olds...mostly female (my nieces love it)
Nothing better than browsing MySpace on Netscape!
*This page made with Geocities*
Accusatory? No. Stop being so defensive.
I find that red-headed comment amusing, so I used that in my original post to Doc.
Further, I employed one of your common debate statements to you: "your point is moot."
Because it is; gratuitous slam to the Catholics aside, Benedict doesn't deny that Jesus existed.
Because it is; gratuitous slam to the Catholics aside, Benedict doesn't deny that Jesus existed.
---------------------
10-4.
And as for my "slam to the Catholics," let me quote Spurgeon here...
"It is the bounden duty of every Christian to pray against Antichrist, and as to what Antichrist is, no sane man ought to raise a question. If it be not the popery in the Church of Rome there is nothing in the world that can be called by that name. If there were to be issued a hue and cry for Antichrist, we should certainly take up this church on susp.icion, and it would certainly not be let loose again, for it so exactly answers the description. Popery is contrary to Christ's Gospel, and is the Antichrist, and we ought to pray against it. It should be the daily prayer of every believer that Antichrist might be hurled like a millstone into the flood and for Christ, because it wounds Christ, because it robs Christ of His glory, because it puts sacramental efficacy in the place of His atonement, and lifts a piece of bread into the place of the Savior, and a few drops of water into the place of the Holy Ghost, and puts a mere fallible man like ourselves up as the vicar of Christ on earth; if we pray against it, because it is against Him, we shall love the persons though we hate their errors: we shall love their souls though we loath and detest their dogmas, and so the breath of our prayers will be sweetened, because we turn our faces towards Christ when we pray."
Charles H. Spurgeon
A very lengthy gratuitous slam against a large segment of Christians. Oh. I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked.
A Short List of Anti-Christs
All Popes, Most Presidents (except Carter!? but especially Reagan), Emperor Nero, Arius of Alexandria, Czar Peter the Great, Caligula, Midrash Vayosha, Armilus, Adolf Hitler, Henry Kissinger, Mikhael Gorbachev, Napoleon Bonaparte, Antiochus IV, Ti.tus, Charlemagne, Benito Mussolini, Javier Solana, Rahmat Ahmad Maitreya, Saint Germaine, Prince Charles of Britain, Prince Felipe of Spain, Adolfo Nicolás Pachón, Miguel Angel Sosa Vasquez,King George, Elvis Presley, Sun Myung Moon, Saddam Hussein, King Frederick the Great, Aleister Crowley, Joseph Stalin, Francisco Franco, King Juan Carlos of Spain, Louis Farrakhan, Karl Hapsburg, Bill Gates, Jacques Chirac, Oprah Winfrey etc. ad nauseum
Oh. I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked.
--------------
Shocked by Spurgeon? I'm shocked that Catholics are even considered Christian. They use the same words, but give non-Biblical definitions.
Swoosh.
"People" like Holocaust Supporter Theo are THE reason for religious wars. He won't be satisfied by just slandering religions he doesn't like–eventlually he'll want to suppress them, and then finally exterminate them. History is replete with Theos, and it is the duty of any freedom-of-conscience-loving human being to oppose them with every resource available...
like Holocaust Supporter Theo...
---------------–
You are a liar. Plain and simple. I challenge you to quote me as ANYWHERE saying that I supported the holocaust. I DARE you to quote me as saying that.
All that I have EVER said was that it happened in accordance to Biblical prophecy.
Then since you support the will of god you theerby support the Holocaust. If the Holocaust was the will of god it is just more proof that the god described in the bible is one evil son of a b.itch.
Nope.
joey3467,
Do yourself a favor and pick up the book "The Sovereignty of God" by A.W. Pink. It will do a marvelous job at clearing up your confusion.
Yes, you JUSTIFIED it, skippy, and as a supporter of your interpretation of the Bible, you SUPPPORTED the. You JUSTIFIED the slaughter, and showed NO sympathy for those victims, inclusing the children and babies thus slaughtered, instead spewing some drivel about broken covenants as JUSTIFICATION of the Shoah. So sorry, skippy, I stand by my claim. You support the Holocaust...
fortheloveofellipsis,
Reason and causality are not the same as "justified" at least in the sense that I think you mean it. But so as to not go down yet ANOTHER rabbit trail, I'll just let you think what you want to think. I'm done repeating this to you.
Theo
At least Catholics celebrate the Eucharist, something that Jesus specifically instructed his followers to do. I guess that anybody who doesn't just isn't a real Christian, right?
Yeah, I'll pass. I assume he is just another guy like you who feels the Jews got what they deserved.
At least Catholics celebrate the Eucharist...
--------------–
Protestants also celebrate the Lord's Table. What we disagree with is the unbiblical idea of transubstantiation that was invented by the Catholic church in 1,000AD. That idea cannot be supported with Scripture. (And no, that's not what 1 Cor. 10:16 says...)
There are in fact only two Sacraments given to the Church Age – Baptism and the Lord's Table. Neither of which IMPART grace, but rather are symbols of grace. To say that they are a MEANS of grace (Catholic view) is to admit that you believe in a synergistic salvation, which is in violation of Ephesians 2:8-9 and many other passages that teach monergism.
Yeah, I'll pass. I assume he is just another guy like you who feels the Jews got what they deserved.
--------------
Then neither will I answer any more of your questions regarding Theodicy.
What we disagree with is the unbiblical idea of transubstantiation that was invented by the Catholic church in 1,000AD.
------------
The Wars of the Reformation ended about 360 years ago. Give it a rest.
The Wars of the Reformation ended about 360 years ago. Give it a rest.
----------------
I will never rest from preaching the Word of God. If you don't like it, go to another forum.
This pretty much sums up theology in my opinion.
“The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion”
-Thomas Paine
"I will never rest from preaching the Word of God."
I hate to break it to you, but you never have preached the word of a god, nor will you ever.
Sea Vik
Right on, Theo, is at the bottom of the barrel as a preacher; I think he does more to convince people to escape the clutches of the scam artists and delusional.
"I challenge you to quote me as ANYWHERE saying that I supported the holocaust."
I'm sure we will see the quotes soon as I too recall Theo going on and on about how the Jews gave up their special position with Jesus when they sent him to die so it was no wonder that the Jews during the holocaust were treated that way.
I'm sure we will see the quotes soon as I too recall Theo going on and on about how the Jews gave up their special position with Jesus when they sent him to die so it was no wonder that the Jews during the holocaust were treated that way.
-------------–
Wow... That's not at ALL what I said. That's not even close actually...
neverbeenhappier gives a fairly accurate interpretation of what you said.
The reason you say the Jewish people suffered is because of their:
"Idolatry, apostasy, and unbelief."
"Israel became proud and worshipped idols. Verses 46-47 (of Ezekiel) say that Israel had acted worse than Sodom. So God gave them over to their enemies and punished them."
When asked if Hitler was doing God's will during the Holocaust, you said:
"Yup. In the same sense that Judas, who betrayed Jesus was an instrument of God. In the same sense that the Jews who had Jesus crucified were the instruments of God."
"They suffered because they violated their covenant with God formed in Deuteronomy 28:15-68."
Then you had the audacity to say:
"looking at incidents like the slaughter of the Jewish people throughout the centuries and yet the fact that the Jews still survive as a people are one of the best proofs that we have of the truth of the Bible."
When various bloggers were disgusted with your using the Bible to rationalize attempted genocide, you said "It wasn't me, it was the Bible..."
Thanks Doc, I agree...
May I add that Theo is a stinking pile of ........
Theo Phileo
Come now, not all protestants celebrate the eucharist.
If it was just some symbolic gesture why didn't Jesus make that clear by saying "This is like by body" ... etc?
What's to prevent Catholics from partaking of the eucharist believing that it actually is Jesus' body and still understand that they're only "saved" by his grace? All they're doing is following his direct instructions, right?
If there are only two sacraments why all the hoopla over marriage? 1 Cor. 7 sure doesn't state that marriage was a particularly Christian thing to do.
Theo
Regarding the Holocaust, do you believe all that Rapture scenario stuff about Jesus returning and killing all non-converting Jews?
If so, how would that be any different from what Hitler did? They'd be killed for being (continuing to be) Jews, right?