Who Killed Jesus?
- Thread starter ThereRoseaLamb
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
If you can,visit The Museum of the Bible in D.C.
https://youtube.com/@museumofthebible?si=uK0aR0Gl-4b7-4DQ
Mark is known to have four different endings in various ancient manuscripts, the first ends with the women at the tomb, Mark 16:8, John has two recorded endings, John 20:30-31 and John 21:24-25.
And if you want to look at Acts, do you really believe that it is just coincidence that events paralleled accounts from Euripides, Homer, Virgil, all well-known classical works. and local legend when people just happened to be in that same area, as well as just happening to have other events suggestive of Vespasian as well as events with very unusual names for the time, but names well known in classical literature? Yes, it is possible, but do you want to call it probable? And then consider that it is impossible to reconcile what Acts records Paul doing at times with what Paul says he was doing at those times. (Paul, "I was not there at that time", Acts, "Oh yes you were").
I am familiar with the alternative readings that you mentioned.
The existence of alternative readings in NT manuscripts should not be a surprise to anyone.
The NT books were not copied under the same discipline as the Hebrew OT text and "mistakes" both accidental and deliberate happened.
Most of these were minor and easily recognized and not re-copied.
If for example 1000 readings agree but one has an omition, common sense tells us to go with the 1000.
We have a long historic record of agreeing texts and translations based on the Greek readings that later became known as the Textus Receptus.
Two alternative Greek texts have become matters of controversy since 1881, when the Wescott and Hort Greek text was compiled using readings from them. They are: Codex Sinaticus (found in 1844 at a Catholic monastery) and Codex Vaticanus.
neither of these were ever in widespread use before this time, but Critics that support them do so on the basis of their age.
They are 4th Century documents.
The variant readings used in the Wescott/Hort text are mostly in the form of omitions, and some of them obscure the deity of Christ.
This suggests the possibility of deliberation.
The Wescott/Hort text BTW is used as the foundation of some of our English translations.
Your case against the book of Acts when compared to classical literature is new to me, and at this point in time I can neither agree with it or debate it.
Is there disagreement with Acts account of Paul's life with any other of Paul's writing?
Can you show us where?
the question is who killed God - not whether mankind is culpable for our sin.
and the answer is clear: God cannot be killed; He laid down His own life. no one has power over Him to take His life away, that is impossible.
To make it simple, in 2 Corinthians 11:32, Paul has to escape Damascus because Arabs are trying to capture him after he had gone to Arabia and was on his way back following his conversion. In Acts 9:23-25, he has to escape Jews in Damascus after preaching in Damascus after his conversion but before going anywhere else. This would be reconcilable as two different events except that in Galatians 1:17, Paul claims he did not go to Damascus until after returning from Arabia and will later claim he only went to Damascus one time. So, one trip to Damascus, when was it and who tried to capture him, was it immediately after conversion and an attempt by Jews or was it some indefinite time after conversion and an attempted capture by Arabs? Which version do we believe, Paul's or Luke's?
I don't understand why you think 2 Corinthians 11:32 and Acts 9:23-25 are describing two different events
I vote for the combination: God decreed that only Messiah's death would atone for the sins of humanity, the Jewish leaders incited
the crowds to clamor for Christ's crucifixion, the Roman governors administered it, and all who do not repent will pay for it.
Witness statements that contain variation due to human error have always been counted as valuable.
Example: 1. Man with red shirt steals car. 2. Man with orange shirt steals car.
Both witnesses confirm that the man stole the car.
There is room for more agreeable interpretations in your example though.
How about people of different races all tried to capture Paul on more than one occasion?
That may not be the right one.
I will have a closer look at your objection when I get time, but it does not seem entirely clear cut.
It is simultaneously true that Jesus laid his life down and was also murdered too.
Let us examine Acts 3 where after healing a man by the temple, Peter addresses the gathering crowd.
Acts 3:11-20
11 And as the lame man which was healed held Peter and John, all the people ran together unto them in the porch that is called Solomon's, greatly wondering.
12 And when Peter saw it, he answered unto the people, Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk?
13 The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go.
14 But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you;
15 And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.
16 And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.
17 And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers.
18 But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.
19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.
20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
It had to be two different events because Aretas was an Arab king and antagonistic towards Jews, so Paul had to have had trouble with one group or the other, the two groups would not have worked together.
It's highly improbable that Paul was lowered in a basket from a rope. What evidence do you have that the king was antagonistic towards the Jews. Kings generally like people with wealth
What makes me think that Aretas did not like the Jews? Maybe that he sided with the Romans against them when the Jews had a brief rebellion in 1 CE or that he and Antipas had a conflict that upset Rome in the 30's, one that many scholars suggest was the event that caused Paul to flee Damascus. The conflict between Herod the Great and Aretas's father was before Aretas was king, so we will ignore that one as well as the history of conflicts between the Hasmonean kings of Judah and the earlier kings of Aretas's line.
Acts tells us why Paul fled Damascus. The Jews didn't like his message and wanted to kill him. Not a hard thing to bribe the governor to guard the city gates.
When the governor does not like the Jews, he also might well take the bribe and forget to tell the guards to watch the gates to prevent Paul from leaving. That would be an easy way to make money and still keep the Jews in place. You are grasping at straws though, as this is merely one place where Acts differs with Paul.
Now if you want a broader and more compete argument, Acts seems to identify Theophilus, that is if you both know your history and are willing to accept the identification. And there is also the number of times where parallels to classic literature occur, such as Peter healing an individual who just happens to have a name almost unknown at the time outside of literature or Paul having experiences that closely parallel things that occurred to other people in classic literature, like Philoctetes (a popular character).
In science one does not make field advancing discoveries by following what long-established science says, but rather by looking at the points that are known but do not fit. I have spent a long time looking at the known points in the New Testament that do not fit, and have astounded Seminary New Testament professors with my understandings and get told either that I am clearly wrong because I differ with traditional understandings, or that while I trash traditional understandings, I make far more sense and knit the whole of the New Testament together far better than they have ever seen before. And before you ask, I am well into writing a book on these points and others,
Now if you want a broader and more compete argument, Acts seems to identify Theophilus, that is if you both know your history and are willing to accept the identification. And there is also the number of times where parallels to classic literature occur, such as Peter healing an individual who just happens to have a name almost unknown at the time outside of literature or Paul having experiences that closely parallel things that occurred to other people in classic literature, like Philoctetes (a popular character).
In science one does not make field advancing discoveries by following what long-established science says, but rather by looking at the points that are known but do not fit. I have spent a long time looking at the known points in the New Testament that do not fit, and have astounded Seminary New Testament professors with my understandings and get told either that I am clearly wrong because I differ with traditional understandings, or that while I trash traditional understandings, I make far more sense and knit the whole of the New Testament together far better than they have ever seen before. And before you ask, I am well into writing a book on these points and others,
I reckon I would say all the above. However, it is written that he was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. So before God even said let there be, God had determined what would be purposed and done. So it was his plan and will and may he now and forever always be glorified for all his ways.
It says the Jews guarded the gates. The governor could have authorized them to do so. I'm not grasping at straws. Your argument is weak
Solving biblical issues does not follow the same exact methodologies as solving problems in science and tech. Language is an imperfect mechanism for conveying intended thoughts, and sometimes later recollections don't exactly match earlier accounts. I don't know what your agenda is, but I think you're wasting your time trying to prove incongruities that you really don't have enough data to be able to understand with certainty. Garbage research and analysis produces garbage books.