If I've learned anything from Americans it's more speech is better. I made the poll as wide as I can and invite people to say what they believe. So far, I'm just enjoying reading the responses. But I want people to talk, I'm gonna let it ride.
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 I've learned anything from Americans it's more speech is better. I made the poll as wide as I can and invite people to say what they believe. So far, I'm just enjoying reading the responses. But I want people to talk, I'm gonna let it ride.
One important point to keep in mind in this discussion, and one that is easy to forget, is that the law was made for human's benefit, not God's. Humans were not created to follow the law.
That being said, if God decided that sin could be forgiven by people hopping on one foot while whistling Dixie, that would suffice. God's honor never entered into the discussion until Anselm, safely over a thousand years after the crucifixion.
That being said, if God decided that sin could be forgiven by people hopping on one foot while whistling Dixie, that would suffice. God's honor never entered into the discussion until Anselm, safely over a thousand years after the crucifixion.
- Our Sins Killed Jesus
- God Kill His Son
- Jesus Died Willingly
- Jews Killed Jesus
- The Romans Killed Jesus
- The People in the Crowd that day Killed Jesus
- Other, Please Explain
There is one God in three persons; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father could have just blinked all of existence out the minute man sinned in the Garden. Mercy is something one does not deserve indeed, that's why it's mercy. The Father sent his only Son into the fallen world to be sacrificed to redeem man of sins and so A is still upheld. The Son then accepting and acting perfectly within the will of the Father laid his life down being a sacrifice for humanity's sake and so C is still fundamentally true too. God smote the shepherd and scattered the flock and so B also is true in tandem with the prophecy of Man of Sorrows to be stricken on our account. Your argument makes sense, really it's true no sin or even any action at all man takes can force God to do anything. The catch is it's precisely because it is the Father's will that Jesus be killed specifically as a sacrifice to save us from our sins that A remains the best option still in my opinion. Though speaking of then the direct causal agents these are the latter options, DEF, in the direct act of killing Jesus, literally those who physically crucified him, the Romans, and directly conspired against, falsely accused him and rigged his trial, the Jews, and those that chose to deliver him to death out of ignorance or malice and release a murderer thus ensuring the death of Jesus, the culpability of the crowd. But I am kind of tired to we'll segway and leave off for tonight with the immediate arrest of Jesus for consideration in Matthew 26.
Matthew 26:26-31,38-45. 55-57
26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
30 And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.
31 Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.
-----------
38 Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me.
39 And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
40 And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour?
41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.
42 He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.
43 And he came and found them asleep again: for their eyes were heavy.
44 And he left them, and went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words.
45 Then cometh he to his disciples, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest: behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.
----------
55 In that same hour said Jesus to the multitudes, Are ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves for to take me? I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me.
56 But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.
57 And they that had laid hold on Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled.
Rewriter, on a website like this you would not be surprised to find that a common "bias" is the idea that the NT together with the OT contain evidence within themselves that they are the word of God.
If we are asking you for some direct simple evidence for your contention, we are within our rights.
You are hardly being persecuted by bigots.
I have a PHD in keeping bees, and have only asked you for a postcard sized sample that proves that the Romans have destroyed our text.
With all the work that you have done you should not need to tell us about those astounded professors or the book.
If you are writing a book you have a lot of points to chose from, yet you have dished us up something pretty vague.
I hope I don't have to stop letting you eat honey.
I have never said that the Romans have corrupted our texts, rather I have said that WE corrupted the texts out of fear of the Romans.
But a simple point for you, in Romans 1:25 there is, in the original Greek, and not disputed in any known manuscripts, a definite article, signifying a specific item. The proper translation is "They exchanged the truth about God for THE lie, " (NIV). Paul was being specific here, why do so many translations want to make it "a lie", just some random lie? Or what about 1 John 5:8, what is being referenced? Scholars are all over the place on that verse where the Greek says, "the three are one". There is no precedence in Greek for saying it means "are in agreement" or that it is an idiom from Aramaic, so what is being hidden? Or in the Corinthians correspondence about women's hair? Paul will address prostitution later so that does not make sense as the issue, but what does? Why does Luke, likely the last gospel written, in the parable of the wineskins claim that people will prefer the old wine over the new when in John, at Cana, Jesus produced the newest wine possible?
Now scholars deal with these as all separate issues, but I see a single common thread among them, and with many other passages. These four issues link back to other points in Paul (in Galatians, Ephesians and 2 Timothy among others), the gospels (Matthew and Luke directly, Mark indirectly), James, Peter, Jude and Revelation and all link back to problems caused by the Romans. And the links I see are supported by Christian writers into the 13th century with passing comments. Other links come from numismatics, something that later generations cannot change without leaving noticeable evidence, as well as icons and statues, also hard to change without evidence. But again, traditionally scholars deal with these points piecemeal or simply ignore them as "clearly irrelevant", sometimes using criteria that would render large parts of the Bible as "clearly irrelevant", so why the double standard unless something needs to be hidden?
Beekeeper, I have looked over some of what I have written to expand a little for you. I take 40 8 1/2x11 pages (roughly double that for a normal sized book) and over 130 footnotes (heavily citing peer reviewed journals) to address some "clearly irrelevant" information and how it effects the understanding of one of Paul's epistles, heavily just 10 verses. The implications are severe, if I am correct, Paul faced certain death if he was not a Roman citizen. As a Roman citizen only Nero could have ordered his execution or exile, and he would have been sent under guard to Rome as soon as possible, but under the likely circumstances that might have taken two or three years. But exile would fit the punishment given to likely relatives of Paul for similar crimes and fit with Clement of Rome's claim Paul was sent to Spain. But if Paul was guilty of that crime, then appropriate punishments for non-Roman citizens for the same crime associated with Christianity would include facing wild animals in the arena or being used as human torches. Gee, I wonder if such punishments were used for Christians that were not Roman citizens? But this requires evidence that is "clearly irrelevant" as it contradicts the official account in Acts.
Other "clearly irrelevant" information contradicts some accounts in the gospels, while affirming others, and also contradicting Josephus, just as recent archeology does. But it also confirms claims made by Justin Martyr and Tertullian that Tiberius granted protection to Christians, something also affirmed in some obscure early Christian legends. But again, since it contradicts official, biblical accounts, it must be "clearly irrelevant".
Other "clearly irrelevant" information contradicts some accounts in the gospels, while affirming others, and also contradicting Josephus, just as recent archeology does. But it also confirms claims made by Justin Martyr and Tertullian that Tiberius granted protection to Christians, something also affirmed in some obscure early Christian legends. But again, since it contradicts official, biblical accounts, it must be "clearly irrelevant".
Also demons killed Jesus, and disease killed Jesus and mortal trauma killed Jesus. And Jesus died also from the deep emotional trauma of a broken heart.
He sounds like he is seeking the truth. Free thinker Christians, willing to think outside the box of our native traditions, aren't really appreciated by doctrinaire sectarians as much as should be the case.
At the time of Jesus, the Israelites didn't have anything that's worthy to be a sacrifice for their sin. It's because everything became fouled. And so, the Israelites didn't have anything that's clean or unblemished to sacrifice to atone from their sin.
Without the shedding of blood there's no forgiveness
And that's what the meaning of God gave up his only begotten Son to save the world.
Video contains profanity
really Paul? disease?
Psalms 16:10
neither wilt Thou suffer Thine Holy One to see corruption.
He bore our sicknesses and diseases. And infections would have entered His body through his open wounds?
YLT
Surely our sicknesses he hath borne, And our pains -- he hath carried them, And we -- we have esteemed him plagued, Smitten of God, and afflicted.
I believe that we killed Jesus by sinning. If we did not sin Jesus would not need to die for us.
we thought He was plagued - -
John 10:20
and many of them said,
He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye Him?
but were we correct?can God be destroyed by pneumonia?
germs > God, you think that makes sense?
"When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, 'It is finished,' and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit"
It's really axiomatic: No one could kill Jesus unless He decided He could be killed.
John 10:17-18 "The reason the Father loves Me is that I lay down My life in order to take it up again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of My own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from My Father.”