Total posts: 3,520
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
When I was wrong I admitted it. That's called integrity. So what? If only you had such humility.
Simon the leper may well have become Jesus' disciple. But is he Simon the disciple? Who knows. But he wasn't Simon the Apostle - which is the inference you are attempting to elucidate.
Saying Peter is a clear leader is not suggesting there is some kind of secret ranking system. Jesus was not running some kind of clandestine club to take over Israel or Rome?
That is just entire nonsense - and even you must have the sense to know that. But then again you do just get your material from the secret gospel of Mark, a book which has been well and truly discredited.
And you do make claims you can't support. You do it all of the time. As for dismissing your views - because there is no biblical evidence, so what? You do that with my comments quite often. Even in this topic. DO you think there is one rule for you and one rule for me?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
From the Catholic perspective, the rest of Christianity could be a cult for rejecting the oldest form of it...
I'm sure the Eastern Orthodox would disagree. After all, the church started in Jerusalem, and then Antioch, before it ever got to Rome.
But I suppose they also take the view that there is no salvation outside of the church - with their own church being the only true church.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I disagree. There is no reason whatsoever to think that Simon Peter and Simon the Leper are the same person. If they were - it would have been evident. But it is not.
There is no link between any of these Simons except they knew Jesus.
Your notion about lower ranks is spurious.
Believe whatever you want - I will stick to the bible. The gospel writers are not in a habit of hiding things from their readers. Peter was a clear leader within the apostolic group - even before Jesus' death.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
What do these Simons have in common, if anything?Simon “called” Peter.Simon Zealot.Simon the Pharisee.Simon the Leper.
Well they are all mentioned in the gospels. They all seem to have the same first name. There are several other Simons you missed as well.
All knew Jesus.
When Jesus was invited to Simon the Leper's house, is Simon literally suffering from leprosy?
That's an interesting question. After all, lepers were generally put outside the city. So it is likely a nickname for Simon. Either because had been healed from leprosy in the past or that he at some time after this situation got sick with Leprosy and the writer of the gospel - was able to refer to this event by specificity because people knew who Simon the Leper was.
I suppose you are going to suggest the same about the other Simons.
Jesus called Simon, Peter. so Peter is his nickname, not Simon.
Simon the Zealot - zealot was also a nickname. Unsurprisingly,
Simon the pharisee - it would be referring to his status as a pharisee.
So - now how about you tell us how you link them together?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Interesting it is that although this thread has been relatively left alone by other members and seems to have boiled down to just you and me, rather than taking advantage of this perfect and rare opportunity to discuss and debate and seek to prove the rightness of your cause by the use of any effective argument or discussion you would rather me just shut up and go away. That won't be happening anytime soon, and your slights and veiled jibes are not working.
It has been pleasant that most of the time you recently don't throw jibes. But you do it enough for me to not care anymore. it's not like this is the only site that talks about religion and you are mostly unpleasant to me.
I'm certainly happy to discuss but your diatribe mostly just makes me not want to engage. And your support of Brother leaves me with the view that you don't really want to discuss. So deal with the professionally and let's discuss. Stop being a dick all the time and perhaps we might actually learn together. You don't know everything and neither do I. I know you think you are intellectually miles above me. But honestly your attitude doesn't show it.
think you are just cutting and pasting someone else's work. Try and to do something original.Then if that is what you sincerely believe, I suggest you seek out this other work and search it for flaws and pit falls and good argument. Because to my knowledge no one has discussed or questioned or written about the identity of these two "certain " accuser and I would love to see this work for myself as I am sure others here would.Meanwhile, if you genuinely want to discuss this topic give this rare opportunity, I suggest that you look into your boy Simon Peter who the lord called Satan or any of the other nine Simons, as I have done. For instance:when Jesus was invited to Simon the Leper's house, is Simon literally suffering from leprosy? Meanwhile, I shall endeavour persevere.
Prove me wrong. Prove to me that you actually have something that is worth discussing. If you genuinely want to discuss this subject - stop with your pretentiousness. I am happy to oblige but not if you going to continue the same tired old lines that you have done so before. So with that - the ball is in your court.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
It seems that I have mostly ignored forum posts. Time to change that. People on these forum posts have talked a lot against Communism, and a lot in favor of capitalism.
Not particularly.
We all know that capitalism killed over 1 billion people. We just choose to ignore that undeniable fact. They talk about the failures of Communism, but where is the success of capitalism? Every capitalist country is divided on rich and poor. If you are rich, good for you. If you are not, well you are a loser. Also, over 50% of USA is poor. Like, the average wage isnt even enough to pay the kindergarten expense. And this country is considered to be a rich capitalist country.
Well respectfully, capitalism has not killed a single person. Those who support Communism as a regime have killed more people in the 20th century than the entire history before hand. that is the fact. Capitalism is based on supply and demand - not on rich v poor people. Markets include both buyers and sellers. What are your stats that say USA divided 50% poor and rich.
Most of the economists dont understand the economy or the point of the economy. For example, some of them think that increasing the interest rates will help with inflation.
While your statement is probably true - it is not true for the reasons you state.
However, teachings of the dear leader Kim Jong Il say:1) Let us develop our production to develop our economy2) Let us develop our economy to develop our military
Propganda.
Clearly, only proper production can help with inflation. But USA says: "we produce plenty of things".Yes you do, but for who? For the rich? That doesnt help anyone except the rich.
Producing plenty is not about inflation, it is about growth. that is a different economic subject.
USA should become Juche Songun Socialist State. However, Americans oppose to that because Juche has a principle of self defense. That doesnt allow non defensive attacks on other countries.
true.
The problem with Juche is that its a peaceful ideology. Americans hate peace because its boring. They even used false proof just to have an excuse to attack other countries.
False.
I suggest that US government invests more in actual peaceful education instead of trying to make children gay.
It would be better still if parents taught their children.
The world is a very bad place, and it will get worse. Most people think that problems will solve themselves by themselves. Yeah, thats not how the world works.
Yes, sadly you are correct.
Of course, you can always say you didnt know. That way, you carry no responsibility.
that doesn't stop responsibility.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
Quite good really.
Did you know the latin word cultis is the root word for worship?
I am not sure that I agree that the Catholic Church is a cult.
I think that Christianity began as a new sect. It began within the framework of Judaism and expanded to the gentiles.
I also think that modern Judaism began after Christianity within the framework of Judaism but remained nationalist.
Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, the Coptic Church, Protestantism and recently the Charismatic Churches have become branches of the church.
Denominationalism is probably more a product of protestantism and Charismatics than the other branches. Although all of the other branches have several distinct churches / denominations within their branch.
Typically, traditional Christianity has centred around the scriptures, the creeds and to a certain extent tradition. They have observed Sunday as the Lord's Day of worship. And practiced at least Communion and baptism and a form of church discipline. Within the mainline tradition - an agreement that the Trinity is the Christian God from very early on with the equally important doctrine of Jesus, fully God and fully Man.
Hence, most Christian churches, despite their differences fell within this broad definition. Others that rejected Jesus' deity or the Trinity, the creeds, sacraments, and the Sunday to worship were considered outside the traditional breath of the church. JWs, Mormons, SDA, Salvation Army, Unitarians, and others fell outside the traditional walls of Christianity. The others were close enough to Christianity to be considered as such by the world, but for the church, they were and many are still considered cults. Cults meaning - outside the mainstream church.
Interestingly, many churches within the mainstream church, such as many parts of the Episcopalian, the Uniting Churches in Australia would now not be so narrow on God as Trinity and Jesus being God. Yet currently their creeds and basis of union maintain that the Trinity is God.
Others like the SDA and the Salvation Army, the latter not practicing the sacraments and the former worshiping on the Jewish Sabbath were abnormalities. SDA - has in many ways be accepted because they do accept the Trinity and Jesus as God. As do the Salvation Army.
cult has also taken on another picture in our community - more towards doom day and isolating people from families and giving up wealth. they often have a very charismatic leader - and very strict rules to obey.
I think the Catholic church - doesn't really fit within that framework.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
When you show intelligence enough to be able to have a discussion without resorting to spam and nonsense - then perhaps we can discuss. But you as always just spam your nonsense day after day.
Me, I see your name and think - another duck.
I also don't click on links anymore on this site if it is either you or Stephen or Shila.
So - unless you are prepared to discuss things on the post directly - and succinct enough to respond in one post - then I will simply keep on quacking.
You are fine with this - this is why you continue your charade. You are scared of actually having to respond further than quoting verses out of context. If you actually had to use your brain - you would find very quickly that you have nothing to add - but "sorry for misleading everyone on this due to my (Brother) foolishness. "
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Playing the man and not the ball doesn't and won't ever win you an argument.
Well that is how you play - I thought you just wanted me to join in.
Again, I think you are just cutting and pasting someone else's work.
Try and to do something original.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
I'm not running. I am just responding to your non-questions and garbage with all it deserves. Quack,
when you ask a question requiring a real answer - then I answer. When you get of your pogo stick - you might see this and reply intelligently,
Of course I won't be holding my breath.
Quack.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Whatever. That doesn't even deserve a quack.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Yes I do know what you are and it is not a very pleasant thing.
Everything you read - you read it intentionally wrong. I explain my position and you just say that I am lying. That to me indicates very clearly that you are not genuine. It also tells me that you are "proud" in an arrogant way. It also tells me that you don't care about anything else - save and except your narrative.
Once again you have not contributed a thing. Just once again revealed that your only way of discussing things is by "attempting" to attack others. You can ridicule me or you like - but you haven't got a clue. And that is ok with me.
What do they all have in common? I suppose they all like ice cream. You don't understand the biblical narrative. You understand only the secret book of Mark which has been discredited many times.
And you are not even very good at ad hominem arguments. what you are good at is whining. Yes, I will give you a plus 100 for whining.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
REALY! Not even your own god accepts deformity.And you say the Brother is "warped"!? You are simply denying reality. And on many, many levels, Tradesecret. And here is just one level that you have forgotten:Leviticus 21:16-2216 The Lord said to Moses, 17 “Say to Aaron: ‘For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. 18 No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; 19 no man with a crippled foot or hand, 20 or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. 21 No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the food offerings to the Lord. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God.So, while your god rejects the "imperfect" you praise and thank him for them.
In the first instance, this was written to the nation of Israel within a context. It was pre-Christian. Secondly, it's talking about persons who are defected coming near to offer food of his God. It also applied to priests qualifications as well.
Christians would suggest that this is an OT directed towards Israel - with various goals. One to remind people that to offer priestly food for the people requires priests to be perfect - without sin. Secondly, to direct people's minds towards the perfection of the high priest who would come as an atonement for sin - one who had no sin.
Christians would not see it as binding on them in the sense of the OT law - but would rather apply the key substance of the law - when you come to the table of the Lord, examine yourself before the Lord. And if you have a problem with someone fix it. Jesus says the same thing in the gospels. Secondly, we would apply it in relation to the prophecy of the messiah - that he who would come and offer the food of God - Jesus, would be without sin.
Hence, Christians would not apply it in the same way that our old warped brother would - it has nothing to do with defects in children.
This is why it is important to understand who a book was written too - what the rules are surrounding that - understanding whether it was pre Christ or post Christ. But you know that since you are a scholar - not. And honestly I don't care whether you agree or not. the Brother and you show yourselves wanting.
And you say the Brother is "warped"!?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
You really don't know Christians very well at all, or unless you just have a very warped group in your background.
We thank and praise God for every child born. In our view every child is perfect even if others think there are issues.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Hello Stephen,
Well you are on this thread showing on more that one occasion denying among a few other things, that Joseph of Arimathea was even a disciple of Jesus never mind a secret one. And I am not expecting you to concede a single thing. But you problem is that you simply do not now your scriptures enough no matter from which early age you claim to have memorised them from.
It is true that I put to you that neither Nicodemus and Joseph were NOT disciples. I have never said I memorised all of the scriptures. I said that from a young age I began memorising scriptures. That part is true. I have never said I memorised the entire bible. I have read the bible many times - still I don't remember every bit in it. Do forget things or have others remind me of things? Yes.
My point above, despite the fact that I have heard it said many times by different people, was not due to a lack of knowledge, but as I have put several times - because I don't trust you. You are determined to put the historical narrative in your own manner and according to your agenda, despite what real scholars do.
I don't have an issue believing the bible - that is a truism. Yet this doesn't mean I accept the manner by which you interpret it. Just as you don't accept the way I interpret it.
I disagree with you in respect of Judas. Was he well known? Well it depends on what the writer was trying to say? Did Peter go in? Again I said - this is your narrative - let's see what you want to say. did Peter and Judas know each other? Of course they did. But were they hanging around on this night like you suggest? There is no data to support that. Last time Peter saw Judas was at the garden - where he tried to strike of a man's ear due to Judas' betrayal. It is highly doubtful that Peter would have felt like hanging around Judas.
I have maintained there is a difference between the apostles and the disciples. As I have maintained or at least attempted to demonstrate that there is a difference between disciples and perhaps secret disciples. But you have another entire narrative about secrets and disciples which has no basis in the bible and whenever I read the word secret in your writings - it is clear you want to push people that way.
You are always intending to do stuff. Just get on with it. You are not a teacher - you are just someone wanting to push a novel idea you read in someone's else book which has been discredited many times.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
So just saying I agree with them is not the same as saying I agree or will agree with your interpretation of them.But haven't interpreted them at all, have I? I have simply quoted the verses exactly as they are written in the gospels and as usual, you haven't come off the fence on whether you actually believe them at all, literally or morally.
You are making lots of insinuations. Again I never denied them, just not going to concede to your interpretation before you put it up. You are doing a similar thing to Brother - when he quotes a verse out of context and says "do you believe it"? Not everyone just thinks we have to believe every verse in the bible - when it is ripped out of context. And context, whether you think it is a hairy chestnut or not, is a valid means to interpreting a verse.
I think that the question of Judas is that Satan did cause him to betray Jesus. Probably, more literal than metaphorical.Then that is your own question asked and answered.>> Tradesecret wrote: Did Satan literally entered Judas?>> #74So in Judas then we have an apostle that had betrayed Jesus, stole money from the funds hence had committed an act of Satan. Or, as the bible puts it; "Satan entered Judas" and " literally" according to you.We know from the gospels that one of the two disciples that are said to have followed Jesus after his arrest "was known to the high priest".
I use the word probably - not absolutely. But do we know which disciple was known to the high priest? And was there only one or two or perhaps even 11 or 12?
High Priests are generally known to most people.
John 18:15 Simon Peter and another disciple were following Jesus, "because this disciple was known to the high priest,"
It seems doubtful that Peter and Judas were hanging around each other.
And we know for certain that Judas knew the chief Priests. Is this a coincidence?
Do we know for certain that he knew the high priest? Had he met the high priest? Possibly. Number one dogs don't normally do their own dirty work when meeting with the outsourced hired hands. They like to keep a bit of distance. But let's say for the same of "your" argument that they did meet, does this mean that they know each other - in the sense of "was known to the high priest"? I meet people quite a lot. But meeting someone in a meeting for work or business or even at church, doesn't necessarily mean I know them - to say I know them. People who want to namedrop might say - yes, I know him, I met him at a party. But meeting someone does not necessarily mean knowing him. Do you think that this verse was suggesting that the high priest let would let this disciple in because he had met him to conduct some kind of backhanded secret meeting to betray someone or because there was more likely a long and familiar relationship. I would suggest the latter makes more sense. Still, this is your narrative.
And further it is said that this "other disciple " went with Jesus into the high priest’s courtyard". So there he is standing in front of the high priests and with Jesus standing right next to him, with Peter waiting to be let in. And he is let in, isn't he?
Was Peter let in? I will wait for the verse which says Peter was let in. Yes, I could read the bible to find it - or better still use my computer program but I have other things I need to do - and besides this is your narrative.
The other interesting thing here shows a perfect example of an "Apostle" - Peter- also being referred to as a disciple and all in the same breath. So, what was Peter also called "Satan". in this instance?
I honestly have no idea what you are asking here. Peter was an apostle. he was a disciple. And Jesus had referred to him as "satan. So what?
This is your story - and so far you have added nothing that is not known to most people. You have suggested things - but not actually said what it is that you want to say.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I am still waiting for you to add something new.
I think that the question of Judas is that Satan did cause him to betray Jesus. Probably, more literal than metaphorical.
and in relation to Peter, Jesus' words are more metaphorical than literal.
It is correct that Satan is linked with both of them.
And the fact is both in their own way betrayed Jesus. Judas with a kiss in the Garden for money. And Peter by denying Jesus because he was afraid.
Judas was sorry but did not repent. And killed himself. Peter too was sorry, repented and the Lord restored him after the resurrection.
Judas threw his money back to the Jewish leaders - and Peter interestingly enough because he saw Jesus alive and resurrected and was filled with the Holy Spirit lost his fear and boldly spoke the word of God about Jesus - to the point that he was arrested, beaten up, and then went out again and preached. Right up until the day he too was crucified. As some have said - it is one thing to die for a cause you believe in - but why would you die for a cause you know is a lie. And the very fact of his character changed from coward to bold - from a fisherman to one who stood and taught and eventually wrote books. Incredible stuff.
but were either Judas or Peter the false witnesses? nary a scrap of evidence. But still we will wait for Stephen to produce his evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I am not saying I am unsure of whether I agree with the passages in the scripture. I am saying - I don't see how what I think about them is relevant.
I am not worried about the gospel writers - they are honest and human. It is you on the other hand I find disingenuous and intentionally ambiguous.
I am just waiting to see how you are going to spin whatever it is you are going to spin.
This is your story Stephen. It is not mine. I doubt it is the gospel writers either.
But let's see - I am a patient man. Especially given the distractions you like to throw in.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Gee let me quote what I said exactly.
"I see that these are parts of verses within the bible. I am not sure whether I agree with them or not is relevant. Yet, you are predictably wanting to use these verses to your own end.
So just saying I agree with them is not the same as saying I agree or will agree with your interpretation of them. "
it's amazing how when you actually see what I wrote - that we can see how deceptive you are?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I see that these are parts of verses within the bible. I am not sure whether I agree with them or not is relevant. Yet, you are predictably wanting to use these verses to your own end.
So just saying I agree with them is not the same as saying I agree or will agree with your interpretation of them. I don't for a moment think that Jesus was literally calling Peter, Satan. It was to suggest that his character at the time he made his comments was in line with the same motives as Satan had. Which was to prevent Jesus from doing what God has asked him to do. Peter and Satan - both were still oblivious to the fact that Jesus' death was actually his victory, not a defeat.
Did Satan literally entered Judas? That's a good question. Certainly for a while Judas went about fulfilling scripture in according to his role to betray Jesus. And we know from the gospels and Acts that eventually he was so guilty about his role that he killed himself. He never repented or else he would never have killed himself.
But there is no evidence - no data - that he appeared at this kangaroo court. Given his role as the betrayer of Jesus - it would seem pretty basic that if he was one of these two unknown witnesses - that his name would have been printed. It would have added to his betrayal. Yet his name is not mentioned. My view is that once he got his money that he had a change of heart - feeling guilty - and then went out and probably got drunk - or tried to and then went out to kill himself, once he tried to give the money back.
But his betrayal was complete once he led the Jews to the garden and kissed Jesus and received his payment. There was no need for him to be a witness.
My personal view- and it is only since we have been chatting about it - and I have not researched - so all speculation - is that they were simply two people that were loyal to either the Jews or to themselves. They were known as false witnesses - so - they were not real witnesses - which in my view ACTUALLY rules them out as disciples. If they were not witnesses - not true ones - no matter what they said - they were not disciples. Interestingly enough, I don't think there is any evidence to suggest that either Nicodemus or Joseph were at the temple when Jesus made his comments. The apostles were there. but not the others.
In any event - I think the best you can do is - speculate further. Perhaps get your secret book of Mark out. It might give you a few more ideas.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I was not intending to convey the idea that there was only a once off meeting per se.Of course you are. You are simply attempting to play down the close relationship Nicodemus had with Jesus as if it just a flash in the pan.. And still refusing to say if or not he was a disciple.
There is no reason to doubt me. I have no interest in playing down the relationship. I agreed that he met with Jesus secretly. I just don't see evidence that this relationship remained secret after that first meeting. I'm still not convinced he was a disciple. But for the record, so what?
We know he met in secret with Jesus, we know he spoke up for Jesus and we know he afforded large and costly amounts of myrrh and aloes to anoint Jesus and we know he assisted Joseph of Arimathea with the entombment of Jesus.
Ok. If you say so. I assume you will produce the data to prove each of these so called facts.
I agree to speculating as you have also done on this thread. But I can assure you that you will be extremely hard pressed to find a biblical scholar that would deny that Nicodemus was a secret disciple of Jesus. But have it you way.
Fine. But does any scholar actually produce a verse that says he was a disciple or is it based on assumptions that since he was an associate of Jesus that he must have been a disciple as well?
I do not think we can so sure that by the time of the trial of Jesus that either were disciples of Jesus.Ok. So if neither of these men were not disciples of Jesus why all the loving care of the funeral arrangements. Why did one ask for the body, and another bother spending a very large amount of money on someone that meant nothing to them? And why did one allow his own private tomb to be used for the burial, if they were not once disciples? In fact why even bother with this man Jesus at all, if they were not disciples of Jesus. Your reasoning makes no sense at all if the bible is to be believed.
For the record, I have read the John passage you provided - thanks for that. And that clearly puts Joseph as a secret disciple. And let's be clear for a moment. Secret is not talking about secret rituals and all sorts of nonsense you like to talk about. It is saying Joseph was keeping his relationship hidden from the Sanhedrin. But your paragraph above is not a carte blanche for you. Joseph and Nicodemus didn't not have to be a disciple to provide any of the matters above. You obviously don't get out very much to see that wealthy benefactors often do this type of thing for people they admire. They don't have to be disciples to do so. Yet I don't see this as a hill to die on in this discussion. I am happy to concede that they both might be secret disciples.
There is always the question of apostle v disciples.Yes, I thought you would play semantics with this point. So what is a disciple? It is a dedicated follower, <<<this is a fact. I agree the word often in scripture does becomes interchangeable. There is no denying that 12 disciples were set apart from the many others and designated Apostles (to be sent). But is not an Apostle also a follower of Jesus? In fact, of all his disciples there are three in particular that followed almost everywhere, and Simon called Peter it seems hardly ever left his side.
I wasn't playing semantics. I was having a similar discussion with other people about another point in John 10 and used the same argument. My point though was not focused primarily on the apostles being disciples. It was about the fact that disciples in that time had specific definitions. And it seems that Joseph of Arimathea falls outside that specific definition. As I said above - happy to admit you were right about that point.
In John for instance apostle is typically replaced with disciple. I have no doubt in my mind that they were associates of Jesus. That they met with him and even were instructed in various ways. This doesn't make them a disciple...............................So unless you can find a place in the NT which specifically labels them disciples - I would not concede the point"And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus but secretly for fear of the Jews", John 19:38KJV.So once again, you have shown yourself to be lacking in bible scripture.
I asked for the reference from you - since you are the one making the point. I am pleased that finally you produced a verse.
I also think that their relationship with Jesus was known amongst the Sanhedrin.Well unless secret doesn't mean secret then you are wrong.
Well nothing you have said so far has supported whether the Sanhedrin knew or not. John 19 reveals to the reader he was a secret disciple for fear of the Jews. Why do you think he would be fearful of the Jews? The fact that neither Joseph nor Nicodemus were named at the trial - despite the fact that both were known to the gospel writers - is telling. The immediate thought is because they were not there. And the most likely reason they were not there is because they were not invited to the trial - since the Sanhedrin knew they were Jesus' disciples. I think the notion that they were not named because they were the two witnesses is simply too unbelievable to give any credit to. There is absolutely no data to support such an absurdity.
I also think that their relationship with Jesus was known amongst the Sanhedrin. this is one of the reason -But it is not a reason, is it? It is nothing more than a desperate speculation on your part and what you only "think" whereas everything else points to the contrary.You are arguing the opposite case with no data - and you think I am desperate? I disagree with you - that everything else points to the contrary.And you have not managed to debunk or dispute anything I have said so far. You have done nothing here but offer extremely lame reasons why I AM wrong, here> because one was sick- the others wife was having baby, while they were both taking a holiday. #58
I don't have to debunk what you are saying. you have not yet offered anything but pure speculation. I never said these were reasons that they gave. I said - in response to your argument that they had to be there was absolute - that I am sure that reasons existed which would provide them an excuse not to be there. One reason which you have not debunked yourself is that they were not invited because the Sanhedrin were suspicious of them. the fact that Joseph was fearful of the Jews certainly provides a basis for that idea.
I think that they were not invited to some of the more dubious meetings - and perhaps illegal meetings.And you would have been wrong, because the bible says you are wrong.On the contrary, I think it would have been in the interests of the writers of the gospels to know whether there were supporters at these meetings and who they might have been.
I never used or mentioned any such word as "supporters" on this thread. I have said continually - disciples.And you are really a glutton for punishment."And they led Jesus away to the high priest: and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes". Mark 14:53I can only suspect that you are now going to deny that Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus were even members of the Sanhedrin.
It doesn't say that all the elders and all the scribes were there. Just all the chief priests. I already agreed that they were members of the Sanhedrin. But let's say that all was mentioned for both elders and the scribes. Does that mean all that were present - or does that mean all that lived in Jerusalem? Or does it mean all that were in Judea? Or does it all that were in Israel? We don't know why the two were not present - I don't think they were. but let's say they were present - that still doesn't mean that they were the two witnesses. does it? I would like to know how you are going to make such a link.
So let's be clear. I don't think they were there. But if they were - it's likely they were acting on the side of the defence. that's how courts work - even back then - prosecutors and defence. someone had to be testing the evidence of the witnesses. Someone who cared for the truth and a fair trial. Of course it might have worked more like an inquisitorial system - but still a defence and a prosecutor would have been involved.
I certainly maintain as before that I don't recall either of them being in these kangaroo courts.And I can maintain with some confidence that they had to have been there.Only if you take the view that your speculation is somehow worth more than data and evidence. You have no evidence that they were there. You have speculation. And really only stuff you have read in a little book somewhere.
You must have missed this>>."And they led Jesus away to the high priest: and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes". Mark 14:53
I have already addressed that.
>>Are you suggesting that two disciples of Jesus were not in the court encloser where the "kangaroo court" was taking place where one is named and the other not named?I don't know who was in the trial with Jesus except those who are named either with names or as witnesses.Ok. We can return to that point again later. Although I have shown you that at least two names had to have been there even if they did have "sick wives having babies while on holiday". #58
Actually you haven't shown that. You have produced a verse which says "all the chief priests attended", And you have not even produced any data to say which "all " that they were talking about?
You mentioned Judas Iscariot earlier (he that Satan had entered,Luke 22:3 &John 13:27 ) and I mentioned Simon called Peter ( he that Jesus himself called "Satan" and his "stumbling block"Matthew 16:23). Do you agree with these biblical verses? Or are you going to flat out deny they are from the bible?
I don't know what your point is. But are you going to suggest that Judas is one of the witnesses? And Peter was the other one?
I will deny both those points.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Are you still maintaining that Nicodemus & Joseph of Arimathea were not secret disciples of Jesus? As you have stated here> #56Nicodemus met with Jesus at night. this is not in dispute. He certainly was in the first place wary of meeting with Jesus. but the question is whether this was a once off and whether it continued into the future.Well apart from the fact that you have ignored the question entirely.
If you think that is ignoring the question entirely, you have problems before you even begin.
We do know that Nicodemus spoke up for Jesus and had also helped Joseph of Arimathea place Jesus in the Tomb after the crucifixion indicating that Nicodemus' relationship with Jesus is more than the "one off " meeting that you suggest.
I was not intending to convey the idea that there was only a once off meeting per se. But that there was only perchance - one secret meeting. You were asking whether I thought Nicodemus was a secret disciple. I admitted he had a meeting in private or secret - at least once. But we do not know whether there were further meetings in private like this one or whether Nicodemus was satisfied with Jesus' responses and was happy thereafter to meet with him publicly or by ordinary arrangement. Remember it is you who is speculating that he was a secret disciple. That is your narrative. Not mine, nor necessarily the NT. Nicodemus and Joseph of arimathea were happy to be known to Pilate as associates of Jesus, so I think there is not enough data to state they were "secret disciples".
And as for the "future" , it seems to have slipped you memory that Jesus is said had died and gone to heaven according to the bible. So there wouldn't have been any "future" relationship between the two, would there?
Totally silly argument and irrelevent in any event.
So would you like to have another go at my question on where you stand?
I don't see a need too based on what you have put forward.
I do not think we can so sure that by the time of the trial of Jesus that either were disciples of Jesus.I have shown you clearly why this could not have been the case.
There is always the question of apostle v disciples. In John for instance apostle is typically replaced with disciple. I have no doubt in my mind that they were associates of Jesus. That they met with him and even were instructed in various ways. This doesn't make them a disciple. Disciples were people who left their lives behind and followed Jesus as he traveled about. I don't think that they were distancing themselves from him. Both were quite wealthy and important lives already. So unless you can find a place in the NT which specifically labels them disciples - I would not concede the point. Being an associate of Jesus - even being instructed does not make one a disciple. Being his friends and even a benefactor is not the same thing as being a disciple. In the NT, being a disciple had a very specific definition. Surely you know that?
And even if they were - there is no indication that this is secret. I can't think of any particular place - although I am sure you will remind me - that they are called disciples.So now are you outright denying that they were even disciples of Jesus?
Read above.
I also think that their relationship with Jesus was known amongst the Sanhedrin.
Well unless secret doesn't mean secret then you are wrong.
I also think that their relationship with Jesus was known amongst the Sanhedrin. this is one of the reason -But it is not a reason, is it? It is nothing more than a desperate speculation on your part and what you only "think" whereas everything else points to the contrary.
You are arguing the opposite case with no data - and you think I am desperate? I disagree with you - that everything else points to the contrary. There is no data calling them disciples. There is no data they followed Jesus around like disciples. There is no data that they were private or secret disciples. The one bit of data you have - and it is one piece only so far as I can see from your argument is that Jesus met with Nicodemus on one occasion in secret.
I think that they were not invited to some of the more dubious meetings - and perhaps illegal meetings.And you would have been wrong, because the bible says you are wrong.
On the contrary, I think it would have been in the interests of the writers of the gospels to know whether there were supporters at these meetings and who they might have been. Nicodemus, it seems was well known to be an associate and friend of Jesus, hence why it would be good for an advocate to be there for them - but also a reason for the opposition to not want him to be there. if a capital crime required a unanimous finding, it would not be in the interests of the Sanhedrin to have one or even two persons who supported Jesus there. It would be in the interest of people wanting to get rid of Jesus to stack the deck - warm up the jury - make sure they had all the duck's lined up - rather than lose control of the situation. One would also think that if the Sanhedrin were concerned about secret disciples of Jesus infiltrating their ranks that they would set up a plan to catch them - not just go ahead and conduct an illegal trial.
I certainly maintain as before that I don't recall either of them being in these kangaroo courts.And I can maintain with some confidence that they had to have been there.
Only if you take the view that your speculation is somehow worth more than data and evidence. You have no evidence that they were there. You have speculation. And really only stuff you have read in a little book somewhere.
I don't recall saying that the kangaroo court was not dealing with a capital crime.So then the trial did concern a capital crime?
the trial was about finding something to get Jesus before the Roman governor.
So then while you speculate and assume, for reasons known only to you, you haven't answered any one of my questions above and I shall assume that you totally overseen this one accidently, would you like to answer it now?>>
I did answer - I can't help it if you want to read everything in as obtuse manner as you possible can. I have answered again.
>>Are you suggesting that two disciples of Jesus were not in the court encloser where the "kangaroo court" was taking place where one is named and the other not named?
I don't know who was in the trial with Jesus except those who are named either with names or as witnesses. Someone wrote the gospel so it must be assumed someone was either close or hand - or Jesus related the story later after he rose from the dead. Were there two? Would you like to show the references. I notice you have been a bit slack in doing so for the last several questions I asked of you. But still waiting in delighted expectation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Nicodemus met with Jesus at night. this is not in dispute. He certainly was in the first place wary of meeting with Jesus. but the question is whether this was a once off and whether it continued into the future.
I do not think we can so sure that by the time of the trial of Jesus that either were disciples of Jesus. And even if they were - there is no indication that this is secret. I can't think of any particular place - although I am sure you will remind me - that they are called disciples.
I also think that their relationship with Jesus was known amongst the Sanhedrin. this is one of the reason - I think that they were not invited to some of the more dubious meetings - and perhaps illegal meetings.
I certainly maintain as before that I don't recall either of them being in these kangaroo courts.
I don't recall saying that the kangaroo court was not dealing with a capital crime. I suggested only that there were reasons why a member of the Sanhedrin might be unavailable at any such meeting. the kangaroo court had a purpose - to find a reason to put Jesus to death.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Ok. well since it is your speculation. I am happy to see what you have to add.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Oh the master of deception has once again spoken.
Yes these guys are highly respected. That is Not a reason to suspect them of high treason.
The rest of whatever you say just simply bears witness that all you have is speculation based on conspiracy.
Whatever.
Ok.
At least give something ....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
So much quacking from your mouth.
If you want me to respond with more than a quack - then engage with the responses I made in respect of the females being silent in church.
I am not doing your work for you - I am not going to find the link to where they are. You are the one who thinks you are intelligent - well go and find them and respond. Otherwise you show you are even less intelligent than me, And we know you couldn't bear that could you?
quack.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Apart from your notion that it was a capital offence. - I am sure that even ruling members of the council could make excuses not to be there. holidays - wives having babies - sickness. emergency councils when members were visiting other parts of the country..Very lame for such and educated person as yourself. But if that is all you have as a rebuttal, then you have nothing imo.
I guess that is your "gotcha this time" move - or distraction at the least - telling us you don't have any specific evidence from the Bible telling us that both / or either of Nicodemus or Joseph was there. Perhaps my response is lame, but not irrelevant. Where is your evidence that these two must have been there under threat of capital punishment? I don't see to recall it in your above comments - the link to the evidence supporting this. But I am sure you will provide it - and in anticipation thanks very much.
Do you not have any idea at all as to who these "certain" accusers were, Tradesecret?
I have never given it much thought - because their evidence was never relied upon and was shown even according to the text to be unreliable since it was inconsistent.
So I am content to say "I don't know who it was" but I am confident of who it wasn't. It wasn't Nicodemus and it wasn't Joseph of Arimathea. And I also highly doubt it was any of Jesus' disciples, including Judas Iscariot. There is simply not enough data in the texts. I expect you have some grand conspiracy that you are just biting to get out - to show us how clever you think you are. So I will wait in delightful anticipation of your next great reveal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
what is the biblical evidence that either nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea was there during the trial?
Apart from your notion that it was a capital offence. - I am sure that even ruling members of the council could make excuses not to be there. holidays - wives having babies - sickness. emergency councils when members were visiting other parts of the country,
But do you have specific evidence - a verse that tells us that Joseph and /. or nicodemus was in this meeting?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Tradesecret, you forgot to preface your statement above in truthfully using "I tried to engage you on these verses, you didn't engage back, quack quack" understood Bible fool? Sure you do.
I engaged with the verses you provide with what little comment you had. I provided reasonable responses. For you to engage - just try and refute my position. I know you struggle - given your mental capacity. But please show us why you are the man. You are a man, aren't you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
YOUR REVEALING QUOTE IN POST #393 OF THE OUTRIGHT UNGODLY "MISS TRADESECRET" IN NOT FOLLOWING 1 TIMOTHY 2:11-14: "Where for instance, would a female posing as a Pastor with a congregation of hundreds stand in the eyes of your god?"ABSOLUTELY NOT! As is explicitly shown if you are talking about the minion of Satan, Miss Tradesecret, then she is a WOMAN: https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEB0WX8 therefore Miss Tradesecret is NOT, and I repeat, is NOT to teach or to exercise the authority over the man, and that includes the Bible fool Shila in bringing forth this thread, but they are to remain QUIET! Therefore they are going directly against Jesus' inspired passage as woman shown explicitly below:"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." (1 Timothy 2:11-14)As you have said before, just imagine all of those kool aide drinking people that Miss Tradesecret is ungodly teaching, where it is the blind leading the blind scenario, and where her other attributes are as ungodly as well, which is outright BLAPSEHEME to Jesus!
Quack quack.
I engaged with you on these verses. You didn't engage back. quack quack.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Quack quack. Reposting a link is not engaging. It is running away. Let's see how predictable you are.
Your next response will be to post a link to every time you want to believe I ran away - but didn't.
Why don't you try and respond with REAL arguments - not just slap and dash foolishness.
If there is no engagement - I hear only quacks from you.
Quack quack.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
-> @BrotherD.Thomasquack quackBrotherD. responded to your quack quack.BrotherD. replied: Miss "Quack, Quack" Tradesecret, what's your next excuse you are going to use to RUN AWAY from members that have forgotten more about the Judeo-Christian Bible than you will ever learn about it?
Response is not engage. Engage is to look at my arguments and respond in a way that enables us to discuss the validity of mine and his arguments. Hence he did respond. It sounded very much like quack quack. A quack is a response which is not engagement.
As for running, in my view it is the person who chooses not to engage who is running away.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
> @ShilaI don't tell lies as a general principle. Yes sometimes when it comes to Stephen and to Brother D, I am happy to speculate about their lives. Such as suggesting Brother is from Southern Kentucky. He never denied it - so my speculation may well have been correct. The same with Stephen and his educational status. He has never denied that he failed high school. If of course either of them denied these things - then I would stop saying it.I take the view that both of them are envious of me. They dislike me. that's ok. but they shouldn't keep lying about me.What is troubling is the many links they provide as evidence of your past indiscretions and confessions. Why did you choose to go public with your excursions into the abyss?Your reputation as a Pastor is tainted. The only way to stop this is to have a change in heart and mind.To help BrotherD. I have turned to the Torah and Talmud after reading his spiritual beliefs.BrotherD., mocks Jesus on this very thread, “ I am NOT blaspheming Jesus because I have described Jesus' true historical modus operandi within the scriptures in Jesus being Yahweh God incarnate, of which you are obviously unaware of because of your complete Bible stupidity! Our Jesus we worship, as the Serial Killer Yahweh God incarnate, was embarrassingly, greedy, jealous, selfish, self-centered, petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capricious, and malevolent!I am trying to get the Hebrew translation to BrotherD. portrayal of Jesus so I can go back to the Talmud to find equivalent adjectives for Jesus that Jews used to justify his crucifixion.You can find more details on my thread, “The Case for the Historical Jesus.” There is even a link provided by Rabbi Rosens to what the Talmud says about Jesus.
I don't find my identity in my reputation. Their links are predominantly silly anyway. There was another poster here for a while that used to post large wads of links about Stephen. He sent me a whole list at one occasion. The fact is - if anyone goes back over the history - everyone - is inconsistent and has made many mistakes. I unlike Stephen own mine.
In any event - my reputation is not my identity. It never has been - that is why I am quite open about my past - unlike others. Others hide in their so called mystery and their so called reputation. but not me. I don't really care what others on this site think of me. It is a small part of the world I live in. Yet I have acquitted myself in relation to any so called links. That people choose not listen to my explanations is a matter for them. I know what the truth is.
Take one little example. A little person called Harikrish, a former member of this site, until he was banned, for racist and other hateful language, spent all of his time pretty much on another site not debating - just trolling. He was so awful he lost all of his so called friends. He spewed out the same hatred for others and in many ways is the forerunner of Stephen and Brother. Everyone else left except Ethang who ran so many rings around Harikrish, that Harikrish never received. Possibly that is why Harikrish went mad. He was so embarrassed. He resorted to every possibly trick in the world but everyone else who was left saw through him and so left it to Ethang.
Anyway after much discussion or lack of discussion because Harikrish's reputation was so bad it stunk like dog vomit, I attempted to engage with him but lo and behold that was a mistake on my part. One of the many mistakes I have made. It is impossible to engage with someone like Harikrish. He was so arrogant. Rude and deluded. He was the master of cut and paste. He didn't understand humour, or hyperbole, or someone taking the Mickey out of him. He had no idea what irony was. That was my mistake to think he had a brain and could think. And see such humour. Unfortunately, it all backfired on me.
But there you have it. Harikrish took thinks so literally that it was pointless having a discussion with him. I should have realised that he was uneducated. That his literalness was a result of bad breeding. And that you can't make someone of his lack of insight aware of truth by humour. Or irony. Really I should have just left him continue on his merry little nothingness with Ethan. So I did learn a lesson. Not to talk with irony and humour to a dunse. to an uneducated person with no wit or charm and poor breeding.
But is my reputation tarnished because of him? Well only to those who think Harikrish has any reputation himself. And to be perfectly blunt, I crave neither respect nor a good reputation with Stephen or Brother. Both have demonstrated repeatedly that they are very closely linked to Harikrish in lack of intelligence and bad breeding. None of them have any humility to admit mistakes - therefore it is impossible to grow. All are arrogant.
A word of warning for you Shila, if you manage to come across Harikrish, be careful he doesn't trip you up with his literalness and stupidity. I know you are a much better judge of character than me - so just a little old tip from me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Mark14:16 tell us the same but adds at 15:3 that “the chief priests accused him of many things: but he answered nothing”. Luke 23:2 has it, “and they began to accuse him, saying, we found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding giving tribute [Tax] to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King”. And finally John 18:30 tells us “If he were not a malefactor [criminal], we would not have delivered him up unto thee”.So we have accusations ranging from lying, blasphemy, many things, sedition against Rome and just being a criminal. And also according to Mark 15:10 we can add pure envy if envy too was a crime, “For he knew that the chief priests had delivered him for envy”.So of the all accusation and or charges is appears that when Jesus did appear before Pilate it appears that these accusations had been whittled down to whatJohn 18:30 says; "“If he were not a malefactor [criminal], we would not have delivered him up unto thee [Pilate]”. Which for me,raises more questions.
Well that is a positive. It's good to ask questions of the text. In my view - presumption of innocence until proven guilty. And witness testimony must be corroborated with other evidence. Each witness needs to be cross examined.
Still. We digress.So back to the point of this thread.
Yes, but it was your digression.
Their names are not recorded because they were not valid witnesses, not witnesses protection, not because they were members of his own discipleship.https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8152-the-story-of-the-certain-witnesses?page=2&post_number=45We know of a least two disciples that the bible says entered the court yard where the trial was taking taking place. We also know that Nicodemus was not only a secret disciple of Jesus but also a member of Sanhedrin as was Joseph of Arimathea.
And ????? I am not sure that Nicodemus was a secret disciple. He wasn't invited along to the kangaroo court because his views were probably well known to the other members of the Sanhedrin. If not, why wasn't he there? The same applies to Joseph of Arimathea. Two well known advocates of Jesus and both part of the council and yet both conveniently left of the invite list to the party. It could be they were hiding. It could be the Sanhedrin didn't want any opposition. Very often corrupt councils gather together in a forum to get what they want. It is not unusual as pathetic as it is.
Neither of these gentlemen were there. otherwise there would have been or might have been a different result.
but then again - I suspect that you are suggesting that they were there. Is that what you are speculating about? And that these two were the ones who were the false witnesses - but were unnamed because of who they were? Well that would be a nasty little conspiracy wouldn't it?
Not a shred of evidence to support it of course. but that has never stopped you before.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
And well, let's see.
I say you don't engage.
You don't engage.
Rather you repeat nonsense that sounds like quack quack and then - which strikes me as immensely funny, you call upon the membership to witness how you did not engage but rather repeat nonsense.
And what is even funnier - although not at all surprising is that you boyfriend Stephen stands up and shouts out - Hey Brother well done.
Ok. I think that deserves a quack and another quack.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
I don't tell lies as a general principle. Yes sometimes when it comes to Stephen and to Brother D, I am happy to speculate about their lives. Such as suggesting Brother is from Southern Kentucky. He never denied it - so my speculation may well have been correct. The same with Stephen and his educational status. He has never denied that he failed high school. If of course either of them denied these things - then I would stop saying it.
I take the view that both of them are envious of me. They dislike me. that's ok. but they shouldn't keep lying about me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
ere is some more of Bible for you:"And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.”""Then the king said to the attendants, ‘Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth"Do you think that when Bible mentions all of these, the Bible is joking and you wont actually be tormented?
I think it is intriguing that you are concerned for me - and yet you put up an image yourself. I think you will spend eternity in Hell. And your teeth will gnash unless someone beats them out of your head for lying, Honestly I don't know why you bother.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
So I will rephrase my question one last time and as simple as I can. Do you believe that these so called "false witnesses" were not false witnesses after all.Yes they were false OR No they wasn't false?
Do you realise that there are different kinds of false witnesses?
There are false witnesses who come into a court room and lie about the evidence that they give. They are considered false once it is deduced that the evidence they gave is really a lie. It goes to the substance of what they are saying. To the evidence that they are giving.
Another type of false witness is the witness who comes into court and gives "true evidence" in the substance of what was said but is false testifying that they themselves saw it or was a direct witness of it. They are considered false not because the substance of the evidence is true - but because they were not direct evidence witnesses. If they had indicated that someone else had told them - they they could be classified as hearsay witnesses.
In this case which you have brought to our attention from Mark 14 although your original OP put it as Mark 15 .
Moreover - you lied. You said and I quote "Suddenly they find two “false” witnesses, who are willing to come forward and testify with stories that did tally https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8152/post-links/353707. I underlined where you lied. Both Mark 14:56 and Mark 14:59 both say that the testimonies did not agree.
56 For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together. 57 And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying, 58 We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands. 59 But neither so did their witness agree together.
The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Mk 14:56–59.
Then in post number 19 you make an assertion without any evidence: I have underlined the assertion without evidence.
We mustn't lose sight of the fact that the bible says that “many witnesses” had already came forward and seemingly were found to be unreliable or as the bible states “false”. Matthew 26:60, This suggests some sort of vetting process as I suggested here> #10But then in the same verse the bible states that they eventually did find two “certain” witnesses that, for reasons known only to themselves, decided that their testimony was acceptable. This is more than suspicious and not just the obvious reason the bible states.Why had they rejected all of those other many “false witnesses” and then suddenly decide that the testimonies of the two particular “certain” false witnesses was somewhat valid?https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8152/post-links/354047
I think the issue was not validity - but rather frustration and desperation. The Sanhedrin had their man - but they couldn't lawfully hold him since there was no valid witnesses. So like some our modern cops they just look for anything to try and keep their man in prison or before the court. And in any event V. 59 confirms it was not valid testimony. Their names are not recorded because they were not valid witnesses, not witnesses protection, not because they were members of his own discipleship.
Their testimony at its height might have pointed to rebellion if it was talking about destroying Herod's temple. Rebellion and vandalism or destruction of property were in the same vein. The point in these short few verses were that the Sanhedrin was looking for a criminal offence to put Jesus to death. They needed something to take to Pilate. They didn't get anything criminal against the Roman Code.
And then you go and say this. I just had to stop reading because I laughed so hard.
The greatest miscarriage in the history of all Christendom and you believe that the testimonies or the identities of these two "certain" witnesses that led to the death of an innocent godman are not important. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8152/post-links/354094
Didn't you even read what the passage said? The witnesses testimony was inconsistent. The Sanhedrin had nothing. Jesus said nothing.
So there was no need to record their names. They brought nothing and added nothing. Their only purpose was to give the Sanhedrin a reason to question Jesus in a lawful manner. Their testimony as far as I can tell was thrown out. It certainly did not lead to the death of Jesus.
The High Priest presumably out of more frustration and desperation wanted Jesus to say something. Just like all frustrated prosecutors get annoyed with defendants who exercise their rights to silence. Say something - go on put yourself into it Jesus.
Jesus remains silent to the court. There was no need to answer - for lots of reasons - but one that sticks out is because the testimony was so weak it did not need answering.
The High Priest continues his rant. And then changes tack - probably because his real concerns were theological and he was more worried about Jesus' spiritual influence than any so called criminal activity. It's amazing how often in the middle of real pressure and frustration that one's real motives come out. I suspect that the High Priest felt his conscious pricking. He knew that they had nothing against Jesus really. But he wanted him out of the way and he wasn't sure of Jesus' motives. He wouldn't be the first good person in power to do something corrupt in order to bring about what he thought was good thing. This was utilitarianism at its worst. The ends justifies the means. It was dropping a bomb on Hiroshima to stop a greater bad happening.
The two certain witnesses were nobodies. They were convenient pawns in a much bigger chess game. Their names were irrelevant. Pawns are called Pawns. We could call them bob and Mary and Peter and Cassie. But they are not the bishops nor the knights nor the queen. Sometimes to be pawn is all that is necessary.
There was no deeper conspiracy going on here. As I said awhile ago to someone on this site - some people live in la la land. Fantasy world.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
As per usual. Don't engage with my responses. I think there are a couple of quacks on this site.
Sadly, rather than actually read the bible verses, you fail to even grasp the message.
Quack quack.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Since the main premise of your quote in your ungodly post #143 was; that the idea of suffering eternally in Hell is a nonsense, and therefore AGAIN at your embarrassing expense, I showed you passages that you obviously never knew about in the first place, to easily "school you" that in what you think you knew, YOU DIDN'T, plain and simple! This is because said verses showed that Hell is eternal suffering that went against your dumbfounded bible stupidity again shown above in your main premise! Furthermore, it matters NOT in having said verses pertaining to specific individuals because again, Hell was shown to be eternal suffering nonetheless, that you said was nonsense, you blatant Bible fool! LOL!Miss Tradesecret, you can thank me later once again in correcting your Bible ineptness, you're welcome.
If you think that you have schooled me - you must be dafter then you look. I responded to each one of your texts - without much effort SINCE I knew they existed given that I have used many of them myself in the past to attempt to prove everlasting Hell.
I used to say that Jesus spoke more about Hell than anyone in the NT. There are quite a few you have not mentioned. Schooled? LOL! if only.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
"There was a rich man, who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate lay a poor man named Laz'arus, full of sores who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table; moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried; and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham far off and Laz'arus in his bosom. And he called out, `Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Laz'arus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flameLuke 16 19Go ahead, tell us what is your opinion.
It is a parable. And the point of the parable is clear. Even if people see someone come back from the dead, then people won't believe.
The parable itself is taken from a parable used at the same time in many different ways - In any event - Hades and Hell are not the same - just as the bosom of Abraham and heaven are not the same. Surely if you were a god - you would have known these things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
"But this verse only tells us that the wicked will be thrown into an everlasting fire. It doesn't say that they will be tormented"What part of "everlasting punishment in everlasting fire" with "teeth grinding and cries" made you believe that it wont be torture?Please explain it to us, so that we can understand your point of view.
everlasting fire is everlasting. Yes. tick that box. Everlasting punishment is death. Death is not life. To have everlasting life - whether in heaven or hell requires belief. If there is no belief - you die. That is what the bible says. And when someone dies - they are dead forever - no life to be tortured. Just death. Everlasting darkness and nothingness.
In relation to teeth grinding, perhaps you had better produce the verse for us to read. Given you forgot to mention that one last time.
There is nothing about the wicked being tortured, just the devil, the beast and the false prophet. no one else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
why do you try in vain and take the time to refute them
As I said, in the past I have done that. No more. now unless you engage then you will get a quack.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
My suspicion about you and best.korea is true then. LOL Quack.
But hey look - you provided some reading material. But let's look at each of these verses to see what we can deduce.
1. “And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.” (Revelation 20:10)
the first thing we notice is that this is the lake of fire and sulfur. Is this Hell? Can you link this to Hell? Secondly, we notice that it doesn't say anything other than the devil, the beast and the false prophet being tormented day and night forever. It doesn't mention anyone else.
2. "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." (Matthew 25:46)
So just for clarity, here the wicked get eternal punishment and the righteous get eternal life. There is no mention of torture or even consciousness. Just eternal punishment. I think that if I am punished with death. Then that if I never experience any torture for ever, that I will still be punished forever. I was not granted life - so I was punished to death for ever. Again no mention of Hell.
3. “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." (Matthew 25:41)
Notice a couple of things. first this will apply to the wicked. This seems to be the same place as the first verse mentioned above. So that is connection. We know that the devil and the beast and the false prophet will be tormented for ever whatever that means. But this verse only tells us that the wicked will be thrown into an everlasting fire. It doesn't say that they will be tormented like the others. it doesn't even say that about the angels. Only that they will be thrown into it. there is no mention of torture in this verse. I imagine that I were to be thrown into such a fire that very soon I would be burnt to a crisp and forever dead. The fire is everlasting - but it doesn't say any more than that.
4. JESUS STATED: “And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched." (Mark 9:43)
Again, this mentions Hell. And a fire that shall never be quenched. what it doesn't say is that people are tortured for ever. It is better to have life than death.
5. “And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." (Mark 9:45)
This is the same as the previous verse. Hell, fire that shall never be quenched. but not mention of being eternally tortured or of everlasting life in hell. It says that it is better to live than to die.
6. “And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched". ( Matthew 9: 43-48)
this is similar. Of course this one also mentions the worm that never dies. What does that mean?
7. “And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.” (Revelation 20:10)
This is like the first verse above. The devil, the beast and the false prophet experience eternal torment. It doesn't say this happens for humans or for the rest of the wicked or even the bad angels.
Now I admit that each of these verses might mean that Hell is not only real, and that the fire is eternal and that those who go into such a place might experience torment for ever. Yet none of these verses actually and specifically say that. not in relation to ordinary people anyway.
Eternal death is not life. If people live in hell for ever then that is life. Eternal death is the opposite of eternal life. It means once you are dead- then you are dead. And that is eternal.
Anyway Brother, thanks for at least presenting an alternative to what I said above. It is good to see not everything has to be quack and quack.
It would be helpful if you might engage with what I have responded with rather than your typical responses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Well thanks for not answering my questions about Hell. You really are a dunse.
Now we know what will happen to those that dont follow the Bible literally.
Do you know what it means to follow the bible literally?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Oh Brother,
your posts are so boring and so repetitive. I know you only know about two words. But really. You should be sent to Hell just for being so boring.
Each and every one of your allegations are lies. I have responded to each one numerous times and honestly that is just so BORING.
Now I only hear you say "quack, quack". If you had at least attempted to engage with any of the responses I gave over the past couple of years, then perhaps you might get more than this.
You have failed more times than Harikrish and Stephen put together.
SO quack, quack back at you. What you sow, shall you reap. You give a quack, you get a quack.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
best.korea
If I was to say to that there is no Hell, what would say to that?
If Hell is everlasting torture, then what did you mean in John 3:16? Let me quote it to you.
For God so loved the world that he gave his only son so that whoever believes in him won't perish but will have everlasting life.
A couple of things come to my mind as I read this verse.
- Firstly the word "perish". What does perish mean? In all of my limited experiences - perish means end. It does not mean eternally perishing. Or eternally dying. It means finish. When something perishes it doesn't keep going - you throw it away. That is the ordinary meaning of it. Another meaning is "death". When we die, we die. Not we keep on dying and dying and dying and dying ad finitum. That really diminishes the definition of death.
- Secondly, everlasting life. Isn't the opposite of life, death? If we believe, we get life, if we don't we get death. But what is death? It is not eternal life in hell. That makes no sense. Death is death. It might be everlasting death. But it can't be everlasting life in death - that makes no sense. After all, you have to believe to get life.
- Hence, I think from your own words - John 3:16 anyway, that the idea of suffering eternally in Hell is a nonsense. Unless of course you mean you give us life - for eternity to suffer. But that is not what you mean so WHAT are you talking about?
Created: