Originally posted by DarfiusThanks for clearing up my doubt about the effusion thingy. So now you are not sure which one was punctured lungs or heart, when earlier you claimed it was the heart!. In fact the only thing that you can say is what the bible tells you, that he was pierced in the side. For all anybody knows he may well have been pierced lower down the torso. Even so, once again, I say maybe the spear just nicked the pleural effusion, instead if puncturing the lungs. This seems reasonable bearing inmind that the lungs are protected by the rib cage etc.... Again this would explain the water & blood.
Are you attempting to get us to believe that John had X-ray vision and saw the spear enter the heart?
Sorry, the shock would have caused a sustained rapid heart rate that would have led to heart failure, resulting in the collection of fluid in the membrane around the heart. This is called a 'pericardial effusion and it also surrounds the lungs, called a ...[text shortened]... would a Roman solider risk letting Jesus down alive?
Please, the conspiracy theories are sad.
Re the roman solder, if you read that section of the site again, it gives a plausible account for why the centurion might have been willing to let Jesus live. Also when you read it in the light of the interuptation of Pilates actions, it also makes sense that Pilate may have tried to save Jesus.
No I think that the conspiracy is more likely to be in the Biblical text. If you think about it, Jesus was a religious radical, hated by the Jewish priests. If he was alive then he would need to escape quickly before they tried to finished him off. What a perfect way to cover his escape by saying that he mystically ascended to heaven.
Again I ask you, did you read the section on Myrrh & Aloe ?
How about this monkey wrench:
The guy who was let go free, an insurrectionist, was named Barabbas.
In the oldest manuscripts, the name is recorded as Jesus Barabbas.
So, one Jesus was crucified and one Jesus was let free. Now, here is
the funny thing. Bar abbas means, literally, 'Son of the Father.'
So, by the ancient manuscripts that we physically have from the 2nd
century, a Jesus, son of the Father, was let go free by Pilate.
How do you like that?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioProof is required.
How about this monkey wrench:
The guy who was let go free, an insurrectionist, was named Barabbas.
In the oldest manuscripts, the name is recorded as Jesus Barabbas.
So, one Jesus was crucified and one Jesus was let free. Now, here is
the funny thing. Bar abbas means, literally, 'Son of the Father.'
So, by the ancient manuscripts ...[text shortened]... tury, a Jesus, son of the Father, was let go free by Pilate.
How do you like that?
Nemesio
Originally posted by Jay PeateaMyrrh is perfume. Did Nicodemus use perfume to heal Jesus? Aloes were often used for embalming bodies to go in tombs. It was done that way because the bodies were placed in one room after death for up to a year, and then was placed in an inner room after that, and movers didn't want to deal with the stench.
Thanks for clearing up my doubt about the effusion thingy. So now you are not sure which one was punctured lungs or heart, when earlier you claimed it was the heart!. In fact the only thing that you can say is what the bible tells you, that he was pierced in the side. For all anybody knows he may well have been pierced lower down the torso. Even so, once ...[text shortened]... he mystically ascended to heaven.
Again I ask you, did you read the section on Myrrh & Aloe ?
If natural disasters get us closer to God then why does God simply slaughter all of us and we can all be part of his little heaven...why the game playing by God?
I said 'get us closer', not 'get us to Heaven'. If you are suffering, you tend to question life and turn to a higher power, God is there to help you when that happens. Put it this way, there's a reason most prisoner inmates have Bibles.
If he is omnipotent, he can stop global warming. As your god fails to act then by omission he agrees with what's going on. As for deaths caused by global warming, there are various estimates. The WHO gives some 20,000 in 2003. I can't tell you in 2004. Other sites give different numbers. See for eg. http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.asp
Note: suffering gets us closer to God, and since earth is nothing more than a testing and preparation, He cares more about getting you to come to Him than keeping you comfortable on earth.
If global warming leads to coral death in the Great Barrier Reef then billions of organisms (not just humans) will be slaughtered because of your omnipotent god's inaction.
Animals have no souls. And their deaths undoubtedly serve a better purpose than what you could imagine.
These comments are logically inconsistent. I condemn your god's so called justice when it is cruel - such as slaughtering Medianite children for the supposed sins of their parents. I may well cause significant damage to the raping intruder, but I wouldn't kill the intruders children!
Since created all life, He can do what He pleases with it, and since He is all good, there is simply no question that everything He does is for our greater good. Those children (only boys) would have grown up evil like their parents and would have been damned to Hell. Are you saying God should care more about your earthly life than your eternal life?
So nope - can't see any reason for you so called all powerful, omnipotent god raising any dead this week.
Still waiting for a reason why.
Originally posted by Darfius
If you are suffering, you tend to question life and turn to a higher power, God is there to help you when that happens. Put it this way, there's a reason most prisoner inmates have Bibles.
That explains Gideon bibles! Everytime I stay in a Holiday Inn, I suffer from its crappy service. Thank you for enlightening me. So why doesn't your cruel god make us all constantly suffer and then we would seek his solace more readily. Or does your god move in mysterious ways?
: suffering gets us closer to God, and since earth is nothing more than a testing and preparation, He cares more about getting you to come to Him than keeping you comfortable on earth.
So why did your god create the earth in the first place if all he wants us to do is come to him? Are we but little toys for your god to play with?
Animals have no souls. And their deaths undoubtedly serve a better purpose than what you could imagine.
So why did your god create them in the first place - simply so we can kill them and enjoy the experience? Aren't we supposed to cherish god's creatures? Your reasoning shows your god in a particularly nasty light. I'm pleased he's not my god.
Since created all life, He can do what He pleases with it, and since He is all good, there is simply no question that everything He does is for our greater good. Those children (only boys) would have grown up evil like their parents and would have been damned to Hell. Are you saying God should care more about your earthly life than your eternal life?
I think you left the name of your god out of your post...but never mind, your writing isn't divinely inspired and so I can expect some errors. Thank goodness, that your god only decided to have boys slaughtered. 'Only boys', but then we know that boys are mean and nasty creatures, made of slugs and snails and puppy dogs tails. The cruelty of your god never ceases to amaze me. God of love...ha ha ha ha
I thought your god would care about our earthly existence and our apparent eternal existence...what reason does he have for separating them?
Maustrauser: So nope - can't see any reason for you so called all powerful, omnipotent god raising any dead this week.
Darfius: Still waiting for a reason why.[/b]
Because he has no reason to and has demonstrated through his cruelty and impotence that he cares not a jot about the playthings he has created.
Originally posted by NemesioNevermind, I looked it up myself. It makes it very clear that IF Barnabas' first name was Jesus, the crowd wanted the Son of God to die, not the son of the father.
What does this mean? You need to look at the specific ancient manuscript yourself
before you will believe that it, in fact says, 'Jesus Barabbas?'
How far will you stick your head in the sand?
Nemesio
Are should we believe Barabbas had no father, hence the name?
Originally posted by NemesioThere's a good farce in there somewhere ...
How about this monkey wrench:
The guy who was let go free, an insurrectionist, was named Barabbas.
In the oldest manuscripts, the name is recorded as Jesus Barabbas.
So, one Jesus was crucified and one Jesus was let free. Now, here is
the funny thing. Bar abbas means, literally, 'Son of the Father.'
So, by the ancient manuscripts ...[text shortened]... tury, a Jesus, son of the Father, was let go free by Pilate.
How do you like that?
Nemesio
That explains Gideon bibles! Everytime I stay in a Holiday Inn, I suffer from its crappy service. Thank you for enlightening me. So why doesn't your cruel god make us all constantly suffer and then we would seek his solace more readily. Or does your god move in mysterious ways?
First you say there's too much suffering and then not enough? Not everyone requires suffering to come to God. And for some, suffering won't do it anyway.
So why did your god create the earth in the first place if all he wants us to do is come to him? Are we but little toys for your god to play with?
I thought I explained that. The Earth is a testing ground to see who will be compatible in Heaven. Some people just aren't interested in eternal happiness, love and worshipping an awesome Father.
So why did your god create them in the first place - simply so we can kill them and enjoy the experience? Aren't we supposed to cherish god's creatures? Your reasoning shows your god in a particularly nasty light. I'm pleased he's not my god.
No, to be beast of burden and food for us. And also to make us happy. Yes, by cherish we are not supposed to torture them or kill them unnecessarily.
I think you left the name of your god out of your post...but never mind, your writing isn't divinely inspired and so I can expect some errors. Thank goodness, that your god only decided to have boys slaughtered. 'Only boys', but then we know that boys are mean and nasty creatures, made of slugs and snails and puppy dogs tails. The cruelty of your god never ceases to amaze me. God of love...ha ha ha ha
Um, huh? No, the boys died because their parents sinned and because the Israelites didn't have the means to take care of them and because when they grew up, they would have attempted to kill the Jews. This way, they went to Heaven. Why do you continually value this earthly life over the eternal, happy one?
I thought your god would care about our earthly existence and our apparent eternal existence...what reason does he have for separating them?
One is a test. The other is a reward.
Because he has no reason to and has demonstrated through his cruelty and impotence that he cares not a jot about the playthings he has created.
The reason He rose the Lord Jesus from the dead was to validate what Jesus said. And Jesus sacrificed Himself because if He didn't, man would still be doomed with sin. And Romans says the cost of sin is death. Only Jesus (who was God Himself) lived a sinless life and thus was a suitable replacement for our sins.
Originally posted by DarfiusThe issue is that there have been several long-standing theories from non-believers
Nevermind, I looked it up myself. It makes it very clear that IF Barnabas' first name was Jesus, the crowd wanted the Son of God to die, not the son of the father.
Are should we believe Barabbas had no father, hence the name?
that entail Jesus's non-Resurrection.
1) Jesus was crucified, but never died;
2) Jesus was never crucified (but instead an imposter); or
3) Jesus never existed.
Persuant to #2, is St Matthew's testimony that Jesus the Anointed was crucified and that
Jesus the Son of the Father was not. What does this mean?
Well, to a literalist like yourself, it is a blip on the radar screen, easily ignored because
'obviously' the second Jesus is not the first Jesus.
But, to a Buddhist, who believes in the trichotomous body of the Buddha, this would be
very interesting. Jesus was, by Orthodox definition, of two natures -- divine and corporeal (i.e.,
both man and God). As such, one was crucified, and one was not. It makes for an interesting
metaphorical discussion.
And, for the person observing all the evidence (not just the twisted perversion of a harmony
you think that the Gospels are), this registers as something suspicious. Was an imposter crucified?
If Jesus was bodily raised (that is, his dead corpse became reanimated), then why did no one
recognize Him?
There are questions Darfius. You may not want to answer them or believe they exist, but they
are there.
Nemesio
Originally posted by Nemesio1st of all, the "Jesus Barabbas" names are found in discreet copies of the NT. The vast majority simply have Barabbas.
The issue is that there have been several long-standing theories from non-believers
that entail Jesus's non-Resurrection.
1) Jesus was crucified, but never died;
2) Jesus was never crucified (but instead an imposter); or
3) Jesus never existed.
Persuant to #2, is St Matthew's testimony that Jesus the Anointed was crucified and that
Jesus the Son ...[text shortened]... Darfius. You may not want to answer them or believe they exist, but they
are there.
Nemesio
And do not capitalize "Son of the Father". It was son of the father. That was common practice back then. They didn't really have last names, merely the names of their fathers. For instance, Simon was Simon Barjona meaning son of Jonas.
It's quite obvious Barabbas had a father. The Bible makes it very clear that the crowd wanted the blasphemer to die, not the Zealot.
The evidence points to a Resurrection. When you NEED a naturalist excuse, you'll grasp at straws.
Originally posted by Darfius
1st of all, the "Jesus Barabbas" names are found in discreet copies of the NT. The vast majority simply have Barabbas.
Yes, these discrete sources are the oldest and least edited. The
others are later and removed 'Jesus' to remove confusion. This
removal indicates proof of editing for the Gospel texts (that no
reliable original exists).
And, you may not want me to capitalize it because it doesn't
fit conveniently with your theology. However, you conveniently
capitalize all sorts of things that weren't capitalized in the copies (such
as 'Holy Spirit,' which is almost never capitalized because early
Christian writers didn't think of it as a Person of the Trinity, but an
active force of the One God, the Father).
It's quite obvious Barabbas had a father. The Bible makes it very clear that the crowd wanted the blasphemer to die, not the Zealot.
Well, one could say this about Jesus Christ, right? It's obvious He
had a father. But you will assert that he was born without an earthly
father. Similarly, we have this guy called Jesus Barabbas which
literally means 'Jesus son of the father,' a term which is frequently
applied to Jesus Christ. Any normal person is going to say, 'Hey,
wait a second...' when discovering this.
So, a Jesus, [s]on of the [f]ather, an insurrectionist, was freed and a
Jesus, [S]on of the [F]ather, an insurrectionist, was not freed.
If you don't find this interesting, then your mind is clasped so tight
that any reason and logic will not be able to assail it and get it pried
opened.
The evidence points to a Resurrection. When you NEED a naturalist excuse, you'll grasp at straws.
Whenever anyone points out the flaws in your evidence (such as the
mutually exclusive Crucifixion and Resurrection accounts), you dismiss
it. Whenever anyone points out other possible readings, you dismiss
it.
I pray you are never a juror. You lack the capacity to weigh evidence.
Nemesio
Yes, these discrete sources are the oldest and least edited. The
others are later and removed 'Jesus' to remove confusion. This
removal indicates proof of editing for the Gospel texts (that no
reliable original exists).
Actually, the early Church fathers were the oldest sources, do they say Jesus Barabbas?
And, you may not want me to capitalize it because it doesn't
fit conveniently with your theology. However, you conveniently
capitalize all sorts of things that weren't capitalized in the copies (such
as 'Holy Spirit,' which is almost never capitalized because early
Christian writers didn't think of it as a Person of the Trinity, but an
active force of the One God, the Father).
My theology has nothing to do with it. Barabbas was undoubtedly a common name back then, as it only means son of the father. Jesus was the Son of God, He was rarely called the Son of the Father. In fact, His earthly full name was Yeshua ben Yosef meaning Jesus son of Joseph. If Matthew wanted to make it clear (if he in fact wrote it this way), he could have said Yeshua ben Yosef was let free and Yeshua barabbas was crucified.
Well, one could say this about Jesus Christ, right? It's obvious He
had a father. But you will assert that he was born without an earthly
father. Similarly, we have this guy called Jesus Barabbas which
literally means 'Jesus son of the father,' a term which is frequently
applied to Jesus Christ. Any normal person is going to say, 'Hey,
wait a second...' when discovering this.
No, Barabbas didn't make the same claims Jesus did. He didn't perform miracles. Jesus was said to have been born of a virgin. You must look at the evidence, not at what usually happens. I did say "Hey, wait a second...", but then I noticed that most copies do not have Jesus Barbarras and that son of the father can in no way be confused with Son of God. The Jews knew who they wanted to kill, Nemesio. And it sure wasn't a freedom fighter fighting for their freedom.
So, a Jesus, [s]on of the [f]ather, an insurrectionist, was freed and a
Jesus, [S]on of the [F]ather, an insurrectionist, was not freed.
Jesus Christ wasn't an insurrectionist. Pilate didn't even want to kill Him. He was a blasphemer against Jewish law in their eyes. Far cry from the murdering Barabbas. Oh, and let us not pretend Jesus was commong known as Son of the Father. Son of God was much more common.
If you don't find this interesting, then your mind is clasped so tight
that any reason and logic will not be able to assail it and get it pried
opened.
The only thing I find interesting is that Barabbas MIGHT have shared a name with Jesus. I am not naive enough to think the Jews took Jesus to Pilate and then forgot who they wanted to kill.
Whenever anyone points out the flaws in your evidence (such as the
mutually exclusive Crucifixion and Resurrection accounts), you dismiss
it. Whenever anyone points out other possible readings, you dismiss
it.
There is no flaw. I've explained it and the explanation makes much more sense than your conspiracy theory.
I pray you are never a juror. You lack the capacity to weigh evidence.
I find it very difficult to believe that you pray, Nemesio, as that would be an admission that you don't have all of the answers.