|
|
Post by David Ben Yosef on Feb 4, 2010 21:17:26 GMT -8
Your question above, "Why would Yeshua have to prove himself alive if he hadn't actually died," is not very smart David What isn't smart is your current understanding that Yeshua didn't actually die on the cross. Do you have any idea how much of the NT you have to reject in order to retain that idea? If you would like me to post them so you might consider changing your mind, I most certainly will. But if your going to hold the position that Yeshua didn't actually die, after I post an enormous amount (and I mean a LOT) of Scripture to the contrary, then it isn't worth the time posting them all. It's in every one of the gospel accounts. All through the book of Acts, and in most, if not all of Rav Sha'ul's letters. |
|
|
|
Post by David Ben Yosef on Feb 5, 2010 3:38:22 GMT -8
David, have you ever read Josephus? Of course I have. Antiquities, and War are both part of my library, as well as the works of Philo, and just about everything Eldershiem has published. He and some other Scholars attest that it was not uncommon for crucified to remain on their crossses even up to three or four days still alive. Don't forget that Yeshua was removed from his cross after only a few hours. I realize that, but you must take into account the horrible flogging he endured before being crucified. He was beat so bad he was nearly dead before the crucifixion. The fact that he lasted several hours is amazing in itself. You have got to have an open mind for the reality that everything is possible. Especially when something is a little too obvious. I do have an open mind. Some say too much of one. However, what is obvious is that Yeshua actually died while on the cross, as it is attested to all over the place in the NT. It's probably thee most foundational doctrine of the Messianic faith. There's no shortage of passages that clearly teach he died. Like I already said, you have to reject much of the NT in order for your theory to be truth. I'm sorry, but you really don't have a leg to stand on with this subject. I like hearing other peoples ideas, and how they understand the Scriptures. That's how we learn. So please don't take it personal that I'm disagreeing with you (and that's an under statement). It just doesn't jive with the Brit Chadasha. In fact, your theory is in opposition to it. |
|
|
|
Post by David Ben Yosef on Feb 5, 2010 3:42:44 GMT -8
David, I have PMed you the thread about Yeshua's marriage as you have requested. Enjoy it. Ben Thanks a lot, Ben. I read through it, and it certainly held my attention. That's a subject that requires more research than you have provided. I'm not ruling out the possibility that Yeshua took a wife. He very well may have. However, there's not a whole lot in the Brit Chadasha that leaves one with that impression. |
|
|
|
Post by David Ben Yosef on Feb 8, 2010 21:45:15 GMT -8
Tell me David, do you believe that Yeshua was treated by the Romans in a different way from the other thousands of Jews they crucified? Why yes, as a matter of fact I do. First, we must consider the fact that the Sanhedrin had Yeshua beaten before he ever saw Pilate [Matt 26:67-68, Lk 23:63-64, Mk 14:65]. Secondly, He was also beaten by Herod's "men of war" before seeing Pilate as well [Lk 23:11]. A crown of thorns was twisted onto his head [Mk 15:17] (head lacerations which probably resulted in massive blood loss) and he was bashed in the head with a reed [15:19]. In the third place, the NT witnesses say that Pilate did NOT want to crucify Yeshua [Matt 27:23, Lk 23:20, ] being warned by his wife because of a dream she had [Matt 27:19]. There's no doubt that Pilate had Yeshua severely beaten in an attempt to appease the Sanhedrin, rather than have him crucified. He was so badly beaten, the Scriptures say he wasn't recognizable as a man [Isa 52:14]. Again, Pilate had Yeshua beaten within an inch of his life, in an attempt to save his life. Even a cursory reading of the gospel accounts shows the lengths Pilate went to in order to keep Yeshua from being crucified. And last but not least, the NT witnesses that a spear was driven into his side while on the cross, just to make sure he was dead [Jn 19:32-34]. So, if we take all this information together, we see that Yeshua was severely beaten by no less than three different groups, then crucified, and finally thrust through with a spear. Yet, despite all of this, you maintain that Yeshua not only survived this ordeal [which is contrary to the gospel accounts], but was up and walking around just a few short days after having spikes nailed through his ankle bones. Which by the way, I resent your assumption that I have no knowledge of the methods of Roman crucifixion. I not only know how they carried out crucifixion, but have read extensively on the physiological affect on the crucified body. Do you know why the NT records that the Roman guards broke the legs of the two criminals on either side of Yeshua? With their legs broken, they wouldn't be able to lift themselves up enough to inhale, and would expire much more quickly. Crucifixion is death by slow asphyxiation. So, I guess I do know a little something about crucifixion after all, huh? I haven't even begun to address all the NT passages that affirm Yeshua did indeed die when crucified. Like I said before, you must reject a great deal of the NT in order for your theory to stand. It simply does not hold up to even the slightest bit of scrutiny. |
|
|
|
Post by David Ben Yosef on Feb 11, 2010 15:58:28 GMT -8
This is an antisemitic picture of the Jewish Sanhedrin as if the members were part of a gang of criminals. Only a non-Jewish mind can conceive such a mentality. The picture you get of a gang of criminals is of your own making, not mine. I merely reiterated what the Jewish writers of the NT recorded [along with references]. That Yeshua was beaten at the Sanhedrin's tribunal. Perhaps you should brush up on Jewish history, and study the spiritual condition of the Jewish leaders during the early first century. Jewish sources have plenty to say about it, so you don't have to rely upon any "anti-semitic" Gentile testimony. And I remember you told me you have all the books of Josephus. What's the use if you don't read them? I told you I have read Antiquities, and War. It would appear you have not, since your own source [Flavius Josephus] whom you rely upon heavily, records that Yeshua of Nazareth was executed, and died [Antiquities 18.63-64]. That leaves your theory completely baseless, since your own source contradicts it. To spear-pierce a crucified to verify if he was dead or not, was no Roman policy. The method was the break-bone to hurry death, and it was a Jewish custom, not Roman. Now, would you quote to me where it says that the Romans broke the legs of the other crucified? I never said breaking the legs of the crucified was Roman policy, nor did I even hint that it was. The text is clear: (John 19:31-34 Complete Jewish Bible)It was Preparation Day, and the Judeans did not want the bodies to remain on the stake on Shabbat, since it was an especially important Shabbat. So they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies removed. The soldiers came and broke the legs of the first man who had been put on a stake beside Yeshua, then the legs of the other one; but when they got to Yeshua and saw that he was already dead, they didn't break his legs. However, one of the soldiers stabbed his side with a spear, and at once blood and water flowed out. There you have it. I have repeatedly supplied numerous source references to substantiate my comments [including your own source, Flavius Josephus]. While on the other hand, you sir, have provided none whatsoever. In addition, your recent antagonistic style of posting doesn't suit you, Ben. I can only imagine that your feeling frustrated with the way your arguments are going. If you persist in this method of posting, I will simply disengage the discussion. Sarcastic undertones, and accusations of anti-semetism were not only unwarranted, but insulting. To continue in a such a manner would be fruitless, at the very least. |
|
