David_M

Look everyone, aa5874 is still evading the issue to avoid admitting error (I don't believe you are unaware that Pilate was Roman aa5874).

My claim was that it was the JEWISH leadership who were threatened with being destabalised by Jesus and it was the JEWISH leadership that pushed for him to be punished. I did not claim it was the ROMAN leadership who did that, I never disputed that Pilate found no fault.

John 11:48 is clear that the JEWISH leaders of the time saw that growing support for Jesus and his teachings could lead to them losing power - that is a textbook definitition of a destablising influence.

In your next attempt to deny you were wrong please respond as to how the text does not indicate that Jesus was seen as a theat to the established JEWISH leaders (the priests and scribes) as stated was said by those same JEWISH leaders and how those same JEWISH leaders did not try pushing for him to be punished by fabricating evidence and declaring he was guilty of blasphemy.

Everyone who has actually read the Gospels is already aware of the actions of the ROMANS (e.g. Pilate), my claim was specific to the JEWISH leadership.

Are both specific to the arrest of Jesus by the crowd sent by the priests - the fact that they did not want to be arrested or harmed by the crowd (after Jesus told them they should not fight Matt 15:52) is a logical reaction.

But 2 of them were still close enough to follow Jesus (afar does not mean the other side of the city) INTO the high priests courtyard which means they were in public, ergo they were not in hiding.

Extending to claiming they were in hiding is making stuff up from your imagination.

So they locked the doors when they met, again that does not indicate that they were in hiding individually, in fact the use of the words "when the disciples were together" indicates that they did not spend all the intervening time together but had gathered together. Nothing here supports the contention that they spent all the time from the arrest in hiding.

This refers to Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome NOT the disciples. It also takes place after they visit the tomb and are told Jesus has risen not the period before this.

Of course not, and due to the fact that I explicitly stated the opposite when it comes to Peter suggesting otherwise is a dishonest attempt to move the goalposts.

The actions of Peter on ONE night cannot be extrapolated to the actions of other disciples on that same night (as clearly evidenced by the other disciple who went with Peter but is not recorded as denying Jesus and is said to have been known to the high priest).

They cannot also be extrapolated to the actions of any of the disciples on any other night. That you do so shows that you a desparately making crap up to support your argument.

Thank you.

You have just admitted that Peter was not "in hiding and shaking in fear" but was in public where people could ask him who he was.

Congratulations on this epic piece of self-refutation.

Now how about the other disciple in the courtyard and the one present at the crucifiction?

There is no John 14. 54-72.

If you mean Mark 14:54-72 the first verse shows that you are making crap up. Sitting among the servants is NOT being "in hiding" its being "in public view".

So not one of the quotes you came up with in any way supports your argument that the disciples spent the period between when Jesus was arrested and when they heard his body was gone "in hiding and shivering in fear".

In fact 2 stated appearances in public (in the courtyard and at the crucifiction) are firm evidence that your contention is FALSE.

So stop making stuff up from your imagination.

Yes that is what they claimed - I have never stated otherwise so repeating this moves your argument no further forward.

The fact that there was no body is the basis for making all the following claims. Will you admit that if Jesus's body had remained in the tomb it would be impossible for the disciples to argue successfully that he had been resurrected physically?

The fact that you will not admit this is that, because the body was missing, there was no way of any opponent of Jesus to refute these claims other than just shouting "Oh no he wasn't" (a pantomime reference in case people don't get it).

Which is very much the tactic you are taking here.


You are still making crap up that "the disciples were in hiding, trembling with fear". The passage for "trembling in fear" that you use IS NOT ABOUT THE DISCIPLES and is post resurrection not before.

But so fucking what? it was a matter of hours, or at most a single day, between the missing body being discovered and the first report of Jesus being seen being given to the disciples.

All this happened over the course of 4 fucking days - do you really think that this is a long time for Jesus' followers to wait for the fulfillment of prohpecy?

On the meantime they can teach the GOOD NEWS that Jesus will rise from the dead, as he claimed.

The only BAD NEWS was for the high priests and the scribes because they had strengthened the message Jesus preached rather then weakening it.

Cue more denial of reality.

aa5874

You appear to be unaware that Pilate was the final arbiter in the trial of Jesus in the NT.

In the NT, the source of the Jesus story, Jesus was healing the sick, feeding the hungry and paying his taxes.

Jesus, in the NT, was not a destabilising influence.

It is recorded that there were many false accusations brought against Jesus of the NT.

See Mark 14.56You must now admit that your claim that Jesus was a destabilising influence was a FALSE accustation.


But this is just absurd.

Please explain which days the disciples were coming in and out of hiding.

The disciples ran away the night he was arrested and days later they are found hiding for fear of the Jews.

It makes absolutely no sense, then, for Peter to have denied three times that he was a follower of Jesus, if he was known to be a follower.

And there would have been no need to ask Peter, three times if he was a disciple.

It must be rather obvious that Peter was not known to be a disciple hence the questions.

And, based on gMatthew, all the disciples had already FLED long before Peter LIED MULTIPLE TIMES about his association with Jesus.

Please show where I claimed Peter was in hiding with the other disciples. I HAVE ALREADY written that Peter may have visited the tomb with the women.

Peter lied about his association with Jesus multiple times.

Peter was sitting with people who did not know he was a disciple of Jesus and that is why he was able to publicly LIE multiple times about his association with Jesus.


Are claiming that the women AND possibly Peter who visited the tomb were not disciples of Jesus and were not trembling and fearful?

You have not provided any information that can contradict that the HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition.

aa5874

The HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition.

No-one can tell how the HJ was derived, if he was fabricated from MULTIPLE characters and from MULTIPLE time periods.

However, once the Gospels stories are examined it will soon be realized that the authors of the Gospels appear to be writing about a Supernatural God/man, not a mere human. In fact, if Jesus was only human then the entire NT would just be a pack of LIES.

In the Gospels, from conception to ascension, the so-called history of Jesus is fundamentally implausible, even the trial and crucifixion of Jesus appears to be based on fiction.

Now, Jesus, regarded as the offspring of the Holy Ghost of God, used to preach to the multitudes of Jews in parables virtually all the time, so that the Jews would remain in sin and would NOT understand him.

It can therefore be assumed that up to the day Jesus died that the Jews had no GOOD NEWS from Jesus, they were really confused.

And it was not only the multitudes of Jews who were confused, even the chosen disciples did NOT understand Jesus when he claimed he would be raised on the third day.

So, Jesus is not understood by virtually all the Jews, the multitudes and his disciples.

What is the GOOD NEWS from Jesus? No-one can say.

Now, Jesus is killed and buried. I would expect his parents, friend, and the thousands of followers to be aware that Jesus had been executed innocently after been exonerated by Pilate.

The Jews are probably looking for the disciples to have them executed or to be tried, and the disciples FLED and are in hiding, and no-one can tell what happened to the dead body of Jesus.

The mother and immediate family of Jesus must be or are likely to be very distraught.

Who removed Mary's son's body from the tomb?

Who is going to LIE and tell Mary that Jesus resurrected?

Who is going give Mary the GOOD NEWS?

Who is going deify Jesus and LIE to the Jews, the same Jews who were looking for the disciples probably to kill or put them on trial, that Jesus did actually resurrect and that they must abandon the Laws of the God of Moses including circumcision when Jesus himself followed the very Laws of the God of Moses and was circumcised on the 8th day.

The Jesus story does not make sense if he was human. Everybody will have to start LYING, all the disciples, his thousands of followers, his mother, everybody.

Some writer called Paul claimed he was beaten to a pulp , stoned, jailed and was later executed, based on the Church, after preaching and traveling all over the Roman Empire for about 25 years and was not DEIFIED, or asked by the Jews to forgive sin.

And Paul did not even talk in parables, he wanted the Jews to understand him and NOT remain in sin.

Peter, the supposed 1st bishop of Rome was not Deified and he too suffered and was eventually crucified according to the Church after preaching for about 30 years, about 10 times longer than Jesus.

Why did not Peter also die for the sins of mankind when he also crucified?

Jesus was crucified and it was claimed he died for the sins of mankind.

Paul preached Jesus crucified, why did not any one preach Peter crucified?

The HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition. The deification of Jesus makes no sense in Judea when the authors of the Gospels claimed Jesus spoke in parables to the Jews and that the disciples FLED and went into hiding since his arrest.

The Gospels appear to be just backdated stories by Apocalyptic writers about a Supernatural being who came from heaven to warn the Jews about the Fall of the Temple.

David_M

No I am aware, that's why I never disputed that Pilate found no fault. But it does seem to be the case that you remain blissfully unaware of the simple fact that Pilate was a ROMAN and a member of the ROMAN leadership of the period. My bad, I didn't think anyone could make such a basic error.

So you are still desparately dodging the issue, that you have done so this many times only leads me to conclude that you realise that you were wrong but are just incapable of admitting it. Which part of the concept of a JEWISH leadership that saw Jesus as a destabilisng influence against themselves are you unable to grasp.

You know, the JEWISH leaders of the community - the priests and scribes.
You know, those same JEWISH priests and scribes who were concerned that more and people were following Jesus.
You know, those same JEWISH priests and scribes who, it is stated, thought "If we let him(Jesus) go on like this, everyone will believe in him(Jesus), and then the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation."
You know those same JEWISH priests and scribes who arranged those flase witnesses against Jesus.

So stop crying "ROMANS, ROMANS, ROMANS" repeatedly in a vain attempt do avoid the issue and address the words and actions of the priests and scribes whose power was threatened by the growing following of Jesus and tried to get rid of him on trumped up charges - you know, the JEWISH leadership.

No, because you are still refusing to address the words of the priests and scribes who feared they would lose their position if Jesus' following grew and whose actions were to fabricate evidence to push for jesus to be punished. You know who they are, they were the JEWISH leadership, who faced a destablising influence to their power and influence among the Jews.

Talk about the JEWISH leadership, not the ROMAN one.

So that would be the JEWISH leadership then, just like I've been saying.

Because they feared that they would lose their position of power because people were listening to the teachings of Jesus - a classic example of a destabilising influence against the established JEWISH power structure.

Look, just in case you really are having trouble with these simple concepts.

JEWISH leadership refers to the leaders in the JEWISH community in positions of power. That would be the priests and scribes who wielded religious authority.

ROMAN leadership would be the romans, like Pilate, who wielded political and military authority.

Can you distinguish between the two, and can you see that they are different groups?

Therefore can you see that a destabilising influence against one is not necessarily a destabilising influence against the other so one faction could fear Jesus' effects on their power and act against him while the other couldn't really care less.

Unsupported by the text, what you have is 2 events some days apart with no description of such events between the two BUT clear statements that 2 disciples were in public in the courtyard and 1 disciple was standing near Jesus, in public, at the crucifiction.

Stop making crap up again and read what I wrote and quoted from. There were 2 disciples in the courtyard. Peter and another disciple who was the one known to the high priest.

As you seem unable to differentiate between the numbers 1 and 2 its no real surprise you can't makes sense of this. Numerate people however can do so.

Answer the question about THE OTHER DISCIPLE, not Peter. The other disciple who was known to the high priest. Not Peter, who wasn't.

But what about the OTHER disciple who went with Peter, the one who was known to the high priest. The one that you are ignoring because its evidence that you don't know what you are talking about.

The passage NEVER claims it was Peter who was known to the high priest and nor did I, it claims it was the OTHER disciple.

Lets just repeat that text again from John 18 .

Highlighted to help your comprehension.

So 2 disciples:
Peter (not known to the high priest) and another disciple (known to the high priest).

I notice that you are now changing your claim from "all the disciples" to "all the disciples, oh except Peter".

Well except for that tricky OTHER disciple who went with Peter to the courtyard, or the one who was near Jesus at the crucufiction.

Want to change it to "all the disciples, oh except Peter and that other one" now?

And fleeing from one crowd come to arrest Jesus after being told explicitly that they were not to fight them to prevent arrest proves nothing about subsequent events except that which you are making up.

You repeatedly claimed all the disciples were in hiding without qualifying that with "except Peter". Its only after I repeatedly pointed out to you that Peter appeared in public that you have now started adding that qualifier.

Well at least you have modified your position in the face of countervailing evidence for Peter. Now how about that other disciple who went with Peter to the courtyard?

Not disputed.

Thats would be because it was the OTHER disciple who was known to the high priest, as the text says. The one you are ignoring.

NOT possibly Peter. Stop making crap up again. The passage that uses the term "trembling in fear" specifically names the people who went as 3 women. In fact all 4 Gospels say it was women who went to the tomb first and not men.

The passages that say Peter visited the tomb clearly say he did so AFTER the women told him about the encounter and the dissappearance of the body. (John 20:3-4, Luke 24:12). No passage mentions Peter "in fear" at any time when he visited the tomb.

Address the fact that the passage the mentions "trembling in fear" is specifically about when those 3 women saw the empty tomb and were told that Jesus had risen and that any visit by Peter is stated as being after these women went and told the disciples what they had seen.

Then adress the fact that this whole episode is also Post-resurrection not pre-resurrection which is what you would need it to be to support your argument.

Yes I have, you just won't admit it. I have provided evidence that has undermined every one of your claims.

Your response has been to ignore that evidence and either try to deflect the argument with irrelevant references to other groups ("oooh Pilate was a ROMAN") or to keep pretending you were correct even when you are now modifying those claims when forced to see that you have made an error.

"All the disciples, oooh hold on, except Peter I forgot about him until now" does that ring a bell?

storytime

But Jesus seemed to believe that the Jews were the elect. Else, why did he declare Jewish superiority when speaking to the woman at the well? He told her "salvation is of the Jews", because he believed it and told her matter of factly "ye know not what ye worship, but we[Jews] know what we worship, because salvation is of the Jews." Aside from this position of Jesus in his argument, there is the OT name and place which sets the Jews as the special tribe among all the others, this due to God having chosen Jerusalem as his city in recognition of David the King who conquered it from the Jebusites. This place was the allotment of land given by Moses to the Jews conditionally in that of their ability to hold it and keep it in their power, in which they fought for and won. The Jews received "the promise", their promise of land, which fulfilled God's contractual agreement with them. Other tribes were not able to conquer their given portion of land at the time and argument ensued as told in Ezekiel 11:15-21. So we see why that Jews[of Judah tribe] thought themselves as part of the "election" if not the hiarchy elect itself. Jesus was a pious Jew.

The only tribe receiving nothing in a promised portion of land, was Levi[Levites]. These were the priests chosen as "the elect of God" aka "God's inheritance". This elect covenanted people in purposed self sacrifice of their time as priests, and set-up to be the light to guide the people of Israel. As anointed, they and their position was not to be touched, as in a takeover. "Touch not mine anointed nor do my prophets no harm". (OT). Jesus seemed to think himself in this anointed position as he gave John the Baptist word that "it has come to us to fulfill all these things". What things? Their anointed and appointed role as priests who spoke for God. As God in the flesh, if breaking down the figurative speek used.

So, it looks like there are two tribal names calling themselves "the elect" or "eletist", and each separated to their purpose in the nation of Israel.

It seems that Spinzoa erred, "not knowing the scriptures or the power of God".

Also, it seems that the Jews disregarded the covenant made with Levi, and so decided that they as Jews had right to that "kingdom of God" (the anointed elect) also. See the consequence here: Malachi 2:1-9

No Robots

Christ has no interest in the gentiles, and shares the common Jewish attitude toward them. As Constantin Brunner puts it:

What the Galileans themselves thought about the gentiles can be seen from the Gospels: the Galileans thought like the rest of the Jews, and the Jews thought of the gentiles as the Greeks did of the barbarians, without, however, arriving at such severity of judgement as Aristotle, for instance, with his assertion that the barbarians are the born slaves of the Greeks; the eventual admission of all gentiles into the kingdom of Jahve is an essentially fundamental idea in Judaism. But Christ does not think of this; he looks exclusively to his time and place, not to the gentiles, not to the future, and does not think of wanting to be the redeemer of mankind. This was not in his consciousness, for his consciousness was that of the perfect mystic. And plainly, Christ’s thoughts about the gentiles are exceptionally hard and dismissive. In this matter he would appear to fall far short of the great prophets, were it not borne in mind that, as a mystic, he actually does not think about the gentiles at all, and therefore speaks about them entirely in accordance with the blindness of his surroundings, as a Jew to whom the gentiles certainly presented themselves badly enough at that time and to whom the heathen nature had to be an abomination.--Our Christ, p. 432.

aa5874

You clearly appear not to understand the ROLE of PILATE the FINAL ARBITER.

Based on the NT, Jesus was brought before Pilate to be judged.

Pilate EXONERATED Jesus.

The citizenship of the FINAL ARBITER is irrelevant.

The accusation that Jesus was a destabilizing influence has been squashed, or may be considered FALSE.

Your claim appears to be FALSE. Please examine the RECORDS of this thread.

On the 4th November 2009, post #14, I wrote that Peter, the 1st bishop of Rome, was a witness to the empty tomb.

On the 14th November 2009, post #71, I wrote that Peter possibly visited the burial site.

Now, a poster using David_M, made a first post on the 19th November 2009, post #76.


Please check the records of this thread, you may have undermined your own credibility.

David_M

You are quite right that your repeated appeals to the fact that Pilate was the final arbiter are irrelevent.

The fact that Pilate exonerated Jesus is irrelevant, the motives of the JEWISH leadership (the ones who brought Jesus before Pilate, the ones who arranged for false witnesses previously) is the matter under discussion.

The citizenship of Pilate is not however irrelevant because my point made a claim about the JEWISH leadership and not the ROMAN once. I imputed no motives to Pilate and no claim of Jesus being a destablising influence to Pilate or the ROMANS.

Now address the fucking text that I have quoted more than once that the JEWISH priests and scribes were threatened by the growing following of Jesus to the degree that they feared they would lose their positions.

Stop these cowardly tactics of dodging the actual claim which related to the priests and scribes and NOT Pilate in any way. Unless you start addressing the actions and motives of the JEWISH leadership as recorded in the NT your actions in repeatedly ignoring the very group my claim addressed will just continue to highlight your duplicitous arguments to all and sundry.

To demonstrate that I was wrong you have to show that the priests and scribes were not in fear of losing power due to the destabilising influence of the growing following of Jesus.

But you cannot do that because you realise that I was 100% correct in talking about the destabilising influence that Jesus had on the Jewish leaders because the NT actually records that they feared his growing following would cause them to lose their positions.

At this point O am sure you will repeat some irrelevant garbage about Pilate and again not even mention the group to which my claim relates.

No it hasn't because you have persistently refused to even mention the group that I claimed was being destabilisied which was the JEWISH priests and scribes, instead you repatedly refer to Pilate who IS NOT PART OF THAT GROUP AND WHOSE ACTIONS ARE THEREFORE IRRELEVANT to my claim.

Your argments on this matter are FALSE from start to finish because they have never addressed the people to whuch my claim related.

Post #14 Is not yours, unless you are admitting to running sock-accounts.

Unfortunately these ppsts do not help you in ANY way whatsoever because they are both post-ressurrection.

I pointed out that you had claimed that, in between the time when Jesus was arrested and when they found out about the ressurection, the disciples where "in hiding and shaking in fear" and that there is no textual support for this and instead there is textual evidence of more than 1 disciple appearing in public.

Here are your own words from multiple posts.

#16
#30
#56

#74
#77 (The first response to me)
Want me to continue?

You repeatedly claimed that after the arrest of Jesus the disciples went into hiding.

You never ONCE qualified those statements to say that this excluded Peter or the other disciples mentioned as being in public. You are lying by claiming otherwise.

And you are still ignoring my point that the disciple known to the high priest was not Peter (as I said but you will not acknowledge). You just cut out that point from my post and refuse to acknowledge it, I can see why as it was an embarrassing error on your part.

The records of this thread are plain to see, every single time you claimed the disciples went into hiding after the arrest of Jesus you never qualified it by excluding Peter or the unnamed other disciple present at the courtyard or the crucifixion until I had hammered that point home multiple times despite your denials.

The only credibility being undermined here is yours and it is due to your continuing refusal to even discuss counter-points to your more ridiculous claims.

I respond to all your arguments yet you refuse to do the same, that just reinforces your diminishing credibility on this subject.

aa5874

Your response appears to be complete non-sense, the citizenship of Pilate has no bearing whatsoever on his exoneration of Jesus.


There was an error, it should be post #9 on the 4th November 2009.

Please show a post where I claimed ALL the disciples were hiding including Peter.

You cannot find such a post.

You appear not to understand the difference between "the disciples" and "all the disciples".

But, again you have produce nothing to contradict that the HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition.

According to the NT, Jesus taught his disciples that he would be killed and raised on the third day.

Jesus was supposedly killed and buried, his disciples have fled, some women and possibly Peter visited the burial site and the body is missing.

On the first day of the week, the disciples are hiding for fear of the Jews and Peter, the so-called bishop of Rome, has already lied three times that he was NOT a follower of Jesus.

What will make the disciples come out of hiding? Who will worship Jesus as a God in Judea? Who desecrated the burial site? When will Peter be able to speak the truth? What is the GOOD NEWS?

The HJ makes no SENSE. JESUS must resurrect.

David_M

Which is exactly what I said, but it does have bearing on my claim relating to the detabilising influence Jesus had on the Jewish leadership as that group does not include Pilate as he was not a Jew.

How right I was, even your evasions are preditcable.

So here we are again:
Go to it. Actually address the claim I made this time.



I showed 5 posts. The statement "The disciples went into hiding" does mean ALL the disciples unless you qualify it to exclude people, which you never did until challenged.

I found 5 posts.

You appear not to understand english grammar, that's ok though as you seem equally ignorant of the Gospels and human psychology.

A statement delineating the actions of a named group by default encompasses all members of that group unless qualified.

"The disciples" means all the disciples by default unless you specify otherwise, which you never did.

Something you claimed no human would ever do. I provided 2 examples of humans making such claims. Do you want to bet that no other humans have made such claims?

You have failed to establish that the disciples have fled, the only textual support mentions then fleeing the crowd that arrests Jesus. You have extended this to general fleeing and hiding without textual support.

You have not established that "the disciples are hiding for fear of the Jews". You still have not even admitted that the texts specify a 2nd disciple in the courtyard with Peter and a disciple present at the crucifiction.

This is all an irrelevance to Jesus claiming he would be raised from the dead and, to the degree that this is actually supported by the text, perfectly logical reactions by people unwilling to be seized by a mob and delivered to the high priests.

What makes them come out of hiding (that you have never established they were in)? The news that Jesus has risen.
Who will worship Jesus as a God in Judea? The followers of Jesus who now claim he has risen from the dead.
When will Peter speak the truth? You have no support for any claim that apart from 3 specific occasions on 1 night that he did not otherwise speak the truth,
What is the GOOD NEWS? Its the news that Jesus has risen from the dead, it validates Jesus' teachings and the whole Gospels.

Your argument makes no SENSE.

Humans claim they will be resurrected. Because Jesus was claimed to have resurrected his cult survived and eventually grew. If no one claimed he had risen then his cult probably would not have prospered. In what way does this not make sense.