Falling Stars, Damnable Heresy, and the Spirit of Evolution

“Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son” (1 John 2:22).

“And the fifth angel sounded the trumpet, and I saw a star fall from heaven upon the earth, and there was given to him the key of the bottomless pit." (Rev. 9:1)

In his Concise Commentary Matthew Henry identifies falling stars as tepid, indecisive, weak or apostate clergy who,

"Having ceased to be a minister of Christ, he who is represented by this star becomes the minister of the devil; and lets loose the powers of hell against the churches of Christ."

John identifies antichrists, in this case clergy who serve the devil rather than Christ, sequentially. First, like Bultmann, Teilhard de Chardin, Robert Funk, Paul Tillich, and John Shelby Spong, they specifically deny the living, personal Holy Trinity in favor of Gnostic pagan, immanent or Eastern pantheist conceptions. Though God the Father Almighty in three Persons upholds the souls of men and maintains life and creation, His substance is not within nature (space-time dimension) as pantheism maintains, but outside of it. Sinful men live within nature and are burdened by time and mortality; God is not.

Second, the specific denial of the Father logically negates Jesus the Christ, the Word who was in the beginning (John 1), was with God, and is God from the creation of all things (1 John 1). In a pre-incarnate theophany, Jesus is the Angel who spoke “mouth to mouth” to Moses (Num. 12:6-9; John 9:20) and at sundry times and in many ways “spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all…” (Hebrews 1:1) Jesus the Christ is the incarnate Son of God who is the life and light of men, who by His shed blood on the Cross died for the remission of all sins and bestowed the privilege of adoption on all who put their faith in Him.

Therefore, to deny the Holy Father is to logically deny the deity of Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God, hence,

“…every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist . . . and even now already is it in the world” (1 John 4:3).

According to Peter (2 Peter 2:1), falling stars will work among the faithful, teaching damnable heresies that deny the Lord, cause the fall of men into unbelief, and bring destruction upon themselves:

“The natural parents of modern unbelief turn out to have been the guardians of belief.” Many thinking people came at last “to realize that it was religion, not science or social change that gave birth to unbelief. Having made God more and more like man---intellectually, morally, emotionally---the shapers of religion made it feasible to abandon God, to believe simply in man.” (James Turner of the University of Michigan in “American Babylon,” Richard John Neuhaus, p. 95)

Almost thirty years ago, two well-respected social science scholars, William Sims Bainbridge and Rodney Stark found themselves alarmed by what they saw as a rising tide of irrationalism, superstition and occultism---channeling cults, spirit familiars, necromancers, Wiccans, Satanists, Luciferians, goddess worshippers, 'gay' shamans, Hermetic magicians and other occult madness at every level of society, particularly within the most influential--- Hollywood, academia and the highest corridors of political power.

Like many scientists, they were equally concerned by Christian opposition to naturalistic evolution. As is common in the science community, they assumed the cause of these social pathologies was somehow due to fundamentalism, their term for authentic Christian theism as opposed to liberalized Christianity. Yet to their credit, the research they undertook to discover the cause was conducted both scientifically and with great integrity. What they found was so startling it caused them to re-evaluate their attitude toward authentic Christian theism. Their findings led them to say:

"It would be a mistake to conclude that fundamentalists oppose all science (when in reality they but oppose) a single theory (that) directly contradicts the bible. But it would be an equally great mistake to conclude that religious liberals and the irreligious possess superior minds of great rationality, to see them as modern personalities who have no need of the supernatural or any propensity to believe unscientific superstitions. On the contrary...they are much more likely to accept the new superstitions. It is the fundamentalists who appear most virtuous according to scientific standards when we examine the cults and pseudo-sciences proliferating in our society today." ("Superstitions, Old and New," The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. IV, No. 4; summer, 1980)

In more detail they observed that authentic ‘born again’ Christians are far less likely to accept cults and pseudoscientific beliefs while the irreligious and liberalized Christians (i.e., progressive Catholics, Protestant emergent, NAR, word faith, prosperity gospel) are open to unscientific notions. In fact, these two groups are most disposed toward occultism.

As Bainbridge and Stark admitted, evolution directly contradicts the Bible, beginning with the Genesis account of creation ex nihilo. This means that evolution is the antithesis of the Genesis account. For this reason, discerning Christians refuse to submit to the evolutionary thinking that has swept Western and American society. Nor do they accept the evolutionary theism brought into the whole body of the Church by weak, tepid, indecisive, or apostate clergy.

Over eighty years ago, Rev. C. Leopold Clarke wrote that priests who embrace evolution (evolutionary theists) are apostates from the ‘Truth as it is in Jesus.’ (1 John2:2) Rev. Clarke, a lecturer at a London Bible college, discerned that evolution is the antithesis to the Revelation of God in the Deity of Jesus Christ, thus it is the greatest and most active agent of moral and spiritual disintegration:

“It is a battering-ram of unbelief---a sapping and mining operation that intends to blow Religion sky-high. The one thing which the human mind demands in its conception of God, is that, being Almighty, He works sovereignly and miraculously---and this is the thing with which Evolution dispenses….Already a tremendous effect, on a wide scale has been produced by the impact of this teaching---an effect which can only be likened to the…collapse of foundations…” (Evolution and the Break-Up of Christendom, Philip Bell, creation.com, Nov. 27, 2012)

The faith of the Christian Church and of the average Christian has had, and still has, its foundation as much in the literal and historic meaning of Genesis, the book of beginnings revealed ‘mouth to mouth’ by the Angel to Moses, as in that of the person and deity of Jesus Christ. But how horrible a travesty of the sacred office of the Christian Ministry to see church leaders more eager to be abreast of the times, than earnestly contending for the Faith once delivered unto the saints (Jude 1:3). It is high time, said Rev. Clarke, that the Church,

“…. separated herself from the humiliating entanglement attending her desire to be thought up to date…What, after all, have custodians of Divine Revelation to do making terms with speculative Biology, which has….no message of comfort or help to the soul?” (ibid)

The primary tactic employed by priests eager to accommodate themselves and the Church to modern science and evolutionary thinking is predictable. It is the argument that evolution is entirely compatible with the Bible when we see Genesis, especially the first three chapters, in a non-literal, non-historical context. This is the argument embraced and advanced by mega-church pastor Timothy J. Keller.

With a position paper Keller published with the theistic evolutionary organization Bio Logos he joined the ranks of falling stars (Catholic and Protestant priests) stretching back to the Renaissance. Their slippery-slide into apostasy began when they gave into the temptation to embrace a non-literal, non-historical view of Genesis. (A response to Timothy Keller’s ‘Creation, Evolution and Christian Laypeople,” Lita Cosner, Sept. 9, 2010, creation.com)

This is not a heresy unique to modern times. The early Church Fathers dealt with this damnable heresy as well, counting it among the heretical tendencies of the Origenists. Fourth-century Fathers such as John Chrysostom, Basil the Great and Ephraim the Syrian, all of whom wrote commentaries on Genesis, specifically warned against treating Genesis as an unhistorical myth or allegory. John Chrysostom strongly warned against paying heed to these heretics,

“…let us stop up our hearing against them, and let us believe the Divine Scripture, and following what is written in it, let us strive to preserve in our souls sound dogmas.” (Genesis, Creation, and Early Man, Fr. Seraphim Rose, p. 31)

As St. Cyril of Alexandria wrote, higher theological, spiritual meaning is founded upon humble, simple faith in the literal and historic meaning of Genesis and one cannot apprehend rightly the Scriptures without believing in the historical reality of the events and people they describe. (ibid, Seraphim Rose, p. 40)

In the integral worldview teachings of the Fathers, neither the literal nor historical meaning of the Revelations of the pre-incarnate Jesus, the Angel who spoke to Moses, can be regarded as expendable. There are at least four critically important reasons why. First, to reduce the Revelation of God to allegory and myth is to contradict and usurp the authority of God, ultimately deny the deity of Jesus Christ; twist, distort, add to and subtract from the entire Bible and finally, to imperil the salvation of believers.

Scenarios commonly proposed by modern Origenists posit a cleverly disguised pantheist/immanent nature deity subject to the space-time dimension and forces of evolution. But as noted previously, it is sinful man who carries the burden of time, not God. This is a crucial point, for when evolutionary theists add millions and billions of zeros (time) to God they have transferred their own limitations onto Him. They have ‘limited’ God and made Him over in their own image. This is not only idolatrous but satanic.

Additionally, evolution inverts creation. In place of God’s good creation from which men fell there is an evolutionary escalator starting at the bottom with matter, then progressing upward toward life, then up and through the life and death of millions of evolved creatures that preceded humans by millions of years until at long last an apish humanoid emerges into which a deity that is always in a state of becoming (evolving) places a soul.

Evolution amputates the entire historical precedent from the Gospel and makes Jesus Christ unnecessary as the atheist Frank Zindler enthusiastically points out:

“The most devastating thing that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve, there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a saviour. And I submit that puts Jesus…into the ranks of the unemployed. I think evolution absolutely is the death knell of Christianity.” (“Atheism vs. Christianity,” 1996, Lita Cosner, creation.com, June 13, 2013)

None of this was lost on Darwin’s bulldog, Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1985). Huxley was thoroughly familiar with the Bible, thus he understood that if Genesis is not the authoritative Word of God, is not historical and literal despite its’ symbolic and poetic elements, then the entirety of Scripture becomes a collection of fairytales resulting in tragic downward spiraling consequences as the Catholic Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation makes clear in part:

“By denying the historical truth of the first chapters of Genesis, theistic evolutionism has fostered a preoccupation with natural causes almost to the exclusion of supernatural ones. By denying the several supernatural creative acts of God in Genesis, and by downplaying the importance of the supernatural activity of Satan, theistic evolutionists slip into a naturalistic mentality which seeks to explain everything in terms of natural causes. Once this mentality takes hold, it is easy for men to regard the concept of spiritual warfare as a holdover from the days of primitive superstition. Diabolical activity is reduced to material or psychological causes. The devil and his demons come to be seen as irrelevant. Soon ‘hell’ joins the devil and his demons in the category of antiquated concepts. And the theistic evolutionist easily makes the fatal mistake of thinking that he has nothing more to fear from the devil and his angels. According to Fr. Gabriele Amorth, the chief exorcist of Rome, there is a tremendous increase in diabolical activity and influence in the formerly Christian world. And yet most of the bishops of Europe no longer believe in the existence of evil spirits….To the Fathers of the Church who believed in the truth of Genesis, this would be incredible. But in view of the almost universal acceptance of theistic evolution, it is hardly surprising.” (The Difference it makes: The Importance of the Traditional Doctrine of Creation, Hugh Owen, kolbecenter.org)

Huxley had ‘zero’ respect for modern Origenists and received enormous pleasure from heaping piles of hot coals and burning contempt upon them, thereby exposing their shallow-reasoning, hypocrisy, timidity, fear of non-acceptance, and unfaithfulness. With sarcasm dripping from his words he quipped,

“I am fairly at a loss to comprehend how any one, for a moment, can doubt that Christian theology must stand or fall with the historical trustworthiness of the Jewish Scriptures. The very conception of the Messiah, or Christ, is inextricably interwoven with Jewish history; the identification of Jesus of Nazareth with that Messiah rests upon the interpretation of passages of the Hebrew Scriptures which have no evidential value unless they possess the historical character assigned to them. If the covenant with Abraham was not made; if circumcision and sacrifices were not ordained by Jahveh; if the “ten words” were not written by God’s hand on the stone tables; if Abraham is more or less a mythical hero, such as Theseus; the story of the Deluge a fiction; that of the Fall a legend; and that of the creation the dream of a seer; if all these definite and detailed narratives of apparently real events have no more value as history than have the stories of the regal period of Rome—what is to be said about the Messianic doctrine, which is so much less clearly enunciated? And what about the authority of the writers of the books of the New Testament, who, on this theory, have not merely accepted flimsy fictions for solid truths, but have built the very foundations of Christian dogma upon legendary quicksands?” (Darwin’s Bulldog---Thomas Huxley, Russell Grigg, creation.com, Oct. 14, 2008)

“When Jesus spoke, as of a matter of fact, that "the Flood came and destroyed them all," did he believe that the Deluge really took place, or not? It seems to me that, as the narrative mentions Noah’s wife, and his sons’ wives, there is good scriptural warranty for the statement that the antediluvians married and were given in marriage; and I should have thought that their eating and drinking might be assumed by the firmest believer in the literal truth of the story. Moreover, I venture to ask what sort of value, as an illustration of God’s methods of dealing with sin, has an account of an event that never happened? If no Flood swept the careless people away, how is the warning of more worth than the cry of “Wolf” when there is no wolf? If Jonah’s three days’ residence in the whale is not an “admitted reality,” how could it “warrant belief” in the “coming resurrection?” … Suppose that a Conservative orator warns his hearers to beware of great political and social changes, lest they end, as in France, in the domination of a Robespierre; what becomes, not only of his argument, but of his veracity, if he, personally, does not believe that Robespierre existed and did the deeds attributed to him?” (ibid)

“If divine authority is not here claimed for the twenty-fourth verse of the second chapter of Genesis, what is the value of language? And again, I ask, if one may play fast and loose with the story of the Fall as a “type” or “allegory,” what becomes of the foundation of Pauline theology?” (ibid)

“If Adam may be held to be no more real a personage than Prometheus, and if the story of the Fall is merely an instructive “type,” comparable to the profound Promethean mythus, what value has Paul’s dialectic?” (ibid)

After much thought, C.S. Lewis concluded that evolution is the central, most radical lie at the center of a vast network of lies within which modern Westerners are entangled while Rev. Clarke identifies the central lie as the Gospel of another Spirit. The fiendish aim of this Spirit is to help men lose God, not find Him, and by contradicting the Divine Redeemer, compromising Priests are serving this Spirit and its’ diabolical purposes. To contradict the Divine Redeemer is the very essence of unfaithfulness, and that it should be done while reverence is professed,

“…. is an illustration of the intellectual and moral topsy-turvydom of Modernism…’He whom God hath sent speaketh the Words of God,’ claimed Christ of Himself (John 3:34), and no assumption of error can hold water in the face of that declaration, without blasphemy.” Evolutionary theists are serving the devil, therefore “no considerations of Christian charity, of tolerance, of policy, can exonerate Christian leaders or Churches who fail to condemn and to sever themselves from compromising, cowardly, shilly-shallying priests”---the falling stars who “challenge the Divine Authority of Jesus Christ.” (ibid)

The rebuttals, warnings and counsels of the Fathers against listening to Origenists (and their modern evolutionary counterparts) indicates that the spirit of antichrist operating through modern rationalistic criticism of the Revelation of God is not a heresy unique to our times but was inveighed against by early Church Fathers.

From the scholarly writings of the Eastern Orthodox priest, Fr. Seraphim Rose, to the incisive analysis, rebuttals and warnings of the Catholic Kolbe Center, creation.com, Creation Research Institute, Rev. Clarke, and many other stalwart defenders of the faith once delivered, all are a clear, compelling call to the whole body of the Church to hold fast to the traditional doctrine of creation as it was handed down from the Apostles, for as God spoke and Jesus is the Living Word incarnate, it is incumbent upon the faithful to submit their wills to the Divine Will and Authority of God rather than to the damnable heresy proffered by falling stars eager to embrace naturalistic science and the devil's antithesis--- evolution. But if it seem evil to you to serve the Lord,

“…you have your choice: choose this day that which pleases you, whom you would rather serve….but as for me and my house we will serve the Lord.” Joshua 24:15

“Like you, what I know of Freemasonry comes from my forebears. In my case a Grandfather, who was a 32nd Degree Mason and founder more than a century ago....”

Spirited: There is no doubt that Freemasonry is shrouded in conspiracy, mystery, and misunderstanding. On one hand it is seen as a high-toned ethical order interested in doing good works. Against this are those who dip their brushes in a bucket of black and paint the entire order black.

It is often said that the truth is stranger than any fiction, and so it is with Freemasonry.

In his book “Painted Black,” Carl Raschke, Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Denver, provides us with a thoroughly-researched background history of Freemasonry that clearly reveals that it has two faces: one harmless, the other magical and satanic.

Raschke is a leading authority on subcultures of darkness and in his book he puts together, piece by piece, a terrifying puzzle revelatory of an alarming epidemic of violence sweeping our country. Fully documented, “Painted Black” clearly presents the chilling facts and cases behind an invisible wave of evil that with every day makes its’ presence felt more openly.

With respect to Freemasonry, Raschke traces its first glimmerings all the way back to the growth of an occult elite during the Rennaisance.

Certain leading Churchmen and intellectuals, having embraced the occult science of Hermetic Cabalah, had harshly critiqued the medieval Christian worldview by this ‘science,’ thereby paving the way for the rebellion against the God of the Bible and Christianity that eventually gave birth to liberal pantheist theology and its primary doctrine evolution, Marxist Communism, National Socialism and gnostic progressive liberalism here in America. Crossan and the gnostic Jesus Seminar advanced by BroJoeK is a further outgrowth.

The occult mystery tradition of ‘secret knowledge’ (gnosis) closely guarded by secret fraternities and orders into which followers had to be initiated had been preserved from Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek and Roman times despite the vigilance of the Catholic Church. During the Renaissance this tradition emerged into the daylight with the consequence that hermetic evolutionary science became respectable and fashionable among Europe’s educated elites.

By the 17th century it had permeated the,

“...Protestant countries where it was ensconced as the spirit of Freemasonry, or what are popularly known as the Masonic orders. Extolling the God of ‘nature’ and ‘nature’s laws’ over the God of biblical revelation, Freemasonry served as the popular faith of the Age of Reason...from the late 1600s to about the time of the French Revolution in 1789.” (p. 139)

For most members, this early Masonry was a gentlemen’s club for religious doubters and even libertines. Raschke adds that history clearly shows that the majority of Masons were really,

“...armchair intellectuals who maintained tight organization control by offering quick-and-easy access to the ‘ancient mysteries’.....that turned out to be little more than imaginatively embroidered exercises from old Egypt and Babylon (comingled) with some Muslim mysticism. Many of the signers of America’s Declaration of Independence were members of the ‘secret fraternity’ of Masons.”

Despite their membership in Masonic fraternities, the Founders nevertheless held a Christian consensus explained in previous posts to this thread.

It was during the late 18th and 19th centuries that the more conventional and harmless orders became prey for sinister occult entrepreneurs seeking to subvert Masonic rationalism and its high-toned ethical philosophy. The entrepreneurs introduced goetia (magic)including tantric sex magic, libertinism, and exultation of Lucifer as the seething energy of evolution, the first free spirit, liberator of man from Yahweh (the evil demiurge) and so on.

The most notorious sect of magical Luciferian Masons were the Illuminati, or the ‘illumined ones.’ This sinister order developed an incestuous relationship with Blavatsky’s Theosophy (Blavatsky taught that Satan is god) and not only did it have a significant place in the early modern era but a broad, deeply evil impact that is being felt today.

The Illuminist hierarchy and initiatory structure was designed to mimick ordinary lodge Masonry for the indisputable purpose of confusing and snaring ordinary members into participating in its occult goals.

From the outset, the goal of Illuminism was to accomplish what,

“....alchemists and occultists have called the ‘great work’ as a social and political undertaking” Its’ magical objective was the “creation of a universal, utopian society that knitted together all humankind.’ (p. 144)

In other words, their goal was the ‘healing’ and ‘purifying’ of nature (matter) through combination of opposites: initiates with god or Lucifer; the masses of men with nature (methodological naturalism; reductionism); the natural dimension with the supernatural; male with female, female with male; light with dark, good with evil, and so on.

Hopefully, this brief overview demonstrates the fact of Freemasonry’s two faces.

spirited irish: "There is no doubt that Freemasonry is shrouded in conspiracy, mystery, and misunderstanding.
On one hand it is seen as a high-toned ethical order interested in doing good works."

In fact, the "mysteries" of Freemasonry are eventually available to anyone who wishes to join & support them over many years.
In that sense, they are equivalent to the "mysteries" of any major corporation.
To pick an example: nobody knows exactly how Microsoft does what it does, outside their "inner circle", but millions are willing to pay for Microsoft products.
Since it's a big "mystery", can we assume that Microsoft is somehow "satanic" or "Gnostic"?
Not without serious evidence, and certainly not if the actual evidence points in the opposite direction.

And so with American Freemasons: we have no evidence -- zero, zip, nada -- that Freemasons of our Founders' time or of ours are anything other than the best of citizens, exemplifying the highest moral standards, credits to themselves and their communities, and including a broad range of specific religious beliefs reflecting their local communities.

Any suggestions that these people are somehow "satanic" or anything else wicked, is simply uninformed malice at work.

spirited irish: "Despite their membership in Masonic fraternities, the Founders nevertheless held a Christian consensus explained in previous posts to this thread."

And that is the only point of yours which matters, since it also applies to virtually every other American Freemason.
Whatever skullduggery European Freemasons may have been up to (i.e., Illuminati), I can't defend because I don't know.
But to categorically smear American Freemasons with "Satanism" or classical "Gnosticism" based on allegations against their European brothers, speaks of a mind steeped in deceit and malice.

But there is a much larger point here, one which I am ill-equipped to defend, but certainly needs a strong defense: our Founders did not found our uniquely free, constitutionally limited federal republic because of their Christian heritage and despite their Freemasonry, but just the opposite.

In 1787, the 1,500 year history of Christendom, with powerful Church and Monarchies in deadly alliances was an abomination that our Founders were utterly united in rejecting.
Instead, they turned to the principles of Freemasonry, along with those few other good examples they could find in history -- i.e., the old Roman Republic.

spirited irish: "Crossan and the gnostic Jesus Seminar advanced by BroJoeK is a further outgrowth."

Rubbish.
What I "advanced" were distinctions between the words "science", "history" and "religious faith".
As an example of "history" I recommend reading Crossan's analyses of the New Testament.
I specified this was not for religious inspiration, but rather to learn the points where "history" leaves off and "religious faith" begins.

But I do understand your over-eagerness to grasp this meager straw and turn it into yet another hammer to hammer, hammer away "satanic Gnosticism".

It's what you do, it's who you are.
I "get" that.
I reject it, except in cases where it obviously applies.
Our Founders' Freemasonry is not a case.

Jesus was crucified by Romans, not Jews, that is historical fact, FRiend.
***I agree. But it was the sanhedrin who condemned him to die due to how he answered the question of His identity. He claimed equality with God, which earlier you said was a fact not in dispute.

Romans cared nothing about “blasphemy”, also historical fact.
***Mostly true. When Pilate heard why Jesus had been brought to him, he asked him if he was a king. Jesus said, “my kingdom is not of this world”. At that point, Pilate was trying to RELEASE Jesus for having done nothing wrong in Roman law. he even washed his hands in public over the blood of this man. So in a way, he did “care” a little bit about “blasphemy”, but I acknowledge your general point. He only handed Jesus over to be crucified when the crowd threatened to riot.

Romans crucified Jesus as the appropriate punishment in their eyes, for the rebellion of claiming to be “King of the Jews”, historical fact.
***No, not a historical fact. They crucified Jesus because Pontius Pilate was too much of a wuss to stand up to a crowd of jews.

Of course the Sanhedrin played a role, but their opinions were not determinative of Jesus’ fate.
***Wrong. They had the authority to arrest Jesus and bring him to Pilate, which is what they did. Then they stirred the crowd to riot if their aims were unsatisfied. Their opinions WERE determinative of Jesus’ fate. But the real issue here is that the sanhedrin was pissed off at Jesus for claiming equality with God, a fact you say is not in dispute. That’s the important fact. Why the romans went along with killing an innocent soul isn’t as important.

Only Roman judgments in capital cases were lawful.
***In effect, this was an unlawful trial — it happened on the sabbath eve, at night rather than in the day, and there were other illegalities. It was an unlawful judgement because Jesus was innocent of all charges except for blasphemy if he was not equal with God, and as you like to point out, Romans didn’t care about that.

By the way, the appropriate Jewish punishment for blasphemy was stoning, a sentence which your same Sanhedrin didn’t hesitate to use against another “blasphemer”, Stephen (Acts 7:54-60).
***Exactly. It is appropriate to condem Jesus if he is not equal with God.

So, I conclude: crucifixion of Jesus by Romans for rebellion is one thing.
***Good point, other than the fact that Jesus wasn’t crucified by the Romans for rebellion.

Stoning of Stephen by your Sanhedrin for blasphemy is something different.
***Again, the stoning of Stephen was illegal because the sanhedrin did not have the authority to take a life. They just got so pissed off that they didn’t care about the consequences with the Romans, which were probably not many consequences at all. Romans were bloodthirsty, and if these jews wanted to kill each other they probably didn’t really care unless it impeded on their authority.

Do you not agree?
***On some things, disagree on others. I’m glad to see that it is undisputed in history that Jesus was condemned by the sanhedrin due to claiming equality with God. That’s the important part.

So, I conclude: crucifixion of Jesus by Romans for rebellion is one thing.
***

Stoning of Stephen by your Sanhedrin for blasphemy is something different.

Do you not agree?

Kevmo: “they say that Pilate allowed the crucifixion because he was afraid of the crowd rioting.”

What is your problem, FRiend, do you think I’m making this up?
Did you ever read it all yourself?

John 19:14-14: Pilot “saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!
But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him.
Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King?
The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.”

***I’m glad to see that you consider John to be historically authoritative. So is Matthew:

Page Options
Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email

<<
<
=
=
>
>>

Show resources
Add parallel
Matthew 27

New International Version (NIV)
Judas Hangs Himself

27 Early in the morning, all the chief priests and the elders of the people made their plans how to have Jesus executed. 2 So they bound him, led him away and handed him over to Pilate the governor.

3 When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders. 4 “I have sinned,” he said, “for I have betrayed innocent blood.”

“What is that to us?” they replied. “That’s your responsibility.”

5 So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.

6 The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” 7 So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. 8 That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. 9 Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price set on him by the people of Israel, 10 and they used them to buy the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me.”[a]
Jesus Before Pilate

11 Meanwhile Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?”

“You have said so,” Jesus replied.

12 When he was accused by the chief priests and the elders, he gave no answer. 13 Then Pilate asked him, “Don’t you hear the testimony they are bringing against you?” 14 But Jesus made no reply, not even to a single charge—to the great amazement of the governor.

15 Now it was the governor’s custom at the festival to release a prisoner chosen by the crowd. 16 At that time they had a well-known prisoner whose name was Jesus[b] Barabbas. 17 So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, “Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?” 18 For he knew it was out of self-interest that they had handed Jesus over to him.

19 While Pilate was sitting on the judge’s seat, his wife sent him this message: “Don’t have anything to do with that innocent man, for I have suffered a great deal today in a dream because of him.”

20 But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed.

21 “Which of the two do you want me to release to you?” asked the governor.

“Barabbas,” they answered.

22 “What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called the Messiah?” Pilate asked.

They all answered, “Crucify him!”

23 “Why? What crime has he committed?” asked Pilate.

But they shouted all the louder, “Crucify him!”

24 When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!”

25 All the people answered, “His blood is on us and on our children!”

26 Then he released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.

Jesus claiming to be “King of the Jews” — trumped-up or not, true or falsely-accused, that was the reason for Christ’s crucifixion, not “blasphemy”.
***Nope. Pilate declared Jesus to be innocent.

Kevmo: “reliable accounts... say that Pilate allowed the crucifixion because he was afraid of the crowd rioting.”

Once again, you wish us to forget who was the master and who were his subjects.
***No, I do not forget. Do you consider Matthew 27 to be historical?

Pilate was the master, so he didn’t “allow” the crucifixion, he ordered it, and for the only reason which would make sense in Roman law: rebellion.
***Nope. He washed his hands of Jesus’s blood, delcaring Him to be innocent.

Luke 23
13 Pilate called together the chief priests, the rulers and the people, 14 and said to them, “You brought me this man as one who was inciting the people to rebellion. I have examined him in your presence and have found no basis for your charges against him. 15 Neither has Herod, for he sent him back to us; as you can see, he has done nothing to deserve death. 16 Therefore, I will punish him and then release him.” [17] [a]

18 But the whole crowd shouted, “Away with this man! Release Barabbas to us!” 19 (Barabbas had been thrown into prison for an insurrection in the city, and for murder.)

20 Wanting to release Jesus, Pilate appealed to them again. 21 But they kept shouting, “Crucify him! Crucify him!”

22 For the third time he spoke to them: “Why? What crime has this man committed? I have found in him no grounds for the death penalty. Therefore I will have him punished and then release him.”

23 But with loud shouts they insistently demanded that he be crucified, and their shouts prevailed. 24 So Pilate decided to grant their demand. 25 He released the man who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, the one they asked for, and surrendered Jesus to their will.

And, as I understand it, such a charge was not entirely false — do not the Gospel writers tell us that Jesus was King of the Jews?
***Yes. And Jesus acknowledged it in front of the governor.

John 18
28 Then the Jewish leaders took Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor. By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness they did not enter the palace, because they wanted to be able to eat the Passover. 29 So Pilate came out to them and asked, “What charges are you bringing against this man?”

30 “If he were not a criminal,” they replied, “we would not have handed him over to you.”

31 Pilate said, “Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.”

“But we have no right to execute anyone,” they objected. 32 This took place to fulfill what Jesus had said about the kind of death he was going to die.

33 Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?”

34 “Is that your own idea,” Jesus asked, “or did others talk to you about me?”

35 “Am I a Jew?” Pilate replied. “Your own people and chief priests handed you over to me. What is it you have done?”

36 Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.