Posted on 09/20/2013 4:29:03 AM PDT by spirited irish
“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)
Falling Stars and Damnable Heresy
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)
Pouring more contempt on them he asked,
“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)
Concerning Matthew 19:5:
“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)
And concerning Cor. 15:21-22:
“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
The detail of the plaque saying Jesus was “King of the Jews” is certainly not in dispute, since it is one of the very few details which all four Gospel writers agreed on.
***Then the gospel writers are acceptable and reliable historical sources. In order to push your history theory you end up throwing these gospel writers under the bus. It is historical witchcraft.
The detail of the plaque saying Jesus was “King of the Jews” is certainly not in dispute, since it is one of the very few details which all four Gospel writers agreed on.
It is also not in dispute that Pontius Pilate, however callous & indifferent he certainly was, would not execute somebody for no real reason.
***Weren’t you the one claiming that he did exactly that kind of thing, cruelty, lack of trial, ruthlessness, all that stuff?
He needed an official reason, and that was certainly not “blasphemy”, but rather as the plaque shows: rebellion.
***Interesting theory. What is your source? Because the source you’ve cited actually says that Pilate found Jesus innocent of rebellion.
So I don’t “get” why that’s so hard for you to understand.
***I don’t “get” why you think that you can proceed from the gospel writers as historically accurate (placque said “King of the Jews) and then throw out EXACTLY the same sources which say that Pilate found Jesus innocent of rebellion. In terms of historical scholarship, it is pure garbage to proceed in such a way.
No backtracking, but if you wish to quote words from me which actually say what you've claimed, then I'll be happy to correct them for you.
Kevmo quoting BJK: "There is no report of Jesus telling the Sanhedrin, “I am equal to God.”
Kevmo responding: "***Sure there is.
He said “Ani Hu”, which translates as “I am He”, "
I think you're reading more into those words than are actually there.
But don't misunderstand me on this: clearly Jesus did claim to be such titles as "Son of God", "Son of Man", "Messiah / Christ", and others.
Based on all gospel and epistle accounts, he said it, and his followers believed it.
Certainly those titles alone would be enough to, in your words "piss off" the Jewish authorities, to charge Jesus with "blasphemy".
I would call those "historical facts not in dispute".
But your desire to see Jesus claiming "equality with God" is not indisputably supported by any text, and in fact is specifically denied by Jesus on various occasions.
And suppose He’d said such a thing, would that have spoken louder than what He did?
I think you’re reading more into those words than are actually there.
***Dude. It is HISTORIANS who say that. Try to come up to speed. Read Stauffer, read “Jesus, God Ghost or Guru”.
But don’t misunderstand me on this: clearly Jesus did claim to be such titles as “Son of God”, “Son of Man”, “Messiah / Christ”, and others.
***And the gospels record that he was condemned to death for answering the question of his identity. His answer qualified as blasphemy.
Based on all gospel and epistle accounts, he said it, and his followers believed it.
***Yes.
Certainly those titles alone would be enough to, in your words “piss off” the Jewish authorities, to charge Jesus with “blasphemy”.
I would call those “historical facts not in dispute”.
***Then you can add the others to the list. Coming on the clouds of heaven = something only God could do. Seated at the right hand of power = equality with God in Ps110. “Ani Hu” was too holy to utter except on high holy days by the chief priests in the temple. Please, try to come up to speed on the history.
But your desire to see Jesus claiming “equality with God” is not indisputably supported by any text,
***Sure it is. You just don’t like it.
and in fact is specifically denied by Jesus on various occasions.
***By all means, show us.
Mere words didn’t mean much to God. What God did, said far more. Yup the Christ was right in divine character.
Thanks for the link, I've bookmarked it for future study.
At first review, it seems to me that "Technique #3 - ‘TOPIC DILUTION’ " is what you are doing here, since your choice of debate points has nothing to do with the thread's original topic.
I am certainly guilty of following down the path you've lead, and responding to your invites.
But then, so has spirited irish herself, and it's her thread, so if she's interested, then we must not be trolling, right?
;-)
No backtracking, but if you wish to quote words from me which actually say what you’ve claimed, then I’ll be happy to correct them for you.
***Your post #1649:
So, by standards of most ancient history, the crucifixion and even resurrection of Jesus are rather well attested.
This makes them historical “facts”.
For you to say the resurrection is rather well attested and then claim that Jesus didn’t claim to be equal with God is backtracking. The resurrection was a miracle. Jesus’s claim is simple history. The resurrection Proved to all nearby that Jesus was Who HE said He Was, He was GOD. The simple historical claim before the sanhedrin was that He was equal with God.
Resurrection: Miracle. Harder to establish pure historicity of it. But good luck trying to explain it away.
Claim of Deity: Non Miracle. Even His enemies acknowledged the claim and had Him put to death because of it. Historically a proven fact.
For you to say the Resurrection is “well attested” but the claim to deity is “ is not indisputably supported by any text” is huge backtracking. It also betrays an ignorance of history.
If spirited Irish thinks I have diluted the topic then I’ll open my own thread. Of course, I’ll be copying & pasting from this thread.
I consider the denial of the Deity of Christ to be a damnable heresy. I am also showing FR that some of those who defend such heresy claim to uphold science, but they have no respect for the science behind the historicity of Jesus. They are science hypocrites at the least, damnable heretics at the most.
Such a claim makes you a poser, FRiend.
In fact, you are here defending your own interpretations of biblical texts, to the exclusion of all other interpretations, let alone non-biblical texts.
That's not history, that's religious faith.
Mind you, I don't for a minute object to your particular interpretations -- I think they are reasonable and plausible, just not necessarily the best historical understandings possible.
And I know for certain that religious faith is more satisfying, and indeed more useful in our lives than pure history.
So I'll say again, if you wish to look at examples of the workings of pure history, you could check out books by John Dominic Crossan.
I promise, they won't satisfy you religiously, but they may open your eyes in other areas.
Mere words didn’t mean much to God.
***I think they did. Jesus died for His words before the Sanhedrin.
History is my hobby, so I consider myself a "history buff", not a historian and certainly not a seminarian: there's tons of stuff I can't speak to.
My little library of books on the history of the biblical era includes a couple dozen, all told, I mention Crossan because it's at the extreme end of the "pure history" scale.
I take you to be posing as a historian in order to get your religious points across.
Otherwise, you would not be so quick to dismiss out-of-hand historical research by the likes of Crossan & others.
Again, I don't object to your strictly religious views, only to your calling them "history".
Such a claim makes you a poser, FRiend.
***Notably, you did not even point out ONE such place in this thread. That makes you the poser.
In fact, you are here defending your own interpretations of biblical texts, to the exclusion of all other interpretations,
***Everyone does exactly that. Everyone. I’ve been posting about historicity, not items of faith, using proper historical arguments. You’ve been running off the steam generated by your idealogy.
let alone non-biblical texts.
***By all means, post some non-biblical texts and let’s see how they stack up. So far you’ve posted one minor reference about Pilate that doesn’t even contradict the biblical account.
That’s not history, that’s religious faith.
***In your view. But in my interactions with you I’m finding that you allow your idealogy to drive how you view history, and THAT is religious faith. For you to accept gospel accounts of “king of the jews” but then throw out gospel accounts that show Pilate finding Jesus innocent of rebellion is an exercise in religiosity, not history.
Mind you, I don’t for a minute object to your particular interpretations — I think they are reasonable and plausible, just not necessarily the best historical understandings possible.
***I object to your particular interpretations because they are unhistorical, and driven by your idealogy.
And I know for certain that religious faith is more satisfying, and indeed more useful in our lives than pure history.
***Pablum
So I’ll say again, if you wish to look at examples of the workings of pure history, you could check out books by John Dominic Crossan.
***I have read lots of apologetics and historical books. If your writing is an example of what I can expect from Crossan, I’m not all that interested. I like real history, not idealogically driven revisionism.
I promise, they won’t satisfy you religiously, but they may open your eyes in other areas.
***Did you even click over to the link of the article I wrote? It PROVES that I have strong historicity backup to what I say. It seems that perhaps you have read only one book.
I take you to be posing as a historian
***Nope. History buff like you. But I have higher respect for the actual historicity and science behind the history of the claims in the bible. You don’t seem to be aware of much of it.
in order to get your religious points across.
***You’re so quick to accuse me of being religious but you can’t establish even one time I’ve done it on this thread.
Otherwise, you would not be so quick to dismiss out-of-hand historical research by the likes of Crossan & others.
***I don’t dismiss it. I just don’t want to read it at this time because the first time I’ve heard of it was from you, and you don’t really show a strong grasp of historicity. So it colors my perception of Crossan. Have you read anyone else? Yamauchi? Ramsay? FF Bruce? Stauffer? Even Josh McDowell?
Again, I don’t object to your strictly religious views, only to your calling them “history”.
***Just ‘cause you say it that way, don’t make it so. If it were true, what you said, then you could easily point to one or two places in this thread where I pushed a religious viewpoint as historical. Go ahead. I understand that what I write to you makes you uncomfortable, and that is because you have been shown to be ignorant about this extremely well attested period in history.
FRiend, I acknowledge your amazing ability to stare evidence straight in the face while denying it's existence.
I just can't help you with that...
I have already posted the biblical text which confirms this report:
I combine that with the "King of the Jews" plaque and conclude that Pilate crucified Jesus for rebellion.
I find the gospel accounts of Pilate's exaggerated "reluctance" unconvincing because other accounts show Pilate of a very different temperament indeed.
Beyond that, whole books have been written on these subjects, books which you obviously reject because they don't comfort your religious beliefs -- and that's fine, I don't have a problem with your beliefs.
Kevmo responding: " ***Dude. You don’t know squat about history if you claim such a thing."
Are you certain you really mean what you wrote here?
Did I finally expose you?
Are you at last admitting that you believe the Jews, not Romans, killed Jesus?
I combine that with the “King of the Jews” plaque and conclude that Pilate crucified Jesus for rebellion.
***Then there are no sources. It is a conjecture, just as I have been saying. The only problem with your conjecture is that it contradicts the actual source you proceeded from in allowing the King of the Jews” plaque: the gospels. It is those same gospels that record that Jesus was found innocent of rebellion by Pilate. So, now it’s time that “I acknowledge your amazing ability to stare evidence straight in the face while denying it’s existence.”
I find the gospel accounts of Pilate’s exaggerated “reluctance” unconvincing because other accounts show Pilate of a very different temperament indeed.
***Your own conjecture, and this time based upon your own perception. Doubly wrong. Your extrabiblical source for Pilate makes him look very similar to how he was portrayed in the gospels.
Beyond that, whole books have been written on these subjects,
***By all means, post the books. Post your sources. Not your own conjecture, post the actual sources.
books which you obviously reject because they don’t comfort your religious beliefs -
***Wow, with a sweeping a-priori argument you throw all positive discussion into the gutter with such a pile of crap statement.
- and that’s fine, I don’t have a problem with your beliefs.
***That’s so mightily magnanimous of you /s. I have problems with some of your HISTORICAL beliefs. I don’t know anything about your religious beliefs and don’t care to. Basically, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Read the follow up. I know that’s difficult for you.
FRiend, it's late, well past my bedtime...
Certainly not all historians agree with you, nor do the Gospels themselves claim that Jesus consistently said he is God, or equal to God.
He just as often said the opposite -- Son of Man, Messiah, even Son of God are not claims of "equality".
Just as often, Jesus acknowledged his Father's superiority.
Again, I respect your religious beliefs, but you have not entertained any historical facts or even textual interpretations contrary to them, and that tells me you are no historian, FRiend.
Of course it did.
That's not the subject of debate.
The issue here is only your personal religious belief that Jesus' words were somehow tantamount to claiming "equality" with God.
That word "equality" is not in the Bible -- it is your personal construct, and that of likeminded believers.
I would only suggest there may be other ways to interpret the words.
Sorry FRiend, but that's just nonsense.
Speaks of a tired mind, time to hit the sack...
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.