=Something Bad Jesus Did=

[free spirit]

If you break the law you have to pay a penalty. now what? Or how do you Jews do that?

Now, you pay the penalty! That's the law of cause and effect. You break the Law, you suffer the effects of having broken the Law. As simple as that. How do we do that? By retribution, repentance and back to obedience. Read Isaiah 1:18,19. That's the only way to set things right with God.

By retribution Ben, so what is the penalty?

Yes our body will die until the resurrection; but our spirit will not if we have the Holy Spirit in us.

Great! Keep waiting for your utopia.

Yes we live in hope, what is the alternative Ben?

I sympathize with you but John 1 - 16 to 18, has no ambiguity for we read; "For of his fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ."

This is Pauline rhetoric of Replacement Theology.

Yes Jesus came to reform the old Jewish religion


Ben you know what the law is; but do you know what grace and truth is?

I do but you don't. Therefore, read Psalm 119 and you will.

Yes I have read Psalm 119, and surprise, surprise the prophet is writing what would have been in Jesus mind when he walked this Earth. In ACTS 13: 22, we read "And after he had removed him, he raised up David to be their king, concerning whom he also testified and said, 'I have found IN David the son of Jesse, a man after my heart, who will do all my will.'" Ben, the sins of David are well documented; and when one sins he has broken the law, which is God's will. So David did not do all of God's will.
In contrast Jesus did all of God's will because he never sinned.
Jesus by doing all of God's will fulfilled the law in himself, therefore his soul could receive the promise of the Holy Spirit. = (And grace and truth came to Earth)
And through his glorified Spirit we can also keep the law, for we read in 1John 3: 9, "No one who is born of God practices sin, because his seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." David was a great king but he was not the Christ.

The Crucifixion was reserved for harden criminals, and for the enemy of Rome, as far as I know only Jesus was crucified guiltless. Because he claimed to be the Christ a king therefore a self proclaimed king an enemy of Rome, that is what Pilate charged him with. To me he is the Saviour of the world he is Christ and King.

Have you thought about what you wrote above? That for you Jesus is Saviour but that he was crucified for having proclaimed himself king; therefore a enemy of Rome and for this he was charged by Pilate. And then, that he was crucified guiltless. How could he be guiltless if he declared himself king and an enemy of Rome? Sorry, but you got lost in your own trap.

You see Ben, Pilate had to justify his action he could not execute an innocent man, but the Jews said to Pilate that Jesus had declared himself to be Christ and therefore a King; Jesus himself confirmed that he was a Kind. So if he was truly the Christ and therefore a King, he was telling the truth, therefore he was an innocent man. I understand that is very hard for you to accept that, and that the high priests have made a mistake, but if they would have repented Jesus would have forgiven them; but they did not repent therefore their deception live to this day.

 

[free spirit]

Yes Matthew 5 - 19, is clear, but you know that no man can keep the law, so the alternative is to change men character, and that is exactly what the Holy Spirit has come to do.

God knows that we are not perfect. To break the Law is human. To reject the Law is insurrection. The problem is not with breaking the Law, but with rejecting the Law.

You have it all wrong Ben, because by having the Holy Spirit in us, we establish the law in our hearts, that is how we become perfect therefore acceptable to him.

As you know we sin because our human spirit is not holy. In ACTS 2 - 32 to 39, Peter was speaking to Jews, and he said;

Right! A Gentile speaking to the Jews. Read Acts 2:14. A Jew would never intruduce himself like that to a Jewish audience. That was Luke who wrote that speech and nobody ever delivered it. It was written only to document the Church.

Yes you could be right; Luke expressed himself according to his understanding, but the heart of the message he did not change.
" This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses. therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured forth this which you both see and hear.

What kind of witness, an eyewitness? Mention to me an eyewitness to the resurrection of Jesus if you can.

Well, the high priests guards those that were guarding the tomb reported the fact to the high priest, but the high priest silenced them with money. But those that had seen him die on the cross, also had seen him after his resurrection, they are witness and their witness live to this day.

For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says; "The Lord said to my Lord sit at my right hand, until I make thine enemies a footstool for thy feet.

Many Psalms were written to be chanted in the Temple by the choir of Levites. Especially David's Psalms. Then, Psalm 110 was one of them. That Psalm was originally written by David thus: "The Lord said to me, sit at my... " It would be awkward for the Levites to sing, "The Lord said to me..." Therefore, an alteration was in order, and that Psalm came out to be: "The Lord (God) said to my Lord (David), sit at my right hand..." Nothing at all to do with Jesus but through assumptions, as a result of lack of logical thinking.

Well Ben, if you want to believe that David was singing praises to himself it's up to you.

Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ this Jesus whom you crucified.

That's another evidence that Peter could have never delivered that speech. Peter was a Nazarene Jew and not an anti-Semite to falsely accuse the Jews with having crucified Jesus, when he knew that the Romans did it and not the Jews. In fact, the late Pope John 23rd asked publicly that the Jewish People forgive Christianity for this 2,000 years old false accusation. If a Pope acknowledged such a thing, it's because the NT has failed.

[/QUOTE]
I do not think that Peter knew what anti-Semite was, Peter was only stating a fact, Pilate did what the Jews wanted him to do, he went against his better judgment.
If you rest your faith on the condescending words of a Pope you truly are on quick sand.

 

[Ben Sinai]

You believe only what you want to believe and not because it is true.

　
O.k. And? Just because you say so? :biglaugh:
　

I am reading from the New American version of the Bible. Saint Joseph's edition. It says ONLY. But to go RATHER to the Jews, means pretty much the same.

　
I don’t care from what rag you choose to read.
　

This is not Jewish, therefore, not true. Jews don't believe in demons. Jesus was a Jew.

　
Yes it is. What you say is the lie. I know so called jews that do believe in demons which are unclean malachem. Again, just because you say so? I don’t think so.
　

This is not from Jesus but Pauline, who was the first one to paptize in the name of Jesus. Read Acts 19:5.

　
Again and again, just because you say so. This is a mess. You spew all this anti-Sha’ul rhetoric when a certain verse doesn’t match your agenda of a delusional fantasy land. Yahshua did speak this and you can’t prove otherwise. What the heck does Acts 19:5 have to do with Yahshua telling his talmidim to go to all the nations of the world? Not a dang thing. And what difference does it make to you if Sha’ul purified people in the name of Yahshua? You can’t prove that he was the first just because it states that he did the purifications. All the others could have as well but just in this instance was it found that these people that he was speaking to had not been purified in the name of the master Yahshua. Oh but read the next verse of the Ruach Ha Chodesh so we can hear you say that this is also just some “Pauline”. You might have been able to pull the wool over others eyes but your delusional fantasies do not work with me. :no:

 

[maximus-Aurelius]

This is regarding the initial post.
Beside being over exaggerated, you mean to tell me a Gentile woman was able to understand and not his own chosen people who asked for a king to rule over them.

Jesus did say not all would understand, and he knew in the future his father would allow the Gentiles to be saved, because of some stiff necked people did not want his mercy.

Even though she understood what she was being called her faith was stronger than a Lil mustard seed.

 

[Ben Masada]

You see Ben, Pilate had to justify his action he could not execute an innocent man, but the Jews said to Pilate that Jesus had declared himself to be Christ and therefore a King; Jesus himself confirmed that he was a Kind. So if he was truly the Christ and therefore a King, he was telling the truth, therefore he was an innocent man. I understand that is very hard for you to accept that, and that the high priests have made a mistake, but if they would have repented Jesus would have forgiven them; but they did not repent therefore their deception live to this day.

The Jews could not have said that Jesus had declared to be Christ because the idea originated with Paul 30 yearas later in Antioch when FOR THE FIRST TIME the disciples started being called Christians, because Paul had spent a whole year preaching in the Nazarene synagogue of Antioch that Jesus was Christ.

Yes, Jesus was telling the truth, but whom to, the Romans? So, he was not innocent. Any claim to be king where Caesar was the only king would be tantamount to be a candidate to the cross.

Stop perpetuating the myth that the Jews made a mistake at condemning Jesus to the cross, because it was not true; and the late Pope John 23rd already recognized that the mistake was of the Church to spread this antisemitic false accusation for 2,000 years. That's when this magnanimous Pope asked the Jews to forgive Christianity.

 

[Ben Masada]

You have it all wrong Ben, because by having the Holy Spirit in us, we establish the law in our hearts, that is how we become perfect therefore acceptable to him.

No one is perfect. Only God is.

Well, the high priests guards those that were guarding the tomb reported the fact to the high priest, but the high priest silenced them with money. But those that had seen him die on the cross, also had seen him after his resurrection, they are witness and their witness live to this day.

Please, share with me what facts they reported to the High Priest? I would love to know. I asked for an eyewitness of his resurrection. Why don't you give up and say that there isn't any?
That everything is a matter of faith? Much less embarrassing than to keep struggling for excuses to fix a hole in a boat in the middle of the ocean. You are going straight to the bottom.

Well Ben, if you want to believe that David was singing praises to himself it's up to you.

David was not the one singing the praises but the Choir of Levites. Don't try to trap me because Aman tried to trap Mordechai and ended himself in the gallows even after his wife warned him to stop.

[/QUOTE]
I do not think that Peter knew what anti-Semite was, Peter was only stating a fact, Pilate did what the Jews wanted him to do, he went against his better judgment.
If you rest your faith on the condescending words of a Pope you truly are on quick sand.

Get into you head once and for all that Peter never delivered that sermon. And regarding the Pope, it doesn't matter how much you dislike Popes, he is the head of Christianity and there is nothing you can do about it.

 

[Ben Masada]

　

　

　
What the heck does Acts 19:5 have to do with Yahshua telling his talmidim to go to all the nations of the world? Not a dang thing. And what difference does it make to you if Sha’ul purified people in the name of Yahshua? You can’t prove that he was the first just because it states that he did the purifications. All the others could have as well but just in this instance was it found that these people that he was speaking to had not been purified in the name of the master Yahshua. Oh but read the next verse of the Ruach Ha Chodesh so we can hear you say that this is also just some “Pauline”. You might have been able to pull the wool over others eyes but your delusional fantasies do not work with me. :no:

Yeshua never mentioned those words in Matthew 28:19,20. Those words were written by a Gentile former disciple of Paul's in the year 85 CE. Go back and read Acts 19:5. Paul was the first to start baptizing in the name of Jesus. Don't be so stiff necked!

 

[Ben Masada]

This is regarding the initial post.
Beside being over exaggerated, you mean to tell me a Gentile woman was able to understand and not his own chosen people who asked for a king to rule over them.

Jesus did say not all would understand, and he knew in the future his father would allow the Gentiles to be saved, because of some stiff necked people did not want his mercy.

Even though she understood what she was being called her faith was stronger than a Lil mustard seed.

In the future! What are you talking about! Since many years in the past, many years before Jesus, the Propets already said that the Gentiles had their chance at salvation. Read Isaiah 42:6. Israel had been given as light unto the nations. And Isaiah 56:1-8 has posted the invitation to Gentiles to join Israel.

 

[Thief]

Thief here....about Jesus being innocent.

His disciples followed Him because they saw what they believed to be the up and coming...king of the Jews.
They wanted a Jewish king on a Jewish throne....and He could have been.
He could have driven the Romans out of Judea.
He could feed an army without apparent provision...as He fed the multitude.
He could have healed any wounded...as He healed so many before.
The weather would have favored His camp...not the enemy.

But when they laid their swords on His table....and did ask...are these enough?...it must have broken His heart....they did not understand the kingdom He spoke about.

The accusation against Him was insurrection...punishable by death.
He was not guilty. His kingdom is not of this world. He was not a threat to Rome.

He was guilty of disturbing the peace...that incident at the temple.
Pilate ordered 39 strokes of the lash...one stroke short of a death sentence.
He was hoping the Carpenter would die at the whipping post...problem solved...but it didn't work out that way.

 

[free spirit]

The Jews could not have said that Jesus had declared to be Christ because the idea originated with Paul 30 yearas later in Antioch when FOR THE FIRST TIME the disciples started being called Christians, because Paul had spent a whole year preaching in the Nazarene synagogue of Antioch that Jesus was Christ.

The new worshipers needed to be called something and calling them "The New Jews" was out of the question so they hopped for Christian which means "Christ like" the word Christian therefore embraces the meaning of the gospel in its entirety.

Yes, Jesus was telling the truth, but whom to, the Romans? So, he was not innocent. Any claim to be king where Caesar was the only king would be tantamount to be a candidate to the cross.
In mark 14: 61 to 64, we read; "again the high priest was questioning him, and saying to him, "Are you the Christ, the son of the blessed one? And Jesus said, "I am; and you shall see the son of man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming with the cloud of heaven." And tearing his clothes, the high priest said, " What further need do we have of witnesses? you have heard the blasphemy; how does it seem to you?
Yes Pilate needed a lawful reason to crucify him and Jesus provided him one. Ben what meaning if any has the "tearing his clothes"

Stop perpetuating the myth that the Jews made a mistake at condemning Jesus to the cross, because it was not true; and the late Pope John 23rd already recognized that the mistake was of the Church to spread this antisemitic false accusation for 2,000 years. That's when this magnanimous Pope asked the Jews to forgive Christianity. [/quote

Ben, Jesus came to fulfill the law, and to do that he had to die sinless, who killed him is no here and no there, we are all sinners and he died so that we might be freed from the slavery of sin, so in a way we are all guilty for his death.
The Pope is the representative of the Christian religion, but when the religion religion stop loving its neighbor that religion has moved away from God, For true Christianity as I said before the person has to be Christ like and he cannot move away from the only commandment given to them, which is " to love the neighbor like yourself" as you know love does not do harm to a neighbor therefore it is the fulfillment of the Law.

 

[Ben Masada]

Thief here....about Jesus being innocent.

His disciples followed Him because they saw what they believed to be the up and coming...king of the Jews.
They wanted a Jewish king on a Jewish throne....and He could have been.
He could have driven the Romans out of Judea.
He could feed an army without apparent provision...as He fed the multitude.
He could have healed any wounded...as He healed so many before.
The weather would have favored His camp...not the enemy.

But when they laid their swords on His table....and did ask...are these enough?...it must have broken His heart....they did not understand the kingdom He spoke about.

The accusation against Him was insurrection...punishable by death.
He was not guilty. His kingdom is not of this world. He was not a threat to Rome.

He was guilty of disturbing the peace...that incident at the temple.
Pilate ordered 39 strokes of the lash...one stroke short of a death sentence.
He was hoping the Carpenter would die at the whipping post...problem solved...but it didn't work out that way.

He could have done this and that and many other things. You are being too hypothetical.

To be scourged with 39 strokes of the lash was a matter of policy to be used just prior to the crucifixion of any one condemned to the cross. The practice was used to break down any form of physical disposition to resistence. Read John 19:1. And Jesus was not the only one. Read Josephus.

 

[Thief]

Thief here....actually Masada...I'm already up on this one....
40 strokes of the lash was a death sentence.
The likelihood of surviving the beating would be remote.

Pilate was a judge. Under Roman law, insurrection was punishable by death.
That was the accusation brought against Jesus by His own people.
Pilate could not find anything, in the speech of Jesus to support that claim.
The accusation was false.

But rousing an angry crowd of people....is disturbing the peace....and the crowd was insisting on execution.
Rabble rousing is offensive...but not a capital crime.

Pilate had the Man scourged...hoping He would die at the post.
He then presented the Man..again to the people...who rejected Him and insisted on His crucifixion.

 

[free spirit]

FR. You have it all wrong Ben, because by having the Holy Spirit in us, we establish the law in our hearts, that is how we become perfect therefore acceptable to him.

BEN No one is perfect. Only God is.
FS. Jesus is perfect and his spirit in me makes me perfect.

FS. Well, the high priests guards those that were guarding the tomb reported the fact to the high priest, but the high priest silenced them with money. But those that had seen him die on the cross, also had seen him after his resurrection, they are witness and their witness live to this day.

BEN Please, share with me what facts they reported to the High Priest? I would love to know. I asked for an eyewitness of his resurrection. Why don't you give up and say that there isn't any?
That everything is a matter of faith? Much less embarrassing than to keep struggling for excuses to fix a hole in a boat in the middle of the ocean. You are going straight to the bottom.
FS. Read Matthew chapter 28.


FS. Well Ben, if you want to believe that David was singing praises to himself it's up to you.

BEN David was not the one singing the praises but the Choir of Levites. Don't try to trap me because Aman tried to trap Mordechai and ended himself in the gallows even after his wife warned him to stop.
FS. Well you know that David wrote the PSALM, so he was singing praises to himself, if that's OK with you so be it.

[/QUOTE]
FS. I do not think that Peter knew what anti-Semite was, Peter was only stating a fact, Pilate did what the Jews wanted him to do, he went against his better judgment.
If you rest your faith on the condescending words of a Pope you truly are on quick sand.

BEN Get into you head once and for all that Peter never delivered that sermon. And regarding the Pope, it doesn't matter how much you dislike Popes, he is the head of Christianity and there is nothing you can do about it.

FS. Well Ben, i do not blame you for thinking that; for even today with the overwhelming evidence of the Holocaust with actual survivors still living, with photographs and motion pictures of it, despite that crashing evidences there are people that deny that the Holocaust ever took place. So people in the end believe what they want to believe.
well if you are happy with the Pope acknowledgment it is OK with me, but know this he represents the earthly church, and not the heavenly church.

 

[Ben Sinai]

Yeshua never mentioned those words in Matthew 28:19,20. Those words were written by a Gentile former disciple of Paul's in the year 85 CE. Go back and read Acts 19:5. Paul was the first to start baptizing in the name of Jesus. Don't be so stiff necked!

Yahshua did say those words in Matthew 28:19-20. The book of Matthew was written by a Hebrew Yisraelite in the Hebrew tongue. Acts 19:5 has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

 

[Ben Sinai]

Go back and read Acts 19:5. Paul was the first to start baptizing in the name of Jesus. Don't be so stiff necked!

　
That is simply untrue. I am only stiff necked to those who hate Yah and would see His people fail. Oh and brother Sha’ul wasn’t in anyway the first to purify in the name of Yahshua Ha Moshiach Ben Dawid. Even though you will undoubtedly refute and deny the truth it still stands as proof to what I say, as you also use writings of the same author, as well as others, in the so called NT to establish your unclean agenda. But the deception stops here.
　
The talmidim and the apostles, other than Sha’ul, purified first in the name of Yahshua………
　
Mar 16:16 He who believes and is purified will be saved; but he who disbelieves will be condemned.

Joh 4:2 although Yahshua himself didn't immerse, but his talmidim,
​

Act 2:38 Kefa said to them, "Repent, and be purified, every one of you, in the name of Yahshua the Anointed for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Ruach Ha Chodesh.
　
Act 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching good news concerning the Kingdom of Elohim and the name of Yahshua the Anointed, they were purified, both men and women.
　
Act 8:14 Now when the apostles who were at Yerushalayim heard that Samaria had received the word of Elohim, they sent Kefa and Yochanan to them,
Act 8:15 who, when they had come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Ruach Ha Chodesh;
Act 8:16 for as yet he had fallen on none of them. They had only been purified in the name of the Anointed Yahshua.
Act 8:17 Then they laid their hands on them, and they received the Ruach Ha Chodesh.
　
And since Sha’ul was still………
　

Act 8:3 But Sha'ul ravaged the assembly, entering into every house, and dragged both men and women off to prison.
​

　
At that time then he wasn’t the first to purify in the name of Yahshua Ha Moshiach Ben Dawid. But I am sure you will just count this all also as some how what you call “Pauline rhetoric”.
　
Between myself and others here we have all shown way to many errors of yours in not only your thoughts and feelings, being you are a true eisegete who practices your true school of thought of eisegesis, but also the flawed and corrupt doctrine that you believe. I’m really not sure why your not so embarrassed and ashamed to even show yourself after this enlightenment. To even go as far as to perpetrate a lie and claim yourself a member of the chosen ones is astonishing to say the least. I just hope that by the efforts of all these that have countered your filth that we may but have saved if not just one for even one would have been far more than the price of ruby’s to allow to fall into such deception as that which you vomit forth.

 

[Ben Masada]

　
They had only been purified in the name of the Anointed Yahshua.

Open the Scriptures that Yeshua used to handle and prove to me where he was anointed. You can't because you speak too much about things you don't have a clue.

　

Act 8:3 But Sha'ul ravaged the assembly, entering into every house, and dragged both men and women off to prison.
​

Paul never in his life entered a single church to drag men and women off to prison. One does not found a church to persecute the adepts. He used to persecute the Nazarenes in their synagogues. Read Acts 9:2. There were no Christians then, but only Nazarenes.

 

[Ben Masada]

Yahshua did say those words in Matthew 28:19-20. The book of Matthew was written by a Hebrew Yisraelite in the Hebrew tongue. Acts 19:5 has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

A Hebrew Israelite would never write Greek Mythology. The gospel of Matthew was written by a Hellenistic Gentiles, who had been a disciple of Paul's.

 

[Ben Masada]

FS. Well Ben, i do not blame you for thinking that; for even today with the overwhelming evidence of the Holocaust with actual survivors still living, with photographs and motion pictures of it, despite that crashing evidences there are people that deny that the Holocaust ever took place. So people in the end believe what they want to believe.
well if you are happy with the Pope acknowledgment it is OK with me, but know this he represents the earthly church, and not the heavenly church.

Sorry my friend but this of heavenly church is pure poppycock.

 

[Ben Masada]

Thief here....actually Masada...I'm already up on this one....
40 strokes of the lash was a death sentence.
The likelihood of surviving the beating would be remote.

Pilate was a judge. Under Roman law, insurrection was punishable by death.
That was the accusation brought against Jesus by His own people.
Pilate could not find anything, in the speech of Jesus to support that claim.
The accusation was false.

But rousing an angry crowd of people....is disturbing the peace....and the crowd was insisting on execution.
Rabble rousing is offensive...but not a capital crime.



Pilate had the Man scourged...hoping He would die at the post.
He then presented the Man..again to the people...who rejected Him and insisted on His crucifixion.

Read John 19:1. To scourge prior to crucifixion was a Roman policy with the purpose to break natural resistence to crucifixion. Jesus was not the only one. Read Josephus and stop the cliche that Jesus was the only Jew the Romans crucified.

 

[Thief]

Thief here...I never said He was the only one to suffer on the cross.

Are you having imaginary discussions?

And if we include Josephus...we'll have to include many other religious writers.
This could take a lengthy bit of writing.

I sure I can make my point...well enough.
It may interest you to know...not all were scourged...and not all were nailed.

Jesus got both because...He was well known.
The pharisees and local Roman authority were not willing or prepared, for a large gathering should word spread quickly, and the usual three day routine be done.

That's right...three days. The typical convict was simply fastened to the cross, and died slowly...usually of thirst...or exposure to the elements.
No one was allowed to touch the condemned.

This type of execution brought loud...and unpleasant...sounds of agony.
People passing by, on their way into the city, would understand...
the Romans were serious about their laws.

In the case of the Carpenter...the authorities were not interested in a spectacle. They simply wanted Him dead...quickly...under Roman law.
The beating was intended to kill Him.
That didn't go well....for the authorities...or Him.
The nailing induces severe pain...and shock. Death becomes eminent.