Posted on 04/04/2005 10:11:49 AM PDT by robowombat
I thought the troopers who nabbed Jesus in Gesthemane were Jewish officers acting on behalf of the Pharisees.
I thought Jesus's first encounter with the Roman authorities in Jerusalem was when the Pharisees and their enforcers took him to Pilate.
Am I inaccurate?
That was why I originally posted "not exactly" to the writer's line about Judas pointing out Jesus (by the kiss) to the Romans. I had always been taught they were officers of the Pharisees.
I think I'll do some research.
A DNA test is reported by a witness. Do you agree a witness is proof?
The DNA test results are reported by a witness. A test, I might add, whose results can be duplicated by anyone in the world.
Would that be the same sort of 'witnessing' done when a 'Christian' tells of Christ's message for the world?
Or, are you talking about an 'eyewitness' to a specific event?
No, a witness is not proof of anything. Witnesses lie all the time. Witnesses have agendas. Witnesses can misinterpret what they're seeing, hearing, etc. Witnesses can forget.
Do you realize how many "facts" you hold that are dependent on witness statements?
What's sad is that you can't simply admit to me that you have faith in Him and that's enough for you.
Truly sad.
Do you agree that virtually all that you hold as knowledge came from witnesses?
Absolutely NOT!
All that I hold as knowledge came from GOD!
Sheesh!
1) Authoritative: the book is from God
2) Prophetic: written by a man of God
3) Authentic: authentic document
4) Dynamic: must have life-transforming power of God
5) Accepted: people of God accepted it as the Word of God
While Old Testament canon was a matter beyond dispute, it was necessary to define what the New Testament comprised of for several reasons:
1) Marcion (A.D. 140) developed a heretical canon he began to propogate
2) Eastern churches were utilizing many false books during church services
3) Edict of Diocletian
On the day of the Roman Terminalia, Feb 23, 303, Diocletian sacrificed to the pagan gods:
" . . . In the first, while Diocletian was sacrificing in public, the chief interpreter of the victims' organs reported that he could not read the future in them because of the hostile influence of Christians standing around. Diocletian burst into a rage, insisting that all in his court should offer sacrifice, and sent out orders to his army to follow suit." (Ramsey MacMullen, Constantine, p.24). "
Diocletian then consulted the most powerful shrine of augury and divination in the world, the Oracle of Apollo in Delphi, Greece. But his priests brought him bad news: the Oracle had quit working too... (a lamentable state of affairs since Christ's Resurrection). This caused him to fly into an uncontrollable rage and he ordered the holocaust to commence immediately. Fire, racks, swords, wild beasts, crosses, poison and famine were made use of to kill the Christians. Invention was exhausted to devise tortures against those who would not deny Christ and acknowledge Caesar as "lord" and burn incense to his image. At that time Christianity had been growing by leaps and bounds throughout the Empire. Despite Christians being outstanding citizens, but the Roman Emperors seen them as a threat to the empire because they refused to acknowledge the divinity of the Emperors or call Caesar "lord."
The main target were books of the New Testament . . . and the histories of Christ. All of the great books portraying the Mount of Olives as the site of the Resurrection were systematically destroyed. Even books written by pagan authors were destroyed they revealed doctrines and practices of the Apostolic church.
Eusebius tells us that there were innumerable histories of the Life of Christ and the early church. Only one account survived this persecution:
"Hence by recent authors also, there are, as I have said, demonstrations without number, which we may carefully read, very able and clear, written in argumentative form in defense of our doctrine, and not a few commentaries carefully made upon the sacred and inspired Scriptures, showing by mathematical demonstrations the unerring truthfulness of those who from the beginning preached to us the word of godliness" (Preparation for the Gospel, Bk. I, ch. III, p.7.)
This persecution lasted 10 years and was ended by Constantine's (A.D. 280 - 337) defeat of Maxentius at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge (A.D. 312). Subsequently he, and his co-emperor, Licinius, jointly issued the Edict of Milan (A.D. 313), which mandated toleration of Christians in the Roman Empire. As guardian of Constantine's favored religion, the church was then given legal rights and large financial donations.
In 325, he called the Council of Nicaea to convene for the explicite purpose of addressing the Arian heresy. Constantine did not preside over the Council of Nicaea because of his age, (and because he had no theological knowledge), but was represented by two presbyters. One outcome of this council was changing the time of the Lord's Resurrection to the Sunday following the Passover. This was to coincide with the old Roman festival of Easter which usually fell about a week after Passover when the moon rose after midnight.
In A.D. 326, Constantine sent his mother Helena to Jerusalem to discover the spot that he had foreseen as the place of Jesus' Resurrection. This was the site of the temple of Venus on the West side of Jerusalem. He ordered the temple torn down and a church constructed on the site. This is called the church of the Holy Sepulchre to this day. This is the WRONG spot because it was located within the city of Jerusalem and Jesus died outside the city walls.
Pope Constantine was also responsible for changing the date of our Saviour's birth to Dec. 25. Since ALL the books on the correct time of Jesus' birth had been destroyed, this was easy for Constantine to do. Dec. 25 was the date of choice, as it was the Winter Solstice, and to the pagans was known as Dies Natalis Invicti or The Birthday of the Unconquered SUN. There are no solar holidays in the Bible. All Scriptural holidays are lunar, or MOON, based...
Subsequently, pope Contantine made Christianity the State religion and united church and state. In so doing, he married the pure bride of Christ with the dirty politics of the Roman Empire.
Prior to this time, a person entered the church through conversion or the new birth. Baptism followed this spiritual regeneration (in context of Jesus' sermon to Nicodemus). Because Constantine believed that baptism washed away sin and made one a Christian, he received Eusebius of Nicodemia, Arius friend, on his death bed (A.D. 337) and was baptized an Arian in 337 A.D. Constantine died at age 57 most probably from the effects of poison.
"Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua), and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1997, Part Two, Article 1.)
In the 30 years that Constantine reigned, the Roman Catholic system was fully developed. The 2 big festivals: Christmas and Easter with entry through baptism instead of the new birth, union of church and state, and the false time and place of the Lord's birth and Resurrection have continued right down to our time. The first pope's work notwithstanding, it was merely a culmination of a course embarked upon by his predecessor's.
Elagabalus (A.D. 204-222) was high priest of Baal in Syria and later became Roman Emperor at 14 years of age. He established the cult of Sol Invictus Elagabal in Rome. However, since he was a depraved monster even by Roman standards, he was murdered by his troops.
"Emperor Elagabalas, the crowned high priest of Sol Invictus, sacrificed to the sun god every morning. During these daily rites, for which he stood in front of the altar, the amplissimuss sacedos wore typically Syrian robes ornamented with precious stones. It may be that he examined the entrails of young children which had been sacrificed....."(Gaston H. Halsberghe, The Cult of Sol Invictus), p.85)Emperor Aurelian (A.D. 270-275) considered Sol Invictus Elagabal too foreign or Eastern for Roman tastes, Romanizing it by dropping the Elagabal. He established a college of high priests and made Sol Invictus the state religion of the Roman Empire.
".... Therefore Aurelian established a new college of high priests, under the name Pontifices Dei Solis." (The Cult of Sol Invictus, p. 155).
This institution later evolved into the Roman College of Cardinals that has elected every pope since Constantine. Aurelian was also murdered by his troops.
"...during the rule of Constantine the Great...the cult of Deus Sol Invictus reached extraordinary heights, so that his reign was even spoken of as a Sun Emperorship. Constantine was the personification of Deus Sol Invictus on earth, and could consider the statue of the sun in the Forum bearing his name as a statue of himself" (The Cult of Sol Invictus, p. 167)
Neither the Roman Catholic Church, nor Constantine, were the ultimate authority with respect to establishing canon. The truth is that there was no Roman Catholic Church ruling Christianity before Constantine, because Christianity was an illegal religion and an underground practice. It was not until hundred's of year's later, 5th cent. to the 7th cent., that the first vestiges of this church government rose where there was a Roman bishop as the head of the Church, making it an official Roman Church functioning similar to today's.
The foregoing digression notwithstanding, a test for inclusion in the New Testament, as quoted by McDowell, quoting Geisler and Nix, who agreed with Gaussen, Warfield, Hodge and most Protestants in that it was apostolic approval being the primary requirement and not merely apostolic authorship.
The earliest list of New Testament canon was presented by Athanasius of Alexandria (A.D. 303). That list contains the exact books presently contained in the New Testament. Subsequently, Jerome and Augustine defined the New Testament to be 27 books.
Polycarp (A.D. 115), Clement and others refer to Old and New Testament passages with phrases: "as it is said in these Scriptures." F. F. Bruce says of Irenaeus's writings: "[they] attest the canonical recognition of the 4-fold Gospel, Acts [of the Apostles], Romans, I & II Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., Col., I & II Thess., I & II Tim., and Titus, of I Pt., I Jn., and the [Book of] Revelation." Moreover, Bruce says, "when at last at the Church Council - The Synod of Hippo (A.D. 393) - listed the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, it did not confer upon them any authority which they did not already possess, but simply recorded their previously established canonicity."
However, each of us puts different weights on witness testimony. You will happen to accept anything that a lab person claims in regards to DNA tests. That is your personal threshold. They may be lying, but you are inclined to accept their witness.
We all have different thresholds for how much evidence we need in order to accept something as truth.
Christianity is based on witnesses. These witnesses include people present as well as people who predicted such events would happen. There are numerous witnesses sighted in the bible. Its perfectly okay to reject these witness statements as being delusions, lies etc. but never-the-less, these statements exist.
Some people (myself included) hold their statements as being credible because of the risks they took in testifying. Some people (myself included) hold the testimony as being truthful because there was a sufficent detail given in which parts of their testimony could have been falsified. Some people (myself included) are in awe to the extent predicted events coincided with those reported by these witnesses. Some people (myself included) give the testimony more weight because the wild claims of resurrection were more extraordinary then they needed to be in order to continue the Christian movement. A purely spiritual non-physical resurrection would have been plenty.
No, Dan, its not that Christians accept their beliefs on faith. Not one disciple is reported to have accepted on faith. They all were witnesses.
You are free to reject these witnesses if you like for whatever reason you desire. But to claim there is no evidence is simply false. What you mean to claim is that there is no evidence that is sufficient for you. Fine, the OJ jury would had a larger threshold than I did. I can live with that. But to claim there was no evidence against OJ is false.
"Wasn't Judas so consumed by guilt he hanged himself?
When did he have time to write a gospel?"
Acts 1:16 "Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. Psalms 69
17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.
18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
Doesn't sound like a self administered hanging, sounds like Judas had some help...
Not exactly. The manuscript that includes reference to Jesus is believed to be a later altered version and this reference does not appear in other manuscripts
Deutsche, actually. Q document
The hypothetical "Q" document is deduced by noting the passages between Mark, Matthew, & Luke that depict the same scene. Wherever the description or quotes are nearly identical (the books were written decades after the occurrence) it's assumed that they had copied from either the Markean Gospel or the "Q" text.
The Gospel of Thomas is a collection of sayings, quotes, and parables attributed to Jesus. Thomas differs in that it's not a narrative story like the canonical gospels. Also the parables are more simplistic and unadorned. Compared to the other gospels, it can be argued that Thomas wrote "this is what Jesus said" and Mark, Luke, et. al. elaborated on "this is what Jesus meant".
It's been suggested that Thomas was the "Q" source but there are sayings common to the synoptic books that are not in Thomas, so it's likely the both "Q" and Thomas were in circulation in the latter half of the 1st century.
Thank you very much for your reasoned discussion.
I tend to disagree in one point, that Thomas was in a sense more common than the synoptics, in fact he reaches a spiritual height almost absent from the Gospels.
V.(29) Jesus said: If the flesh has come into being because of the spirit, it is a marvel; but if the spirit (has come into being) because of the body, it is a marvel of marvels. But as for me, I marvel at this, how this great wealth has settled in this poverty.
He is speaking of the spirit here, and it goes back to ashes to ashes, dust to dust, we are far more than just our chemistry or physics.
If we chose.
I wonder what most would chose if they knew they were in God's grace. Winning the lottery? Eternal life? Great standing and position?
How many would chose poverty? Disease? Eating bugs and affliction? Like John the Baptist and the ascetics?
For myself, I just want to learn. And finally know. But the most bitter part is I will leave the stage without knowing the last acts of the play.
regards,
djf
Yes unfortunately the same old gnostic crap that's already been discredited thousands of times over thousands of years.
Sadly, Satan is just as aware as Barnum was that "There's a sucker born every minute".
Could be. But that would be a subjective matter.
What I was thinking of in particular was Thomas 65 compared to Mark 12. -- The parable of the wicked tenant.
Thomas presents a straight forward story: master leased the vineyard to tenant farmers, two servants beaten trying to collect the share, then his son is beaten and then killed.
Thomas leaves unstated the point of the tale: The master will eject the wicked and give the vineyards to others.
Mark seems to have embellished it some: the master put in a hedge, digging a wine pit, built a tower, then left the country, at least 3 servants (and more) are abused or killed before the son is sent and then killed. Then Mark explicitly writes "What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others."
Don't take this in the wrong spirit (I am not trying to be combative)... but is that your opinion, or do you presume to know the workings of the mind and will of God?
What I mean is this: the underlying assumption in what you are saying is that no "religion" can come from God, that God would never desire a system of worship and belief. But what is a religion? If you define a religion as a set of manmade rules trying to tamper with that which God reveals to us, then I suppose you are correct. No orthodox Catholic, however, would accept Catholicism as falling into that definition of religion. We assert that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ, and that all of her doctrines find their source in its founder, and that many of the beliefs you write off as "paganizations" existed prior to 313 AD, as can be observed in the writings of the early Fathers of the Church. The Roman Catholic Church is not a mere cult, but rather the bulwark of faith outside of which there is no salvation.
As St. Ignatius of Antioch said in his Letter to the Philadelphias circa 110 AD, "Be not deceived, my brethren: If anyone follows a maker of schism, he does not inherit the kingdom of God; if anyone walks in strange doctrine, he has no part in the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood; one altar, as there is one bishop, with the presbytery [plural for presbyter, which literally means "elder", from which we draw the word "priest"] and my fellow servants, the deacons."
Prove it.
Face it, Dan. No amount of evidence is enough for you. Quit blaming us for that fact.
How much evidence do both of you need to believe that the Gospel of Judas is just as real as the Gospels contained in the Bible?
How many witnesses would it take, Raycpa?
How much 'personal evidence' would it take to convince you, Pappy?
OK, let's hear it.
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.