Part 23 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

Thank you for agreeing with the facts of the Bible that Barabas was a criminal.

 

Thanks for proving you don't believe in the bible.

 

Actually I am trying to thank you all for accepting the truth about the Bible and the Gospels in it.

 

Another completely false statement on your behalf. Sure are plenty of those to go around. The bible, verses you actually posted, makes the claim he is an insurrectionist and murderer.
No one accuses anyone of anything but you, everyone else states what is in scripture.

 

The Jews do believe Jesus is the Messiah it was the Pharisees and their followers who don't. There is lots of proof that the Jews accepted and believe Jesus was the Messiah on Palm Sunday they welcome Jesus the Messiah all his Jewish followers and his Apostles including Mary Magdalene are all Jews. The Pharisees and their followers who happened also to be Jews would plot to have Jesus killed.
Maybe this is what you mean the Jews did not believe Jesus is the Messiah you are actually referring to the Pharisees and their followers?
Prophesy of the OT concerns humanity not just the Jews it was the Pharisees that made it for Jews only.

- - - Updated - - -

Tell that to trevorw.

- - - Updated - - -

Thank you for believing in the Bible

 

1. What the ... is an insurrectionist but someone who violently opposes the governing authority. It also tells us in the NT that Barabbas murdered during the insurrection. (For heavens sake READ the NT).

2. You really know nothing. I've told you before, the Jews had no autonomy under the Romans, except in religious matters. And that was only as long as it did not interfere with Roman laws.

3. Nonsense again. It all had to do with Jewish ritual, religious cleanliness and the Passover. Try again. And I'm not giving you any more hints

4. On the other hand the arrest, trial and crucifixion of Jeshua Barabbas/Jesus could just be a Christian ploy, and Jesus could be the Rabbi/teacher that many Jews, and I, believe he was.
Oh. It certainly is not 'the historical and Biblical' facts. We only know of Barabbas through the Bible, and that is a matter of belief.

 

The Jews did not, and do not, believe that Jesus was their Messiah (though some Messianic Jews are beginning to now). Again, IF there was a crowd welcoming Jesus into Jerusalem it was not that they believed he was their messiah, but for his works and compassion. No-one announced his coming to Jerusalem so where did the crowds come from?

Then why was the Jewish nation chosen by God as his people, and it contains directions to THEM. Jesus preached only to the Jews, used the Jewish scriptures.

 

What you call magic I call the actions of God. IF He exists, miracles are no big deal.

Huh? Cornelius Tacitus was only preserved by the Christian church?

If you have no evidence for this 'forgery' this theory can be dismissed.

The Jewish historian Josephus mentions at least one of them. You don't get to dismiss evidence because the source is Christian, that is bigotry, not debate.

Cite, please.

By your reasoning we would have to dismiss all ancient historical figures as inventions. In fact, Jesus of Nazareth is one of the best attested to persons in the ancient world.

 

It is possible, but comparing the lives of Jesus and Muhammed, not likely.

 

Again, thank you for admitting you do NOT believe in the Bible....just stuff you believe and claim is in the Bible when it's not.

- - - Updated - - -

How "tricky" is Satan supposed to be? Wouldn't his BEST trick be ...being nice?

 

No, you accused us of "changing the story of Jesus"...i.e. the Gospels....

two days after (and to today)...YOU "changing the story" by completely MAKING UP a charge that Barabbas was a rapist.

There is absolutely no limit now to both your dishonesty....and hypocrisy.

Rivaled only by your friend MittRyan who obviously won't correct you...and thus shows HE TOO doesn't believe in the Bible as much as he believes in "alliances".

 

There are all kinds of problems with your "miracles" method of avoiding obvious facts.

For example: Let us assume the Global flood really did happen 4000 years ago and that it was a miracle done by God.

If a global flood happened 4000 years ago there would be evidence. (a flood layer all over the Globe). We can detect global events from millions of years ago (asteroid collisions, massive volcano eruptions and so on).

Evidence for a global flood would stick out like such a sore thumb it is not even funny. You could dig in any field all over the planet and find the layer. Unfortunately for literalists this is not the case.

This means that if there was a Global Flood, then God would have also have had to have gotten rid of the evidence.

Why would God get rid of evidence that his book is true ? This makes God out to be silly. Why would God do a miracle to teach humanity a lesson and show his greatness and then cover up this evidence knowing that future generations would read the account of his actions and know that this account was nonsense based on scientific evidence.

What is even more ridiculous is that God would expect the rational and intelligent beings he created to believe in something irrational. (Belief in historical story when the evidence shows this story is not true).

Does God just want the irrational as his followers ? Why then make them rational and intelligent to begin with ?

There is all manner of evidence of interpolation, omission, and additions in the Bible. Religious scholars (at least ones who have had descent schooling) readily admit this and at least some seminaries (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod for example) teach it.

Some of the oldest Bibles for example do not have the long ending of Mark. (Almost every Bible footnotes this). The story of Mark ends with an empty tomb and that is that. NO PHYSICAL RESURRECTION. Sorry

Since Matt and Luke used Mark as a source document .. this does not bode well for the resurrection story added later to Matt and Luke.

Paul also does not know of any "Physical Resurrection". He believes in a spiritual Resurrection (Jesus appearing in visions) but has no knowledge of a Physically resurrected Jesus.

Regardless ... the "original Bible" - Codex Sinaiticus written over 1600 years ago about the time of Constantine, did not have the long ending. Either it was omitted from the story or added later.

Sinaiticus had the Shepherd of Hermes and Epistle of Barnabus. These were later removed.
http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/

Comparing Sinaiticus with the modern Bible reveals a large number of changes.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...t-does-it-reveal-about-the-bible-1734439.html

When you start to dig into these changes it becomes readily apparent that the Bible was altered over time to suit the doctrine of the day.

One great example is the transformation passages in the OT that reflected the Polytheistic beliefs of the Israelites. Monotheism as we have it today (only one God) was not the monotheism of the past. In the past they believed that many Gods existed but YHWH was the Israelites God. Other people had other Gods but there's was the supreme God.

On Page 7 of this paper you will find the same passage Deut 32:43 from 3 different Old Bibles written at different times.http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/DT32BibSac.pdf

You will see that in the older versions (LXX and 4QDeut) We have various divinities bowing before the Supreme God.

In one text we have:

O Heavens rejoice with him, bow to him all divinities.

In the other text we have:

O Heavens rejoice with him, bow to him all sons of the divine

As we can see both of these texts are saying the same thing and the text has not been much altered nor has the meaning. (The Supreme God was thought to have many divine sons.... We see this in Job when these Sons present themselves before God and Satan is among these sons.)

Fast forward to the Masoretic text which came much later and the story has changed.

Over time references to other divine beings (Sons) bowing before the Supreme God were removed.

Reading the whole passage from the link shows how the Masoretic text shortens the story.

Go to a modern Bible and read Deuteronomy 32:43 and the passage is unrecognizable having completely lost the original meaning.

http://biblehub.com/niv/deuteronomy/32.htm

The modern version has removed all mention of heavenly beings and replaced with "you nations and his people"

The only thing kept is that God will take vengeance on his foes. Avenging the blood of Gods sons has been completely changed to avenging the blood of God's servants (read people on earth).

Here I the exact same passage Deuteronomy 32:43 from the LXX (Oldest OT version)

Here we have a picture of all the divine Son's of God and the angels bowing before the Supreme God.

One can see how Masoretic text purges the divine beings (sons of God) out of the text but the modern Bible goes even further and makes no mention of heaven or heavenly beings bowing before or celebrating God.

The last passage "The Lord will cleanse his peoples land" is the one passages that is maintained in all 3 older versions.

In the modern version even this is changed to read "make atonement for his land and people".

Where the heck does this come from ? There is no atoning. God is not atoning for anything ... he is violently cleansing the land of those who are against him.

Anyways ... you can get the picture of how some passages have completely lost their original meaning over time.

When you go to the KJV we have translators just making things up on a whim.

Again no heavenly beings or Son's of God mentioned but now we have God being merciful to the people ???

In one case we have God taking a specific action of vengeance, cleansing the land of his foes. In the other we have God being merciful ??

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+32:43&version=KJV

 

1. I agree with you 100% Barabas is a violent criminal and you believe as a violent killer, insurrectionist that he is not a rapist too?
2. Actually I know more than you do that is why I understand how the Romans conduct their conquered territories and one of the policy they do is to allow their conquered people some form of autonomy just like the Jews are allowed to practice their faith, tradition have their own laws as long as they pay taxes, do not rebel against Rome. That was why Pilate send Jesus to Harod and to the Pharisees for them to cast their judgement and punishment according to their laws but since both Harod and the Pharisees are afraid of Jesus they insist the Romans do the punishing by telling the Romans that Jesus violated Rome's laws by declaring himself a king.
3. I don't have to try again the fact of the matter was that the Pharisees If you have read the scripture and the history of it you would know that the reason why they snatched Jesus in the middle of the night on a Thursday and quickly have Jesus sentenced on Friday because they know Jews would be busy honoring the Sabath thus preventing followers of Christ to come to his rescue that is why majority of the crowd in the court yard were followers and supporters of the Pharisees. The Pharisees exploited Jewish religious matters knowing very well that Jesus supporters would not dare to do something drastic on a Sabbath. That is why they did not arrest Jesus on a weekday on day light it has to be on a Thursday night quickly have him sentenced on a Friday and executed on the same day Friday they timed it well. But they forgot it does not matter what day they arrest Jesus because Jesus has been very clear to his followers he does not want them to engage in any arm rebellion against the Pharisees or Romans.
Mark 12: And Jesus said unto them, Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's. And they marvelled greatly at him.

Jesus also has been clear his kingdom is not of this world so it really does not matter what day he gets arrested it only matters to the Pharisees because they don't want Jesus followers to be there when they arrest Jesus.
Barabas and Jesus are two different people. Barabas name which mean father of the son is just that all Jewish names have some translation meaning example Simon mean "he has heard" or John meaning "YAHWEH or God is gracious".
4. This is what is known as conspiracy theory that is why most if not all of your claims lack merits although you have been using historical and Biblical facts you use it to construct your own conspiracy that lacks total merits and credibility. That is why it is a matter of belief on your part.

 

BTW, according to WanRen logic and use of "evidence"....

it would be acceptable to accuse St. Paul the Apostle....

of being a heroin addict.


Think about it....he saw "visions"...like a drug user. And he was from Tarsus, which is in the central part of modern Turkey, which for centuries was a leading poppy producing area.

Same method WR used for Barabbas.

 

You sure have changed your tune over this thread.. First claiming that Barabbas was a rapist and then yapping about Roman law and Jewish autonomy..

Have you EVER seriously read scripture and given it some thought?

You got it backwards.. Barabbas means son of the father.

 

Sorry to disappoint you but I have to let you know that you got it wrong the Jews were the first to recognize Jesus Christ is the Messiah. I do not know why you continue this undeniable fact. Jesus Christ followers were all Jews the people who welcome him into Jerusalem were Jews and they were excited to know more about this man whom they have heard could he be the Messiah? And it was this crowds of supporters that greatly alarmed the Pharisees not the Romans.
Now you see as you said Jesus preached only to the Jews, used the Jewish scriptures. do you agree now that Jesus followers were Jews? If it were not the Jews who then since Jesus preached to the Jews only?
The Jews were chosen to led the way to led the people to God not away from God.

 

No one knows for sure, but Paul had some sort of problem that he considered an "affliction"... could have been epilepsy or perhaps homosexuality.... or a number of other things.

 

Thank you for believing in the Bible.

 

1. Do you believe Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, the Son of God, the Messiah was crucified, died, buried and on the third day resurrected?
2. Barabas is a rapist I have not change my assertion or have I?
3. Dishonesty and hypocrisy is no much against facts and truth that is why for thousands of years the historicity of Christ is undeniable and unbreakable.
4. Mitt has done lots of correction and he has done a great job in explaining the facts and truth about Bible historicity against all tough questions.

 

Why have you wiggled all over this thread constantly contradicting yourself?

Do you belong to a specific church... or its all this freestyle?

 

Now you understand why you lack credibility.

 

I have been untangling all your contradiction now that I thank you for believing in the Bible you get upset with me? are you saying now that you don't believe in the Bible?

 

1. No.

2. You MADE UP that Barabbas was a rapist. Just ...made it up. Like I said, why can't I now claim that Saint Paul was a heroin addict...how would you prove me wrong?

3. YOU are dishonest and a hypocrite. You CLAIM to believe in the Bible, CLAIM that it is inerrant....and yet you ADD stuff to it that's not in there.

4. MittRyan is deliberately NOT answering my questions to him, because he would either

A. contradict you, his "buddy" on this Forum, by saying "No, there is nothing in the Gospels about Barabbas being a rapist"....and make you look even more foolish.

or B. LIE or obfuscate or spin a rhetorical mish-mash of "What ifs" and "Maybes"....but not directly admit that "No, there is nothing in the Gospels about Barabbas being a rapist", again because you're his "buddy, fighting the fight against the atheist".....

which would prove he does NOT care about the truth, not even his claim that the Bible is truth.......just "helping out a pal" by not contradicting him or even trying to rationalize his friend's lie.

So instead, he says nothing....just as dishonest....but also...cowardly.

- - - Updated - - -

IF I said Saint Paul was a heroin addict (which I'm not).....HOW would you prove me wrong?

Given your own excuse-making about your lie about Barabbas?

 

Wan Ren

Do you know the definition of the word "historicity"?

 

I haven't contradicted myself at all.. neither has Trevor or others.. The Bible is a teaching narrative.. Its didactic literature.. It should be studied thoughtfully for the message, but its not, nor has it ever been history or science..

And, you don't need to add to it.. like when you claim Barabbas was a rapist ...........