Why did they crucify Jesus?

[conon394]

The Word of God is quite plain about the process God uses to bring people to Himself

Its not the passage in Greek is ambiguous.

men like RC Sproul, John MacArthur, Alistair Begg, John Metcalfe, James White and many others on Youtube preaching about it. There is only one way a person can be saved and that is to be drawn to Jesus Christ through the Gospel, realising how deep in sin they are that their heart is broken by the Spirit making it possible for rebirth to take place. Oh the time, the place, the situation may be different but the experience is just the same.

Again your particular preferred interpretation of Christianity which itself just one particular variant of the larger body of Abrahamic religions... As per usual I find your chosen view of original unsupported by the OT. I find it both illogical or the actions of any kind of just god. And even if I allowed it to accurate for the sake of argument I find it even more illogical that deity of infantine power and scope would devise only one really convoluted way in which to draw people to him in all of time a way that necessarily unfairly excluded many people.

There are plenty of people having been born again of the Spirit of God can verify my experience by their own.

Not in any empirical way. Just as you can't verify the experiences of Joseph Smith

RC Sproul, John MacArthur, Alistair Begg, John Metcalfe, James White and many others on Youtube preaching about it

And I can equally find honest and faithful people preaching about Catholicism, Islam Mormonism, Buddhism, Judaism, the beliefs of the First Nations...

You also dodged addressing the text directly. Thus why would very well paid Roman soldiers throw lots for rags. Rather than the authors of NT authors fitting in the nominal fulfillment of some passage in the OT.

[basics]

conon394,

You make Roman soldiers out to be little angels which was very unlikely if you had ever been in the military or attached to them as I have. Trophies have always been part of life in an army and Rome was no exception. As for the case of Jesus' abuse these guards knew that the Man in question was claimed to be a King, had wonderful powers so to do what Herod's men did as well as the Sanhedrin guards would be nothing out of the ordinary especially if they thought what they could get was worth something.

What could be more unambiguous than, " A man must be born again of the Spirit of God if he is to enter heaven." as God our Saviour said?

Abraham was accounted righteous before God because he believed God and he believed God's promise that through Isaac the Messias would come which He did. Therefore only Christianity is the Abrahamic religion.

So then, who can you find that honestly preach God's Word as is written in God's Word?

[conon394]

You make Roman soldiers out to be little angels which was very unlikely if you had ever been in the military or attached to them as I have. Trophies have always been part of life in an army and Rome was no exception

Trophy perhaps from defeated enemies or valuables the rags of a non entity to the Roman's hardly qualify. But its a nice story to add if you know the OT and writing a Gospel.

s for the case of Jesus' abuse these guards knew that the Man in question was claimed to be a King, had wonderful powers

Really they did what makes you say that. They are attested by no Roman source.

What could be more unambiguous than, " A man must be born again of the Spirit of God if he is to enter heaven." as God our Saviour said?

The Greek text is ambiguous you cite one potential translation/transliteration into English.

So then, who can you find that honestly preach God's Word as is written in God's Word?

Well for you nobody but those who believe as exactly as you do - clearly you are as infallible as the Pope claimed to be. SO I not waste my time.

Abraham was accounted righteous before God because he believed God and he believed God's promise that through Isaac the Messias would come which He did

Sort of making stuff up now. You have read Genesis. Aside from a capricious god and a morality story about why being a pastoralist is good and cities bad you are back filling a lot.

He did

Obviously opinions differ on that.

[basics]

conon394,

The robe of a King is hardly a rag and it happened just as predicted by the prophets many times over the many years before. A little more than coincidence or even some knowledge of the Old Covenant don't you think?

No Roman source eh? Then why did various Roman leaders persecute Christians which is well recorded in history? Why are Christians still persecuted to this day?

No, I cite the greatest Book ever published, the King James version of the Bible. So, am I infallible? No I am not but God's Word is.

As for Abraham I am telling just what it says so perhaps you should read it too. Finally Mathew gives the geneology of Jesus through the human line so what's the problem?

[conon394]

No Roman source eh? Then why did various Roman leaders persecute Christians which is well recorded in history? Why are Christians still persecuted to this day?

Persecutions are vastly overstated, myths made up by Christians. Christians did run afoul of the the Romans trying to figure out if they Jews or not and did have the right to gather. Something an organization needed to have official.

https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Persecut...e%20Christians.

For a middle of the road synthesis there is this.

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en...tyrdom&f=false

Second should link put you at chapter 8 "Were the early Christians Really Persecuted" By Paul Middleton. I would say he pulls his punches a bit get to a middle ground by ignoring the authorized gathering aspect and confusion to if they were a sect of Jews or not.

But that's not what I'm talking about I was to his non existence of Jesus in any Roman source.

The robe of a King is hardly a rag and it happened just as predicted by the prophets many times over the many years before

Clearly the Romans did not think Jesus a king. Wow inserted in the text by followers of Jesus who knew OT. Rather like Jesus stopping to get the right ride into town, profound prophesy filling that.

No, I cite the greatest Book ever published, the King James version of the Bible. So, am I infallible? No I am not but God's Word is.

The KJV sounds but nice (I suppose) its hardly the best bible and the fact remains the Greek text is ambiguous it cannot be explicitly asserted that it implies the born again ideal you claim. It was (the KJV) explicitly designed to back orthodoxly of religious belief in England. And to say the tools and references that scholars over 4 centuries ago were shall less then now is an understatement

As for Abraham I am telling just what it says so perhaps you should read it too

Then provide a citation

Finally Mathew gives the geneology of Jesus through the human line so what's the problem?

Err sure. To bad he a Mark can't figure when J was born and he makes up a child slaughter that never happened. Oh a nd three hours of darkness apparently nobody noticed. at least mark agrees but forgot the earthquake. But sure he popped of to the archives and looked up genealogy with a water stamp and a a chain of custody such that it better an any other mystical lineage you can find all over the world. I assume you happily buying all the ridiculous life spans as well?

[basics]

conon394,

Quote, " Romans 4

1
What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter?
2
If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about--but not before God.
3
What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." [1]
4
Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation.
5
However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.
6
David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
7
"Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered.
8
Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him." [2]
9
Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness.
10
Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before!
11
And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them.
12
And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
13
It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith.
14
For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless,
15
because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.
16
Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring--not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.
17
As it is written: "I have made you a father of many nations." [3] He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed--the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were.
18
Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, "So shall your offspring be." [4]
19
Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead--since he was about a hundred years old--and that Sarah's womb was also dead.
20
Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God,
21
being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised.
22
This is why "it was credited to him as righteousness."
23
The words "it was credited to him" were written not for him alone,
24
but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness--for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.
25
He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

[3] Gen. 15:6; also in verse 22
[8] Psalm 32:1,2
[17] Gen. 17:5
[18] Gen. 15:5 Unquote.

Both Mark and Luke were Gentiles the former being the son of a Gentile lady who followed Jesus and so most of his knowledge he got from his mother just as Luke got his information from the disciples and women who also followed Jesus. So, of course there will be differences in their accounts as one would expect but that doesn't mean what they wrote was untrue. What would be suspiscious though would be if every account was exactly the same in every case. Each writer expressed himself as he was led by the Spirit and that's what makes the Bible so exciting to read and learn from. To you it's just the dead letter yet to me it's the Living Word of God.

[conon394]

First sorry totaly spaced it earlier and read Abraham as Abel. Must have been early a bit before the coffee kicked in.

But in any case ex post facto Paul does not cut it Abraham is righteous with the unitary god of the OT w/o a trinity and without being reborn but gasp by works that than Paul has do some serious sophism to deal with.

Both Mark and Luke were Gentiles the former being the son of a Gentile lady who followed Jesus and so most of his knowledge he got from his mother just as Luke got his information from the disciples and women who also followed Jesus.

OK nice unsupported fantasy.

So, of course there will be differences in their accounts as one would expect but that doesn't mean what they wrote was untrue. What would be suspiscious though would be if every account was exactly the same in every case.

One might if we were talking about histories written by two different authors. But the inspired word guided by the holy spirit and text that claims to capture verbatim the dialoged of Christ - sorry that excuse does not work.

Each writer expressed himself as he was led by the Spirit and that's what makes the Bible so exciting to read and learn from.

Expression is one thing contradiction and inaccuracy and making stuff is different.

[basics]

conon394,

So to get their versions in order each writer had to collude with the others just to satisfy conon394? Is their message any different in each of their recollections? No, it is not and why not? Because the only Way man can get back to God's favour is through the crucifixion and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ Who did so for that very person who is saved because they couldn't do it by themselves. The surety of that action is in their experience of being born again of the Holy Spirit. That you personally haven't experienced it by what right have you any right to question it?

[fkizz]

Basics, the real question is, why is Jesus still crucified today?

I can understand all the complaints on Cleric faction gaining too much power on society and screwing a few things up, 30 years war etc., scandals in church, but Jesus was crucified by the clerics avaliable at his historical contextual timeframe.
Each era will have its class of Clerics defining things, rivaling with Nobility, meddling with Crown, involved in political dirt intrigue, so not surprising some people hate them.

But why do people want Jesus to remain crucified today?
The irony is that many people are often anti-Cleric, not realising that going back on time the pro-Cleric thing to do would be to cruficy the messiah for crimes of heresy.

[conon394]

conon394,

So to get their versions in order each writer had to collude with the others just to satisfy conon394? Is their message any different in each of their recollections? No, it is not and why not? Because the only Way man can get back to God's favour is through the crucifixion and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ Who did so for that very person who is saved because they couldn't do it by themselves. The surety of that action is in their experience of being born again of the Holy Spirit. That you personally haven't experienced it by what right have you any right to question it?

Feeling a bit absolutist this morning are we?

That you personally haven't experienced it by what right have you any right to question it?

So I can only question the Bible if supposedly born again like you , but you don't question your understanding of it so than I guess nobody can question it. nice.

But the fact is others have questioned, Christians with their faith and not just your version is quite why there are 40 potential gospels not in the Bible, Why the length of Mark varies. The very human Council of Nicaea existed to proclaim orthodoxy and stamp out other versions of Christianity (mind backed by honest and earnest believers who had access to more of Christian writing than you do). Just as others disagreed with you particular Augustine to Calvin take on Christianity.

[basics]

Basics, the real question is, why is Jesus still crucified today?

I can understand all the complaints on Cleric faction gaining too much power on society and screwing a few things up, 30 years war etc., scandals in church, but Jesus was crucified by the clerics avaliable at his historical contextual timeframe.
Each era will have its class of Clerics defining things, rivaling with Nobility, meddling with Crown, involved in political dirt intrigue, so not surprising some people hate them.

But why do people want Jesus to remain crucified today?
The irony is that many people are often anti-Cleric, not realising that going back on time the pro-Cleric thing to do would be to cruficy the messiah for crimes of heresy.

fkizz,

The problem some affiliations have is that they cannot seem to get that Jesus Christ died once for the sin of His people and is now risen and sitting in Eternal Glory only awaiting His time to return and so with transubstantiation, idols and icons they keep crucifying Him again and again. When we take bread and wine together it is to remember that He died for our sin and is now risen, to remember that we as sinners didn't deserve His Sacrifice yet out of pure Love He did that for us. So, just as He was a servant so too must all of His be servants and remember that they are servants not lording it over anyone.

[conon394]

So dodging a reply?

[basics]

So dodging a reply?

conon394,

Dodging what? Jesus Christ was crucified and laid in a tomb dead yet three days later the tomb was empty and the same Jesus was seen alive and well, able to walk, talk and eat with people. So is He still crucified and dead? The answer is no, He is very much alive. So, what's the significance? It is that He hung on that cross not as Himself, rather as each one of us sinners taking our punishment for our own sin to pay what we were due to God for it. Such was the Power in His blood that it only took One Sacrifice by Him to bring a people to Himself to be His. That process is delivered when a person is born again of the Spirit of God. So, the crucifixion is a reminder of how I came to be at one with Him and one day will actually be with Him in both body and Spirit.

[conon394]

conon394,

Dodging what? Jesus Christ was crucified and laid in a tomb dead yet three days later the tomb was empty and the same Jesus was seen alive and well, able to walk, talk and eat with people. So is He still crucified and dead? The answer is no, He is very much alive. So, what's the significance? It is that He hung on that cross not as Himself, rather as each one of us sinners taking our punishment for our own sin to pay what we were due to God for it. Such was the Power in His blood that it only took One Sacrifice by Him to bring a people to Himself to be His. That process is delivered when a person is born again of the Spirit of God. So, the crucifixion is a reminder of how I came to be at one with Him and one day will actually be with Him in both body and Spirit.

None of that answers my questions. Who even knows if he was crucified after all we is supposed accounts of believers distant in time and space full of magical events nobody else seemed to have noticed.

In any case specifically you dodged the fact about who gets to judge scripture. Seemingly my comments bother you but not the decisions of KVJ translators or the people who say imposed the Nicaean creed or the people who decided some of Paul's letters were important and only 4 gospels were.

[basics]

conon394,

It won't be very long before all your questions are answered yet not to your satisfaction as ever. Quote, " The scholarly consensus is that Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate is both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source. Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd argue that it is "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus." Unquote.

Anyway, despite all your protestations my personal experience with God tells me that you are quite wrong and grasping at straws to make a solid case for there not being God never mind Jesus. What bothers me is how you can be so blind to what is written.

[conon394]

conon394,

It won't be very long before all your questions are answered yet not to your satisfaction as ever. Quote, " The scholarly consensus is that Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate is both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source. Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd argue that it is "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus." Unquote.

Anyway, despite all your protestations my personal experience with God tells me that you are quite wrong and grasping at straws to make a solid case for there not being God never mind Jesus. What bothers me is how you can be so blind to what is written.

First your cited gentlemen do not establish a lot of credibility. But I would say the "firmly established" assertion is err not accurate. "firmly established" is that the Josephus passage on Jesus is a clumsy interpolation. The argument about Tacitus is certainly less clear. and certainly not established in any particular way as CW or fairly accepted as a not an interpolation. The argument is at least a century old that I can link to via JSTOR. But you have to have patience for a day so for me to put that together.

Anyway, despite all your protestations my personal experience with God tells me that you are quite wrong and grasping at straws to make a solid case for there not being God never mind Jesus. What bothers me is how you can be so blind to what is written.

Let's try a different tact than. So you proport to have had a religious epiphany as an adult and before hand were indifferent? Please correct me if I wrong.

Now hither to for what religion were you exposed to before this event. Had you personally explored other spiritual paths?

[basics]

conon394,

When around six to eight I went to a Baptist church Sundayschool where I took in nothing but did hold back part of my offering money to buy sticky toffee on my way home. When I was married I attented a Church of Scotland so I could get my children Christened and again learned nothing. I just wasn't interested. After my divorce I then settled in a little village called Hopeman and after a dare I went to the Baptist Church there where I heard the Gospel for the first time. What I heard penetrated into me so much that I couldn't stop going back and so a few weeks later I found myself on my knees asking God to change my life which He did that night. Shortly after I was baptised and have never looked back ever since. Notwithstanding all the Supernatural experiences I have had since those days what I have written is a brief statement of how God found me.

[conon394]

Right so you whole you potential spiritual life has been in the a Calvinist reformed church of one type or another. Any family or friends not also in the same faith(s)

[basics]

Right so you whole you potential spiritual life has been in the a Calvinist reformed church of one type or another. Any family or friends not also in the same faith(s)

conon394,

As it so happens I have two sons and a daughter along with her man who are unbelievers. My three brothers and sister to my knowledge were/are unbelievers, two of my brothers being now dead. I have two or three Roman Catholic friends that I see now and again and they know our differences. My wife coming from a fishing community has a strong faith in Jesus Christ something I've found wherever there are fishermen and their families for obvious reasons. It's not about Calvin rather what the Good Book teaches.

[conon394]

So a couple seemingly so close friends who are Roman catholic But otherwise a life raised surrounded by overwhelmingly the Calvinist tradition. No friends close or mentors of strikingly different faiths that earnestly discussed faith with. No religious studies interest in your life?