Shop now Shop now Shop now See more Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now DIYED Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Shop now Shop now Shop now
Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

Why did God let people crucify Jesus?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 26-50 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Posted on 28 Nov 2011 22:57:06 GMT
http://www.markfulton.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/ta-dah.jpg

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Nov 2011 22:59:27 GMT
Spin says:
T: The wages of sin is death? So when a plant or goldfish dies, it is because they are sinners? Given that death is universal, and the fact that Jesus died "for" our "sins", is it not the case that we are all "forgiven"? So excuse me while I inject some heroin, rape a nun, defile a church, kidnap a child for my sexual pleasure, steal from my neighbours and wage war against those I do not understand. Jesus Saves.

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Nov 2011 23:03:02 GMT
Last edited by the author on 29 Nov 2011 10:58:18 GMT
Jim Guest says:
'The issue of blaming Jews for the crucifixion has a lot to do with the fact that the church through Peter and Paul had become centred on Rome.'

The church is not and never was centred on any earthly location. It's a lunatic idea, if it's not an evil one- which seems to be the case here.

'When Christianity was adopted by Rome as the official religion the part played by the Romans in the death of Jesus was inconvenient and probably played down.'

That's palpable stupidity, and probably a cowardly contradiction of what I wrote earlier. Rome's involvement with Jesus personally was innocence in comparison with its later active persecution of Christians. As everyone knew, very well indeed.

'So the Jews got the blame'

Jews were not persecuted for their own religion, then, or later. They were persecuted because their presence validated Christianity. Also because Roman religion was so akin to legalistic Judaism that it became de rigueur for fake Christians to attack Jews, because they had to make it seem that there was some basic difference between their beliefs. But actually, Judaism, RCism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Islam are all the same thing, theologically. (And only for dupes or fools.)

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Nov 2011 23:20:50 GMT
Last edited by the author on 28 Nov 2011 23:22:57 GMT
Tom M says:
Spin

Is it your point then that we Catholics were raised to inject heroin and rape nuns? Do you really adopt so superficial and bizarre a view of a quarter of the earth's population? Do you suppose that the man whose bones lie beneath the main altar at Saint Peter's Bascilica completely misunderstood and that the apostles have been advocating acts of hatred?

A momentary lapse perhaps.

It has indeed been reasonably argued that God does indeed permit death to put a limit on sin. Not an unreasonable position. We don't have to deal with Hitler and the atheist mass murderers forever.

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Nov 2011 23:31:19 GMT
Jim Guest says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 28 Nov 2011 23:37:56 GMT
Tom M says:
Apparently Jim, the early church was all 'papalists' too.

I should hope so.

What the Bible Says


Boettner is also wrong when he claims "there is no allusion to Rome in either of [Peter's] epistles." There is, in the greeting at the end of the first epistle: "The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God's election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark" (1 Pet. 5:13, Knox). Babylon is a code-word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that "It is said that Peter's first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon."

Consider now the other New Testament citations: "Another angel, a second, followed, saying, `Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who made all nations drink the wine of her impure passion'" (Rev. 14:8). "The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell, and God remembered great Babylon, to make her drain the cup of the fury of his wrath" (Rev. 16:19). "[A]nd on her forehead was written a name of mystery: `Babylon the great, mother of harlots and of earth's abominations'" (Rev. 17:5). "And he called out with a mighty voice, `Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great'" (Rev. 18:2). "[T]hey will stand far off, in fear of her torment, and say, `Alas! alas! thou great city, thou mighty city, Babylon! In one hour has thy judgment come'" (Rev. 18:10). "So shall Babylon the great city be thrown down with violence" (Rev. 18:21).

These references can't be to the one-time capital of the Babylonian empire. That Babylon had been reduced to an inconsequential village by the march of years, military defeat, and political subjugation; it was no longer a "great city." It played no important part in the recent history of the ancient world. From the New Testament perspective, the only candidates for the "great city" mentioned in Revelation are Rome and Jerusalem.

"But there is no good reason for saying that `Babylon' means `Rome,'" insists Boettner. But there is, and the good reason is persecution. The authorities knew that Peter was a leader of the Church, and the Church, under Roman law, was considered organized atheism. (The worship of any gods other than the Roman was considered atheism.) Peter would do himself, not to mention those with him, no service by advertising his presence in the capital-after all, mail service from Rome was then even worse than it is today, and letters were routinely read by Roman officials. Peter was a wanted man, as were all Christian leaders. Why encourage a manhunt? We also know that the apostles sometimes referred to cities under symbolic names (cf. Rev. 11:8).

In any event, let us be generous and admit that it is easy for an opponent of Catholicism to think, in good faith, that Peter was never in Rome, at least if he bases his conclusion on the Bible alone. But restricting his inquiry to the Bible is something he should not do; external evidence has to be considered, too.



Early Christian Testimony


William A. Jurgens, in his three-volume set The Faith of the Early Fathers, a masterly compendium that cites at length everything from the Didache to John Damascene, includes thirty references to this question, divided, in the index, about evenly between the statements that "Peter came to Rome and died there" and that "Peter established his See at Rome and made the bishop of Rome his successor in the primacy." A few examples must suffice, but they and other early references demonstrate that there can be no question that the universal-and very early-position (one hesitates to use the word "tradition," since some people read that as "legend") was that Peter certainly did end up in the capital of the Empire.



A Very Early Reference


Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200), noted of Rome, "How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John's [referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded]." Fundamentalists admit Paul died in Rome, so the implication from Tertullian is that Peter also must have been there. It was commonly accepted, from the very first, that both Peter and Paul were martyred at Rome, probably in the Neronian persecution in the 60s.

In the same book, Tertullian wrote that "this is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter." This Clement, known as Clement of Rome, later would be the fourth pope. (Note that Tertullian didn't say Peter consecrated Clement as pope, which would have been impossible since a pope doesn't consecrate his own successor; he merely ordained Clement as priest.) Clement wrote his Letter to the Corinthians perhaps before the year 70, just a few years after Peter and Paul were killed; in it he made reference to Peter ending his life where Paul ended his.

In his Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome.

Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel "while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church." A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter's successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome.

Clement of Alexandria wrote at the turn of the third century. A fragment of his work Sketches is preserved in Eusebius of Caesarea's Ecclesiastical History, the first history of the Church. Clement wrote, "When Peter preached the word publicly at Rome, and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed."

Lactantius, in a treatise called The Death of the Persecutors, written around 318, noted that "When Nero was already reigning (Nero reigned from 54-68), Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God."

These citations could be multiplied. (Refer to Jurgens' books or to the Catholic Answers tract Peter's Roman Residency.) No ancient writer claimed Peter ended his life anywhere other than in Rome. On the question of Peter's whereabouts they are in agreement, and their cumulative testimony carries enormous weight.



What Archaeology Proved


There is much archaeological evidence that Peter was at Rome, but Boettner, like other Fundamentalist apologists, must dismiss it, claiming that "exhaustive research by archaeologists has been made down through the centuries to find some inscription in the catacombs and other ruins of ancient places in Rome that would indicate Peter at least visited Rome. But the only things found which gave any promise at all were some bones of uncertain origin" (118).

Boettner saw Roman Catholicism through the presses in 1962. His original book and the revisions to it since then have failed to mention the results of the excavations under the high altar of St. Peter's Basilica, excavations that had been underway for decades, but which were undertaken in earnest after World War II. What Boettner casually dismissed as "some bones of uncertain origin" were the contents of a tomb on Vatican Hill that was covered with early inscriptions attesting to the fact that Peter's remains were inside.

After the original release of Boettner's book, evidence had mounted to the point that Pope Paul VI was able to announce officially something that had been discussed in archaeological literature and religious publications for years: that the actual tomb of the first pope had been identified conclusively, that his remains were apparently present, and that in the vicinity of his tomb were inscriptions identifying the place as Peter's burial site, meaning early Christians knew that the prince of the apostles was there. The story of how all this was determined, with scientific accuracy, is too long to recount here. It is discussed in detail in John Evangelist Walsh's book, The Bones of St. Peter. It is enough to say that the historical and scientific evidence is such that no one willing to look at the facts objectively can doubt that Peter was in Rome. To deny that fact is to let prejudice override reason.

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Nov 2011 23:41:16 GMT
Spin says:
Tom: No, my point is that Jesus does not save. Jesus did not eradicate sin. Death is death. Death has nothing to do with religion. To argue that death is avoidable because of a man who sacrificed himself for our "sins", when a majority of those "sins" are simplly culturally based prejudices, is the height of ignorance. For example, if God created the universe, he must have created all within it, including its evils. in fact, the bible states that God created the evil of the Tree, telling Adam not to eat of it. Surely a clever god would not have created the tree at all. So even God can make mistakes, eh? Back to the point, even God cannot prevent death. One must die first in order to live. There is no promise of life before death. I find it amazing that abrahamic monotheism uses the fear of death to consolidate its moral beliefs, instead of dealing practically with the present, current reality.

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Nov 2011 23:46:53 GMT
Jim Guest says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 28 Nov 2011 23:58:13 GMT
[Deleted by the author on 30 Nov 2011 22:28:41 GMT]

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Nov 2011 00:02:14 GMT
Spin says:
Light: Good point. But this results in the conclusion that the only valid religion is a universal religion. Not a religion that aspires to universality, but a religion that is valid to all regardless of language, culture, politics, etc. Is the new Messiah to be a "globalised" prophet?

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Nov 2011 00:13:03 GMT
(jesus was god and he allowed himself to be crucified)

What this means is Jesus concentrated all his energy within like a tortoise untill he reach god or transformed his human consciousness into cosmic consciousness.

Then he noticed gods plan for him to be crucied to save many souls throught his sixth sense,

Abit like a wave knows the plan of the ocean.

Unless people discover god within themselves they will never know who he is? what he is? and why he is?

This is the simple truth.

And do not say I believe in god unless you know who he is?

Posted on 29 Nov 2011 00:44:41 GMT
Haroldson says:
I just want to add a couple of thoughts. Firstly, the Bible speaks of Jesus Christ as 'the lamb slain from the foundation of the world'. In other words, in eternity past, the crucifixion of Christ was in the plan of God. The other point concerns the manner of death. The atonement required the shedding of blood - the life is in the blood and Christ's blood was shed in death. Previous to this, a lamb had to be killed and its blood shed as a substitute for the sinner. Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of God's promise to bring eternal salvation to those who put their trust in Him. He was our substitute, taking our place and bearing our sin. The Bible says 'we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins. Again it states, 'without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness'. Jesus said, 'I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father but by Me.' Do you REALLY want to know the truth of these things? Get yourself a Bible and before you start to read it, ask God to show you the truth.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Nov 2011 00:58:18 GMT
Jim Guest says:
'In other words, in eternity past,'

What is eternity past? There is eternity, which is outside time.

Any prospectus that excludes the free choice of Jesus the man to take the blame for the evils of all others destroys the gospel.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Nov 2011 14:20:44 GMT
Pendragon says:
Tom

Good post [bet you are surprised I said that].

I think you are right about, for example, the significance and dating of Clement's letter to the Corinthians.

As a matter of interest, to which of Boettner's books are you referring/quoting from?

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Nov 2011 15:51:53 GMT
Jim Guest says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Nov 2011 18:11:16 GMT
God was not killed. Jesus was on the cross in our place, God the Father sent Jesus into the world so that we might find our way to salvation.

Posted on 29 Nov 2011 18:16:36 GMT
God did not become the man Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was and is God's only begotten son he is not God himself. No where in the Bible is Jesus called God. Why? because he is God's son. Jesus Christ walk this earth as a human being not as God, even the demons called Jesus "God's Son", he himself, if you know your Bible, refered to himself as the son of man.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Nov 2011 18:18:34 GMT
Jim Guest says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Nov 2011 18:22:19 GMT
That's what I said!

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Nov 2011 18:23:47 GMT
Jim Guest says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Nov 2011 18:24:27 GMT
That is Jesus is NOT God

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Nov 2011 19:00:19 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Nov 2011 19:03:13 GMT
Withnail says:
Darth Vader: He is here.
Governor Tarkin: Obi-Wan Kenobi? What makes you think so?
Darth Vader: A tremor in the Force. The last time I felt it was in the presence of my old master.
Governor Tarkin: Surely he must be dead by now.
Darth Vader: Don't underestimate the Force.
Governor Tarkin: The Jedi are extinct, their fire has gone out of the universe. You, my friend, are all that's left of their religion.
[answering a comm signal]
Governor Tarkin: Yes?
Voice over comm: We have an emergency alert in detention block AA-23.
Governor Tarkin: The Princess? Put all sections on alert.
Darth Vader: Obi-wan *is* here. The Force is with him.
Governor Tarkin: If you're right, he must not be allowed to escape.
Darth Vader: Escape is not his plan. I must face him, alone.

Taken from star wars

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Nov 2011 19:57:19 GMT
C. A. Small says:
JPH "You must be born again".

No, actually you do not have to.

I will again present the question that has so far stumped all the religious on the forums- can you name any contemporaneous sources for the existence of Jesus?

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Nov 2011 20:17:23 GMT
Last edited by the author on 29 Nov 2011 20:18:19 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the religion discussion forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Important Announcement from Amazon
162 17 days ago
Should the RIGHT to HATE be protected and enshrined in law. 256 1 minute ago
Morality and ethics. 501 4 minutes ago
Why did it take precisely 7 days, not more or less, for Jahwah,God or Allah to create the universe? 177 27 minutes ago
Why did we stop inventing gods? 90 32 minutes ago
Atheists v theisists, nothing friendly, no holding but low punches allowed, don't even wait for the bell.... ding ding. 0 51 minutes ago
Which were the first people to invent gods. 13 1 hour ago
Irish Seminarians turn to Grindr - Shock, Horror! 2 1 hour ago
Friendly discussion between atheist and theists. 5 1 hour ago
Aliens Created Humans? 5451 2 hours ago
How believers and atheists behave 14 3 hours ago
Does global warming finally prove that God does not exist. 14 5 hours ago

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  117
Total posts:  4170
Initial post:  27 Nov 2011
Latest post:  29 Mar 2015

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions