13 Jul 04
Originally posted by skeeterHi. Further to point 2. Herod the Great ruled when Jesus Christ was born, and after his death his son Herod Antipas. He came to power when Mark Anthony appointed him as the Roman supervisor, after their attack on Jerusalem. Herod was a paranoid doictator, who murdered several of his family members, as well as Matthew records in Ch 2:1-12, the slaughter of all the baby boys under 2 yrs of age in Bethlehem.
Correct, but Herod was under pressure from Rome to settle the issues and so to "oil the wheels" the actual selection of the Religious Council members was passed to the Elders who virtually installed themselves in order to be in a position to control events.
And I also agree that to postulate further would require a degree of careful "examination"
skeeter
After Herod came to power he had 45 members of the Jewish Sanhedrin murdered to get dictatorial control. Herod also appointed Caiaphas as high priest. Caiaphas, according to Matthew 26:3-4 was the leader of the conspiracy to murder Jesus Christ.
Caiaphas was an illegitimate high priest, as Josephus records that during the Great Revolt in 66-70 AD, religeous Jews burned down his house because he was a puppet of Rome.
Also note that Matthew 26:4-5 says that Caiaphas and his political pawns decided to arrest Jesus in a secretive way so they would not cause a riot among the Jewish people present in the city for the feast.
The mob who screamed "Let Him be crucified..." were a group controlled by Caiaphas - This was an orchestrated plot. Matthew 27:20 says "the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitudes that they should ask for Barabbas and destry Jesus"
14 Jul 04
Originally posted by dfm65There exist many instances in the Bible wherein God asks rhetorical questions. To that end, I might ask how an omniscient being could ask anything else, but then I would be breaking my own rules in regards to infinity and so I shall not. 😉
I considered the possibility that Jesus' question on the cross was rhetorical, but i doubt whether even the son of god would be cool enough to ask rhetorical questions after being flogged to a bloody pulp, crowned with thorns and nailed to a couple of logs. i think the poor guy really did expect some kind of deliverance at the last moment, and was a bit disap ...[text shortened]... are parts, which is not true of the layers in a burrito. it was pretty funny though, bennett ;-)
Bbarr's burrito analogy is whimsical, but completely devoid of scripture. Like I said, for the salvation by gace principal to be true than the triune god MUST be all three personas simultaneously.
14 Jul 04
1. You would claim that his scandinavian defense is flawed, thus Jesus must be flawed, and if Jesus is flawed the man sitting opposite you cannot exist. The fact that the pieces are thus moving by themselves makes complete sense in some logical framework you devise, yet you still somehow lose.
2. All his pawns would make it to the other side and turn into bishops.
3. Eventhough he would make sacrifises, you would never accept them.
4. You couldnt resist claiming that his chessbook has been tampered with, badly translated, or just plain flawed and thus do exacly the opposite.
🙂
19 Jul 04
Originally posted by Faith No Morei seem to remember you and skeeter trading insults, i think this explains comment 1; i think it was not anti-semitic - just an attempt to hit you anywhere sensitive.
are you kidding skeeter? you are the most antisemitic person i came across, and i have 2 examples:
1. You said about me "typical jew, doesnt understand it so its crucified"
2. You said that all jewish people deserve to be killed, and that hittler understood jewish people the best.
did skeeter really say comment 2?
i presume she did since noone has mentioned it again.
does anyone have the link?
i would like to read it in context.
(skeeter's image in my eye might be about to plummet.)
19 Jul 04
Originally posted by flexmoreShe said it and the post has been removed.
i seem to remember you and skeeter trading insults, i think this explains comment 1; i think it was not anti-semitic - just an attempt to hit you anywhere sensitive.
did skeeter really say comment 2?
i presume she did since noone has mentioned it again.
does anyone have the link?
i would like to read it in context.
(skeeter's image in my eye might be about to plummet.)
Feivel