[continued from previous message]   
      
   >> No, they wanted to go beyond Judaism. That's why they argued that   
   >> Jewish ceremonial laws like kosher food didn't apply to Christians and   
   >> newly converted Gentiles.   
   >   
   >Yet they rigidly followed the Law Covenant in most areas. We have already   
   >discussed that in part, not long ago. What did they know about Grace? And why   
   >have many departed from them?   
      
   But they began to throw off the Jewish yoke, as it were, as they began   
   to see themselves as Christians and not theological Jews.  And grace   
   without works is dead, to paraphrase the book of James.   
      
   >> > > > > > The priests were the ones who stirred up the population against   
   Jesus.   
   >> > > > > > Not   
   >> > > > > > all, as there were some who were followers of Jesus secretly. The   
   High   
   >> > > > > > Priest   
   >> > > > > > of Israel at the time of the birth of Jesus believed that the   
   Messiah   
   >> > > > > > was   
   >> > > > > > coming, were looking for him, and even recognized Jesus as the   
   Messiah   
   >> > > > > > when   
   >> > > > > > he was presented to them soon after his birth, and they rejoiced.   
   John   
   >> > > > > > the   
   >> > > > > > Baptist Was a cousin of his, who grew up not knowing Jesus   
   personally.   
   >> > > > >   
   >> > > > > No, crucifixion is a quintessentially Roman mode of execution. It   
   >> > > > > wasn't the Jews who stirred up the population against Jesus, but the   
   >> > > > > Roman authorities. Jesus' claim to be the Messiah was politically   
   >> > > > > dangerous enough for the Romans to look into the situation, found   
   that   
   >> > > > > he was indeed guilty of sedition, and executed him for that reason.   
   >> > > >   
   >> > > > Mat 27:1 When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders   
   of   
   >> > > > the   
   >> > > > people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death:   
   >> > > >   
   >> > > > Mat 27:2 And when they had bound him, they led him away, and   
   delivered him   
   >> > > > to Pontius Pilate the governor.   
   >> > > >   
   >> > > > If you were to go to the source, like here and the scriptures   
   surrounding   
   >> > > > it, you would see a far different picture.   
   >> > >   
   >> > > An interesting quote. However, it carries no weight for those who   
   >> > > don't accept the Bible as being inspired.   
   >> >   
   >> > Of course not. Especially when you are afraid to read and understand what   
   the   
   >> > Word of God really says so that you can discuss things intelligently even   
   if   
   >> > you chose not to follow it. Ghandi was such a person. Agrippa in the days   
   of   
   >> > Paul was like that as well.   
   >>   
   >> Not at all. I've read the Bible in its entirety, as I've probably   
   >> told you before, even taking notes as I went. But unlike you, I've   
   >> read what *scholars say* about the Bible as well.   
   >   
   >What scholars? And of which denominations? You may have read it once all the   
   >way through, but for what reason, purpose, an what did you take out of it?   
      
   Raymond E. Brown, for one.  And Bible scholars of the   
   literary-critical persuasion don't need to approach the  Bible from   
   the viewpoint of any denomination.   
      
   >I may have read more “scholars” writings than you, as well as bible   
   >commentators as well. I know the strengths and weaknesses of many. But I   
   >would far rather base my understanding upon the words of God, learn what he   
   >has to say, and make it mine, Than to use the words of others. Yet I have   
   >used the words of others many times, for a variety of reasons. One being to   
   >show what others say so that they might know and understand that it is not   
   >just my understanding. That others know the same as well as more than I.   
   >People sometimes turn against the message because of the messenger. I have   
   >seen that happen on more than one occasion when my entire reply to a question   
   >or two was answered solely by quoting the Bible and what it said that would   
   >answer their questions. Yet their response was against it because it was my   
   >interpretation of the scripture. In spite of the fact that they fully knew it   
   >was a direct quote.   
      
   You've read Biblical scholarship but have never heard of the Suffering   
   Servant?   
      
   >There are many better versed with the word of God than I. But what I do know,   
   >I know. Because of experiences, trust, and the leading of the Lord. And I am   
   >happy and very content to follow his lead. And learn new things.   
      
   There's no reason to believe the Lord is leading you.   
   >>   
   >> > Act 26:28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a   
   >> > Christian.   
   >> >   
   >> > Act 26:29 And Paul said, I would to God, that not only thou, but also all   
   >> > that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am,   
   except   
   >> > these bonds.   
   >>   
   >> So?   
   >   
   >It was part of an answer that you requested.   
      
   When did I ever request anything like that?   
      
   >> > > > Scripture also speaks from the perspective of the Romans who found no   
   >> > > > fault   
   >> > > > in him. No sedition, nothing. Also verified from Roman history which   
   many   
   >> > > > try to discredit so as to destroy the truth for an anti-Jesus   
   narrative.   
   >> > >   
   >> > > The Romans knew what a Messiah was supposed to do. They decided to   
   >> > > nip it in the bud before things got worse.   
   >> >   
   >> > Nope. Although there was one local ruler In Judea that was of that   
   mindset,   
   >> > and killed every child and baby under the age of 2 for miles around for   
   fear   
   >> > he would lose his rulership. And went down in history noted for that deed.   
   >>   
   >> You're talking about Herod the Great. It would've been characteristic   
   >> of him to do something like that, but he probably never did, for a   
   >> variety of reasons.   
   >   
   >Pure conjecture on your part. But he earned a nickname because of what he   
   >did, that no doubt many have heard but did not understand why he was known by   
   >that.   
      
   From   
      
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Innocents   
      
   "The historicity of the Matthew account is not accepted by modern   
   sources.[7][2][8] The story of the massacre is found in no gospel   
   other than Matthew, nor is it mentioned in the surviving works of   
   Nicolaus of Damascus (who was a personal friend of Herod the Great),   
   nor in Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews, despite his recording many   
   of Herod's misdeeds, including the murder of three of his own sons.[9]   
   The early 5th-century account of Macrobius—that "on hearing that the   
   son of Herod, king of the Jews, had been slain when Herod ordered that   
   all boys in Syria under the age of two be killed, [Augustus] said,   
   'It's better to be Herod's pig than his son'"—has been discounted as   
   extra-biblical evidence for the event due to its later authorship,   
   possible influence by the gospel narrative, and the confused nature of   
   the account.[10] In view of the lack of independent confirmation that   
   the event occurred, the story acts as a kind of folklore inspired by   
   Herod's reputation.[8] As a matter of understanding what the myth is   
   trying to communicate, its lack of historicity is unsurprising given   
   that gospels were primarily written as theological documents rather   
   than chronological timelines.[11][12][13][14]"   
      
   >>   
   >> > > > > > You also learned these things when you were young, So what’s with   
   >> > > > > > these lies?   
   >> > > > >   
   >> > > > > Look, liar, you know it's stupid to place too much historical weight   
   >> > > > > on the legends and stories in the gospels, and yet you continue to   
   do   
   >> > > > > it. Why is that?   
   >> > > >   
   >> > > > Liar? What did I lie about?   
   >> > >   
   >> > > You lied by acting as if other people accept the Bible as being   
   >> > > authoritative, which isn't true, as you must surely know by now.   
   >> >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)