The American Spectator : Hold the Hallelujahs  

Text Size

Hold the Hallelujahs  

By Jeremy Lott on 4.6.12 @ 6:06AM

Taking the good out of Good Friday.

If one were to travel back in time to tell most observers of the events on the original Good Friday that the day would be remembered as “good,” they would have thought it a sick joke and you a madman. It was wall-to-wall awful.

Judaism of the first centuries was a messiah-rejecting machine. One after another, would-be redeemers of Israel would amass a following, come into conflict with the authorities, and be killed or flee. Those followers that weren’t put to the sword would scatter, and it was back to square one. And on this day almost 2,000 years ago, it looked very much like the wheel of history had ground another one under.

This time Rome had seemed more reluctant than usual. Its vassal ruler, Herod Antipas, and its Judean prefect, Pilate, passed Jesus around like a hot potato. Pilate had sought to punish him and then he appealed to the mob. Yet ultimately it was Rome’s right hand who gave the kill order. This is memorialized in the creed: “He was crucified under Pontius Pilate. He suffered, died, and was buried…”

That’s what Good Friday is about: suffering, death, burial — failure, really, and what we do about it. Jesus’ closest followers were betrayed, taken by surprise and scattered. Their likely leader Peter denied his association with this messiah so forcefully that any regrouping looked impossible. They had thought this man the anointed one, but his lonely, embarrassing death had proved otherwise.

Crucifixion was a particularly heinous way to go: it was humiliation, torture, and slow suffocation wrapped into a neat, splintered wooden package. The condemned would be stripped down to nothing, or almost nothing, and nailed to a cross at the joints: wrists and ankles. The nails would exert constant pain and as the victim pressed on upper and then lower nails for relief, it would become more difficult and then impossible to breathe.

All of this would take place in front of a taunting crowd. No wonder many today prefer to hurry past the events of Good Friday and think about Easter instead.

That is a mistake, I think. For people who believe in the truth of the Gospel stories, today ought to be a day of prayer, of fasting, of scripture reading and somber reflection. Besides, those that hurry to Easter too quickly, might miss a few things.

Like what? Here are a couple of lessons I’ve gleaned from Good Friday readings past:

One, when the high priest Caiaphas declared Jesus a blasphemer, he tore his clothes. A lot of people in the Bible tear their clothes, so it’s easy to miss this one. The “clothes” torn here were likely instead a single garment held out in front of him, rent from top to bottom. He was judging the defendant guilty and inviting all of the other jurists to stop disputing and render their own verdicts.

That image helps to sharpen another image that Gospels relate to us after Jesus’ death. The temple’s veil is torn from top to bottom by an invisible hand. This is the beginning of their verdict being overturned by what you might call a higher court.

Two, some of Jesus’ followers must have though him different from the typical failed messiah/conman because of their actions after his death. A rich but quiet follower named Joseph of Arimathea, along with the pharisee Nicodemus, petitioned Pilate for the body, were granted it, and laid Jesus to rest.

That was a risky thing to do. It could have cost them more than their reputations. The recriminations against followers when a would-be messiah died could be savage. They either didn’t care or, more likely, they shouldered past their cares. The message they had taken from Jesus’ life is, they ought to do the right thing come what may. It was a very simple lesson and the hardest of all lessons. It’s one of the reasons some call this Friday “good.”

About the Author

Jeremy Lott is editor of RealClearPolicy.com, RealClearBooks.com and RealClearReligion.org and associate editor of RealClearScience.com.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (325) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Jack in Wi.| 4.6.12 @ 7:12AM

I am declaring my own personal Easter truce. Happy Easter to all my Christian brothers and sisters of every sect.
Happy Passover and peace to the Jews, of every sect.
Peace to the Muslims of all nations and sects.
Peace to the Hindus, Buddists, Sikhs, atheists and everyone else.
Peace.

Teaghan| 4.6.12 @ 8:37AM

Peace to you Jack~

albert constantine jr.| 4.6.12 @ 10:42AM

Happy Easter.

SeymourGlass| 4.6.12 @ 11:11AM

And with your spirit, Jack.

Vern Crisler| 4.6.12 @ 11:53AM

So it's okay to be a political sinner every other day of the year, but but then be "forgiven" at Easter? Reminds me of post-election regrouping, when politicians who've called each other liars and mountebanks the whole year are suddenly great friends for the general.

Stuart Koehl| 4.8.12 @ 2:55PM

This is the day of resurrection.
Let us be illumined by the feast.
Let us embrace each other.
Let us call "brothers" even those who hate us
And forgive all by the resurrection. . . '

--Paschal Verses, Resurrection Matins of the Byzantine Rite

Doctor Right| 4.6.12 @ 12:07PM

Your proclamation of "Peace" after a year of slander, particularly anti-Jewish slander, is a sick joke.

Sorry...not interested. From your keyboard, it's nothing but a fraud.

Brother in Christ| 4.6.12 @ 1:07PM

Dr. Right is not free of the judgment of slander that he himself accuses Jack of.

Doctor Right| 4.6.12 @ 1:18PM

If you think I've slandered anyone, cite the source.

Regardless, I'm not offering-up overtly pious and self-serving proclamations of peace, am I?

bill| 4.7.12 @ 9:32AM

Nope, just bile. For you, bile tastes better when it is regurgitated on something sacred to others.

Herb Tarlek| 4.7.12 @ 11:17PM

You need churching up. Henceforth you shall be known as Dr Conehead.

Stuart Koehl| 4.8.12 @ 2:55PM

This is the day of resurrection.
Let us be illumined by the feast.
Let us embrace each other.
Let us call "brothers" even those who hate us
And forgive all by the resurrection. . . '

--Paschal Verses, Resurrection Matins of the Byzantine Rite

Alan Brooks| 4.6.12 @ 6:17PM

Si omnium smarmy videbunt per te

Alan Brooks| 4.6.12 @ 6:19PM

"Peace."

L' chaim, Jack.

sittingaroundmypc| 4.7.12 @ 1:50PM

THOMAS KINKAID DEAD

Thomas Kinkade, the kitsch painter best known for selling warm and fuzzy paintings of cottages and lighthouses in Christian bookstores and galleries everywhere died of "natural causes" (alchohol problems?) Friday in San Francisco.

Seems the artist--who claimed he had brought “God’s light” to the masses--faced a slew of allegations, including heckling Sigfried and Roy, urinating while drunk on Winnie the Pooh at Disneyland as a way of “marking his territory,”--and, oh yeah, committing fraud against business partners and stockholders, robbing them of millions of invested dollars. And, believe it or not, he did not exactly deny all of the accusations.

And as the world turns, so does the stomach. I've got to get away from this computer and take a hike--beautiful day here on the Virginia coast.

Occam's Tool| 4.7.12 @ 5:59PM

Sorry, Jack. I wish all the Christian readers here a an excellent Good Friday and a Joyous Easter (except you, Jack, and you, Clint), but I have no truce with Nazis. You desire to see 6 million of my co-religionists ground under the hideous servitude of sharia law 364 days a year and you expect a truce from me today?

You are a maggot and a toad.

Occam's Tool| 4.7.12 @ 6:09PM

My thanks to you, Doctor Right, for your correct realization of the nature of Jack from Wisconsin.

Again, to Dr. Right, Nick, and all the other wonderful Christian readers and commenters of all sects and beliefs, a wonderful Good Friday and Happy Easter. May your lives be blessed and happy until the next.

But there is no excusing a man who has fowarded no "al chet." Truce not accepted, Jack. You continue to support those who would murder 14 month old Jewish girls and put my daughter under the burqa. You may "chomp the choad," as we graduates from TCU would say.

Nick| 4.8.12 @ 8:40PM

Thanks Occam!
Hope you had a Blessed Passover. May you also enjoy the rest of the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
G-d Bless!

Claypoole| 4.6.12 @ 8:07AM

For a wonderfully written, clear and inspired explication of Chistian belief, I recommend "Death on a Friday Afternoon, Meditations on the Last Words of Jesus from the Cross" by the late Father Richard John Neuhaus.

Mimi| 4.6.12 @ 8:16AM

Good Friday....The day of the GREATEST SACRIFICE, by a God turned man to free mankind of the burdan of their own guilt...To free them to live a life of joy. Praise GOD...and a GOOD , GOOD FRIDAY to all.. Relish the GIFT!

RCV| 4.6.12 @ 12:10PM

Beautifully said, Mimi.

Brother in Christ| 4.6.12 @ 12:41PM

"to free mankind of the burdan of their own guilt..."

IF they receive Him.

"But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." Jn. 1:12 & 13.

Layne S| 4.6.12 @ 1:00PM

Relishing the gift with you!

Michael S.| 4.6.12 @ 2:56PM

Thank you Mimi! As such by faith, no longer an unworthy captive.

KyMouse| 4.6.12 @ 8:23AM

"Judaism of the first centuries was a messiah-rejecting machine..."

Jesus spoke about His impending sacrificial death to His fellow Jews, including Nicodemus, a Jewish leader, in John 3:14-18. He was referring to Numbers 21:4-9 in the Tenach (the Old Testament) —

“…And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God….”

Jesus is saying in these verses that the bronze serpent was a symbol of the death He was about to suffer on the cross in order to pay for the sins (to save from the fatal poison of sin) of everyone who looks to Him in faith (obedient trust).

The warning and the promise in those verses is still true to day, for Jews and gentiles alike.

Robert McClain | 4.6.12 @ 9:12AM

The temple veil was torn, top-to-bottom, not because a higher power overturned a lesser court's verdict. The temple veil existed to keep humans and the Holy of Holies separate, symbolising sin's power to keep man apart from his Creator.

Jesus is called the Lamb of God because he became the sacrifice demanded by a Holy God. The wages of sin is death. God cannot die. God had to become human, live the perfect life required of us all, then die for us, in our place, because only an innocent can pay the price of the guilty.

THAT's why we call it Good Friday.

He died for us.

And it was good.

Patrick| 4.6.12 @ 9:45AM

Likewise, it was against the law for the high priest to tear his garment.

Stuart Koehl| 4.6.12 @ 9:50AM

In the Christian East, it's called Great Week, and the seven days between Palm Sunday and Pascha are called Great Week.

Mr. Lott presents the common Western view of Great Friday. We view the Cross not merely as the instrument by which Christ suffered, but also the throne upon which He triumphed. Last evening, we celebrated Orthros (Matins) of Great Friday, a very long service, also called the "Twelve Gospels", during which we read the Passion narratives from all four Gospels. The impact is overwhelming, particularly when you throw in the liturgical realism for which the Byzantine rite is famous: after the first crucifixion narrative, a large icon of Christ is carried on the back of the priest in procession through the church, while the congregation prostrates on the floor. Before the Royal Doors of the Iconostasis, the icon is nailed to a very large cross. Real Christ, real Cross, real nails, real hammer. With each thud of the hammer, the awesome reality of what man did--and does daily--comes home to us.

And yet--it isn't a real defeat at all. Look at the face of Christ on an Orthodox crucifix: it is serene, in repose, triumphant. The body is not twisted in torment, like a Grunewald crucifixion scene, but relaxed. Christ has laid down his life for the life of the world, but that is not the end of the story.

Between each reading of the Gospel, there is a series of short hymns, expounding upon the meaning of Scripture. The refrain is, "We bow before your Cross, O Christ. Make us worthy to see your glorious Resurrection". Also, after each Gospel reading is finished, the people sing, "Glory to your passion, O Lord", and (after Christ is nailed to the Cross), "Glory to your long suffering, O Lord", but after the last Gospel, when Christ is taken down from the Cross, we sing the normal post-Gospel refrain, "Glory to Thee, O Lord, Glory to Thee", in recognition that in death Christ has triumphed over death.

There is balance: there can be no resurrection without the crucifixion; there cannot be eternal life unless we are ransomed from death. Both Great Friday and Pascha are triumphs over death.

Skip| 4.6.12 @ 10:59AM

Wonderful! Thank you for sharing this celebration from our brothers in the East, and a happy Good Friday to you!

PJ| 4.6.12 @ 11:09AM

Thank you for sharing your Orthodox traditions! Happy Easter!

Stuart Koehl| 4.6.12 @ 12:22PM

Khristos anesti! Christos voskrese! Christ is risen!

Ryan| 4.6.12 @ 2:15PM

He is risen indeed!

Brother in Christ| 4.6.12 @ 8:32PM

" Look at the face of Christ on an Orthodox crucifix: it is serene, in repose, triumphant. The body is not twisted in torment, like a Grunewald crucifixion scene, but relaxed."

I think you are living in fantasy. No, I know you are.

So now we're comparing crucifix's here?

And if you truly think that Jesus was "serene" while he HUNG on the Cross, with every limb of His Body being pulled out of joint, and with those nails that were driven through His Hands.. you are like a child.

In fact when I was a child, I asked my Mother that very question: Did Jesus feel it when He was crucified?

She was shocked, and answered, Yes, of course He felt it! It woke me up out of some lame fantasy that the Devil wanted me to believe.

Jesus SUFFERED for our sins.. He wasn't serene on that Cross of His.

Mimi| 4.6.12 @ 9:06PM

And he prayed on Thursday night in the garden
"TAKE THIS CUP FROM ME....BUT THY WILL BE DONE" !

Brother in Christ| 4.6.12 @ 9:10PM

Yes, He didn't WANT to suffer, but He chose to do His Father's will.

Bless you, Mimi.

Stuart Koehl| 4.8.12 @ 2:57PM

His suffering was voluntary; in death He won victory over death. The Passion is merely the prelude for the Resurrection.

Thomas| 4.7.12 @ 6:04PM

I enjoy such Orthodox interjections, but Eastern Easter is on the 15th! So how did you just celebrate Great Friday Orthos?

...unless you joined an Armenian Church, I believe they follow Old Calendar Christmas but Western Easter...but Greeks, Antiochians, Russians, Bulgarians, Romanians, Syrians...all Eastern Orthodox should have Easter on the 15th.

Stuart Koehl| 4.8.12 @ 2:58PM

Greek Catholics in the United States for the most part use the Gregorian Paschalion. Elsewhere, they use the Julian Paschalion. In the Middle East this year, both Western and Eastern Churches have agreed to celebrate on Pascha according to the Julian reckoning.

Bruce| 4.6.12 @ 9:13AM

The "good" on that Friday started in the Garden of Gethsemane when Jesus took upon Himself the sins of the world. He carried that burden with Him throughout the remaining trials, scourging, humiliation, mocking and crucifixion. My favorite quote about the Garden is this one: "For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent; But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I; Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink"

Rev. Donald Sensing | 4.6.12 @ 9:17AM

But what, exactly, made Caiaphas and Pilate collude to kill Jesus? Although it is inexcusable to blame "the Jews" categorically for Jesus' death, there is no way to get around Caiaphas' deep involvement. What was his motivation, and what was Pilate's rationale?

I have explored in some length the historical and political context of that question, as well as why both Caiaphas and Pilate wanted the monkey on the other's back, in my essay, The Problem With Jesus.

Doctor Right| 4.6.12 @ 9:45AM

I don't think this is a difficult question to answer.

To Caiphas and many other Sanhedrin (but not all), Jesus was guilty of blasphemy, and thus deserving of death. In addition, Jesus spared no effort to illustrate the hypocrisy of the Sanhedrin, as well as the overall lack of Faith in Israel.

As far as Pilate is concerned, he exemplifies politics over justice. Pilate was willing to abdicate his responsibilities for the sake of his position, and to avoid turmoil. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

The bigger question is why so many Jews, including the majority of the Sanhedrin chose to ignore the scriptures and disavow Christ, despite how His life fulfilled the prophecies in the Torah?

Stuart Koehl| 4.6.12 @ 9:57AM

As someone born Jewish, I have no problems with the the Gospels' assignment of blame to the Jews. The Sanhedrin plotted the arrest of Jesus; they tried Him; they brought him before Pilate and handed Him over for crucifixion. Simple, historical fact. It does not and should not impute any blame to the Jews as a whole either then or now.

People did not need an excuse to stage pogroms against the Jews before Jesus was crucified, just as they don't need one now. There were anti-Jewish riots and persecutions centuries before Christ. So I see no reason to whitewash or alter the Gospel narratives in the name of political correctness.

For one thing, Scripture is not merely history, it's also allegory. The most important thing to remember on Great Friday is that WE--all of us--are the Jews. We--all of us--daily, by our thoughts, words and deeds, mock Christ, scourge him, and nail him to a cross. We--all of us--are the ones to whom Christ refers, when He says, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do". Every day we crucify Christ again, and every day, Christ forgives us, "for His mercy endureth forever, Alleluia".

Phyllis| 4.6.12 @ 2:30PM

Amen Stuart. True Christians know this and love the Jewish people and Israel as God commands us to. Next year in Jerusalem!

PJ| 4.6.12 @ 11:24AM

For another perspective, the Sanhedrin have witnessed persons quoting scripture, supposedly performing miracles, & claiming to be the Messiah. I'm sure they viewed Jesus as another one but in a more sinister way. What made Jesus more dangerous to the Sanhedrin was the fact that He claimed to be the Son of God: a view that would pollute the Scriptures in their eyes. No one in the past has made such a claim.

Happy Easter Doc.

Rev. Donald Sensing | 4.6.12 @ 11:28AM

The question is not difficult to answer, but the answers are intriguing! However: Mark 14.64 says that all the Sanhedrin condemned Jesus "as worthy of death." Luke 23.1 says that "the whole assembly rose and led him off to Pilate."

We know that Jesus had sympathizers among the Sanhedrin because the Gospels say so. But not even they could not stomach or excuse blasphemy such as Jesus had indubitably responded to Caiaphas and so I have no difficulty understanding how even they voted for Jesus' condemnation.

It's worth remembering that Jesus was, in fact, guilty of blasphemy. He explicitly co-identified himself with God - an outrageous claim that we know was true only because we are on this side of Easter, not the prior side. Our knowledge that Jesus' blasphemy was not actually blasphemy (because his claims were true) depends entirely on his resurrection three days later.

As for so many Jews "ignoring" the Scriptures regarding who Jesus was, well, the disciples themselves did that right up until Easter. Again, we are viewing the relevant Scriptures through a post-Easter lens. No one, including the disciples, ever thought that the Scriptures (meaning only the Old Testament) prophesied a Messiah who would die on a cross and be raised from the dead. Jesus' own prophecies of this were met with blank stares and incomprehension by the disciples, and even at least once by outright opposition.

Psalm 22, for example, makes no sense connected to a crucified Messiah until after the Messiah's crucifixion, when the Psalm's prophecies become clear. But before the fact, not so much. Same with Isaiah's "suffering servant" passages.

Blessings to you this Easter!

Stuart Koehl| 4.6.12 @ 11:52AM

It's not at all clear that Jesus was guilty of blasphemy. There is no commandment about declaring one's self the Messiah, or of invoking Daniel 7 in regards to one's self. There were other, more credible charges that could have been brought against Jesus (e.g., Sabbath-breaking), but these would not have been capital offenses. The real reason Jesus had to die, in the eyes of the Sadducees who controlled the Sanhedrin, was his potential for becoming a focus for anti-Roman agitation. The Romans did not rule Judaea directly; as Praefect, Pontius Pilate was based on the coast at Ceasarea Maritime, and had at his disposal a couple of cohorts of auxiliary troops (there were no legions in Judaea prior to the Jewish War of 66-70; the "cohort" at the Praetorium that scourged and crucified Jesus was probably composed of Syrian, Nabatean, and even Samaritan troops, the actual title of the Centurion was "Chilliarch"). He relied on the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem, and in particular, the High Priest, to keep the surly Jews in line. If they failed in that duty, they could be replaced, or worse. Any civil disorder would be placed at their feet, and they would take the blame. So, in the name of stability and order, Jesus had to die.

In the end, though, the Sanhedrin couldn't make the charge of blasphemy stick. In the first case, it wasn't a crime against Roman law; and in the second, Pilate did not judge Jesus guilty of blasphemy, but of "maiestas maior", or treason. At the end, even the Sanhedrin went that route, pushing Pilate by flaming "We have no king but Caesar" (itself a blasphemy), "and if you release this man you are no friend of Caesar's". That, of course, was the clinching argument. In the precarious times after the fall of the Praetorian Praefect L. Aelius Sejanus (Pilate's patron), Pilate could not afford any rumors of disloyalty. And so, to the cross Jesus went, a victim of judicial murder.

Vern Crisler| 4.6.12 @ 12:01PM

Jesus claimed to be God -- you know, unto us a child is born, Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace, that sort of thing -- and the Jewish leaders, no longer believing in their own sacred writings, killed the Prince of Life.

When a Jew tore his clothes, he was saying, look, if I don't reject this blasphemy, let me also be torn in two like my clothes. It was the strongest expression of horror against blasphemy. The Jewish leaders knew what Jesus was saying, and they could not stomach it. They had invested heavily in their own self-righteousness to want righteousness to be imputed to them from Another. They were also more concerned about their place and prestige in the Roman world than they were about their place in the world to come.

Doctor Right| 4.6.12 @ 12:05PM

Obviously Jesus was NOT "guilty of blasphemy" since He WAS and is the Messiah.

From the perspective of the Sanhedrin, He was. He claimed to be the Son of God (John 19:7).

Brother in Christ| 4.6.12 @ 12:32PM

The man didn't say he WAS guilty. Re read his post.

And, you all are forgetting about the Miracles that Jesus did in front of the Jews, so that they KNEW He was indeed the Christ.

Never mind that the Scriptures proved Him to be so!

Doctor Right| 4.6.12 @ 12:49PM

Read the post yourself.

First line: "It's not at all clear that Jesus was guilty of blasphemy."

To the Sanhedrin, whether we like it or not, it WAS clear.

The political motivation may have been present, but it was NOT the primary factor.

Brother in Christ| 4.6.12 @ 12:58PM

You obviously still aren't comprehending his post. I'm sorry that you choose to be a petty, arrogant pipsqueak.

He said the following:

"It's worth remembering that Jesus was, in fact, guilty of blasphemy. He explicitly co-identified himself with God - an outrageous claim that we know was true only because we are on this side of Easter, not the prior side. Our knowledge that Jesus' blasphemy was not actually blasphemy (because his claims were true) depends entirely on his resurrection three days later."

Why is it that some choose to pretend to see when they are truly blind?

Vern Crisler| 4.6.12 @ 1:51PM

I think you've confused some of the posts.

Brother in Christ| 4.6.12 @ 9:23PM

I believe you may be right.

Pogo Gheen| 4.7.12 @ 6:48PM

Pipsqueak?!

No need to blaspheme!

Stuart Koehl| 4.8.12 @ 3:04PM

And yet, when the Sanhedrin brought Jesus to Pilate, they dropped that line, and adopted "This man claims to be King of the Jews", something Pilate would find more comprehensible. Obviously, the charge of blasphemy was merely convenient, not convincing. Many others claimed to be the Messiah, and Simeon bar Kosiba in 135 used almost the same language as Jesus, yet the acclaimed Rabbi Akiba did not denounce Kosiba as a blasphemer--he recognized him as the Messiah, and bestowed on him the messianic title of bar Kochba, "Son of the Star". So, calling one's self the Son of God did not necessarily bring universal denunciation from the Jewish establishment, because, of course, it's not blasphemy at all--if it's true.

JohnM| 4.6.12 @ 10:03AM

I don't understand why so much time and energy is put into your essay. The Bible provides all of the info we need to know. The politics of that time is irrelevant now. I do not mean to be disrespectful but this appears to be just more navel gazing and comes across as arrogance and elitist.

Rev. Donald Sensing | 4.6.12 @ 11:10AM

Thank you, JohnM, for the very respectful way you called me arrogant and elitist. Very kind of you not to do so disrespectfully.

Romans 14.4.

Grace and peace to you this Holy Week and Easter,

Don

JohnM| 4.6.12 @ 2:52PM

I apologize for hurting your feelings. I did not intend to call you names. I also had no intention of judging you.

Dept. of Theology Notre Dame| 4.6.12 @ 12:10PM

As a divinity student at Notre Dame, I must respond to your statement "The Bible provides all of the info we need . . ."

Easter is told by five different writers, and all five tell it differently.

In Matthew 28:2, after two women arrived at the tomb: "And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it." (Let's ignore the fact that no other writer mentioned this "great earthquake.") This story says that the stone was rolled away after the women arrived, in their presence.

Yet Mark's Gospel says it happened before the women arrived: "And they said among themselves, Who shall roll away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great."

Luke writes: "And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre." John agrees. No earthquake, no rolling stone. It is a three-to-one vote: Matthew loses. (Or else the other three are wrong.) The event cannot have happened both before and after they arrived.

Some bible defenders assert that Matthew 28:2 was intended to be understood in the past perfect, showing what had happened before the women arrived. But the entire passage is in the aorist (past) tense, and it reads, in context, like a simple chronological account. Matthew 28:2 begins, "And, behold," not "For, behold." If this verse can be so easily shuffled around, then what is to keep us from putting the flood before the ark, or the crucifixion before the nativity?

Another glaring problem is the fact that in Matthew the first post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to the disciples happened on a mountain in Galilee (not in Jerusalem, as most Christians believe), as predicted by the angel sitting on the newly moved rock: "And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him." This must have been of supreme importance, since this was the message of God via the angel(s) at the tomb. Jesus had even predicted this himself sixty hours earlier, during the Last Supper (Matthew 26:32).

After receiving this angelic message, "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted." (Matthew 28:16-17) Reading this at face value, and in context, it is clear that Matthew intends this to have been the first appearance. Otherwise, if Jesus had been seen before this time, why did some doubt?

Mark agrees with Matthew's account of the angel's Galilee message, but gives a different story about the first appearance. Luke and John give different angel messages and then radically contradict Matthew. Luke shows the first appearance on the road to Emmaus and then in a room in Jerusalem. John says it happened later than evening in a room, minus Thomas. These angel messages, locations, and travels during the day are impossible to reconcile.

Believers sometimes use the analogy of the five blind men examining an elephant, all coming away with a different definition: tree trunk (leg), rope (tail), hose (trunk), wall (side), and fabric (ear). People who use this argument forget that each of the blind men was wrong: an elephant is not a rope or a tree. You can put the five parts together to arrive at a noncontradictory aggregate of the entire animal. This hasn't been done with the resurrection.

Another analogy sometimes used by apologists is comparing the resurrection contradictions to differing accounts given by witnesses of an auto accident. If one witness said the vehicle was green and the other said it was blue, that could be accounted for by different angles, lighting, perception, or definitions of words. The important thing, they claim, is that they do agree on the basic story--there was an accident, there was a resurrection.

I am not a fundamentalist inerrantist. I'm not demanding that the evangelists must have been expert, infallible witnesses. (None of them claims to have been at the tomb itself, anyway.) But what if one person said the auto accident happened in Chicago and the other said it happened in Milwaukee? At least one of these witnesses has serious problems with the truth.

Luke says the post-resurrection appearance happened in Jerusalem, but Matthew says it happened in Galilee, sixty to one hundred miles away! Could they all have traveled 150 miles that day, by foot, trudging up to Galilee for the first appearance, then back to Jerusalem for the evening meal? There is no mention of any horses, but twelve well-conditioned thoroughbreds racing at breakneck speed, as the crow flies, would need about five hours for the trip, without a rest. And during this madcap scenario, could Jesus have found time for a leisurely stroll to Emmaus, accepting, "toward evening," an invitation to dinner? Something is very wrong here.

Stuart Koehl| 4.6.12 @ 12:23PM

Remind me never to give a donation to the theology department at Notre Dame.

Thomas Paine Disciple| 4.6.12 @ 12:50PM

Notre Dame:

None of the contradictions you listed prove that the resurrection did not happen, but they do throw considerable doubt on the reliability of the supposed witnesses. Some of them were wrong. Maybe they were all wrong.

I have wondered why reports of supernatural beings, vanishing and materializing out of thin air, long-dead corpses coming back to life, and people levitating are given serious consideration at all. Thomas Paine was one of the first to point out that outrageous claims require outrageous proof.

Protestants and Catholics seem to have no trouble applying healthy skepticism to the miracles of Islam, or to the "historical" visit between Joseph Smith and the angel Moroni. Why should Christians treat their own outrageous claims any differently? Why should someone who was not there be any more eager to believe than doubting Thomas, who lived during that time, or the other disciples who said that the women's news from the tomb "seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not" (Luke 24:11)?

Paine also points out that everything in the bible is hearsay. For example, the message at the tomb (if it happened at all) took this path, at minimum, before it got to our eyes: God, angel(s), Mary, disciples, Gospel writers, copyists, translators. (The Gospels are all anonymous and we have no original versions.)

We don't know exactly what happened on Easter Sunday, but we do know that Easter or Eastre (Ishtar, Astarte), was the pagan Goddess of Spring.

Appleby| 4.6.12 @ 1:46PM

If this is your belief, you are welcome to it, and I will pray that one day your doubts will be reconciled. I believe you are overthinking the whole subject. Remember, as mentioned in the article above, the followers of the past faux Messiahs were persecuted and frequently butchered; it was not in the best interests of Jesus' followers to broadcast the story far and wide if they thought it was made up. Conversely, if it's wiser to keep the story to themselves, in a world where the vast majority of people could not read and did not travel far from home, the stories and eyewitness accounts would be meticulously memorized and passed along, just as other events and beliefs were memorialized. Most of the history we know came to us in this way. The disciples had no Twitter accounts and instead of Devices, they had brains.

My sister and I have attended many sports car races together; yet when you ask either of us separately what happened that weekend, you will get stories that var markedly, because she found different things to be important or interesting than I did, and in some cases we knew different people and were in different places when the events we are describing took place. It's not that unusual that all the stories don't absolutely match.

Vox Populi| 4.7.12 @ 4:09PM

Any lawyer investigating an accident, a fight, or a divorce, knows that accounts differ, not necessarily because people lie, but because they see things differently. If there was no inconsistancxt in the Goaspels, THAT would be suspicious!

SUBVET| 4.8.12 @ 12:25PM

Truth........This Changes Everything

2 Peter 3:10
The day of the Lord will come like a theif. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare...But in keeping with His promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness.

Truth.....Will You be Ready ?

Thomas| 4.7.12 @ 6:14PM

Thomas Paine fan,

I am afraid you are victim of a rather poor folk etymology. Ishtar is Babylonian. It comes from a Semitic root. Astarte may ultimately be cognate to this via Ugaritic > Anatolian languages > Greek, but Easter/Eastre/Eostre is decidedly not.

Easter comes from Proto-Germanic *austro: < itself Proto-Indo-European *h2eu-es-t(e)r-, where this initial root means 'to shine/burn'. Cognate gods are Greek Eos, Latin Aurora, Sanskrit Ushas, but not Astarte.

The second mistake is to attribute paganism to the holiday via its English/German name. The word in Greek is pascha, taken directly from the Hebrew pronunciation of passover. This is the word in all Slavic languages and originally the word in Latin (now French Pacques, Italian Pasqua). Even Nordic Germanic languages carry this non-pagan name (Påske).

Scepticism is all fine and dandy, as long as it follows education.

0 + 0 = 1001| 4.7.12 @ 7:11PM

I believe Thomas Paine Disciple is correct in his claim that Easter is derived from pagan sources.

The name "Easter" originated with the names of an ancient pagan Goddess and God. The Venerable Bede, (672-735 CE.) a Christian scholar, first asserted in his book De Ratione Temporum that Easter was named after Eostre (a.k.a. Eastre). She was the Great Mother Goddess of the Saxon people in Northern Europe. Similarly, the "Teutonic dawn goddess of fertility [was] known variously as Ostare, Ostara, Ostern, Eostra, Eostre, Eostur, Eastra, Eastur, Austron and Ausos." 1 Her name was derived from the ancient word for spring: "eastre." Similar Goddesses were known by other names in ancient cultures around the Mediterranean, and were celebrated in the springtime. Some were:

Aphrodite, named Cytherea (Lady of Cythera) and Cypris (Lady of Cyprus) after the two places which claimed her birth; Ashtoreth from ancient Israel; Astarte from ancient Greece;
Demeter from Mycenae;
Hathor from ancient Egypt;
Ishtar from Assyria;
Kali, from India; and
Ostara a Norse Goddess of fertility.

Ancient history is such a jumble.

Thomas| 4.7.12 @ 8:04PM

0 + 0:

Yes, nobody disputed that the term Easter is derived from Pagan sources. The problem is relating the pagan god of Eostre to Babylonian Ishtar or Greek Astarte or Israeli Ashtoreth. As I demonstrated above, these are not cognate divinities, Eostre is cognate to other Indo-European divinities, not borrowed from Semites.

It would appear to me this Zeitgeist/internet myth gains easy popularity because Ishtar looks like Easter. But if there is no etymological relationship, you cannot make the comparison.

D| 4.7.12 @ 8:29PM

I think Thomas Paine Disciple's concluding remark was to enlighten readers on Easter's pagan origins, and his skepticism regarding bible stories is easy to understand, considering the facts.

There is far more to the pagan influence of Christ's death and resurrection, but there is no need to go into it here.

I'm a believer also, but there are many things about religion that give me doubts. It's quite natural to feel this way.

Happy Easter Everyone!

Thomas| 4.7.12 @ 11:28PM

Christian Easter is not Easter eggs and Easter bunnies, but Christ's death and resurrection and the services of the Church which remember these events. The latter is not of pagan origin and, as I demonstrated, the word for 'Easter' in most languages, even most Germanic ones, is based on the Hebrew for Passover.

That said, it is natural that the feasting season of Eastertide coincide with pagan fertility symbolism and that certain older Indo-European traditions were not lost. I do not see why similarities between pagan and monotheistic faiths cause people to doubt. God was still present in pre-Christian Europe and the pre-Jewish Middle East, after all. Paganism mustn't be confused with evil or the total absence of Light. One could surely draw parallels between High Church rituals and certain temple practices. Even bits of Rgvedic language look suspiciously like Christian liturgical phrases. This does not mean that Christianity is just a paganism transplanted in place and time with new personalities nor that the Christian and pagan religions promote essentially the same worldviews.

I agree it is natural to have doubts and would not condemn anyone for not believing just as they are told or socially expected to, but still, Easter is not pagan, and all surviving symbolism with pagan origins is not wrong or inherently anti-Christian.

Stuart Koehl| 4.8.12 @ 3:09PM

Dear 0,

It's only called Easter in English and Germanic-speaking countries, which, I hope you will agree, were rather late to the party. The rest of the Christian world calls it Pascha, or Paska, or Pasques, or variations thereof, all derived from the Hebrew Pesach, or "Passover", for that is what the Feast truly is: the Passover of the Faithful, wherein Christ redeems us from bondage to sin and death, just as Moses foreshadowed when he redeemed Israel from bondage in Egypt.

"Pascha, Pascha, and again I say, Pascha: for Christ our Passover has been sacrificed for us. He alone is immortal. He alone cannot be seen or grasped. The angels and principalities, the authorities, dominions and powers, and the cherubim and seraphim praise Him."--Ambon Prayer of Bright Monday

Nick| 4.7.12 @ 8:48PM

Thomas is completely correct. Here is an extensive explanation:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05224d.htm

Brother in Christ| 4.6.12 @ 12:33PM

The Word of the Cross is folly to mighty theologians like you!

Dave Williams| 4.6.12 @ 2:40PM

Yep, because it's NOT TRUE! Those of us who live in the real world know that the events described simply....cannot....HAPPEN. And much as we would like to hope we might live after death.....we...DON'T!
Grow up and deal with it, christers.

Brother in Christ| 4.6.12 @ 8:34PM

Dave,

You're willing to be your Eternity on that?

Brother in Christ| 4.6.12 @ 9:15PM

That is, BET your Eternity on that.. above.

Herb| 4.6.12 @ 8:57PM

Hey, "Dave", how about defining exactly what you mean by the term "christer"?

I gather you're probably an atheist, or more likely, an anti-theist, since you obviously hate that which you think doesn't even exist.

So enlighten us rubes, "Dave", just whom do you think is a "christer"?

Vox Populi| 4.7.12 @ 4:18PM

The historical eviidence for the events described in the New Testament is as good as any for events in the ancient world. The evidence for the lives of Christ and the apostles is as good as evidence for the lives of the caesars.

It depends on both eye-witness accounts, and for abyone who has studied the history of story-telling, it anticipateds modern, realisic reportage. In the ancient world ficrions were told with quite different converntions.

As for "Dave's" injunction, "Get over it Christers", this is typical of the unnecessarily rude, crude, would-be hurtful vocabulary and style adopted by failed human beings and other human garbage. I hace no time for such slimy would-be barbarians, who probably send their days in pyjamas in their mommy's cellar in front of a computer screen.

Stuart Koehl| 4.8.12 @ 3:10PM

Better than most, actually.

Stuart Koehl| 4.8.12 @ 3:48PM

Dear Mr. Williams,

You wrote: "Yep, because it's NOT TRUE! Those of us who live in the real world know that the events described simply....cannot....HAPPEN. And much as we would like to hope we might live after death.....we...DON'T!"

That seems like an assertion of fact. Can you please present the evidence supporting your assertion, because I would hate to be caught backing a falsehood? Please tell me you you know the events simply cannot happen. And please tell me how you know there is no life after death.

Or are you perhaps peddling a self-fulfilling prophesy?

Doctor Right| 4.6.12 @ 12:53PM

"Easter is told by five different writers, and all five tell it differently."

Perhaps they didn't tell you at Notre Dame Divinity School that all 5 of those accounts you cite are from "The Bible"?

Looks like the Bible DOES provide "all the information we need."

Stuart Koehl| 4.6.12 @ 2:41PM

If all the Gospel accounts (and Acts, and the Pauline Epistles) were in absolute agreement, the same people who find in their differences reason to doubt would find in their consistency even greater reason to doubt.

As an historian, I do not expect historical accounts (and particularly ancient historical accounts) to agree in all details. When they agree on the major points, and differ in the details, it is actually a sign of authenticity.

Angela| 4.6.12 @ 3:00PM

The Bible is God's word. Period.

Do you say that God errs in his historical account of Christ's crucifixtion and resurrection from the dead?

God does not make mistakes, Mr. Koehl.

Stuart Koehl| 4.6.12 @ 3:12PM

The Bible is not the Qu'ran, Angela. Muslims claim that God dictated every word of the Qu'ran to Mohammed, who wrote it down verbatim--making the Qu'ran the very literal word of Allah. Christians (and Jews) on the other hand, believe that the Holy Spirit inspired human beings to write the books of Scripture, using their own words and their own points of view. Only a doctrinaire literalist would insist that differences in perspective represent "errors". It's a very naive, indeed, STUPID way of looking at Scripture, one which actually did not exist until it was invented in certain fundamentalist circles in the United States. One of the gifts we have given the world of which I am not proud, by the way.

Angela| 4.6.12 @ 3:51PM

Mr. Koehl,
I have always been taught, and I believe with all my heart that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, without error in any aspect, spoken by God and written down in its perfect form by humans.

If you do not believe this, you are on a slippery slope to choosing just what to believe and what NOT to believe from the Bible.

Either every word is true, or the Bible cannot be God's word. I think this settles it.

donald g frm memphis| 4.6.12 @ 3:52PM

Amen Angela!

It it's not God's word, then its nothing.

T.C.B.| 4.6.12 @ 3:59PM

God said it and I believe it. There are some "Christians" on here who are perverting God's word.

Vox Populi| 4.7.12 @ 4:22PM

Do you belioeve that in the Gardfen of Eden there was a walking, talking snake, that all humans are descended from incestuous sex between Adam and Eve, and when Noah was building the Ark he somehow gathered the kangaroos and koalas from Australia and returned them here afterwards?

Brother in Christ| 4.6.12 @ 7:43PM

Stuart K. isn't a Christian. He's a Religionist.

MikeG| 4.6.12 @ 9:31PM

What is a religionist?

Brother in Christ| 4.8.12 @ 11:41PM

MikeG,

It is someone who Follows Religion instead of Christ Himself.
Someone who chooses to live by legalizations, rules and regulations, instead of by the Holy Spirit and a relationship with Christ.

Jesus died to set us free from Religion.

"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death.
For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." Rom. 8:1-4.

Religionists don't know Christ, they only know Religion.

Rev. Donald Sensing | 4.6.12 @ 1:18PM

And consider the events of Thursday night through Friday morning:

Matthew and Mark: the Sanhedrin assembles at the high priest's house and condemns Jesus explicitly during the night.

Luke: the Sanhedrin does not even come together until Friday morning, explicitly after daybreak.

John: the Sanhedrin is entirely absent. Jesus is interviewed first by Annas, who is not mentioned in the other Gospels. The high priest never accuses Jesus of blasphemy or anything else and never pronounces him guilty of anything. He talks with Jesus awhile and then just trundles him off to Pilate after dawn with no accusation more specific than "he is a criminal."

If the only thing the Council had against Jesus was blasphemy, they didn't need Pilate to get rid of Jesus. Rome generally was not very much interested in the internal bickering of the various religious sects around the empire. Jesus had already come close to death twice on accusations of faithlessness - once in John 10 and the other in Luke 4. The Council would have had no difficulty in stirring up a mob to rid rid themselves of this troublesome prophet.

The only credible reason that Caiaphas/Council handed Jesus over to Pilate was to claim plausible deniability for his death. The Gospels are clear that some charges they made against Jesus to Pilate are ones they never made to Jesus himself; see Luke 23, for example.

That the Gospels do not agree in every detail about Jesus' Passion and Resurrection is simply denied by people who cling to the notion of Scriptural inerrancy in every detail, some of whom have responded to you here. Yet facts are stubborn things, and the fact is that these differences of accounts really are in the texts. Yet somehow, these differences have not managed to destroy my faith that Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again. I wonder why inerrantists think their faith is so fragile that it might be destroyed if they start to ponder them?

After all, if as Niebuhr said, "We do not always have to take the Bible literally to take it seriously," then I think it's just as valid to point out that one may take the Bible literally without at all taking it seriously.

Yet in my view, if the Gospels agreed on every little detail they would be less, not more credible. When witnesses agree on minutiae, it almost always means they colluded on a cover story. Instead, what we have are four apostolic-sourced accounts that agree not on every little detail but do agree on all the details that really matter:

1. Jesus died on the cross Friday by Pilate's orders. Really died, not just did he appear to die.

2. Jesus was buried by friends after his body was taken down from the cross.

3. Women followers of Jesus came to the tomb early Sunday morning and found the tomb open and empty. Mary Magdalene experienced an encounter with the risen Christ, who told her to tell the men.

4. Mary told Peter and other disciples that she had seen Jesus alive again. They did not believe her.

5. The risen Christ appeared to Peter and the others.

6. These appearances made them believers, but it was Pentecost that made them apostles. That's getting somewhat ahead of the day, though.

RCV| 4.6.12 @ 1:55PM

Exactly!

Thomas Paine Disciple| 4.6.12 @ 2:11PM

But . . . if every word of the Bible is ordained by God, why all the errors, the contradictions?

I am not trying to be contrary. I am asking these questions as a believe in the morality of Christianity.

Stuart Koehl| 4.6.12 @ 3:16PM

Because the Evangelists were inspired by God--God did not dictate to them, the way it is claimed that Allah dictated to Mohammed and Moroni to Joseph Smith. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God who so loved the world that He sent his only-begotten Son to ransom us from sin and death, works through human instruments. The Church early on decided that ALL FOUR GOSPELS were authentic accounts of the life and ministry of Christ; they rejected attempts to synchronize and reconcile them into one consistent story, as the Syrian Tatian did in his second century Diatessaron. The Fathers of the Church did not see the differences among the Gospel accounts as invalidating them, but rather as testimony to their truth and authenticity.

Thomas Paine Disciple| 4.6.12 @ 3:54PM

Thank you.

Angela| 4.6.12 @ 3:57PM

Don't listen to Koehl's "interpretations"!

What Stuart Koehl says is heresy. If the Bible is not God's word, then you are free to interpret it any old way. After all, it was just men who wrote it.

If God didn't say it why believe it?

Ryan| 4.6.12 @ 5:11PM

That's a massive overstatement of Stuart's perspective, and borders on false witness.

Brother in Christ| 4.6.12 @ 9:05PM

Ryan & Appleby:

Whoever does not believe that the WOrds of God that are written in the Bible are inerrant are only deceiving themselves.

Appleby, instead of speaking as a wise ass and asking your question, it should be asked of you: Just try and prove that the Words written in the Bible are NOT His!?

MikeG| 4.6.12 @ 9:32PM

Brother
What do you mean by inerrant?

Brother in Christ| 4.6.12 @ 10:12PM

You have a computer. Look it up. It has a definition. I didn't make it up myself, so it's not a matter of, "what do I mean".

MikeG| 4.6.12 @ 11:31PM

Not a very brotherly response Brother.

Brother in Christ| 4.8.12 @ 11:34PM

MikeG,

You already knew what it meant, didn't you?
How "brotherly" of you to try and set me up for a fall. You are very slick, and you know it.

Either I play your game, which would have been wrong for me to do and pretend as if you were really asking, or I tell you the truth, which was, if you didn't know what it meant, to look it up for yourself.

As well, the way in which you worded the question, "what did it mean to me", when you know that (if you are truly Christian) words have their definitions and it doesn't matter what I or you think it means.

"Brother".

MikeG| 4.9.12 @ 4:21PM

Bro
Should have known it was the infamous Mullah!

Searcher| 4.6.12 @ 11:30PM

Inerrant? Then why are there contradictions and mistakes throughout the Bible? Do you mean that God cannot get the story straight?

Stuart Koehl| 4.8.12 @ 3:11PM

I'm in a forgiving mood this glorious Paschal morning.

Appleby| 4.6.12 @ 8:48PM

Angela, in which autograph is "the" Bible God's inerrant word?

Ken (Old Texican)| 4.8.12 @ 11:05AM

Angela,
Jesus Christ...is THE WORD OF GOD...not the words of his all too human folowers.
ie: as in..."In the beginning was THE WORD...and THAT DWELT AMONG US..."

You are also dimissing the Holy Spirit that guides our own understanding day to day.

Brother in Christ| 4.8.12 @ 11:35PM

Ken,

You know as well as I do that Angela means the Words that are written in the Bible.

Jesus is the Word of God, we all know that, and Christians also know that the Words written in the Bible are His.

If you deny that, you deny God.

Brother in Christ| 4.8.12 @ 11:48PM

Also, to say that Angela "dismisses" the Holy Spirit because she is saying that the words contained in the Bible are God's Words is absurd.

If your thinking or any of our thinking isn't in line with what Jesus thinks, you're all wrong. And His Words are found in the Bible, which God gave to us.

Otherwise, you think you can just make stuff up. Is that what you are prone to do?

Brother in Christ| 4.9.12 @ 11:05AM

"You are also dimissing the Holy Spirit that guides our own understanding day to day."

This just galls me. The one who dismisses the Holy Spirit is you. The one who does not believe that the Words written in the Bible are God breathed and perfect.

What a perversion! To tell Angela, who DOES believe they are God breathed, that she is dismisses the One who wrote them, when it is you who mocks them.

Stuart Koehl| 4.8.12 @ 10:14PM

I'm a bit curious, Angela: by what authority do you declare what I said to be "heresy"?

Brother in Christ| 4.9.12 @ 1:01AM

I worded this wrong, above. It should say instead that what they do not believe is that the Bible DOES contain the Words of God, all true, and all perfect.

Brother in Christ| 4.9.12 @ 11:07AM

"I'm a bit curious, Angela: by what authority do you declare what I said to be "heresy"?"

By the same Spirit that wrote the Bible that you mock!

Brother in Christ| 4.9.12 @ 12:59AM

Dear Angela,

Let me give you a bit of advice. The Religionists here, like Stuart and Ken and others who are criticizing and accusing and mocking you
know that what you mean to say. But they are picking at your words.

Technically, the Bible (the physical book itself) is not the Word of God. It is a book.

They are acting as if you are trying to say that a physical book is the actual Word of God.

According to God, Jesus is the Word of God become flesh, as it is written in Jn. chapter one.

What you mean to say is that the physical book, the Bible contains the Words of God. Of course you're right, and they know it.

What they actually don't believe themselves, sadly, is that the Bible does not contain His Words, just exactly as He planned them to be written, and that they are ALL perfect and true.

They claim that they were written "by mere men", which, while Ken accuses you of "dismissing" the Holy Spirit, he is actually the one doing that, by his own admission. In another place he said that the Bible is "a story book."

While the Pharisees and hypocrites here seek to proudly tell us we are wrong in believing EVERY Word of God as it is written in the Bible, to be from Him and written down by the men He chose to do so, and all perfectly so, they are only succeeding in condemning themselves in the eyes of God.

Just know this. In the future, when you say the Bible is the Word of God? Don't say it like that. Instead it is correct to say that the Bible contains the Words of God. THAT they'll let you get away with.

I find that sadly, as you may be finding out as well, that my very worst enemies are those that call themselves Christian!

Stay faithful, sister.

RCV| 4.6.12 @ 5:14PM

Stuart, you have it exactly right in my view. It is those who insist on the inerrancy of the Bible who necessarily call into question God's omnipotence and his wisdom. What Angela says is simply nonsense.

Adam's Apple| 4.6.12 @ 5:56PM

Those who insist on the inerrancy of the Bible?

You--that's who. By you, I mean all you readers.

You use the bible to support your political beliefs every day. You avoid difficult questions (like, if the Bible is inerrant, why does Leviticus 11:6 claim that hares chew their cuds like cows? What about the hilarious scene in Exodus 17:8-11?). These include:

You repeat your original answer/argument using different language. Example: "If you don't agree with me, you're going to Hell." "Please explain why you say that." "People who don't believe in literal Biblical inerrancy are destined for eternal damnation."

You use loaded language. Example: He's not an abortionist, he's a "baby-murderer."

You rely exclusively on certain verses of the Bible, while ignoring any verses that contradict your position. For example, Leviticus 20:13 says that male homosexuality is an abomination unto the Lord and a capital offense. Leviticus 19:19 forbids cross-breeding, acne pimples, and wearing cotton-polyester blends (or any other kind of fabric blends).

You make use of sweeping generalizations, particularly about the character and eventual destination of anyone who disagrees with you.

You resort to ad-hominem attacks. If someone questions your logic, he is a godless liberal atheist who is destined for eternal damnation.

If the facts are against you, quote Scripture. If Scripture is against you, it is being misinterpreted by your opponent, who is deceived (q.v.). If both facts and Scripture are against you, you scream invective.

You change the subject. For example, someone says, "How can you say that Jesus is in favor of preemptive war? Didn't he go to his death rather than cause harm to any other human being?" Reply, "The Book of Revelation talks about—"

Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. If some fact might embarrass you, never reveal it. If someone else does, suppress it, deny it, or mock it. This is your standard approach to science, particularly global warming.

You use a straw man. You find or create a piece of your opponent's argument that you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Example: "People who believe in the theory of evolution believe that God does not exist, and therefore did not create the Universe, natural selection, or anything else."

You resort to name-calling and ridicule. Anyone who opposes you is by definition a godless Commie liberal homosexual-loving bigot destined for eternal damnation.

Tilt-a-Whirl| 4.6.12 @ 6:08PM

I would like to add a thought:

Amspec's fundamentalist Christians' concept of Bible-Based beliefs is anything in the Bible they agree with.

Anything that contradicts their beliefs, like Jesus's command to love your enemies, is ignored by them.

Brother in Christ| 4.6.12 @ 9:01PM

Tilt-a-Whirl,

Painting with a broad brush, are we?

Also, it depends on your definition of LOVE.

LOVE means laying down your life for another, as Jesus did. It has nothing, nothing to do with good feelings or being "nice" to others. It means loving them enough to tell them God's Truth about them.

That may not feel good to them, but God commands Christians to speak truthfully. And that truth is, that apart from Christ, we are going to Hell.

Jn. 3:16-18.

sittingaroundmypc| 4.7.12 @ 1:29PM

Brother in Christ: If you think that "being 'nice' to others" is not the central idea of Christianity. then I am glad you are not my neighbor.

And by the way, some of you do not sound like you have much of Christ's brotherly love in your hearts. You sound to me like fanatics.

Brother in Christ| 4.8.12 @ 11:29PM

sittingaroundmypc,

You mistake nice for kind. God warns about the deceitfulness of being "charming".

He does command Christians to be kind. Kindness is not being nice, but it is speaking the truth for the good of the person, even though they may not like hearing it. It's God's will that Christians preach the Gospel, it is the kindest thing we could do, in fact God commands us to do so.

It is also what causes us to be cast out, rejected by the world, and in some cases killed. But it's His will, and it may not feel good to you to hear it.

Brother in Christ| 4.6.12 @ 8:36PM

Adam's Apple,

No matter what you think of Christians who believe the Bible and believe in Jesus, YOU still have your Eternity to deal with.

Where will you spend it?

Do you know that when you stand before God as we all must, that you won't be allowed to blame all the other bad guys for your own life?

Just saying.

Brother in Christ| 4.6.12 @ 9:06PM

RCV is yet another example of the arrogant Religionist. He who makes himself above God. Or tries to!

Searcher| 4.6.12 @ 11:34PM

Angela's stance is no more nonsence than yours.

Reread what you wrote. It makes no sense. You are both obfuscating.

Stuart Koehl| 4.8.12 @ 3:52PM

Oh, I believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. I just don't believe "inerrant" means the same thing as Angela, et al. do.

Brother in Christ| 4.8.12 @ 11:54PM

"Oh, I believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. I just don't believe "inerrant" means the same thing as Angela, et al. do."

Angela, et al?

Pray tell Stuart, inerrant means inerrant. And you know it.

Either you believe the Words written in the Bible are ALL TRUE, or you DO NOT.

"Angela et al" and I am part of the "et al" who believe that EVERY Word of God is true.

See, you are a Religionist, so you think you get to make things up to suit your own leanings.

Christians don't allow themselves that luxury.

Stuart Koehl| 4.9.12 @ 8:33AM

"inerrant means inerrant"

Fifty points off for tautological reasoning.

Brother in Christ| 4.9.12 @ 11:02AM

Haughty.

Yes, inerrant means inerrant. It doesn't mean what YOU want it to mean.

Either the Words written in the Bible were God breathed and perfect, or they aren't.

No games, Stuart, and you know it. Yet you play.

Brother in Christ| 4.6.12 @ 7:58PM

Stuart says:

"The Fathers of the Church did not see the differences among the Gospel accounts as invalidating them, but rather as testimony to their truth and authenticity."

The only true Fathers of the church were the Apostles. That's just a point of information. Be careful as to who you call "Church Fathers", as there were plenty of heretics who came after them and indeed even during their time.

Secondly, the so-called differences in the Gospels of course do not mean they are incorrect. How you try to present that Christians (whom you condescendingly refer to as "Evangelicals" or "Fundamentalists") do this, that is, "stupidly" take the Bible literally and therefore, "insist that differences in perspective represent "errors".

That's a blatant lie. True Christians see the way they are written only as being "different", in so far as God"s Holy Spirit caused each one to write, each one's account, and done perfectly, just as He wanted them to be written.

There are no "mistakes", no contradictions~ only seeming ones, to those who are unenlightened.

Christian| 4.6.12 @ 11:43PM

Thank you BIC for being a true Christian and taking time to instruct us.

Brother in Christ| 4.8.12 @ 11:56PM

You're welcome, Christian. I do what I can by His Grace to bring His Word to those who haven't heard. Why don't you join me?

Nathan| 4.7.12 @ 11:28AM

No mistakes? No contradictions?

Did Judas kiss Jesus?

* Yes (Matthew 26:48-50)
* No. Judas could not get close enough to Jesus to kiss him (John 18:3-12)

What did Jesus say about Peters denial?

* The rooster will not crow till you have denied me three times (John 13:3
* Before the rooster crows twice you will deny me three times (Mark 14:30) . When the rooster crowed once, the three denials were not yet complete (see Mark 14:72). Therefore prediction (a) failed.

Did Jesus bear his own cross?

* Yes (John 19:17)
* No (Matthew 27:31-32)

Did Jesus die before the curtain of the temple was torn?

* Yes (Matthew 27:50-51; Mark lS:37-3
* No. After the curtain was torn, then Jesus crying with a loud voice, said, Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit! And having said this he breathed his last (Luke 23:45-46)

Where was Jesus at the sixth hour on the day of the crucifixion?

* On the cross (Mark 15:23)
* In Pilates court (John 19:14)

The gospels say that two thieves were crucified along with Jesus. Did both thieves mock Jesus?

* Yes (Mark 15:32)
* No. One of them mocked Jesus, the other defended Jesus (Luke 23:43)

Did Jesus ascend to Paradise the same day of the crucifixion?

* Yes. He said to the thief who defended him, Today you will be with me in Paradise (Luke 23:43)
* No. He said to Mary Magdelene two days later, I have not yet ascended to the Father (John 20:17)

Was Jesus crucified on the daytime before the Passover meal or the daytime after?

* After (Mark 14:12-17)
* Before. Before the feast of the Passover (John 1) Judas went out at night (John 13:30). The other disciples thought he was going out to buy supplies to prepare for the Passover meal (John 13:29). When Jesus was arrested, the Jews did not enter Pilates judgment hail because they wanted to stay clean to eat the Passover (John 18:2. When the judgment was pronounced against Jesus, it was about the sixth hour on the day of Preparation for the Passover (John 19:14)

Did Jesus pray to The Father to prevent the crucifixion?

* Yes. (Matthew 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42)
* No. (John 12:27)

In the gospels which say that Jesus prayed to avoid the cross, how many times did he move away from his disciples to pray?

* Three (Matthew 26:36-46 and Mark 14:32-42)
* One. No opening is left for another two times. (Luke 22:39-46)

I could go on and on, but I'm helping my wife decorate the sanctuary for tomorrow's service.
Even the most devoted Christians--if they use their brains--see hundreds of errors and contradictions in the Bible. And the supernatural parts of the Bible are preposterous. Yet, I am a churchgoer because I like going to church for the sense of ritual and community.

59%| 4.7.12 @ 12:25PM

Nathan, there are more inconsitencies that you neglected to mention:

When Jesus said My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken Me ? in what language did he speak?

Hebrew: the words are Eloi, Eloi , (Matthew 27:46)
Aramaic: the words are Eloi, Eloi , (Mark 15:34)

According to the gospels, what were the last words of Jesus before he died?

Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit! (Luke 23:46)
"It is finished" (John 19:30)

I, too, am a churchgoer--a Lutheran--but the more I ponder the Bible, the more I doubt it's veracity.

59%| 4.7.12 @ 12:26PM

Still I will go to church. It's too embedded as part of my identity.

Brother in Christ| 4.9.12 @ 12:30AM

59% needs to stop going to church and go to Jesus.

"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me; and him who comes to Me I will not cast out." Jn. 6:37.

Rich D| 4.7.12 @ 11:17PM

The Hebrew is Eli. Anyway, what is recorded is not necessarily the language that he spoke, but the language that was reported to the Gospel writer. A translation for readers is no big deal, but Jesus probably spoke Aramaic as the common language of the lower classes. Even Hebrew was disappearing except as the formal Temple language (note the LXX). And, of course the Gospels were written Koine Greek. Jesus spoke them all.

Stuart Koehl| 4.8.12 @ 4:02PM

Don't ever study history, then, because you will find that for every ten eye witnesses to an historical incident, there are at least eleven different accounts of what happened. It's naive in the extreme to think that history is an exact account of something that happened; it is, rather, the collation of myriad individual accounts of what happened, a reconstruction of what happened, an interpretation of what happened.

When historians come across five or six accounts of an event that agree in every particular, we can only make one of two conclusions: either all the accounts derive from one original account; or the authors of all the accounts colluded with one another to tell the same story--which makes it impossible to use them to validate each other.

Secular historians examining the New Testament overwhelmingly conclude that they are "authentic" accounts of the events they describe, meaning that they are not invention or fabrication, but the author's honest retelling and interpretation of the events therein. To the extent that the major facts of the Gospel stories can be validated or corroborated they stand up very well--external sources, as well as archaeology reinforce that position every day.

There are, of course, some things that cannot be proven by historical method. The Resurrection is, of course, THE salient example. But those trying to find alternative explanations for details included in the narratives, for non-biblical sources that corroborate the Gospels, and for the subsequent history of the Church have not managed to find an argument as convincing as the orthodox Christian explanation--Jesus Christ was crucified, buried in a new tomb, and rose from the dead on the third day.

Brother in Christ| 4.9.12 @ 12:31AM

"It's naive in the extreme to think that history is an exact account of something that happened; "

And that makes sense, how?

Stuart Koehl| 4.9.12 @ 8:37AM

"And that makes sense, how?"

Man being a finite creature with limited perception and comprehension lacks the omniscience of God. He can describe only those things he can comprehend and put into words.

Pick five history books at random about any particular even in history. You will find five different accounts of what happened. Which one is "actually" true? The honest answer is "none of them", because of the reason I gave you. Your understanding of the nature of history is therefore utterly naive.

Nick| 4.7.12 @ 8:31PM

Nathan,

Your Biblical exegesis is severely lacking.
You are like a man on a high-wire without a net. Except, it is your soul that is in danger of perishing.

There are many logical explanations to these seeming errors and contradictions that you skeptics keep inventing. For those who are interested in the truth.

For example, the day of the Crucifixion. Now, there are theories about the disagreement over what day the Passover started in Christ's day, just as there are today. Theories about which day the Essenes celebrated it are also explored.

But, there is really no contradiction between the four Gospels. The Last Supper was a Pasch, i.e., a Passover Meal. The Passover Meal was eaten on the eve of the day of Passover. The Feast of Unleavened Bread, with it's own sacrifices, was celebrated for the next seven days.

It is explained rather succinctly, here:

http://newtheologicalmovement......th-of.html

The times of the trial before Pilate and when the Crucifixion began are also explained. One has to know how the ancient Jews kept time to understand this. They didn't have watches back then, you know?

As you stated, you are churchgoer. Try being a Christian first, willing to lay down your life for Christ, and making friends second.
Happy Easter and God Bless!

Stuart Koehl| 4.8.12 @ 3:16PM

"The only true Fathers of the church were the Apostles. That's just a point of information. Be careful as to who you call "Church Fathers", as there were plenty of heretics who came after them and indeed even during their time."

This is going to cause you some problems, no? After all, two of the Gospels were written by men who were not Apostles. And all of the Gospels were compiled well after most of Paul's (and James', Jude's and John's) Epistles.

Brother in Christ| 4.8.12 @ 11:23PM

The Gospels were written by the men that God appointed to write them, and you know it.

You're trying to twist my words, as is typical for you it seems.

I stated that the only true church Fathers (so-called) were the Apostles. YOU twisted my words as if I said that only the Apostles wrote the Bible.

The Apostles were the first Christians and their disciples who abided by the teachings of Christ were faithful to His Words.

In speaking of Early so-called church Fathers~ they were those who were faithful to Jesus' teachings, many who came after were not and brought in hundreds of Heresies, some of which you seem to follow. And as well as Catholicsm's teachings which are false.

Such as prayer to the dead, the so-called Eucharist, Popery, Mary as sinless, et al.

The men who taught these things were heretics, and used to persecute and kill the followers of Christ, those that were faithful to Jesus' teachings.

I believe you know this already, but you choose to follow Religion, and not Christ.

Stuart Koehl| 4.9.12 @ 8:39AM

"You're trying to twist my words, as is typical for you it seems."

Your arguments are much like pretzel dough (do you know the symbolic meaning of the pretzel knot? If you did, you's probably give up on pretzels), and so easily twisted.

Speaking of twisted, so's your bigotry.

Brother in Christ| 4.9.12 @ 10:59AM

Of course you say that because I stand on the Bible, which you detest.

And of course because I speak the truth, to you I am a bigot.

And yet you are a liar and blasphemer, which is perfectly clear for all to see who read your haughty, lying posts.

Name one thing I said that isn't true.

We'll wait.

Brother in Christ| 4.9.12 @ 7:51PM

Stuart Koehl is supposedly an historian and yet he accuses me of bigotry for telling the truth about the persecution of Christians under the Popes. He already knows it's the truth, and yet he proves once again that he is nothing but an insincere, arrogant liar.

It is because he sides with the Devil and not Christ. That is what liars do. Jn. 8:44.

There is no truth in him.

Stuart Koehl| 4.9.12 @ 9:18PM

BIC is not a bigot--he's just a jerk.

Stuart Koehl| 4.6.12 @ 2:48PM

"If the only thing the Council had against Jesus was blasphemy, they didn't need Pilate to get rid of Jesus. Rome generally was not very much interested in the internal bickering of the various religious sects around the empire. "

That most certainly is not true, as Josephus' account of the death by stoning of James the Brother of Jesus in AD 62. During an interregnum between Procurators (the title of the Roman governor was changed when Judaea reverted to Roman rule after the death of Herod Agrippa I), the High Priest Ananus ben Ananus (son of the Ananus in the Gospels) took advantage of the situation to have James hauled before a kangaroo court of the Sanhedrin, condemned for heresy, and killed (either by stoning or by being pushed off the top of the Temple battlements). When a new procurator arrived from Rome, complaints from the Pharisees and the lower priests about Annus' high-handed action resulted in Annus being removed as High Priest.

The account of the stoning of Stephen the Deacon in Acts was not a formal judicial action, but rather a spontaneous lynching. We are not told what actions, if any, Pilate (still Praefect at that time) did about it. Given that Pilate was in Caesarea, and the stoning of Stephen took place in Jerusalem, it's likely that he never even heard of it. The Sanhedrin, in whose interest it was to appear to be in control, probably looked over the situation, decided Stephen was a troublemaker whom they were better off without, and said, "Nothing to see here, people. Move along".

Sunday School Teacher| 4.6.12 @ 6:16PM

How about the Rapture?

According to 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17, Paul wrote, "Jesus will personally come down from heaven with a shout, at the sound of the archangel's voice and the trumpet of God, and those who have died in Christ will rise from the grave. After that we the living, the survivors, will be caught up with them in the clouds to meet Jesus in the air — and thenceforth we will be with Jesus unceasingly." Paul was writing to a congregation of primitive Celts who were quarreling about whether dead Christians would go to Heaven.

In 1830, John Darby, a prominent member of the Plymouth Brethren, was holding a meeting at which a 15-year-old girl went into a quasi-trance and proclaimed that a select group of believers would be removed from the earth before the days of Antichrist, and that other believers would have to live through a period of tribulation on earth. Darby spread this pre-tribulation rapture teaching in Europe and later in the United States.

The Rapture theory was given an enormous boost in the United States when the 1917 Scofield Bible included footnotes about it. For right-wing fundamentalists, the only point of discussion is whether the Rapture will come pre-tribulation or post-tribulation. The fact that the Rapture is in and of itself totally against the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth is irrelevant.

Nathan| 4.6.12 @ 11:41PM

I'm ready for the rapture, and I believe it's near. If you don't believe in the rapture, you will be doomed.

The rapture! Bring it on!

Stuart Koehl| 4.8.12 @ 4:07PM

Can I have your car?

Brother in Christ| 4.9.12 @ 12:32AM

"Can I have your car?"

Stuart continually mocks Christians, thus he mocks Christ.

Stuart Koehl| 4.9.12 @ 8:39AM

"Stuart continually mocks Christians, thus he mocks Christ."

I mock those who make up their faith as they go along.

Brother in Christ| 4.9.12 @ 10:57AM

"I mock those who make up their faith as they go along."

That would be you, then. You do nothing but mock Christianity and Christians. You mock God when you mock the Apostle Paul and blatantly lied about what he said in the Bible.

You mock Christians who are genuine Christians and stand on the Bible, and you mock the Bible itself.

You just got done mocking Christ's return. You are nothing but a Pharisee of modern times.

Do you also deny 1 Thess. 4:16 & 17?

Yes or no? Do you not believe the Holy Spirit?

Ryan| 4.9.12 @ 2:41PM

So....every Christian before the early 1900s was doomed?

Stuart Koehl| 4.8.12 @ 4:06PM

How did you manage to find Celts in first century Thessalonika, which was and remains a major Greek city? Galatia, on the other hand, was a region in Anatolia settled by Gauls in the 4th century BC.

I'll go out on a limb with N.T. Wright and say that St. Paul was using a well known Jewish metaphor as a rhetorical device, one not meant to be taken in a literal manner, given that Paul's eschatology most certainly did not see the saved going up to heaven, but as being raised in material bodies to inhabit a renewed physical universe.

Brother in Christ| 4.9.12 @ 1:58AM

"Paul's eschatology most certainly did not see the saved going up to heaven, but as being raised in material bodies to inhabit a renewed physical universe."

Wow. Here again we have not the fruit of the Spirit of God, but an unenlightened Religionist. He is the epitome of Religionists in that he gets to make up his own stuff. Whatever Stuart thinks in his own little dark mind, he calls it truth and so be it, never mind those pesky Christians who choose to go according to the Words of God written in the Bible.

This man thinks because he has a degree or two in whatever he has his degrees in that his word is king, and not Christ.

You see, some Religionists, many who post here, have their own way of thinking and claiming this or that about Jesus, what He meant, what Paul meant to say, or whether or not Paul is to be taken seriously, as he did just above.

Some Religionists don't like the Apostle Paul and actually feel justified in knocking him, or interpreting what he said as untrue and therefore they don't have to listen to the Holy Spirit.

Oh, no he says, Paul didn't believe that the saved go to Heaven! He says that Paul believed that we would inherit physical and not spiritual bodies and go to a physical universe!

Stuart the Heretic.

And nobody says anything to this man about this?

Stuart parts company with Christ, as well as Paul.

What Paul REALLY said:

"So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power.
It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body.
Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
But it is not the spiritual which is first but the physical, and then the spiritual.
The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.
Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. I tell you this, brethren: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable." 1 Cor. 15:42-50.

Nick| 4.9.12 @ 8:07AM

Is that you, Margie?

Brother in Christ| 4.9.12 @ 2:10AM

Sunday school teacher & Stuart K:

So, the question is, do you or don't you believe 1 Thess. 4:16 & 17?

If you do not believe it, you aren't Christian.

Rev. Donald Sensing | 4.6.12 @ 6:37PM

My point is that if the Council had wanted a crowd to get rid of Jesus as a crowd later got rid of Stephen, it could have been arranged. After all, in John 10 a crowd almost did stone Jesus.

Stuart Koehl| 4.8.12 @ 3:23PM

Stephen was lynched. The Sanhedrin could not do the same to Jesus, in large part because He had become so prominent. A lynching would have caused a lot more trouble for the Sanhedrin, so they had to observe the judicial niceties. Consider the trouble than Annanus bar Annanus, the High Priest in AD 62 got into when he convened the Sanhedrin in a kangaroo court to condemn and execute James the brother of Jesus: the Pharisees and the lesser priests complained to the new Procurator, and Ananus was deposed as High Priest.

To the best of our knowledge, the Gospels are correct when they have the Sanhedrin tell Pilate that "under your law we can put no man to death"--"imperium maior", with the power to execute, belonged to the Praefect alone. The one exception, mentioned by Josephus in "Jewish Antiquities", and confirmed by the excavation of an inscribed stone from the Temple Mount, was the right of the Temple Guard to immediately execute any non-Jew who passed beyond the outer "Court of the Gentiles" in the Temple. The Romans were sticklers when it came to sacrilege, even against gods in whom they did not believe.

Brother in Christ| 4.9.12 @ 7:47PM

Too arrogant to answer the question, Mr. Koehl? How about you, Appleby? Nick?

They look down their noses at God's Words, and them that stand on them!

Nick| 4.9.12 @ 9:26PM

Margie's Bro,

What question would that be? Your's? Or, Rev. Sensings?

If you are referring to the reverend's post of 4.6.12 @ 5:37PM, then the answer is that he is wrong, yet again. The "Council" and mobs tried repeatedly to kill Christ before His appointed time. He would always slip through the crowds, in their midst. Christ died when the Father decided He should, not when men decided.

If the question is your's, Margie's Bro, about the Rapture, then the answer is there is no such thing as the Rapture. It was invented around A.D. 1800.

Do you reject Saint Paul's words, in Romans 8:11?
"If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit which dwells in you."

You should have quoted the first part of 1 Cor. 15:
"Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain." - 1 Cor. 15:12-14

Our physical bodies will be resurrected on the Day of Judgement. The Bible says so. Didn't Christ's physical body rise on the third day? Did not Saint Thomas put his fingers into the wounds of Christ?

Also, why are you defending Rev Sensing, anyway? He did write this: "That the Gospels do not agree in every detail about Jesus' Passion and Resurrection is simply denied by people who cling to the notion of Scriptural inerrancy in every detail, some of whom have responded to you here."

Was he not referring to people like you, Margie's Bro?
God Bless!

Brother in Christ| 4.10.12 @ 8:41PM

I asked you if you agreed with 1 Thess. 4:16 & 17.

You did not answer, but spewed out a statement in which iy looks to me that once again you are twisting the Words of God.

I never said there wasn't a physical resurrection of the body, Mr. Wise ass. Stuart Koehl perverted the Words of God through the Apostle Paul when he lied and said Paul didn't believe in a spiritual Heaven or in spiritual bodies.

Is this what you, a Religionist, and no Christian believes as well? And you USE the Scripture to say so?

Yes, our PHYSICAL bodies are raised, and they are CHANGED to spiritual, imperishable bodies.

Do you deny this, Religionsit?

"in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed." 1 Cor. 15:52.

So, are you denying BOTH 1 Thess. 4:16 & 17 as well as the above?

Nick| 4.11.12 @ 7:49PM

Margie's Bro,

"I asked you if you agreed with 1 Thess. 4:16 & 17."

I did answer this question, in my reply at 4.9.12 @ 7:46PM, about 1/5 of the way up from the bottom of this thread. But, I will answer again, in case you have trouble finding it.

I do not reject 1 Thess. 4:16-17. I don't reject any part of the Bible. I love the Sacred Scriptures. I try to read them as often as I am able.

"I never said there wasn't a physical resurrection of the body [...]."

Why must you always curse at me? Since you asked Sunday School Teacher and Mr. Koehl if they accepted 1 Thess. 4:16-17, and SST was referring to the Rapture, I concluded you were asking if I accepted the Rapture. This is the verse most often used to push the Rapture. I do not accept the doctrine of a Rapture, as previously stated. Do you?

"Stuart Koehl perverted the Words of God [...]."

Mr. Koehl did not deny the spiritual Heaven or spiritual bodies. He was talking about the Final Judgement, when everyone gets their resurrected bodies and the universe is transformed into a new Creation, as is written in the Bible:

"Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment." - John 5:28-29

"For he has made known to us in all wisdom and insight the mystery of his will, according to his purpose which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fulness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth." - Ephesians 1:9-10

"For in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross." - Colossians 1:19-20

"But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up. Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be kindled and dissolved, and the elements will melt with fire! But according to his promise we wait for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells." - 2 Peter 3:10-13

"Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more." - Revelation 21:1

"Do you deny this, Religionsit [sic]?"

No, not at all. Again, I don't deny anything written in the Sacred Scriptures. I hope that clears this up.
God Bless!

Brother in Christ| 4.10.12 @ 8:47PM

I see that the others refuse to acknowledge 1 Thess. 4: 16 & 17 as well.

You actually deny the second coming of Christ, and the raising and changing of our physical bodies into spiritual, imperishable bodies, and a Heaven where flesh and blood cannot inherit?

And you mock those who do!

"The coming of the lawless one by the activity of Satan will be with all power and with pretended signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are to perish, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.
Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false, so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness." 1 Thess. 2:9-12.

"We have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways; we refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God's Word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." 2 Cor. 4:2.

I part company with you liars.

Nick| 4.11.12 @ 7:50PM

Margie's Bro,

I think that the others have stopped coming to this thread. Sorry.

JohnM| 4.6.12 @ 3:01PM

Despite what you have posted, I am no nearer to knowing why we would want to know about the Roman/Hebrew politics of the day. The fortune and energy spent researching this could be put to better use spreading the word, feeding the hungry and sheltering the poor.

Stuart Koehl| 4.6.12 @ 3:17PM

That's what Judas said about the phial of nard that Mary used to anoint the feet of the Master. And, as the Master responded, "The poor you will always have with you".

JohnM| 4.6.12 @ 5:56PM

Worshipping Jesus in his earthly lifetime is a totally different topic seperate from pouring whole lifetimes and mountains of money into studying the past events. I am amazed by the amount of money and effort wasted on insignificant things.

Stuart Koehl| 4.8.12 @ 4:15PM

Our faith is based on truth, a truth rooted in an historical reality: there really was a man named Jesus of Nazareth, who really was born in the reign of Herod the Great, who really did live and teach in Judea and Galilee during time of Tiberias Caesar, who really was crucified under a Roman Praefect named Pontius Pilate, and, of course, who really did rise from the dead on the Third Day.

That's what makes Christianity different from any of the other religions with dying gods who are reborn myths: these supposedly happened in some distant past, but our story happened in real historical time, and those who followed Jesus were very careful to get their facts as close to correct as they could manage, because, as Paul wrote, "If Jesus Christ is not risen from the dead, then you are still confirmed in your sins."

SeymourGlass| 4.6.12 @ 4:33PM

Dept of Theology: now that you've told us what the others say - what say you?

SeymourGlass| 4.6.12 @ 11:11AM

"But what, exactly, made Caiaphas and Pilate collude to kill Jesus?"

I suppose the two of them would be the only ones who could give us the definitive answer.

My thoughts on the matter are simple minded ones. The Light came into the world. The Light exposes all of our faults and weaknesses. Those in power - and some not in power, to be sure - preferred the darkness. So, they tried like hell to extinguish the Light.

Stuart Koehl| 4.6.12 @ 11:57AM

Caiphas and Pilate did not collude. Pilate did not like Jews in general, and the Sanhedrin in particular--they caused him nothing but trouble. The Sanhedrin brought Jesus before Pilate for judgment, with a case obviously built on trumped-up evidence, and Pilate's initial inclination was to send them away--getting involved in Jewish religious disputes was a lose-lose proposition for a Roman Praefectus. Unable to do so, Pilate then decides to flip the figurative bird to the Sanhedrin by letting Jesus go free. But they circumvent him by changing the charge in mid-stream from blasphemy (about which Pilate doesn't give a fig) to treason (about which he cares a lot), and by threatening to denounce him to Tiberias Caesar unless they get their way. Which, of course, they do. The portrait of Pilate in the Gospels is entirely consistent with that presented by Philo of Alexandria (who knew Pilate) and by Flavius Josephus (who knew many who knew him); Josephus also had access to Pilate's "Acta", or official reports, which probably served as source material for both The Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities.

SeymourGlass| 4.6.12 @ 12:32PM

Stuart: I'll stand by my simple minded thought. It gives me reason to acknowledge my own failings - the times I've wanted to run away from, or stamp out - the Light.

john| 4.6.12 @ 11:31AM

Politicians killed Jesus. Remember that. Not Jews, not Romans. POLITICIANS

Stuart Koehl| 4.6.12 @ 11:57AM

We all killed Jesus. We still do. Remember that.

Brother in Christ| 4.6.12 @ 12:34PM

Speak for yourself.

Stuart Koehl| 4.6.12 @ 2:49PM

I do. I am, however, simply stating the truth.

Brother in Christ| 4.6.12 @ 7:36PM

What you're doing is lying, or stating such a thing out of sheer ignorance. Not everyone crucifies Christ every day. Those of us who have become His children by His Spirit have been set free from our sins, and have a new life in Christ.

For you to believe this means that you do nor believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but some legalization of it.

Have you ever actually asked God for His Holy Spirit, and for the forgiveness of your sins? He promises to cleanse you from them all and then will bring you into a relationship with Him through Christ.

As it is written in John 1:12 & 13, He gives you the power and authority to become His child, and then keeps you from returning from your former manner of living. The Bible tells us that we become "dead" to Sin after receiving His Spirit.

SUBVET| 4.8.12 @ 12:53PM

Brother...........so after you have received His spirit you have never sinned ? We are all sinners no matter how hard we try "we are man and not perfect".

I think you need to rethink this "dead" to sin spirit thing.

Only God is perfect.

Nick| 4.8.12 @ 8:52PM

SUBVET,

Did you read all of the Scripture verses that I provided about confessing sins to men, in the Cardinal Wuerl thread? You did ask for them, remember?

To make it easier, here's my response, in case you forgot where it was: http://spectator.org/archives/.....ent_787185

Brother in Christ| 4.8.12 @ 11:13PM

Subvet,

If you don't agree with the Words of God that are written in the Bible then you too are creating your own Jesus.

I pity you, too.

"So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus." Rom. 6:11.

I choose to believe in Him.

Brother in Christ| 4.9.12 @ 12:03AM

And Subvet,

You put words in my mouth as well. I did not say I never sin anymore. YOU did. But the God of the Bible says we MUST consider ourselves dead to Sin. I do, by faith, and by His Grace.

Do you?

Remember, the verse, "There is forgiveness with Thee that Thou mayest be feared?" Psalms.

And if we DO sin, that we have an advocate with the Father? 1st Jn.

You just basically mocked God.

TURK| 4.6.12 @ 11:33AM

There had to be a naysayer! Always is.

Throughout my stumbles in a long life (78) I usually managed to find a Friday service in memory of our Lords sacrifice. Happy Easter yes, but Good Friday was always important to me. It's difficult to find afternoon services anymore. There was a church in Orlando across the street from a lake. They had a permanent Cross at the lake and prior to Easter it was draped with black cloth. I can still see it in my minds eye. Interestingly, that church had periodic days celebrating the miracle of America. Good Good Friday to all,especially Mimi.

john| 4.6.12 @ 11:39AM

There was no Messiah in Roman paganism. Jesus was a Jew and so were his disciples. They they kill him? Blame "Jews" are your own risk.

Stuart Koehl| 4.6.12 @ 11:59AM

Yeah, the Jews of the Sanhedrin conspired to kill Jesus. Fact, indisputable (even Jewish sources concede--boast, actually--about this). But that's not what is important today. What is important today is that we are ALL the Jews. We are all responsible for the sins of the world. We crucify Christ every day, and every day He forgives us.

Doctor Right| 4.6.12 @ 12:12PM

That we are all sinners, unworthy of Christ's sacrifice and God's Grace is indisputable.

But the "crucify Christ every day" stuff is Catholic dogma, not fact.

He died ONCE for all ( 1 Peter 3:18).

Stuart Koehl| 4.6.12 @ 12:31PM

We're being metaphorical, not literal here, Doc. Jesus said, "When you did this to the least among you, you did it to Me". We mock, we scourge, we kill our fellow man on a daily basis. When we do it to the least of us, we do it to Him. Every day.

The brilliant Anglican theologian N.T. Wright has noted, quite properly, that Protestant soteriology has gone down the path of viewing sin and salvation as individual concerns, at the expense of ignoring the cosmic dimensions of sin. In Wright's latest book, "Justification", he notes this once more and contrasts it to the Eastern Christian perspective, which views sin as having both a personal and a universal dimension: sin offends God, and it hurts individuals, but it also rends the fabric of the entire cosmos. Christ became incarnate, took on all of human nature, died and rose again so that he could ransom us from sin and death and begin the restoration of the world. At the Parousia, it's not a simple matter of the damned sent to Hell and the righteous going to Heaven, but of Christ setting the world back on its proper course--not a new creation, but the old creation restored--"Behold, I make all things new again!"

And, inter alia, it's not "Catholic" doctrine, in the sense of the Church of Rome--it's "catholic" doctrine, held and believed by all the Apostolic Churches.

Brother in Christ| 4.6.12 @ 12:36PM

If you choose to beat yourself up every day, that's your choice but as for me, I am justified by faith. You should read Romans 5:1.

Stuart Koehl| 4.8.12 @ 3:25PM

Faith without works is dead. Oh, yeah--Luther called that one an "Epistle of straw". So one can be selective in which Scriptures you choose to read Sola?

Brother in Christ| 4.8.12 @ 11:10PM

You just accused me falsely, but then that seems to be what you do for a living, which is sad.

You need to get right with God.

I said nothing about works not being needed. You are using a verse to condemn me for something I didn't allude to.

The God of the Bible, Whom I serve, states that we are indeed justified by faith, and because of that, we have peace with God. You don't like the Bible much, do you?

You seem to take pleasure in lying and creating your own Jesus.

Works are a natural consequence of faith, and aren't just things you do, but the fruit that you bear for Him as well.

Have you ever lead another sinner to Christ? Or are you too busy knocking Christians?

Doctor Right| 4.6.12 @ 1:15PM

What an amazing mouthful of prose!

But alas...it IS Catholic (Big "C") doctrine...not Biblical Doctrine. As is the term "Apostolic Churches."

Your lengthy tome offers no refutation of 1 Peter 3:18...which, of course, was the purpose for it's length. It's called "distraction."

And as far as "Protestant soteriology" is concerned, I'm not a Protestant, so what's your point?

Tim| 4.6.12 @ 3:58PM

As the son of an Episcopal priest, who believed he was as "catholic" (or "Catholic") as anyone, thank you for pointing this issue out. It diminishes the church as a whole to assign its beliefs to one branch. And thank you for your fascinating posts.

Jack in Wi.| 4.7.12 @ 5:34PM

Stuart: Good work. Well thought out answers.

Brother in Christ| 4.9.12 @ 12:35AM

Jack here agrees with the other Religionist and mocker of Christians.

Not surprising in the least.

SeymourGlass| 4.6.12 @ 12:37PM

Doc, it's one of the wonders of scripture that we can have a "win-win" here. Re: Mark 9:39-40. We don't have to all agree on everything, but if we acknowledge Him, we're on His side.

Brother in Christ| 4.6.12 @ 12:38PM

Acknowledge and OBEY.

SeymourGlass| 4.6.12 @ 12:55PM

Huh?

Brother in Christ| 4.6.12 @ 1:00PM

As it is written, "Even the Demons believe."

Believing isn't enough. Are you actually unfamiliar with the fact that to be a Christian, you must obey Christ?

SeymourGlass| 4.6.12 @ 1:14PM

No, BIC, I'm not unfamiliar with this fact.

It's interesting, here I am trying to find common ground with Dr Right - something he and I rarely find - and you step in, sowing discord.

Get behind me, "Brother in Christ".

Brother in Christ| 4.6.12 @ 7:23PM

"Get behind me, "Brother in Christ".

After you.

And the truth remains the same, whether you like it or not. Simply acknowledging Christ means nothing, and false unity is not better than no unity.

Either you obey Him, and that means according to the Bible, not your own thinking or religion, or you aren't Christian, and there can be no unity.

Can one say they follow false teachings and still be united with Christ? No, they cannot.

And as far as I know, this is an open forum and you don't make the rules here on commenting.

PEL| 4.7.12 @ 6:46AM

To ALL who have posted above this time on Saturday, April 7 at 5:35 Eastern Standard Time USA.

Please, for some of you, re-read what you have posted above. Would you, at this hour and a day later, perhaps wish to re-word some of what comes across as barbs above?

It is certainly not wrong to enthusiastically and with energy discuss and seek through this discussion a better comprehension.

We all can benefit from a better understanding.

But, I fear, a non Christian, reading some of the very short, tersely worded comments of back and forth posted above, this non Christian will again find reason to reject Jesus Christ because of our petty (self-focused maybe?) bickering.

So, please, discuss, defend and support your points, but do so in a spirit of brotherly love toward one another.

Okay?

We are to be His ambassadors.

And we never know who is watching us, observing, listening in, reading. And we are responsible for every word, correct?

Brother in Christ| 4.9.12 @ 12:37AM

"But, I fear, a non Christian, reading some of the very short, tersely worded comments of back and forth posted above, this non Christian will again find reason to reject Jesus Christ."

You're lying. You reject Christ because you refuse to give up your sin, and stop being your own lord.

SeymourGlass| 4.7.12 @ 11:37AM

Did you even read what I wrote, so called "Brother in Christ"?

The beam in your eye is large. Look in the mirror.

Christian| 4.7.12 @ 3:36PM

You sound much more like a sister in Mohammed thatn a Brother in Christ.

0 + 0 = 1001| 4.7.12 @ 7:26PM

Thank you, PEL, for some sound Christian advice.
We can be civil when discussing controversial ideas, and we should be respectful of others' thoughts even if we disagree.

Rev. Donald Sensing | 4.6.12 @ 12:52PM

Remember, though, there were two completely different Sanhedrins in that day and only one condemned Jesus. As a Jewish scholar explained to me, the Pharisaic Sanhedrin had parted ways with the Priestly Sanhedrin in AD 26 and vacated the Temple completely. It was the Priestly Sanhedrin alone that condemned Jesus.

Because the Pharisees were all laymen, I say this to buttress my caution against blaming "the Jews" all together for Jesus' death - I know you are not doing this but look at history since then. Jesus was killed by the power structure's keepers, not the "man in the street."

Brother in Christ| 4.6.12 @ 12:54PM

Well said.

Thomas| 4.7.12 @ 5:48PM

You are right, the power structure, not the man on the street (i.e., the average Jew) killed Jesus ... though we cannot avoid the fact that the plot played itself out not in the ancient equivalent of a smoke-filled room, but with a lynch-mob Caiaphas had conjured up.

That said, the main problem we currently have is not that too many people blame all Jews, but rather that the descendents of this power structure are succeeding in flipping the story. I remember Ralph Reed on cable TV being asked who killed Jesus, and he just said Pilate/the Romans bear all the blame. I hear this narrative from evangelicals left and right - total historical revisionism in favour of those who order bullets fired into the Church of the Nativity.

Sorry to say, but I see a lighter version of this in your previous comments about understanding Caiaphas' motivations. If the rabbis had been honest they would have pursued the case against Jesus within their own laws, as Pilate suggested, and not used a proxy murderer. Their actions, aggressively engineering their desired result while setting up a scapegoat, were dishonourable and indefensible. Blaming Pilate as an equal or greater partner in crime, when all the Gospels (not just John) make clear this is not so, is suspicious at best.

Stuart Koehl| 4.8.12 @ 3:27PM

There is no truth in that assertion at all.

Brother in Christ| 4.9.12 @ 1:12AM

Really, Stuart? Who shall we believe, the Bible, which contain the Words of God, or you, a Religionist? A man who continually mocks and finds fault with true Christians?

Here:

"From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised." Mt. 16:21.

And here:

"Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man will be delivered to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death, and deliver him to the Gentiles to be mocked and scourged and crucified, and he will be raised on the third day." Mt. 20:18 & 19.

Nick| 4.9.12 @ 8:13AM

Neither of those two Scripture quotations say that "there were two completely different Sanhedrins [sic]," as Rev. Sensing claimed.

Stuart Koehl| 4.9.12 @ 8:43AM

"Really, Stuart? Who shall we believe, the Bible, which contain the Words of God, or you, a Religionist? A man who continually mocks and finds fault with true Christians?"

Through the defective stringing of the blog, you ascribe my response to this statement:

"Remember, though, there were two completely different Sanhedrins in that day and only one condemned Jesus. As a Jewish scholar explained to me, the Pharisaic Sanhedrin had parted ways with the Priestly Sanhedrin in AD 26 and vacated the Temple completely. It was the Priestly Sanhedrin alone that condemned Jesus."

to something else.

Brother in Christ| 4.9.12 @ 10:52AM

The two Religionists continue to find fault. The point is that Jesus WAS delivered up by the "power structure's keepers, and not the man in the street", as Donald Sensing said.

And I proved it with the Bible.

Nick| 4.9.12 @ 11:08AM

Wrong, again, Margie.
Read what Rev. Sensing wrote.

And, then, read the Gospel According to Saint John, chapter 3, verse 1: "Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicode'mus, a ruler of the Jews." (See also John 7:45-50)

Brother in Christ| 4.9.12 @ 1:14PM

Who is Margie?
And what does your comment have to do with the fact that higher-ups are the ones who sought to kill Jesus?

Nick| 4.9.12 @ 1:36PM

Margie is someone who sounds an awfully lot like you, Bro.

My comment shows that Rev. Sensing's Jewish scholar's claim about the Pharisees not being a part of the Temple Sanhedrin was wrong, according to Saint John. This is what we have been discussing, remember?

That is why Mr. Koehl's reply of 4.8.12 @ 2:27PM was correct. And why your reply to him was not.
God Bless!

Brother in Christ| 4.9.12 @ 7:40PM

The Bible was written by men chosen by God. You choose to reject it, that's your problem. You choose to twist His Words to suit your leanings, that's your problem.

You aren't getting away with anything at all, though you think you are.

Your condescending attitude and rejecting of His Words is taking you to Hell, like your friend Stuart. And you are so totally blind and hardened by your sin that you don't even see it.

Do you also reject 1 Thess. 4:16 & 17, like your friend the Religionist does, as you pick and choose which parts of the Bible suit your leanings?

Stuart is a liar and a mocker of Christ, and you follow him.

And the Bible is PERFECTLY written by the Holy Spirit, when He says exactly who sought to deliver up Jesus. The Bible isn't wrong, YOU are.

Nick| 4.9.12 @ 8:46PM

Margie's Bro,

I do not reject the Sacred Scriptures. I love them.
Just because we disagree on how to interpret certain verses, doesn't mean we have to be enemies. Why can't we share the Gospel with mutual respect?

I don't know how I'm trying to get away with anything, or twisting God's Word, or being condescending, at all.

And, no, I do not reject 1 Thessalonians. Again, I don't reject any part of the Scriptures. Although, I don't know what 1 Thess. 4 has to do with this discussion.

How am I am following Mr. Koehl, exactly?

"And the Bible is PERFECTLY written by the Holy Spirit, when He says exactly who sought to deliver up Jesus. The Bible isn't wrong, YOU are."

Why are you having so much trouble understanding my point? I never questioned Rev. Sensing's point that the Jewish authorities were the people responsible for putting Christ to death. I only showed that his claim that the Pharisees were not part of the Temple priestly ruling class, i.e., the Sanhedrin, was wrong.

And I did it using the Sacred Scriptures. So, I wasn't saying the Bible was wrong, I was showing that the reverend was.
God Bless!

Stuart Koehl| 4.9.12 @ 9:23PM

There were Pharisees who were priests, and Pharisees who were not. Being a priest in Second Temple Judaism was an hereditary role: you were born into the Kohanim, and you fulfilled your duties at the Temple according to the roster. But being a priest was, except for the high priestly families, a part-time job. Most priests appear to have been almost indistinguishable from the farmers and villagers among whom they lived. Some priests were attracted to the holiness movement of the Pharisees; and the Pharisee movement itself was not monolithic, but had many separate threads united by a belief that observance of Torah could deliver Israel from exile.

Ryan| 4.6.12 @ 12:08PM

Matthew 27: 24 When Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but rather that a riot was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this Man’s blood; see to that yourselves.” 25 And all the people said, “His blood shall be on us and on our children!” 26 Then he released Barabbas for them; but after having Jesus scourged, he handed Him over to be crucified.

Brother in Christ| 4.6.12 @ 12:37PM

Yes, and so proving that there really IS no "neutral."

Tim| 4.6.12 @ 12:26PM

Amen!

Peace to all of good will!

Imagine a Country where a person could not openly talk about matters of their Faith?

Those places are real....lets make certain that the USA never becomes one of those places.

Al Adab| 4.6.12 @ 12:35PM

Those of us who choose Christianity, as most in fact do, did so from an understanding of the magnitude of the events surrounding the life, death and ultimate resurrection of Jesus.

As there is in fact God and humanity is His, we must come to an intellectual as well as emotional response to the empty tomb. Whether one accepts it or rejects it has meaning for this life and much more. Thank you for brinning attention to the horrors of this day and the promise coming soon. Spend tomorrow thinking and reflecting on how those followers must have spent their Saturday.

Petronius| 4.6.12 @ 12:38PM

I remember a Great Lady who carried her cross of terminal cancer with genuine grace. I had a manger who I respected and admired suffer utter ruin at the hands of his feminist lefty wife.
This day is about suffering for the innocent. Living is the cross for all to bear. Our Liberal oppressors reject it's rigors and requirements. So all others are laden with theirs as well as our own. And we are being nailed to both. The one thing I cannot stand is the enjoyment and satisfaction they take in doing it. Worse still, is the fact that the Church is now controlled by Them. Ask Cardinal Wurhl. He'll tell you.
St. Eislin, pray for us.

Joe D.| 4.6.12 @ 12:38PM

Outstanding Article! It really makes you think of what he went through for us. That is why Mel Gibson's movie was so well received except by the decived (Hollywood) etc.

Jane Van Ryn| 4.6.12 @ 12:52PM

Thanks Jeremy for this reminder. So many of us are guilty of rushing past this day & rejoicing in Easter. Well stated.

Teaghan| 4.6.12 @ 1:32PM

What wonderful conversation!

RCV| 4.6.12 @ 1:57PM

Indeed. Thanks to all the contributors for these meaningful Easter reflections!

Allen Hanson| 4.6.12 @ 1:57PM

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Jesus wasn't crucified on a Friday. He was crucified on a Wednesday. Good Friday is an attempt by the ancient Catholic Church to sever Christianity from its Jewish roots, because it's too easy to make the connection between Easter and Passover. I choose to celebrate Christian fact (Resurrection Sunday) and reject Christian folklore (Good Friday).

Thomas| 4.7.12 @ 5:57PM

No, Allen,

Good Friday is recognised in the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches, which are not part of some Romish/Papist plot.

It is contemporary Judaisers, typically in churches with just a couple hundred years of history traced back to West Europe, who have no connection with Christian history and practice.

Stuart Koehl| 4.8.12 @ 5:18PM

It's a very superficial "judaizing"--to assign to it anything more than political correctness is giving it more than its due. These same denominations are, more often than not, neo-Marcionist in their outlook; i.e., that the God of the Old and New Covenants is not (cannot) be the same God. Like Marcion, they tend to parse through the New Testament, discarding or ignoring those sections that contradict their preconceived notions. Marcion believed that only Paul truly understood Christ, and that only he, Marcion, understood Paul. Thus, Marcion acknowledged only one Gospel (Luke, the companion of Paul), and only some of the Pauline Epistles (claiming the others were not truly Pauline).

The repudiation of Marcion in the 2nd century is why we, as Christians, recognize our continuity with, and the authority of, the Old Testament.

MB| 4.8.12 @ 2:28AM

Well said, Allen. The truth is there for those who want to find it for themselves. Jesus said the only sign given that He is who He says He is was the fact that he would be in the ground 3 days AND 3 nights, like Jonah was in the fish's belly. (The 3 nights took care of all His haters who would, and still say, that you can get 3 days out of sundown Friday to sunrise Sunday.) Sorry, that's only a day and a half, and makes Jesus out to be a liar.
There were 2 sabbaths, the normal weekly sabbath at sundown Friday, and a high sabbath, which occurred sundown Wednesday (John 19:31).

You have to read two gospel accounts to put the whole sequence together (Isn't that just like God! He wants us to be students of His word, not just accept man's traditions.) That takes care of haters' so-called "contradictions" of the bible, where they say the women were going to buy spices before and after the one sabbath.

BTW, there is no Easter in the scriptures. That is a mistranslation of the Greek word for Passover.

Stuart Koehl| 4.6.12 @ 3:01PM

Your attempt at historical exegesis is laughable. All the Gospels agree that Jesus was crucified on a the morning before the Sabbath began (Friday) which also coincided with the beginning of the Passover (14 Nissan). Such a situation occurred only twice during the necessary chronological period: in AD 30, and again in AD 33. All internal and external signs point to the Crucifixion taking place on 14 Nissan in the year 33.

The early Christians actually celebrated Pascha (Passover--only the English and German speaking world call it Easter) on 14 Nissan. Gradually, in various Churches, the custom arose of celebrating Pascha on a Sunday, which, being the third day after the Crucifixion, was already considered the Day of Resurrection. Some Churches marked Pascha on the Sunday closest to 14 Nissan, others on the closest Sunday after 14 Nissan, and yet others continued to celebrate on 14 Nissan itself (such Churches being called "Quartodecimen", or "Fourteeners"). It first became a bone of contention in the second century, during the time of Irenaeus of Lyons and Pope Victor. Victor threatened to break communion with the Churches in Asia because they remained Quartodecimen, while Rome had moved to celebrating Pascha on Sunday, Fortunately, Victor died before it became a crisis. In the interest of unity and uniformity, the Council of Nicaea declared that Pascha would be observed on the first Sunday after the first full moon, after the Vernal Equinox, provided that this was not before the Jewish Passover. And so it remained until the 16th century, and the Gregorian reform of the calendar, at which time the Church of Rome dropped the requirement that Pascha be after Pesach. So, for those Churches on the Gregorian Paschalion (the Church of Rome, several of the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome, and all the various Protestant denominations), Pascha is this Sunday. Because this week also marks the start of the Jewish Passover, the Eastern Orthodox and other Churches using the Julian Paschalion will celebrate Pascha one week afterwards.

SeymourGlass| 4.6.12 @ 3:13PM

And, in older times, the month of "Nissan" was referred to as the month of "Datsun."

Stuart Koehl| 4.6.12 @ 3:19PM

I wouldn't boast of remembering that Nissan was once Datsun. It means you're getting old.

Brother in Christ| 4.6.12 @ 8:05PM

"For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath." Mt. 12:8.

Christians celebrate Christ and His Resurrection every day, in our temples, which are our bodies, where He now dwells.

Doug Sjostrom| 4.6.12 @ 3:11PM

The miracle that is the Bible is this. For those who wish to dispute it's content as the made up myths of mere men, there are many hatracks therin.

However for those openminded people who chose to delve within beyond the superficial will find overwhelmingly powerful prophetic models that point to far greater fulfillments, many of which are now a matter of recorded history.

An example is God's testing of Abraham. Was his faith and devotion to God strong enough for him to obey what must have been an appalling comand for him to kill Issac, his grown son in sacrifice? We read that at the last possible second God's Angel stayed Abraham from completing the deed.
The prophetic connection is quite obvious today, but in the days of Pilate? Perhaps not so.

In this test, Abraham's faith and trust in God demonstrated humankind worthy of God sacrificing his own Son in order to balance the scales of justice and redeem humanity.

Tim| 4.6.12 @ 3:55PM

Let me modify one of your statements: "However for those openminded people who chose to" agree with me! Oppose my way of thinking, you are close-minded. Agree, and you are not. Doesn't that contradict your very claim of being "open-minded"?

Doug Sjostrom| 4.6.12 @ 4:33PM

Really Tim? Did we strike a nerve?

What do you think Jesus meant when he said (I paraphrase).."Suffer the little children to come unto me"..."For any who do not receive the Kingdom of God such as these, will by no means enter therein"....

Perhaps he meant "receive" as with an open mind...?

Would you not agree that the mere mention of the word Bible garners a plethora of negative spoken and unspoken reactions in contemporary "enlightened" society....all professing to be oh so "open minded"?
Nice try, but sorry, no sale.

sittingaroundmypc| 4.7.12 @ 1:34PM

God's testing of Abraham?

A horrifying and morally repugnant story.

Stuart Koehl| 4.8.12 @ 5:24PM

And yet the Israelites, of all the people of the ancient Near East, were the first to abandon human sacrifice. The story of Abraham and the sacrifice of Isaac explains why they--and they alone, at the time--did not sacrifice their children to appease the wrath of the gods.

So powerful was the influence of this Israelite innovation that the Phoenicians of Tyre also gave up infant sacrifice (some time around the 8th century), while the practice continued in the Phoenician colony of Carthage right down to its destruction in Rome in the 2nd century BC.

The ancient Greeks, and even the Romans, for their part, were not averse to human sacrifice in times of national emergency. That makes the Jews unique among the ancient peoples of the Mediterranean world--their God alone did not demand human blood as the price of his veneration and protection.

Wayne| 4.6.12 @ 6:27PM

I think if you read the various reports of what happened this week concerning President Obama's comments on the Supreme Court you will find many different versions of what occured.
However you expect an ancient people writing 40 years after an event to have all the details agree perfectly.

Vasu Murti | 4.6.12 @ 7:05PM

Passover remains one of the most important holy days in the Jewish calendar. Passover is an annual spring festival, serving as a memorial of the exodus of the Jews from Egypt under Moses. In first century Judea,

Passover was centered around two events. On the 14th day of the month of Nisan, innocent lambs were ritually slain in the Temple at Jerusalem. This was the day of Preparation. On the 15th day of Nisan, the Passover feast would take place. The Passover meal would be eaten by congregations and by families, in selected places throughout Jerusalem.

The Passover meal consisted of slaughtered lamb, unleavened bread, bitter herbs and wine, which was sipped periodically. The prayers at the table invoked the remembrance of God’s deliverance of His people from past bondage; asking for His continued blessings upon the children of Israel.

The first three gospels imply Jesus’ Last Supper was a Passover meal (Matthew 26:17-19; Mark 14:12-14; Luke 22:7-15), and that his crucifixion occurred the very same day.

If Jesus’ Last Supper with his disciples was a Passover meal, then Jesus may have eaten the Passover lamb. This would mean it was unlikely that he was a vegetarian.

The account of the Last Supper given in the Fourth Gospel clearly indicates it was not a Passover meal, but a meal shared on the day of Preparation:

"Before the Passover feast Jesus, aware that his hour had come that he should depart from this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end. And supper being ended..." (John 13:1-2)

This text explicitly states that Jesus’ Last Supper with his disciples took place before the feast known as Passover.

John 18:28 states that the Jewish religious authorities would not enter the Roman Praetorium where Jesus was being tried, "so that they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover."

Pontius Pilate told the Jews, "This is your king," as he ordered Jesus crucified. This occurred on the twelfth hour of the day of Preparation. (John 19:14) After crucifixion, the Jews asked Pontius Pilate that Jesus’ body be taken from the cross and given a decent burial before the Sabbath which was Passover. (John 19:31)

Friday was the day of Preparation for the Sabbath, which began at sundown. According to the Jewish calendar, a new day begins at six p.m., while the week concludes with the Sabbath, or Saturday.

The first three gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) state that Jesus celebrated Passover with his disciples and suffered arrest, trial and crucifixion on Friday evening, the 15th of Nisan.

Only the Fourth Gospel explicitly places the Last Supper on Thursday evening, the 14th of Nisan. Jesus’ final meal with his disciples, his arrest, trial and crucifixion all take place on Nisan 14 in this gospel.

To some extent, the accounts given by Matthew, Mark and Luke conform to the Fourth Gospel. In Matthew 26:5, the authorities decided not to apprehend Jesus during the Passover feast, "lest there be an uproar amongst the people."

All four gospel writers record Jesus’ burial on the day of Preparation. (Matthew 27:57-62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 20:42)

Passover was a holy day, regarded as a Sabbath by the Jews. Its holiness was protected by traditional Sabbath restrictions. The gospels describe incidents connected with Jesus’ crucifixion which would not have occurred on a holy day.

To begin with, it is unlikely crowds would carry weapons once Passover had begun. (Matthew 26:47,55; Mark 14:43,48-49; Luke 22:52; John 18:3) There would have been no Jewish involvement in the Roman legal proceedings against Jesus. (Matthew 27:12; Mark 15:3; Luke 23:5) Nor would the trial and crucifixion of Jesus have occurred. (Matthew 27:27-50; Mark 15:16-37; Luke 23:26-46; John 19:17-30)

Simon the Cyrenian would not have journeyed from the country (Matthew 27:32; Mark 15:21; Luke 23:26) Nor would Joseph of Arimathea have been able to purchase a linen shroud and see to the burial of Jesus’ body.

The fact that Jesus was quickly taken down from the cross and buried in his tomb is consistent with the Jews’ desire that he not be left on the cross once the feast had begun. (Matthew 27:57-60; Mark 15:43-47; Luke 23:50-57; John 19:38-57)

The accounts of the Last Supper all center on the meal itself. As the meal proceeded, Jesus took the bread and gave thanks before God. Because his position in relation to God was like that of a high priest (Hebrews 4:14-16, 5:5-10, 7:17, 8:1), Jesus more than likely presented the bread before God as an offering. He then broke the bread and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take it, eat. This is my body...broken for your sakes; given up on your behalf. Do this in remembrance of me."

Jesus also took the cup, gave thanks before God, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "All of you drink of it; for this is my blood of the new covenant, poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

"Do this as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me. I tell you, from now on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine at all until that day when I shall drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom."

They sang hymns, and went out to the Mount of Olives.

(Matthew 26:26-30; Mark 14:22-26; Luke 22:17-20; I Corinthians 12:23-26)

Passover is traditionally a patriarchal family rite in which the father of a family presides. This meal does not resemble a traditional Passover Seder.

During the meal, Jesus identified his body and blood (soul, or life-force in the Jewish tradition) with food and drink offered to God through word and prayer. There is no mention of the Passover lamb; the foods described are vegetarian.

Paul, who called himself an apostle to the gentiles, provides the earliest written account of the Last Supper in I Corinthians 11:20-32. He writes of the "Lord’s Supper," but does not refer to a Passover meal. However, in I Corinthians 5:7, he proclaims: "Christ, our passover, has been sacrificed for us."

Early Christians observed the day of Jesus’ crucifixion on Nisan 14th. Claudius Appollinaris, Clement of Alexandria and Hippolytus attest to this.

Jesus Christ, "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world," (John 1:29) died at the same time as countless other innocent lambs of God.

A tradition soon arose, however, that Jesus was crucified on Friday. The church father Irenaeus (120-200 AD) wrote that Jesus died in obedience to God’s will on the same day (Friday) Adam ate the forbidden fruit.

For centuries, one of the most bitter disputes in the Christian Church was over the date of the crucifixion. Next to the Trinitarian dispute, this was the most serious issue facing the First Ecumenical Council at Nicaea in 325.

The Eastern Church had celebrated the resurrection on Nisan 16, in April, which was also the Jewish Passover. The early Christian father Lactanius wrote that Jesus was crucified on March 23, with his resurrection on the 25th.

Curiously, these are the dates on which the passion, death, and resurrection of Attis, a pagan savior, had been celebrated for nearly two thousand years. The rites performed in honor of Attis closely resembled the Christians’ Easter liturgy.

Jesus was arrested, tried and crucified on Thursday, Nisan 14. He died at the same time the Passover lambs were being slain in the Temple at Jerusalem.

Jesus promised his disciples he would be resurrected on the third day (Sunday) from his execution.

(Matthew 16:21; Mark 10:34; Luke 18:33)

A trial and execution on Thursday, the day of Preparation for Passover, is therefore, more consistent with Scripture.

The Reverend Charles Gore, Bishop of Oxford, writes in A New Commentary on Holy Scripture:

"We will assume John is right when he corrects Mark as to the nature of the Last Supper. It was not the Paschal meal proper, but a supper observed as a farewell supper with his disciples. Nor do the accounts of the supper suggest the ceremonial of the Passover meal."

In his commentary on Luke in the Cambridge Bible for Schools, Dean Farrar suggests the Last Supper "was not the actual Jewish Paschal meal, but one which was intended to supersede it by a Passover of far more divine significance."

Rich D| 4.7.12 @ 11:34PM

Vasu, to fulfill prophecy, his body was NOT broken (it was pierced, but the thieves had their legs broken to hasten death - Jesus was already dead). The correct text says that "...this is my body for you...". The word "broken" is not in the original.

Stuart Koehl| 4.8.12 @ 4:32PM

The Textus Receptus Greek version of 1 Cor 11:24-25 says, "And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me."

Your denomination apparently uses the American Standard Version for its translation. This has been criticized for a number of its translation choices--this is just one more to add to the list.

D| 4.8.12 @ 6:45PM

Stuart Koehl, you are exibiting too much pride.

A little humility, please.

Try to be more Christlike in your demeanor.

Stuart Koehl| 4.8.12 @ 7:36PM

The truth is what the truth is.

Brother in Christ| 4.9.12 @ 12:18AM

Stuart,
The truth? You are not into the Truth. You only seek to find fault with and misrepresent Christians, by your posts continually.

The above poster was referring to the Scripture that was fulfilled when Jesus was hanging on the Cross.

I will post it here:

"So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first, and of the other who had been crucified with him; but when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.
Since it was the day of Preparation, in order to prevent the bodies from remaining on the cross on the sabbath (for that sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.
But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water.
He who saw it has borne witness--his testimony is true, and he knows that he tells the truth--that you also may believe.
For these things took place that the scripture might be fulfilled, "Not a bone of him shall be broken." Jn. 19:31-36.

Why do you try and paint Christians in a bad light and try and twist our words continually?

Stuart Koehl| 4.9.12 @ 8:51AM

Your reading comprehension skills leave so much to be desired, just like your exegetical skills. I blame the schools. What do they teach in them, I wonder.

So, let us recap here: I did not dispute what the Gospels say about Christ's legs not being broken in fulfillment of Scripture. I am contending that Rich D's statement:

>>>The correct text says that "...this is my body for you...". The word "broken" is not in the original.

Stuart Koehl| 4.9.12 @ 8:57AM

Got cut off.

The oldest Greek manuscript of the text of 1 Cor 11:24-25, which is where the Words of Institution are found, reads:

"And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me."

The Codex Sinaiticus can be found online here: http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/

Go read it for yourself. It is obvious that the translator of Rick's Bible superimposed his own understanding upon the text, and therefore rendered a paraphrase, and not an accurate translation.

If you are going to live and die by Sola Scriptura, you'd better make sure your translation is correct, or learn to read New Testament Greek.

Brother in Christ| 4.9.12 @ 10:43AM

"Your reading comprehension skills leave so much to be desired, just like your exegetical skills."

I would rather have made a mistake here and an honest one and have my reading comp. mocked by a man who blatantly perverts what is written in the Bible as you did above when you claimed the APostle Paul didn't believe that the saved go to Heaven and that they get physical bodies, amongst other horrid lies, than to be the horrid, arrogant man himself who is doing the mocking and insulting and blatant lying.

And maybe Rick's Bible isn't a version that is up to par with his highnesses (that would be you), but at least he loves the Lord, and isn't an arrogant blasphemer like yourself.

Stuart Koehl| 4.9.12 @ 4:58PM

Balaam's ass had more on the ball.

Brother in Christ| 4.9.12 @ 7:31PM

You're a liar and a fool. Your arrogance is taking you to Hell and you don't even see it.

You cannot reject the Truth and be saved, which you are doing.

Lotsa luck with that!

Stuart Koehl| 4.9.12 @ 9:26PM

You know, one reason Christianity has a bad reputation these days is people like you--ignorant, truculent, mindlessly anti-intellectual, bigoted and full of bile. There is no beauty in your understanding of Christ, and without beauty, there is no salvation.

Brother in Christ| 4.10.12 @ 8:30PM

There is no beauty in liars, Stuart Koehl, which you are. A despicable liar.
The one who is full of bile and hypocrisy and perversion is you. You lied about the Apostle Paul, you lie and twist Scripture, and you hate Christians. You love only those like yourself, Religionists who deny the Power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Did you ever answer the question as to whether you believe 1 Thess. about Christ's return, above? You mocked the person who referred to it, as you mock and disparage ALL Bible believing Christians, thus you mock God.

As I said, lotsa luck, Mr. Arrogant Reprobate.

Brother in Christ| 4.10.12 @ 8:56PM

Also, liar: There is no Salvation without believing in the Words of Christ.
It has nothing to do with "beauty", you arrogant pipsqueak.

It has to do with loving the Truth, which you know nothing of!

Keep it up, Stuart. You're well on your way to Hell, all you have to do is die physically. Hell is where liars end up.

How do I know? The Bible tells me so. What does the Bible tell you?

Rich D| 4.10.12 @ 12:31AM

Sigh - I AM reading the Koine, therefore my translation is my own. Now, as to whether it is up to par: I am using the NA27 whose text comes from P46 ca 200, Aleph and B in the 4th cent., and about 23 others. It is also in a 3rd century citation of Origen. "Correctors" added "broken" to later mss. The word "given" does not appear here either (but is in Luke). Putting it in makes the text disagree with Mark 14:22 and the prophecy. If you would like to simplify it to, "This is my body for you", fine.

Ted R.| 4.7.12 @ 4:13AM

Who do I say he was? Jesus of Nazareth was a well-intentioned, often insightful man, who (like many gurus) had an inflated sense of self-importance (and, he probably had a martyr complex, besides).

For sure, he didn't deserve to die; his execution served no purpose. At All.

Mimi| 4.7.12 @ 10:02AM

NO PURPOSE ?.....NO PURPOSE ? No star in heaven at the birth of the savior ? No ....He has come to SAVE the world ? No hope for billions?
TED....Why risk eternity to proof you are wrong ?
SEE C.S. LEWIS....Mere Christianity...
God Bless..Happy Easter, MIMI

Mark30339| 4.8.12 @ 1:12PM

THANK YOU TED! Finally, we get to the heart of the matter. Yours is the enduring question. While much of the commenting above may be interesting, it seems mostly rooted in prideful division. We Christians seem to be the last to recognize that we resemble Jesus so terribly little -- our discourse here is so invested in ego and pride . . . and so divested of concern for the other.

Ted, I am grateful that you ask your question and please, keep asking it. For decades I have been agonizing over why this amazing person of Jesus was horribly tortured and killed. Why did God fail to protect him, why did he not protect and raise a defense for himself. I know my life is precious, shouldn't his life be infinitely more precious?

I don't think that words answer the questions. I think they are answered in the experience of raw suffering -- especially if one endures the suffering for something greater than oneself and if the suffering is embraced as a means to identify with the experience of this holy man named Jesus.

Jesus's feeble and ignoble death is so contrary to our sense of what is right, that it gnaws at us. Jesus himself doubles down and asks each of us,
Who do you say that I AM? The person of Jesus Christ lifts me up when he refuses to condemn the woman caught in adultery, when he urges me to understand why the father celebrates the return of the prodigal son, and who commands me to love my neighbor as myself. The glaring incongruity is his innocently absorbing the terror and shame of crucifixion without calling for holy wars of reprisal. When we are entirely rooted in human logic, it is thoroughly illogical -- yet this incongruity is part of the cross we are called to bear.

Brother in Christ| 4.9.12 @ 12:20AM

"While much of the commenting above may be interesting, it seems mostly rooted in prideful division. We Christians seem to be the last to recognize that we resemble Jesus so terribly little -- our discourse here is so invested in ego and pride . . . and so divested of concern for the other."

Speak for yourself. Oh, and try removing the log in your own eye before condemning Christians.

Mark30339| 4.9.12 @ 12:38PM

Yes Brother, I suppose the only person I am entitled to speak for is myself. But rather than speak further, I offer to listen -- what has moved you to comment on my little post?

Reality1| 4.7.12 @ 11:11AM

Does the Scripture teach that after death by crucifixtion, Jesus was entombed for three days and three nights? I believe that is true. Does the Scripture also teach that the women came to the tomb early in the morning on the first day of the week (Sunday)? I believe that it does. So, here is my question. How could Jesus have been crucified on Friday and the tomb be empty on Sunday morning? Do the math. You cannot get three days/nights from that calculus. Some help please?

kwan| 4.7.12 @ 12:07PM

He was placed in a tomb. He was brought back to life on the third day as the Scriptures predicted...If you count Friday as the first day then Sunday ends up being the third day. Who knows how they counted time back then, if it was in 24 hour segments then Monday would be the third day. I'm assuming they considered Friday as day one.

Reality1| 4.8.12 @ 9:13AM

No, if you count Friday as the first day, Sunday cannot be the third day. The tomb was empty on Sunday morning when the women arrived. The trial of Jesus occurred at night. The crucifixtion occurred around 3 p.m. Accordingly, the death of Jesus was on Wednesday at 3 p.m. His body was removed and prepared for burial that night and he was entombed before daybreak Thursday morning. Thus, 3 days= Thur., Fri., Sat., and 3 nights = Th. night, Fr. night, Sat. night. And the tomb was empty Sun. morning. That's what I am surmising.

Stuart Koehl| 4.8.12 @ 4:43PM

First, days were reckoned to run from sundown to sundown, not midnight to midnight (liturgically, in both Judaism and in Catholic and Orthodox Christianity, this is still the case).

Second, partial days were reckoned as whole days, just as partial years were reckoned as whole years.

So, Jesus dies on Friday around noon, and is placed in a tomb. Day 1.

At sundown, we begin the Sabbath, which is Day 2.

At sundown on Saturday, we begin Sunday, which is--Day 3.

As for the treatment of Jesus' body, the norm at that time was for the dead to be interred in limestone tombs, wrapped in a linen shroud and anointed with oil and spices not for the purpose of preserving the body, but of keeping down the stench of decomposition. After the body had been in the tomb for total decomposition (a year or so), the tomb would be opened, the bones collected, and placed in an ossuary (bone box). Thus, one tomb could serve several generations, since the collected bones took up less space than an articulated body.

However, the case with Jesus was rather out of the ordinary. Since he had died by violence, there was a Jewish imperative to retain and inter with him as much of his blood and tissue as possible. Thus, the body would not be washed, nor, given the exigencies of time (the need to get the body in the tomb by sundown), all that would be done is to lay out the body on a ledge in the tomb, laying on a long linen shroud that would be draped over his head and then laid back towards his feet. Before covering him, his body would be packed with aromatic spices. A separate cloth would be laid over the face.

Remember, on the morning of the Third Day, Mary Magdalen and two other women came bearing myrrh and oil to anoint the body. At this point, it would have been washed and properly wrapped, the blood-stained rags being interred with the body.

But, of course, they never got the chance--the tomb was empty.

Brother in Christ| 4.9.12 @ 2:01AM

"Jesus answered, "Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any one walks in the day, he does not stumble, because he sees the light of this world." Jn. 11:9.

Stuart Koehl| 4.9.12 @ 9:02AM

The ancient Jews, like the Greeks and the Romans, divided the day into twelve hours of light and twelve hours of darkness, with each day reckoned to have begun at sundown (see Genesis 1). Because of the seasons, the length of the hours varied throughout the year.

To this day, the Jews begin each day at sundown, which is why Shabbat begins on Friday at sundown, and ends on Saturday at sundown, but Saturday is reckoned to be the Sabbath Day.

Similarly, in those Churches that observe the Liturgy of the Hours, Vespers, the first prayer service of the day, begins at sundown. Hence, Pascha (Easter) began at sundown on Saturday, which is when Paschal Vespers was celebrated.

In the reckoning of the Gospels, the third hour is the third hour after sunrise--notionally about 8-9 AM; while the ninth hour would be some time between 11 AM and Noon.

Nick| 4.9.12 @ 9:50AM

Mr. Koehl,

Isn't the sixth hour about noon?
And, the ninth hour about 3:00 P.M.?

Stuart Koehl| 4.9.12 @ 4:58PM

Yes.

59%| 4.7.12 @ 12:19PM

Reality1,

The Bible is a flawed book.

If you try to make sense out of it, you are doomed to frustration. Look at some of the above posts that point out the numerous errors and contradictions. There are hundreds!

Even the Easter story is riddled with errors.

Stuart Koehl| 4.8.12 @ 4:44PM

Prove it.

James| 4.7.12 @ 2:24PM

To those of you who believe there are contradictions in the Bible, you need to turn away from your own thoughts and seek God's thoughts. They aren't the same.

"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways, says the LORD.
For as the Heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts. Is. 55:8 & 9.

Then read Proverbs chapter 8 about seeking the fear of the Lord in order to become wise.

Apart from Christ and His Spirit, you'll remain in darkness, and going to "church" doesn't mean anything in and of itself.

What you need to do is go to Christ, directly, for yourselves.

We all need His Mercy, His Grace and His forgiveness. And He gives the Holy Spirit to them that ask Him for it, humbly and honestly.

His Words are perfect to all who know Him, who have been born of His Spirit, and can thereby discern them.

The Bible says we are all in darkness and on our way to Hell without His forgiveness, and it is true. But Jesus died to set us free from the curse of the law that we were under. IF we believe and receive Him.

"But to all who received Him, who believed in His Name, He gave power to become children of God; who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." Jn. 1:12 & 13.

"Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the Kingdom of God."
Nicode'mus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?"
Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born anew.'" Jn. 3:3-7.

Thomas| 4.7.12 @ 3:55PM

A very excellent article overall, given the size. This makes me less upset TAS spams me with these things. That said, a couple issues.
1) If the trend to make Good Friday happy-happy-joy-joy is a problem, so is the trend to view Pilate/Romans as the largely responsible party for Christ's death. The Gospels make it painfully clear that Pilate was put under political pressure by the rabbi-led masses who wanted to kill Jesus without bearing the technical blame for murder.

The largely-Judaising trend to absolve the rabbis (though I admit you do not absolve them fully here) is disturbing. I even had an Anglican priest tell me in a Bible Study about how bad Pilate was but how he could really understand why Caiaphas was doing what he did (needless to say, I felt the presence of Satan).
2) I think the "Good" in "Good Friday" is derived from words better translated, and usually translated, as "Great", which would not then convey the joyful sense that comes out of the contemporary image of "good".

Ken (Old Texican)| 4.8.12 @ 11:36AM

Angela,
Jesus Christ...is THE WORD OF GOD...not the words of his all too human folowers.
ie: as in..."In the beginning was THE WORD...and THAT DWELT AMONG US..."

You are also dimissing the Holy Spirit that guides our own understanding day to day.

Fellow Christians

Some of you are just showing off (heh), but you fail to see the reality of the days behind your so-called facts.
Each of us...each of us is saved by GRACE, and that merely allows us to stumble along trying to follow Jesus.
...in the sure and certain knowledge that one day, each of us will be where Jesus is today.

Non believers

Especially today I pray you meet Jesus via the Holy Spirit.
Joy to the world...He is arisen!

Brother in Christ| 4.9.12 @ 12:22AM

Ken says:

"Some of you are just showing off (heh), but you fail to see the reality of the days behind your so-called facts."

Really? And what are these "so-called" facts that we are espousing, and that you are calling lies, then?

Stuart Koehl| 4.9.12 @ 9:03AM

Yes, BIC, I myself was wondering what facts you were espousing.

Brother in Christ| 4.9.12 @ 10:47AM

Well, I don't have my own facts, I quote and believe in the WOrds of God that are written in the Bible, unlike yourself who is an arrogant, disgusting liar.

Since you do not agree that the Words written in the Bible are inerrant, and that you find fault with the Apostle Paul's words, you know the one who was "appointed by God to BE an Apostle", then it is no surprise that your "facts" are your own, and not biblical, as you have made that perfectly clear~ and therefore you take it upon yourself to mock and deride true Christians.

Not a single biblically based Christian do you ever agree with, but only with your own haughty, lying thoughts.

Nick| 4.9.12 @ 10:56AM

It is you, Margie, isn't it?
I knew it!

How is Victor? Hope you had a Blessed Easter.

W| 4.9.12 @ 12:57PM

Nick,
You win the AmSpec "Jim Rockford" award for detective work.
Easter Monday is a big holiday in Italy, called Pasquatte, or little Easter, when families and friends picinic in the mountains.
Hope you had a pleasant Easter.

Nick| 4.9.12 @ 1:14PM

Thanks, W!

I always thought I would make a good detective. But, really, all I had to see was "arrogant, disgusting liar" and "haughty, lying thoughts" to be fairly sure.

I hope you and your family also had a Blessed Easter.
Enjoy the rest of the Octave.
God Bless!

Stuart Koehl| 4.9.12 @ 9:30PM

Margie's a Marcionite--who would have guessed that hoary old heresy still had any traction?

Brother in Christ| 4.10.12 @ 9:10PM

Stuart Koehl is a liar. And he is going to Hell for it.

Stuart Koehl| 4.9.12 @ 9:29PM

We call it "Bright Monday", and we read from the Gospel of Luke the encounter of the two disciples with the Risen Christ on the Road to Emmaus. Then we have a procession around the church and read each of the Resurrection accounts from the four Gospels at each corner of the church.

Rich D| 4.10.12 @ 12:46AM

Stuart Koehl @ 4.9.12 @ 7:57AM - I responded to your post regarding "broken". But why the snide remark about Sola Scriptura?

I just looked at the original Codex Sinaiticus - it does NOT have the word "klOmenon" (broken) in it. You are in error.

http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/.....omSlider=0

Nick| 4.10.12 @ 2:17AM

Rich D.,

I just looked at the same link. The word ἔκλασεν, eklasen, is clearly there.
The error, I believe, is yours.
God Bless!

Rich D| 4.10.12 @ 10:33AM

Nick, here is the Koine text. The site won't let me post the Greek!

24 laben arton kai____he took bread and
eucharistEsas e______having giving thanks (here begins eklasen)
klasen kai eipe______he broke [it] and said
touto mon estin_____this my is
to soma to 'uper_____the body for
'umon ┬ touto poi___you this do (beginning of poieitai)
eitai eis tEn e_______unto the (emEn begins)
mon anamnEsin_____of me recalling

But this is the breaking of the bread, and not the body. The marginal note is an editor's "correction", like I said. The original manuscript and earliest tradition does not have it. One goes through contortions to explain the addition. Why do 20-some mss not have it?

Rich D| 4.10.12 @ 10:47AM

Also note that I said klOmenon (broken), not eklasen (he broke, the aorist active verb).

Nick| 4.10.12 @ 12:23PM

Rich D.,

I have obviously misunderstood which part of verse 24 you and Mr. Koehl have been discussing. So, clearly, I am in error!
My apologies.

The RSV only has it as a footnote, saying that "other ancient authorities read broken for." It doesn't list the ancient authorities.

My only comment regarding your original reply to Vesu would be that the "broken for" did not necessarily mean that the leg breaking also included Christ. It could be an allusion to the beating and scourging that Our LORD received before He was crucified. The Gospels are quite clear that Christ's legs were not broken, just as the Pascal Lamb was not to have any blemish (Exodus 12:5).

I think we can both agree that Vesu's attempt to make Christ a vegetarian and assert that the Last Supper was not a Pasch Meal are futile, and do not comport with the Sacred Scriptures.
God Bless!

Nick| 4.10.12 @ 8:47AM

Rich D.,

Just by chance, I happened to come across a blog-post, this morning, that touches on this very Scripture verse, at my new favorite Catholic blog The Sacred Page.
Check it out, it's pretty good:
http://www.thesacredpage.com/2.....-sins.html

Rich D| 4.10.12 @ 10:44AM

"While Paul simply has "for you" (ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν), omitting "given" (διδόμενον), most commentators rightly note that he probably intends the same meaning―Jesus is giving his life for others."

Ok, but given the dating of the texts, it would be appropriate to say that Luke (or his tradition source) ADDS "given", not that Paul omits it! One principle of exegesis is that the most difficult reading is to be preferred. The context of Paul (v26) makes it clear.

Nick| 4.10.12 @ 12:53PM

Rich D.,

Yes, but does adding given change the meaning, as Dr. Barber stated? I don't see how it does. Why is 1 Cor. 11:24 the more "difficult reading"?

Also, I would say that verses 27-32 are the context. What is your explanation as to why the Corinthians who were receiving unworthily were being afflicted with sickness, and some had died?

What does Saint Paul mean when he says eat the bread, and drink the chalice, unworthily? And, what does he mean that those that do so "eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord"?

Rich D| 4.10.12 @ 1:28PM

I will respond after my Aramaic work.

Brother in Christ| 4.10.12 @ 9:14PM

It won't matter, Rich D. He cares nothing for the Truth.

These men here, the haughty Religionists have their own Gospel, not Christ's. Can't you see that by reading what they post, always opposing Christians?

Not only do they oppose Christians, but the very Words of Christ and of the Apostle Paul. Nick now argues with you about the word broken, and why is that?

Him and his liar friend above, don't WANT to agree with the Scriptures, that is why.

They already reject the second coming of Christ!

Nick| 4.11.12 @ 8:46PM

"He cares nothing for the Truth."

You couldn't be more wrong, Margie's Bro.
I care only about the Truth.
And, I consider all Christians to be my friends and allies in spiritual combat against the Enemy. They are my brothers and sisters in Christ. As are you, I hope.
God Bless!

Nick| 4.11.12 @ 8:49PM

p.s. I replied to your response from yesterday, about 1 Thess. 4.

Rich D| 4.10.12 @ 10:21PM

(1) I don't see that he implied that given changes the meaning. The bread there is obviously separate from his physical body.

(2) 1 Cor 11:24 is the more difficult reading due to the awkward placement of the verb "estin" and the lack of the word "given" that is in Luke. Adding "broken" forces one to jump through theological hoops to interpret the passage in the light of other scripture.

(3) Unworthily meant that they were not focused on the body of Christ and his shed blood. Also, they were not treating the meal with reverence toward the time that we will all sit at the Lord's table with him. They were eating because they were hungry (go home and eat, Paul says), and those with much were feasting in front of those who had little, thus breaking the Great Commandment and tearing the community of believers apart. Their actions will subject them to judgement. Basically, instead of coming reverently and humbly to commemorate the sacrifice, they were cavalier and irreverent. Furthermore, those who arrived for the supper (a regular full meal held in the meeting house once a week - not what we call Communion) did not wait for the others to arrive, but ate what they had prepared at home. Well, the wealthy could leave work early, but the poor and slaves could not. This separated the slave and free. The entire meal was to be shared so that there was one body sharing one loaf. The wealthy had too much and the poor too little. See Paul's rebuke to Peter for eating with the Jews and letting the Gentile eat separately in Gal 2:11-21.

Nick| 4.11.12 @ 8:41PM

Rich D.,

(1) Ah, but this is the crux of the problem, isn't it? For over 1,500 years, most of those who called themselves Christian confessed that the bread and the Body of Christ were not separate. Not after the Consecration, that is.

(2) I meant that if one does not add the words "broken for," why is it more difficult? Dr. Barber was not talking about the words broken for. I don't speak Greek, remember? I'm still having trouble seeing the difference in meaning between 1 Cor. 11:24 and Luke 22:19, with the addition of the word given.

(3) I agree with a lot of what you wrote, in part. But, there is much more going on here.

Saint Paul clearly separates the Lord's Supper, i.e. the Eucharist, from the agape meal, in verses 20-22. Some of the Corinthians have turned the latter meal into a party, getting drunk, and not sharing with those who had no food.

This is certainly bad. But, not as bad as eating the bread or drinking the chalice of the Lord "in an unworthy manner" which causes one to "be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord" (v. 27).

This is why some of them have become sick and others have died. They are receiving the Eucharist "without discerning the body," i.e., in a state of mortal sin, and, therefore, eating and drinking "judgment upon [themselves]" (v. 29). One must receive holy Communion in a worthy manner, i.e., in a state of grace.

Rich D| 4.11.12 @ 11:07PM

(1) Whoa! Not at the last supper! The problem might be that what was intended as a commemoration was turned improperly into a "sacrifice" when the sacrifice was complete.

(2) No difference in meaning - I didn't say that there was. The word "given" in Luke is superfluous, and "broken" is erroneous wherever it appears. And additional "which is" is also not in the text. I said that the Greek of Corinthians is more difficult than the Greek of Luke because of the word order, especially the placement of the genitive personal possessive pronoun "my". Luke reads, "This is my body for you given." Note that "given" is tacked on to the end.

(3) There is no separation of the meal and the Lord's Supper in Paul - the coming together was a community meal and the commemoration was part of it as it was at the first (i.e., The Last Supper). The bread was served before the meal and the wine afterwards. The profanation was due to the fact that the community did not act as one. Divisions in v 18, no common supper in v 20-21, and division again in v 33. Paul is criticizing them as a community, not as individuals, so your "grace" comment does not apply.

Nick| 4.12.12 @ 12:31PM

Rich D.,

(1) Yes, at the Last Supper. And, it wasn't turned into a sacrifice. From the time when Christ broke the bread and opened the eyes of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24) until this very day, Christ's once for all sacrifice on Cavalry has been RE-presented during the Eucharistic Liturgy. Christ, as High Priest, continually offer's Himself as the perfect sacrifice to the Father in the Heavenly Jerusalem:

"The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office; but [Christ] holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues for ever." - Hebrews 7:23-24

"Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister in the sanctuary and the true tent which is set up not by man but by the Lord. For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; hence it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer." - Hebrews 8:1-3

Saint Paul also said this:
"We have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat." - Hebrews 13:10

The only purpose to have an altar is to offer a sacrifice, correct?

(2) I think that I now see what you are saying. Thanks for the repeated explanations.

(3) "There is no separation of the meal and the Lord's Supper in Paul [...]."

I can see how one might come to this conclusion. But, Saint Paul makes the distinction between the two meals twice. First, as I stated, in vv. 20-22. And, again, in vv. 33-34. If they are the same meal, why does Paul say that when they "come together to eat" to "wait for each other" but to "eat at home" if one is hungry? If the hungry eat at home, what are they going to do when they "come together to eat"?

Whenever a New Testament author says that they came together on the "Lord's Day" or the "First Day" and "broke bread" or "in the breaking of the bread," they are referring to the Eucharist. Which, as I'm sure you know, means thanksgiving in Greek. As in, "He took bread, εὐχαριστήσας (eucharistēsas,) and broke it [...]."

The subsequent agape meal was distinct from this liturgical celebration. Paul is telling some of the Corinthians that they are not coming together as a church for the right reason. Some are coming to feast and party. Not to worship the Lord in the Eucharist.

"The bread was served before the meal and the wine afterwards."

Do you have a source for this assertion?
As far as I know, the earliest Christian sources all state that the Lord's Supper was both a Liturgical and Eucharistic celebration. They did not have a Seder/Pasch meal every Sunday. They celebrated the Eucharist and then they would have a communal meal, shared by all.

Rich D| 4.12.12 @ 11:48PM

One point at a time, Nick:

(1) No support for "continually offers" - Jesus said that the transaction is completed and he is at the right hand of the Father.

Paul did not write Hebrews. We don't know who did.

Heb 9:12 - He entered the holy place ONCE for all...

The transition from the old covenant to the new was the once-and-for-all atoning perfect sacrifice made on the cross. In the new covenant, he is the mediator.

Heb 9:28 ...so Christ also, having been offered ONCE to bear the sins of many...

Heb 13:10 uses the word metaphorically. It is the cross on which Christ suffered his expiatory death. Eating from this altar means to appropriate the fruits of Christ's death.

Rich D| 4.12.12 @ 11:59PM

(3) "The bread was served before the meal and the wine afterwards."

Do you have a source for this assertion?

Sure - see 1 Cor 11:25: Likewise also, the cup after having dined. (my translation)

This was the main evening meal. What would they do at home? Eat just enough (or eat the fancy foods that are beyond the reach of the poor) to keep from being unsharing gluttons at the common meal at the assembly. If you read enough of Paul, you can hear him admonishing that if you can't do that, don't come.

Nick| 4.13.12 @ 11:37PM

Rich D.,

(1) Saint John's vision in the Book of Revelation is replete with liturgical imagery. There are chalices, priestly vestments, incense, an altar with martyrs under it, chanting, and the sign of the cross (tau).

At the center of it all is Christ, Who is the High Priest. He is also the Lamb (of God.) The Lamb is offered on the altar. This all happens at the Temple of the Heavenly Jerusalem, Christ's Resurrected Body. Again, Saint Paul confirms all of this in the citations from Hebrews, which I provided.

"Paul did not write Hebrews. We don't know who did."

This is a side issue, really. We don't know who wrote the Gospels, either. It is only through Sacred Tradition that we know the identities of the four evangelists. There are many traditions that claim Paul as the author of Hebrews. But, yes, it is debatable. I think Paul is the author.

"Heb 13:10 uses the word metaphorically."

Where does the author claim this?

(3) I think the problem is one of conflating the Last Supper with the Lord's Supper which was celebrated on the Lord's Day, i.e., Sunday.

The Last Supper, which happened "on the night He was betrayed," i.e., the night before the Crucifixion, was a Pasch Meal. The Seder Meal included the drinking of four cups of wine throughout the meal. There are also bitter herbs, unleavened bread, a sweet dip, and, of course, a lamb. Christ says specifically that He will not drink the fourth cup of blessing. It is the third cup of wine, the Redemption Cup, that He uses to institute the Blood of the New Covenant. This was after the lamb was eaten.

The point I'm making with all of this background is that the meal which was eaten on the Lord's Day, i.e., every Sunday, was not a Passover Meal. No one could afford to have lamb every week. It would have bankrupted the early Church.

The breaking of the bread every Sunday was the celebration of the Eucharistic Liturgy, i.e., the Mass. (Although, they didn't call it the "Mass" back then. They referred to it as "breaking of the bread.")

The other meal was the agape meal. This is the supper that Saint Paul is rebuking those who bring only food for themselves. But, adding that some get drunk at this meal shows that their hearts are not focused on the true purpose of the Eucharistic celebration, receiving the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

They are there only to have a party. And, they are stingy to boot! This is why they are eating and drinking judgement on themselves. If they were just being selfish with their own food, or, their own possessions, then most of the Church would be sick or dying!

Plus, you can not be "guilty (enochos) of the body and blood of the Lord" by not sharing the pot-luck you brought on Sunday. The word guilty implies a crime has been committed and that punishment is deserved. That is the Greek sense, from what I've read.

Is refusing to share worthy of death? I don't think so. Paul is trying to make the Corinthians see how serious it is to receive the Eucharist in a worthy manner, i.e., in a state of grace. Being uncharitable is bad. Getting drunk after receiving the Body and Blood of our Lord is a million times worse.
God Bless!

Rich D| 4.14.12 @ 1:28AM

(1) You: Saint John's vision in the Book of Revelation is replete with liturgical imagery. There are chalices, priestly vestments, incense, an altar with martyrs under it, chanting, and the sign of the cross (tau)."

Me: But the altar figuratively there is the meeting place between God and the true worshipper. A sacred altar is formed anywhere a true believer hears from God and does what he says. You don't really think that any blood sacrifice will be happening in heaven or in John's vision, do you? What was offered were prayers and incense. Remember, the bodily sacrifice was final, consummated the covenant, and is once and for all. May I suggest "Reading the book of Revelation" edited by David Barr, and Sacra Pagina Series # 16, "Revelation" by Harrington?

Me: "Heb 13:10 uses the word metaphorically."

You: Where does the author claim this?

Metaphors are obvious from context, just as when Jesus says that he is a door, or vine, a way (path), or a light.

Nick| 4.14.12 @ 5:42PM

Rich D.,

Throughout the entire Bible, altars are used for one purpose: To sacrifice a victim.
Again, as Saint Paul says in Hebrews: "For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; hence it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer."

"You don't really think that any blood sacrifice will be happening in heaven or in John's vision, do you?"

The altar in Saint John's Revelation is not figurative or metaphorical. It is real. As real as Heaven. During the Mass, the altar on earth is lifted up to the altar in Heaven. Christ, the sacrifice once for all, is RE-presented. What was final was His death. Christ could only die once, for all. His role as victim never ends. He offers His Resurrected Body, which cannot suffer, nor die.

Saint Paul also refers to altars when he uses the term table of the Lord (1 Cor. 10:21). The fact that Christians used altars is also attested to by the early patristic sources.

"Metaphors are obvious from context [...]."

And, sometimes, they are in the eye of the beholder.

Rich D| 4.17.12 @ 12:42AM

Well, you can keep to that odd opinion. Jesus is not the eternal victim (and never was a victim - he volunteered); he is the eternal victor. What a sad way to leave him. It's time to take him down from the Cross.

BTW, you never answered my question.

Nick| 4.18.12 @ 12:52AM

"Well, you can keep to that odd opinion."

I don't know how odd it is. It was what most all Christians held as true for more than 15 centuries. And, it is what over half of all Christians hold as the truth, today.

"(and never was a victim - he volunteered)"

I wasn't using the word victim in that way. I was using it in the context of 1st century Jewish Temple liturgical worship.

Chapter 9 of the letter to the Hebrews explains this quite well. In verse 9, the author has no problem revealing what is symbolic, by the way. Christ's role as High Priest is covered here:

"And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship.
22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
23 Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
24 For Christ has entered, not into a sanctuary made with hands, a copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.
25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the Holy Place yearly with blood not his own;
26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27 And just as it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment,
28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him."

Catholics don't leave Christ on the Cross. Christ and the Cross are inseparable until the end of time and the Final Judgement.

"BTW, you never answered my question."

Yes, I did: "What was final was His death. Christ could only die once, for all. His role as victim never ends. He offers His Resurrected Body, which cannot suffer, nor die."

Christ's Resurrected Body does not bleed in Heaven. He cannot die again, nor feel pain. He has conquered death on our behalf.

Rich D| 4.14.12 @ 1:40AM

You: It is only through Sacred Tradition that we know the identities of the four evangelists.

We don't. The Gospel according to X means that this is the Gospel that X related, but not necessarily that X committed it to writing. It could have passed by oral tradition for years before being committed. Luke claims to have collected his Gospel and committed it to writing. John could be "the disciple that Jesus loved", although the date of writing was after the fall of Jerusalem. If Mark is the one who accompanied Peter, then his Gospel is really the collected sermons and teachings of Peter.

Nick| 4.14.12 @ 5:52PM

Rich D.,

Luke never identifies himself. None of the Gospel authors do. Saint Matthew, as a tax collector, knew how to write, though. I agree that Saint Mark's Gospel is based on Saint Peter's preaching, according to tradition. And, Saint Luke's is based mostly on the preaching of Saint Paul.

My point is that the Gospel authors, or those whom they are attributed, are never identified. Only Sacred Tradition names the four Evangelists. The same goes for the author of Hebrews.

To state, categorically, that X book was not written by X author is futile.

Rich D| 4.14.12 @ 2:12AM

Me: (3) I think the problem is one of conflating the Last Supper with the Lord's Supper which was celebrated on the Lord's Day, i.e., Sunday.

You: The Last Supper, which happened "on the night He was betrayed," i.e., the night before the Crucifixion, was a Pasch Meal.

Me: Read this for some contrasting views - http://www.bib-arch.org/e-feat.....supper.asp

Nick| 4.14.12 @ 6:41PM

Rich D.,

Why would you send me to an article whose author doesn't believe in the accuracy of the Gospels? I am always amused by so-called "scholars," living 19 to 20 centuries after these events, who claim that they know better than those who were contemporaries of said events. Or, those who lived only a couple of centuries after them.

For someone who appears to be an very educated man, Mr. Klawans sure does ignore a lot of data concerning this subject.

For example, both Saints Mark and Luke state that it was a Passover Meal and that a Passover Lamb was eaten.

"And on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the pascha [passover] lamb, his disciples said to him, "Where will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the pascha [passover]?" - Mark 14:12

"Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the pascha [passover] lamb had to be sacrificed. So Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, 'Go and prepare the pascha [passover] for us, that we may eat it.'" - Luke 22:7-8

This article covers this quite well: http://www.thesacredpage.com/2.....upper.html

As far as the Synoptics being contradicted by Saint John's Gospel, many ignore a simple fact about the Pascha Meal and the following seven days of the Feast of Unleavened Bread: Lambs were sacrificed at the Temple on all seven days, as well as the 14th of Nissan.

This is attested to by Josephus:

"The feast of unleavened bread succeeds that of the passover, and falls on the fifteenth day of the month, and continues seven days, wherein they feed on unleavened bread; on every one of which days two bulls are killed, and one ram, and seven lambs."
- Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book III, Chapter 10, Para. 5

Source: http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-3.htm

So, Mr. Klawans is wrong about any apparent contradiction between the Synoptics and John. And, he is wrong about the Last Supper not being a Passover Meal. He, also, never explains why he believes that the Passover Meal changed radically after the destruction of the Temple. The only thing that would have changed would have been sacrificing the lamb at the Temple.
God Bless!

Nick| 4.14.12 @ 6:45PM

p.s. If you have the time (less than an hour) here is a podcast that goes into great detail on this subject:

http://www.thesacredpage.com/2.....r-tsp.html

If you don't have the time, here is another article that covers it pretty well:

http://newtheologicalmovement......th-of.html

Take care and have a great weekend!

Rich D| 4.15.12 @ 12:29AM

"Why would you send me to an article whose author doesn't believe in the accuracy of the Gospels?"

One can learn from many people. I simply pointed to it for contrasting views, that's all. Have I now moved you off your original position that there was no meal in between the bread and the wine?

Nick| 4.15.12 @ 2:16PM

Rich D.,

"One can learn from many people."

Yes, one can. And I have.
But, I have also listened to many skeptics of the accuracy of the Sacred Scriptures over the years, and, they usually have nothing but gross speculation and error-ridden suppositions.

Mr. Klawans was just another in a long line that I have encountered who wants to modernize the Scriptures to fit his preconceived notions. He was wrong on several basic facts. Are you defending his premise that the Last Supper was not a Passover Meal?

"Have I now moved you off your original position that there was no meal in between the bread and the wine?"

I admitted that I mistakenly thought that you were talking about the Lord's Supper, i.e., the Sunday celebration of the Liturgy, when you made that statement. I didn't know that you were referring to the Last Supper Pascha Meal. You were, weren't you?

But, that meal started with two cups of wine, the matzo (bread), then the lamb meal, then two more cups of wine. So, technically, it was wine, bread, meal, wine. Not to mention that you left out the bitter herbs and other dishes.

Do you really believe that they ate a Passover Seder Meal every Sunday?

And, the fact remains, that the breaking of the bread, which had been occurring every Sunday for over twenty years when Saint Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, was not a Passover Seder Meal. When they met on the Lord's Day, they did not have a meal between the bread and the wine. The bread and wine were used in the Eucharistic Liturgy which occurred first. Then the agape meal was eaten by the community.

Do you have any source for the assertion that the "bread was served before the meal and the wine afterwards" actually happened during the regular Sunday supper of the Lord?

Did you get to any of those links?
God Bless!

Rich D| 4.16.12 @ 4:02AM

The text says that there was supper (the main meal of the day) in between. It does not say that it was a celebration.

Nick| 4.16.12 @ 11:28AM

Rich D.,

By "the text" I assume that you are referring to 1 Cor. 11:25, again? May I also assume that this is the only verse you can find to defend your position?

The fact remains that Saint Paul is recalling the words spoken by Christ, at His Last Supper, on Holy Thursday, in vv. 23-25:

"For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, 'This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.'"

While in vv. 18-22 & 26-34, Paul is referring to the breaking of the bread on the Lord's Day, i.e., Sunday. And, yes, the word celebrate is not used. But, it is generally accepted that the Eucharist was indeed a liturgical celebration.

The Last Supper was a Passover Seder Meal, while the Sunday worship of the ekklesia, i.e., the Lord's Supper, was participation in the Eucharist. And then they would eat the agape meal.

Paul also refers to the Sacred importance of the Eucharist elsewhere:

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" - 1 Cor. 10:16

"How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?" - Hebrews 10:29

Rich D| 4.17.12 @ 12:46AM

By "the text" I assume that you are referring to 1 Cor. 11:25, again? May I also assume that this is the only verse you can find to defend your position?

Did you forget "It is finished" and my comments on it? That should have sealed the argument.

Oh, it isn't (wasn't) his Last Supper - it is the Lord's Supper and there will be plenty more of them.

Nick| 4.17.12 @ 8:40PM

"Did you forget "It is finished" and my comments on it?"

I guess I did. I looked through the previous comments, and I didn't see it. Sorry. I'll be glad to go over it again.

I did see a comment that did made me think of something else. On 4.11.12 @ 10:07PM, you wrote: "The profanation was due to the fact that the community did not act as one."

That is not what profane means. You can only profane God and things associated with Him. Refusing to share food is not charitable, and can be sinful, but, it is not profane.

The Ark of the Covenant could be profaned, because it was where God dwelt. So could the Temple, for the same reason. But acting sinful is just that...sinful. Saint Paul says, specifically, that it is the "body and blood of the Lord" which is being profaned. Because Christ is dwelling in what used to be bread and wine.

"Oh, it isn't (wasn't) his Last Supper - it is the Lord's Supper and there will be plenty more of them."

Everybody refers to the Passover Meal described in the Gospels as the "Last Supper." But, you are correct. There have been subsequent celebrations of the Lord's Supper every single day, for going on 2,000 years now.

Rich D| 4.18.12 @ 10:02PM

Nick: "That is not what profane means. You can only profane God and things associated with Him. Refusing to share food is not charitable, and can be sinful, but, it is not profane."

I explained - the Church is the body of Christ and the local members were not acting as one body. That is profaning it.

Nick: "Everybody refers to the Passover Meal described in the Gospels as the "Last Supper.""

Sorry, as a worldwide organized community of millions of believers, we do not.

Nick| 4.19.12 @ 5:27PM

Rich D,

"I explained - the Church is the body of Christ and the local members were not acting as one body."

In 1 Cor. 11:27, Saint Paul is not referring to the ekklesia, i.e., the assembly, the church. Paul states quite clearly that some of the Corinthians were "guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord."

Now, the Church was certainly called the Body of Christ at this time. But, when was the ekklesia, the assembly, ever referred to as the "Blood of Christ"? Paul is clearly referring to the Eucharist.

The author of Hebrews backs up my point, as I previously quoted:

The meal that the assembly ate on Sunday was just dinner. It could not be profaned.

"Sorry, as a worldwide organized community of millions of believers, we do not."

Who is we?
And, what was your comment on "It is finished"?
God Bless!

Rich D| 4.16.12 @ 4:14AM

Yes, I read the link. One goes through great lengths to ignore Paul and metaphor and turn the Last Supper into a sacrifice when Jesus was clearly present in his body. So be it.

Nick| 4.16.12 @ 11:28AM

Which one? I provided a few.

Rich D| 4.17.12 @ 12:47AM

http://newtheologicalmovement......th-of.html

Nick| 4.17.12 @ 8:49PM

That link is about the chronology of the events from Holy Thursday to Easter Sunday.
I don't believe the author claimed that the Last Supper was a sacrifice. Unless, you are referring to the Paschal lamb.
The Last Supper was the institution of the Eucharist.

Nick| 4.18.12 @ 12:55AM

I also replied to your comment of 4.16.12 @ 11:42PM.

Latest Headlines

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn|114 comments

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple|126 comments

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg|61 comments

Soros Funds Anti-‘Torture’ Report

Mark Tooley|115 comments

Treasure State Treasury

Bill Croke|4 comments

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy|72 comments

The View From the Other Side

George H. Wittman|21 comments

USPS: Radical Surgery Needed

Peter Hannaford|19 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Alan O’Day, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 12:26AM

Artur Davis Says Scandals Are Real

Quin Hillyer | 5.19.13

Good New Book: ‘Precipice’

Quin Hillyer | 5.19.13

The Spectator’s Spectacular: Most Read Stories, May 12-May 19

Patrick Ryan | 5.19.13

Elijah Harper, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 5.18.13

If Only the Tsar Knew!

F.H. Buckley | 5.18.13

Low-Level IRS Staffer: No, We Didn’t Mastermind This Entire Thing

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

UPDATED: IRS Acting Chief Apologizes, But Defends His Actions

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

The American Spectator

A Further Perspective

Hold the Hallelujahs

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (325) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Jack in Wi.| 4.6.12 @ 7:12AM

Teaghan| 4.6.12 @ 8:37AM

albert constantine jr.| 4.6.12 @ 10:42AM

SeymourGlass| 4.6.12 @ 11:11AM

Vern Crisler| 4.6.12 @ 11:53AM

Stuart Koehl| 4.8.12 @ 2:55PM

Doctor Right| 4.6.12 @ 12:07PM

Brother in Christ| 4.6.12 @ 1:07PM

Doctor Right| 4.6.12 @ 1:18PM

bill| 4.7.12 @ 9:32AM

Herb Tarlek| 4.7.12 @ 11:17PM

Stuart Koehl| 4.8.12 @ 2:55PM

Alan Brooks| 4.6.12 @ 6:17PM

Alan Brooks| 4.6.12 @ 6:19PM

sittingaroundmypc| 4.7.12 @ 1:50PM

Occam's Tool| 4.7.12 @ 5:59PM

Occam's Tool| 4.7.12 @ 6:09PM

Nick| 4.8.12 @ 8:40PM

Claypoole| 4.6.12 @ 8:07AM

Mimi| 4.6.12 @ 8:16AM

RCV| 4.6.12 @ 12:10PM

Brother in Christ| 4.6.12 @ 12:41PM

Layne S| 4.6.12 @ 1:00PM

Michael S.| 4.6.12 @ 2:56PM

KyMouse| 4.6.12 @ 8:23AM

Robert McClain | 4.6.12 @ 9:12AM

Patrick| 4.6.12 @ 9:45AM

Stuart Koehl| 4.6.12 @ 9:50AM

Skip| 4.6.12 @ 10:59AM

PJ| 4.6.12 @ 11:09AM

Stuart Koehl| 4.6.12 @ 12:22PM

Ryan| 4.6.12 @ 2:15PM

Brother in Christ| 4.6.12 @ 8:32PM

Mimi| 4.6.12 @ 9:06PM

Brother in Christ| 4.6.12 @ 9:10PM

Stuart Koehl| 4.8.12 @ 2:57PM

Thomas| 4.7.12 @ 6:04PM

Stuart Koehl| 4.8.12 @ 2:58PM

Bruce| 4.6.12 @ 9:13AM

Rev. Donald Sensing | 4.6.12 @ 9:17AM

Doctor Right| 4.6.12 @ 9:45AM

Stuart Koehl| 4.6.12 @ 9:57AM

Phyllis| 4.6.12 @ 2:30PM

PJ| 4.6.12 @ 11:24AM

Rev. Donald Sensing | 4.6.12 @ 11:28AM

Stuart Koehl| 4.6.12 @ 11:52AM

Vern Crisler| 4.6.12 @ 12:01PM

Doctor Right| 4.6.12 @ 12:05PM

Brother in Christ| 4.6.12 @ 12:32PM

Doctor Right| 4.6.12 @ 12:49PM

Brother in Christ| 4.6.12 @ 12:58PM

Vern Crisler| 4.6.12 @ 1:51PM

Brother in Christ| 4.6.12 @ 9:23PM

Pogo Gheen| 4.7.12 @ 6:48PM

Stuart Koehl| 4.8.12 @ 3:04PM

JohnM| 4.6.12 @ 10:03AM

Rev. Donald Sensing | 4.6.12 @ 11:10AM

JohnM| 4.6.12 @ 2:52PM

Dept. of Theology Notre Dame| 4.6.12 @ 12:10PM

Stuart Koehl| 4.6.12 @ 12:23PM

Thomas Paine Disciple| 4.6.12 @ 12:50PM

Appleby| 4.6.12 @ 1:46PM

Vox Populi| 4.7.12 @ 4:09PM

SUBVET| 4.8.12 @ 12:25PM

Thomas| 4.7.12 @ 6:14PM

0 + 0 = 1001| 4.7.12 @ 7:11PM

Thomas| 4.7.12 @ 8:04PM

D| 4.7.12 @ 8:29PM

Thomas| 4.7.12 @ 11:28PM

Stuart Koehl| 4.8.12 @ 3:09PM

Nick| 4.7.12 @ 8:48PM

Brother in Christ| 4.6.12 @ 12:33PM

Dave Williams| 4.6.12 @ 2:40PM

Brother in Christ| 4.6.12 @ 8:34PM

Brother in Christ| 4.6.12 @ 9:15PM

Hold the Hallelujahs  