ForumGarden

AnneBoleyn;1380126 wrote: By refusal I meant refusing to be converted. Christians were historically easily offended, & that was the threat. What happened? You know from history what happened to Jews! Words lead to violence. "lead" is past, present, & as "leadS', future too. I'm only just disputing that Jesus called himself King. Forgive me for the distractions, my mind was wandering.


:yh_glasse Well, to be accurate, the past-tense is "led".

Ijs ... I mean ....

Bryn Mawr;1380100 wrote: That is exactly what I was saying.


My reply was mainly dealing with your point that Jesus claiming to be King of the Jews would be seen as a threat to Rome.





Where did Jesus claim to be King of the Jews in anything but a spiritual sense?


Pilate did not ask Jesus "are you the king of the jews in a spiritual sense" He asked Him are you the king of the Jews. Jesus is both the King in a spiritual sense and a King in an actual sense. He is the King of Kings

Had he set himself up as a secular King in opposition to King Herod then he would have been seen by Rome as being in revolt - King Herod was placed on the throne by Rome and disputing his rule would have been disputing Rome's right to determine how Judea was ruled.


Lets say Jesus did dispute King herods right and made a claim to Rome that He was the rightful King. The very fact that He would make an appeal to Rome would not be seen as a threat but it would be seen as acceptance of the authority of Rome to make a judgement on the case.

But of course Jesus was not interested in taking direct worldly Kingly rule at that time. He will however take that kind of rule of the world upon His return. Even now all those who accept Jesus as Lord accept Him as king in both respects. If an authority on earth tells me to do something in rebellion against the teachings of Jesus i will not obey them because Jesus is both a spiritual and actual king over me.



All Praise The Ancient of Days

AnneBoleyn;1380106 wrote: I disagree with Adstar. When Jesus answered Pilate: "Thou sayest", Jesus was neither confirming nor denying but said it is You who call me that. "It's you, it's YOU who say I am".

Adstar: "Jesus is called the King of Kings and Lord of Lords in the Bible so He is the King of all. That includes the Jews."

Preposterous. If you insist upon this You are an anti-semite who in past times would be the first calling for an inquisition.


You again make the preposterous claim that i am anti-semetic. I think your credibility is hurt the more you do this. I have already stated in this thread my opposition to the catholic church and their teachings. The inquisition was established by the catholic church. It is not a teaching of Jesus for His followers to use any violence or subject anyone to persecution because of their beliefs in regard to His will. My Messiah Jesus guided us to love all men even our enemies. This is why i do not believe in taking part in war or any violence at all. So stop throwing accusations in the hope that if you repeat it often enough people will believe it.

So again i believe that Jesus is the King of Kings, whether people acknowledge Him as such or reject Him makes no difference.

AnneBoleyn;1380123 wrote: I don't know if it is my contention that there is no God, but it certainly is within the realm of possibility, many possibilities out there. How do you think anti-semitism began? Just as white people aren't always aware of negative racist thought within their own heart, cannot it be said that a Christian who sees Jewish refusal as a direct threat should be dealt with in some way?


I see people reject Jesus most days but it is no threat to me, I am saved and have peace of mind. The danger is not to me the great danger is to those who reject the Messiah Jesus. Jesus never called upon His followers to seek to enforce belief. Actually enforcing belief is an impossibility. Oh you can get people to say and do almost anything if they fear death or persecution. But that is not what God wants. he wants people to embrace the love of the truth because they trully accept it.

Especially in someone who wants Ancient Ways to be followed? Just a thought, Bryn Mawr. Maybe not in our modern sensibilities, but it can't be denied it did happen.


I want people to believe Jesus. But the only way people believe Jesus is when they come by their own free will to believe Jesus.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

AnneBoleyn states:

I dispute there is a God at all


Ok.. So now it is clear AnneBoleyn is a non-believer in the God of Abraham. This explains a lot to me now.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Adstar;1380149 wrote: My reply was mainly dealing with your point that Jesus claiming to be King of the Jews would be seen as a threat to Rome.





Pilate did not ask Jesus "are you the king of the jews in a spiritual sense" He asked Him are you the king of the Jews. Jesus is both the King in a spiritual sense and a King in an actual sense. He is the King of Kings



Lets say Jesus did dispute King herods right and made a claim to Rome that He was the rightful King. The very fact that He would make an appeal to Rome would not be seen as a threat but it would be seen as acceptance of the authority of Rome to make a judgement on the case.

But of course Jesus was not interested in taking direct worldly Kingly rule at that time. He will however take that kind of rule of the world upon His return. Even now all those who accept Jesus as Lord accept Him as king in both respects. If an authority on earth tells me to do something in rebellion against the teachings of Jesus i will not obey them because Jesus is both a spiritual and actual king over me.



All Praise The Ancient of Days


Your hypothetical situation did not happen so he either set himself up at an alternative secular King of the Jews without appeal to Rome in which case he was a threat or his claim was spiritual.

The fact that the only ones who saw him as a threat were the Pharisees shows that it was the latter.

Remember, Pilate, as the Roman Governor, did not see him as a problem and did not want to execute him - it was only the religious hierarchy that forced the issue.

I'd better say that it is not that I think any of you are truly anti-semitic. Of course not, I can't state that enough. What I tried to attempt to say (badly) is that in the past these remarks have led (to Accountable, led as in Zepplin) to vicious acts against the Jewish people. Anyone who can deny this denies the history as it was. It was wrong of me to divert the conversation, I apologize, I have a habit of letting my mind wander & say what's on my mind. i.e., Bryn Mawr said: "Remember, Pilate, as the Roman Governor, did not see him as a problem and did not want to execute him - it was only the religious hierarchy that forced the issue." Now if you don't remember that was the biggest claim to kill Jews, that Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus, I don't know what to say, I'm at a loss. But, as I said, I guess that has no place in this discussion. Of course, if one believes that, one must also believe that, like Judas, the Pharisees were a part of the major plan to have Jesus fulfill the prophecy, to suffer, die & rise again.

Adstar:

AnneBoleyn states:

I dispute there is a God at all

Ok.. So now it is clear AnneBoleyn is a non-believer in the God of Abraham. This explains a lot to me now.




I want to dispute that I dispute that. I'm ashamed to say that after all these years I still can't fully commit to an opinion. :-3

AnneBoleyn;1380165 wrote: I'd better say that it is not that I think any of you are truly anti-semitic. Of course not, I can't state that enough. What I tried to attempt to say (badly) is that in the past these remarks have led (to Accountable, led as in Zepplin) to vicious acts against the Jewish people. Anyone who can deny this denies the history as it was. It was wrong of me to divert the conversation, I apologize, I have a habit of letting my mind wander & say what's on my mind. i.e., Bryn Mawr said: "Remember, Pilate, as the Roman Governor, did not see him as a problem and did not want to execute him - it was only the religious hierarchy that forced the issue." Now if you don't remember that was the biggest claim to kill Jews, that Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus, I don't know what to say, I'm at a loss. But, as I said, I guess that has no place in this discussion. Of course, if one believes that, one must also believe that, like Judas, the Pharisees were a part of the major plan to have Jesus fulfill the prophecy, to suffer, die & rise again.


I do not, would not and indeed could not blame the entire Jewish people of the time for the acts of the 0.0001% of their population who did far less than my ancestors were doing far more recently. (They rid themselves of one annoying rival by (ab)using the political system - how does that compare to massacring hundreds in cold blood in the name of God)?

Still less could I blame the entire Jewish people of today for what was done two thousand years ago - to do so would be insanity.

It would also be unpardonable to refuse to address the evidence relevant to the discussion we are having on the grounds that it has been used for corrupt purposes in the past - if you look, much of the Bible has been used for corrupt purposes in the past from justification for war to the subjugation of women. Whilst I have, for decades, rejected the Church in all its forms because of the way it corrupted the religion I see no reason to reject all Christian principles because people have used the words of the Bible for corrupt purposes.

AnneBoleyn;1380168 wrote: Adstar:



I want to dispute that I dispute that. I'm ashamed to say that after all these years I still can't fully commit to an opinion. :-3


It was just playing your own words back at you

to you too. Of course it's insanity, but it was normal enough within living memory. That's close. And to nice folks like Skinheads, neonazi's, etc., it's a dream to realize, although thankfully many, I'm not sure most, agree it is insanity today. "It would also be unpardonable to refuse to address the evidence relevant to the discussion we are having on the grounds that it has been used for corrupt purposes in the past." You are absolutely right. I love discussing the Bible, I was just making a statement, something I rarely do anymore for no other reason than it was on my mind to do so. I have a streak of Groucho in my Marxism I guess you can say. I vow not to mention the chosen in a holocaust frame of mind for the rest of this thread! Mea culpa.

Bryn Mawr;1380158 wrote: Your hypothetical situation did not happen so he either set himself up at an alternative secular King of the Jews without appeal to Rome in which case he was a threat or his claim was spiritual.

The fact that the only ones who saw him as a threat were the Pharisees shows that it was the latter.


I agree that the Pharisees saw Him as a threat. But i am also making a point that Jesus as my Spiritual King outranks any physical King on earth. And therefore in effect is for Christians both a Spiritual and Physical King.



Remember, Pilate, as the Roman Governor, did not see him as a problem and did not want to execute him - it was only the religious hierarchy that forced the issue.


True. Even when Pilate called Jesus the King of the Jews to the crowd and put that same epitaph on the cross.



All Praise The Ancient of Days

AnneBoleyn;1380165 wrote: I'd better say that it is not that I think any of you are truly anti-semitic. Of course not, I can't state that enough.

What I tried to attempt to say (badly) is that in the past these remarks have led (to Accountable, led as in Zepplin) to vicious acts against the Jewish people.


There is this wise saying. And i do not know who said it, But it goes like this. "knowledge is a good thing, but a little knowledge is dangerous" The people who carried out these persecutions had two problems, A little knowledge mixed in with some terrible lies provided by their religious and political leaders.

Statements like the ones that have been said here only lead to violence when the people don't have the full message of Jesus and they are manipulated by their elites to commit violence upon an unbeliever.



Anyone who can deny this denies the history as it was.


I know the History and yes these things happened. But the very same Authorities executed my brothers in Jesus declaring them heretics.



It was wrong of me to divert the conversation, I apologize, I have a habit of letting my mind wander & say what's on my mind.


Sweet. Thank you for that.



i.e., Bryn Mawr said: "Remember, Pilate, as the Roman Governor, did not see him as a problem and did not want to execute him - it was only the religious hierarchy that forced the issue." Now if you don't remember that was the biggest claim to kill Jews, that Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus, I don't know what to say, I'm at a loss.


The Jewish religious Authorities at the time saw Jesus as a threat. But they also feared the common Jewish people. a sizable proportion of which saw Jesus as a Prophet.

Mark 11

18 And the scribes and chief priests heard it and sought how they might destroy Him; for they feared Him, because all the people were astonished at His teaching.



Luke 20

19 And the chief priests and the scribes that very hour sought to lay hands on Him, but they feared the people —for they knew He had spoken this parable against them.

How do you kill someone when doing so might cause the populace to come after you seeking bloody vengeance? Simple you scheme to get the occupying Romans to execute Him so if there is any trouble it will be directed at the Romans and not you.

Now Pilate did not care for Jesus. To Pilate Jesus was a head ache that He wanted to avoid, That's why Pilate dragged his feet and resisted their call to crucify Him. He did this up until the point where the Jewish elites and their rent a mob got so frustrated that they said the following.

Matthew 27

23 Then the governor said, “Why, what evil has He done?”

But they cried out all the more, saying, “Let Him be crucified!”

24 When Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult was rising, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, “I am innocent of the blood of this just Person. You see to it.”

25 And all the people answered and said, “His blood be on us and on our children.”

26 Then he released Barabbas to them; and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified.

Once the Jewish elites had said that openly in public, Pilate was off their hook. He had no trouble in executing Jesus after they took responsibility for it.

But, as I said, I guess that has no place in this discussion. Of course, if one believes that, one must also believe that, like Judas, the Pharisees were a part of the major plan to have Jesus fulfil the prophecy, to suffer, die & rise again.


Yes of course their actions where part of it. God can use people’s acts against His will to fulfil His eternal plan. Resist Him or assist Him, everyone can be used as a part of His eternal plan.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

AnneBoleyn;1380168 wrote: Adstar:AnneBoleyn states:

I dispute there is a God at all

Ok.. So now it is clear AnneBoleyn is a non-believer in the God of Abraham. This explains a lot to me now.




I want to dispute that I dispute that. I'm ashamed to say that after all these years I still can't fully commit to an opinion. :-3


Ok. So your not an atheist but an agnostic? Cool



All Praise The Ancient of Days

Adstar, what is cool about being agnostic? It's like your heart & head are at war. Makes me feel stupid, or what is even worse--cowardly.

Adstar;1380225 wrote: I agree that the Pharisees saw Him as a threat. But i am also making a point that Jesus as my Spiritual King outranks any physical King on earth. And therefore in effect is for Christians both a Spiritual and Physical King.



True. Even when Pilate called Jesus the King of the Jews to the crowd and put that same epitaph on the cross.



All Praise The Ancient of Days


The fact that He is your spiritual King only affects His status in your mind, not in the outside world. To claim that because you view Him so He was so in nonsense.

AnneBoleyn;1380240 wrote: Adstar, what is cool about being agnostic? It's like your heart & head are at war. Makes me feel stupid, or what is even worse--cowardly.


I am sorry for my use of the word "cool".

What i was trying to say was. It is good (cool) that your personal situation in regard to belief has become clearer to me.

I don't see being agnostic as being either stupid or cowardly. If one is not believer in God, Agnosticism is the most wise position to take.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Bryn Mawr;1380256 wrote: The fact that He is your spiritual King only affects His status in your mind, not in the outside world. To claim that because you view Him so He was so in nonsense.


Well i may be called for jury duty by the authorities of this world. I will refuse to do it because i do not believe in taking part in the system of judgement on this earth. Therefore in a real practical way Jesus is a real king to me.

Likewise if the government seeks to draft me into the army i will refuse to be drafted.

If the government that has authority over me tells me to do anything opposed to what Jesus told me to do. Then i will refuse their order. That makes Jesus my actual king in this world. The only laws i will obey from the authorities in my nation are ones that do not conflict with the teachings of Jesus.

As a Christian i believe Jesus will take real physical direct authority in this world when He comes again. So it will affect the outside world.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Deuteronomy 21 (NIV):

The Right of the Firstborn

15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, 16 when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. 17 He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father’s strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him.