No Piercing At Jesus' Side

[Ben Masada]

No Piercing At Jesus' Side


Here are three reasons why Jesus was never pierced at his side on the cross:

1- The custom to rush the death of all the Jews crucified by the Romans was Jewish and not Roman; and the practice was done only on Fridays, so that the bodies would not be left hanging during the hours of the Sabbath. And the method was leg-breaking and not spear-piercing. The Romans wouldn't care less if the Jewish Sabbath got desecrated by the bodies on the crosses.

2 - There is a tradition that the Centurion was richly bribed by Joseph of Arimathea, who was a very rich man in Israel, to just let him - Joseph - take Jesus off the cross and report back to Pilate that Jesus was indeed already dead.

3 - That Centurion and his men could never by their own accord pierce Jesus after their recognition that Jesus was indeed the son of God. This is for lack of any other option, a confession that they had converted themselves to the Cause of Jesus. That's in Matthew 27:54.

The first and third reasons dispense with any other evidence that the piercing of Jesus' side by a Roman spear was an interpolation by
either the writer of the Gospel or by the Fathers of the Church in 327 CE, when they selected the books into the Canon of the NT.

Ben

 

[bob x]

There was no need to make a duplicate post and extra thread. See my reply at John 10:16

 

[Ben Masada]

There was no need to make a duplicate post and extra thread. See my reply at John 10:16

Sorry, It escaped my memory. How can I delet it?
Ben

 

[bob x]

No big deal. Instead of deleting it, just let it sink to the bottom.

 

[DT Strain]

Why is it important whether someone stabbed someone else two thousand years ago?

 

[donnann]

No Piercing At Jesus' Side


Here are three reasons why Jesus was never pierced at his side on the cross:

1- The custom to rush the death of all the Jews crucified by the Romans was Jewish and not Roman; and the practice was done only on Fridays, so that the bodies would not be left hanging during the hours of the Sabbath. And the method was leg-breaking and not spear-piercing. The Romans wouldn't care less if the Jewish Sabbath got desecrated by the bodies on the crosses.

2 - There is a tradition that the Centurion was richly bribed by Joseph of Arimathea, who was a very rich man in Israel, to just let him - Joseph - take Jesus off the cross and report back to Pilate that Jesus was indeed already dead.

3 - That Centurion and his men could never by their own accord pierce Jesus after their recognition that Jesus was indeed the son of God. This is for lack of any other option, a confession that they had converted themselves to the Cause of Jesus. That's in Matthew 27:54.

The first and third reasons dispense with any other evidence that the piercing of Jesus' side by a Roman spear was an interpolation by
either the writer of the Gospel or by the Fathers of the Church in 327 CE, when they selected the books into the Canon of the NT.

Ben

What the romans did was a big lie which we know is satanic. The true meaning of that was really associated with union and the spirit being made one with the body. Not death of the body but union. The cross has been grossly misused that is why I prefer the name of GOD. JEHOVAH. No matter what you do with it the devil has no power and neither does satan with the name. There is no lie or death in that name no matter how you write it. Veritically, backwards , sideways up or down or in a mirror.

 

[donnann]

What the romans did was a big lie which we know is satanic. The true meaning of that was really associated with union and the spirit being made one with the body. Not death of the body but union. The cross has been grossly misused that is why I prefer the name of GOD. JEHOVAH. No matter what you do with it the devil has no power and neither does satan with the name. There is no lie or death in that name no matter how you write it. Veritically, backwards , sideways up or down or in a mirror.

I wont be back on here again for about a month talk to you all later.

 

[Ben Masada]

Why is it important whether someone stabbed someone else two thousand years ago?

Christians find it important because they need to fit Jesus into a misunderstood metaphorical statement that they take as a prophecy, which, in fact, had nothing to do with Jesus, but in their Christian pre-conceived notions.
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

What the romans did was a big lie which we know is satanic. The true meaning of that was really associated with union and the spirit being made one with the body. Not death of the body but union. The cross has been grossly misused that is why I prefer the name of GOD. JEHOVAH. No matter what you do with it the devil has no power and neither does satan with the name. There is no lie or death in that name no matter how you write it. Veritically, backwards , sideways up or down or in a mirror.

What on earth are you talking about Donnann? The spirit here is the breath of life which was breathed into the nostrils of man when God formed him from the dust of the earth. (Gen. 2:7) As long as we live, we constitute a union of body with breath of life, which euphemistically, is called spirit.

And God is not a name but a title. Jehovah, yes, is one of the names of God. And for the devil, or satan, for that matter, there is no such a thing as a being. Devil or satan is only a concept to illustrate the evil inclination in man; nothing else.
Ben