The Story of the "certain" Witnesses?

Author: Stephen

Posts

Total: 166
Topic's author
#61
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Apart from your notion that it was a capital offence. - I am sure that even ruling members of the council could make excuses not to be there. holidays - wives having babies - sickness.  emergency councils when members were visiting other parts of the country.. 
  
 Very lame for such and educated person as yourself. But if that is all you have as a rebuttal, then you have nothing imo.

I guess that is your "gotcha this time" move - or distraction at the least - telling us you don't have any specific evidence from the Bible telling us that both / or either of Nicodemus or Joseph was there.  

You can see it any way you choose but I stand by what I have said purely by the fact that both these biblical characters were highly respected and high in the ranks of the Great Sanhedrin Council of Jerusalem.  



Where is your evidence that these two must have been there under threat of capital punishment?

I haven't said that. I have simply pointed out that blasphemy is/ was a capital crime and at that this particular trial - depending on which gospel you choose to believe- Jesus is said to have been guilty of blasphemy. Try reading Matthew 26: 65-66. <<< that clearly says blasphemy is a capital offence. You cannot hold me at fault because you don't know or understand your scriptures.



Do you not have any idea at all as to who these "certain" accusers were, Tradesecret?
I have never given it much thought -

That doesn't surprise me in least. 


So I am content to say "I don't know who it was" but I am confident of who it wasn't.  It wasn't Nicodemus and it wasn't Joseph of Arimathea. 

And you believe this why?


 I also highly doubt it was any of Jesus' disciples,

And you believe this why?

The point of this thread is an attempt to identify who these two "certain " accusers were.  As I have explained, the curiosity for me arises because that after all of the "many witnesses" were dismissed we then have two "certain witnesses" that the bible sets apart from the "many witnesses".?   Add to this that after all of Jesus' disciples had "fled" these two disciples decided it would be a good idea, to not only follow Jesus, but to enter the courtyard where the trial was being held. I find that intriguing.  


And I also highly doubt it was any of Jesus' disciples, including Judas Iscariot. 

Yes, Judas, he that "Satan entered".
Judas was already known to the authorities before the arrest of Jesus, wasn't he, via the betrayal for money/ a bribe?  Doesn't John's gospel state that of the two that followed after Jesus' arrest that one of the two was well-known to Caiaphas the chief priest?

 Indeed, there are more questions than answers. Such is the nature of the NT scriptures.

#62
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Oh the master of deception has once again spoken.  

Yes these guys are highly respected. That is Not a reason to suspect them of high treason. 

The rest of whatever you say just simply bears witness that all you have is speculation based on conspiracy. 

Whatever.  

Ok. 

At least give something .... 
Topic's author
#63
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret


Yes these guys are highly respected. That is Not a reason to suspect them of high treason. 

I haven't done any such thing.


The rest of whatever you say just simply bears witness that all you have is speculation based on conspiracy. 

(1) And is all you have suggested is that Nicodemus and Josephe of Arimathea were not in attendance at the trial of the last two millennia was because one was sick- the others wife was having baby, while they were both taking a holiday. #58


speculation
I agree. I am speculating and have never denied it.. Just as you have done yourself at (1) above. #58

And what we do know from scripture is that Simon called Peter was inside the courtyard where the trial was taking place. Could he have been one of Jesus' "certain" accusers?

#64
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Ok.  well since it is your speculation.  I am happy to see what you have to add.  


Topic's author
#65
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Ok.  well since it is your speculation.  I am happy to see what you have to add.  
Nice. But I need to know:

 Are you still maintaining that Nicodemus & Joseph of Arimathea were not secret disciples of Jesus? As you have stated here> #56

Tradedsecret wrote: "I am not sure that Nicodemus was a secret disciple.  He wasn't invited along to the kangaroo court because his views were probably well known to the other members of the Sanhedrin.  If not, why wasn't he there?  The same applies to Joseph of Arimathea".#56



 Are you still maintaining that Nicodemus & Joseph of Arimathea were not in attendance at the "kangaroo court" where Jesus was on trial for his life?  As you have said in same post, here>#56

Tradedsecret wrote: Neither of these gentlemen were there. #56

Are you suggesting that two disciples of Jesus were not in the court encloser where the "kangaroo court" was taking place where one is named and the other not named?

Do you still maintain that this "kangeroo court" was not dealing with a capital crime, trumped up or not? 

We can move on once you have clarified your present stance on these points.
#66
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Nicodemus met with Jesus at night. this is not in dispute. He certainly was in the first place wary of meeting with Jesus. but the question is whether this was a once off and whether it continued into the future.  

I do not think we can so sure that by the time of the trial of Jesus that either were disciples of Jesus. And even if they were - there is no indication that this is secret. I can't think of any particular place - although I am sure you will remind me - that they are called disciples.   

I also think that their relationship with Jesus was known amongst the Sanhedrin.  this is one of the reason - I think that they were not invited to some of the more dubious meetings - and perhaps illegal meetings. 

I certainly maintain as before that I don't recall either of them being in these kangaroo courts.  

I don't recall saying that the kangaroo court was not dealing with a capital crime. I suggested only that there were reasons why a member of the Sanhedrin might be unavailable at any such meeting.  the kangaroo court had a purpose - to find a reason to put Jesus to death. 
Topic's author
#67
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret

Are you still maintaining that Nicodemus & Joseph of Arimathea were not secret disciples of Jesus? As you have stated here> #56

Nicodemus met with Jesus at night. this is not in dispute. He certainly was in the first place wary of meeting with Jesus. but the question is whether this was a once off and whether it continued into the future.  

Well apart from the fact that you have ignored the question entirely. We do know that Nicodemus spoke up for Jesus and had also helped Joseph of Arimathea place Jesus in the Tomb after the crucifixion indicating that Nicodemus' relationship with Jesus is more than the "one off " meeting that you suggest.
And as for the "future" , it seems to have slipped you memory that Jesus is said had died and gone to heaven according to the bible. So there wouldn't have been any "future" relationship between the two, would there?  
So would you like to have another go at my question on where you stand?



I do not think we can so sure that by the time of the trial of Jesus that either were disciples of Jesus.

I have shown you clearly why this could not have been the case.


And even if they were - there is no indication that this is secret. I can't think of any particular place - although I am sure you will remind me - that they are called disciples.   

So now are you outright denying that they were even disciples of Jesus?


I also think that their relationship with Jesus was known amongst the Sanhedrin.

Well unless secret doesn't mean secret then you are wrong.


I also think that their relationship with Jesus was known amongst the Sanhedrin.  this is one of the reason -

But it is not a reason, is it?  It is nothing more than a desperate speculation on your part and what you only "think" whereas everything else points to the contrary.


I think that they were not invited to some of the more dubious meetings - and perhaps illegal meetings. 


And you would have been wrong, because the bible says you are wrong. 


I certainly maintain as before that I don't recall either of them being in these kangaroo courts.  

And I can maintain with some confidence that they had to have been there.


I don't recall saying that the kangaroo court was not dealing with a capital crime.

So then the trial did concern a capital crime?


- to find a reason to put Jesus to death. 

I agree. I haven't disputed that. I explained the many differing reasons that the gospels put forward already, Here >


Stephen wrote: 
So we have accusations  ranging from lying, blasphemy, many things, sedition against Rome and just being a criminal. And also according to Mark 15:10 we can add pure envy if envy too was a crime, “For he knew that the chief priests had delivered him for envy”.#51

So then while you speculate and assume, for reasons known only to you, you haven't answered any one of my questions above and I shall assume that you totally overseen this one accidently, would you like to answer it now?>>
>>Are you suggesting that two disciples of Jesus were not in the court encloser where the "kangaroo court" was taking place where one is named and the other not named?


#68
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Are you still maintaining that Nicodemus & Joseph of Arimathea were not secret disciples of Jesus? As you have stated here> #56

Nicodemus met with Jesus at night. this is not in dispute. He certainly was in the first place wary of meeting with Jesus. but the question is whether this was a once off and whether it continued into the future.  

Well apart from the fact that you have ignored the question entirely.
If you think that is ignoring the question entirely, you have problems before you even begin.  

We do know that Nicodemus spoke up for Jesus and had also helped Joseph of Arimathea place Jesus in the Tomb after the crucifixion indicating that Nicodemus' relationship with Jesus is more than the "one off " meeting that you suggest.

I was not intending to convey the idea that there was only a once off meeting per se. But that there was only perchance - one secret meeting.  You were asking whether I thought Nicodemus was a secret disciple.  I admitted he had a meeting in private or secret - at least once. But we do not know whether there were further meetings in private like this one or whether Nicodemus was satisfied with Jesus' responses and was happy thereafter to meet with him publicly or by ordinary arrangement.  Remember it is you who is speculating that he was a secret disciple. That is your narrative. Not mine, nor necessarily the NT.  Nicodemus and Joseph of arimathea  were happy to be known to Pilate as associates of Jesus, so I think there is not enough data to state they were "secret disciples". 


And as for the "future" , it seems to have slipped you memory that Jesus is said had died and gone to heaven according to the bible. So there wouldn't have been any "future" relationship between the two, would there?  
Totally silly argument and irrelevent in any event. 

So would you like to have another go at my question on where you stand?
I don't see a need too based on what you have put forward. 


I do not think we can so sure that by the time of the trial of Jesus that either were disciples of Jesus.
I have shown you clearly why this could not have been the case.
There is always the question of apostle v disciples. In John for instance apostle is typically replaced with disciple. I have no doubt in my mind that they were associates of Jesus. That they met with him and even were instructed in various ways. This doesn't make them a disciple.  Disciples were people who left their lives behind and followed Jesus as he traveled about. I don't think that they were distancing themselves from him. Both were quite wealthy and important lives already. So unless you can find a place in the NT which specifically labels them disciples - I would not concede the point.  Being an associate of Jesus - even being instructed does not make one a disciple.  Being his friends and even a benefactor is not the same thing as being a disciple. In the NT, being a disciple had a very specific definition.  Surely you know that? 


And even if they were - there is no indication that this is secret. I can't think of any particular place - although I am sure you will remind me - that they are called disciples.   
So now are you outright denying that they were even disciples of Jesus?
Read above. 

I also think that their relationship with Jesus was known amongst the Sanhedrin.

Well unless secret doesn't mean secret then you are wrong.


I also think that their relationship with Jesus was known amongst the Sanhedrin.  this is one of the reason -

But it is not a reason, is it?  It is nothing more than a desperate speculation on your part and what you only "think" whereas everything else points to the contrary.
You are arguing the opposite case with no data - and you think I am desperate?  I disagree with you - that everything else points to the contrary.  There is no data calling them disciples. There is no data they followed Jesus around like disciples. There is no data that they were private or secret disciples. The one bit of data you have - and it is one piece only so far as I can see from your argument is that Jesus met with Nicodemus on one occasion in secret.  


I think that they were not invited to some of the more dubious meetings - and perhaps illegal meetings. 

And you would have been wrong, because the bible says you are wrong. 

On the contrary, I think it would have been in the interests of the writers of the gospels to know whether there were supporters at these meetings and who they might have been.  Nicodemus, it seems was well known to be an associate and friend of Jesus, hence why it would be good for an advocate to be there for them - but also a reason for the opposition to not want him to be there.  if a capital crime required a unanimous finding, it would not be in the interests of the Sanhedrin to have one or even two persons who supported Jesus there.  It would be in the interest of people wanting to get rid of Jesus to stack the deck - warm up the jury - make sure they had all the duck's lined up - rather than lose control of the situation. One would also think that if the Sanhedrin were concerned about secret disciples of Jesus infiltrating their ranks that they would set up a plan to catch them - not just go ahead and conduct an illegal trial. 

I certainly maintain as before that I don't recall either of them being in these kangaroo courts.  

And I can maintain with some confidence that they had to have been there.
Only if you take the view that your speculation is somehow worth more than data and evidence. You have no evidence that they were there. You have speculation. And really only stuff you have read in a little book somewhere. 


I don't recall saying that the kangaroo court was not dealing with a capital crime.

So then the trial did concern a capital crime?

the trial was about finding something to get Jesus before the Roman governor. 


So then while you speculate and assume, for reasons known only to you, you haven't answered any one of my questions above and I shall assume that you totally overseen this one accidently, would you like to answer it now?>>

I did answer - I can't help it if you want to read everything in as obtuse manner as you possible can.  I have answered again. 


>>Are you suggesting that two disciples of Jesus were not in the court encloser where the "kangaroo court" was taking place where one is named and the other not named?
I don't know who was in the trial with Jesus except those who are named either with names or as witnesses.  Someone wrote the gospel so it must be assumed someone was either close or hand - or Jesus related the story later after he rose from the dead.  Were there two? Would you like to show the references. I notice you have been a bit slack in doing so for the last several questions I asked of you.  But still waiting in delighted expectation. 
#69
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,623
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
I certainly hope God will not punish me for my thoughts, like when he punished Jesus with nailment.
Topic's author
#70
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
 

We do know that Nicodemus spoke up for Jesus and had also helped Joseph of Arimathea place Jesus in the Tomb after the crucifixion indicating that Nicodemus' relationship with Jesus is more than the "one off " meeting that you suggest.
I was not intending to convey the idea that there was only a once off meeting per se.

Of course you are. You are simply attempting to play down the close relationship Nicodemus had with Jesus as if it just a flash in the pan.. And still refusing to say if or not he was a disciple.

We know he met in secret with Jesus, we know he spoke up for Jesus and we know he afforded large and costly amounts of myrrh and aloes to anoint Jesus and we know he assisted Joseph of Arimathea with the entombment of Jesus.


 Remember it is you who is speculating that he was a secret disciple.

I agree to speculating as you have also done on this thread. But I can assure you that you will be extremely hard pressed to find a biblical scholar that would deny that Nicodemus was a secret disciple of Jesus. But have it you way.


I do not think we can so sure that by the time of the trial of Jesus that either were disciples of Jesus.

Ok. So if neither of these men were not disciples of Jesus why all the loving care of the funeral arrangements. Why did one ask for the body, and another bother spending a very large amount of money on someone that meant nothing to them?  And why did one allow his own private tomb to be used for the burial, if they were not  once disciples? Why did one even bother to speak up for a fair trial on Jesus' behalf ? In fact why even bother with this man Jesus at all, if they were not disciples of Jesus.  Your reasoning makes no sense at all if the bible is to be believed.


I do not think we can so sure that by the time of the trial of Jesus that either were disciples of Jesus.
I have shown you clearly why this could not have been the case.
There is always the question of apostle v disciples.

  Yes, I thought you would play semantics with this point.  So what is a disciple? It is a dedicated follower, <<<this is a fact. I agree the word  often in scripture does become interchangeable. There is no denying that 12 disciples were set apart from the many others and designated Apostles (to be sent). But is not an Apostle also a follower of Jesus? In fact, of all his disciples there are three in particular that followed almost everywhere, and Simon called Peter it seems hardly ever left his side.


In John for instance apostle is typically replaced with disciple. I have no doubt in my mind that they were associates of Jesus. That they met with him and even were instructed in various ways. This doesn't make them a disciple...............................So unless you can find a place in the NT which specifically labels them disciples - I would not concede the point
  "And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus but secretly for fear of the Jews", John 19:38KJV.
So once again, you have shown yourself to be lacking in bible scripture.


I also think that their relationship with Jesus was known amongst the Sanhedrin.
Well unless secret doesn't mean secret then you are wrong.


I also think that their relationship with Jesus was known amongst the Sanhedrin.  this is one of the reason -

But it is not a reason, is it?  It is nothing more than a desperate speculation on your part and what you only "think" whereas everything else points to the contrary.
You are arguing the opposite case with no data - and you think I am desperate?  I disagree with you - that everything else points to the contrary.
And you have not managed to debunk or dispute anything I have said so far. You have done nothing here but offer extremely lame reasons why I AM  wrong, here> because one was sick- the others wife was having baby, while they were both taking a holiday.  #58


 There is no data calling them disciples.  There is no data that they were private or secret disciples.

Then you must have missed this on purpose.

"And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus but secretly for fear of the Jews", John 19:38KJV.



I think that they were not invited to some of the more dubious meetings - and perhaps illegal meetings. 

And you would have been wrong, because the bible says you are wrong. 

On the contrary, I think it would have been in the interests of the writers of the gospels to know whether there were supporters at these meetings and who they might have been. 

 I never used  or mentioned any such word as "supporters" on this thread. I have said continually - disciples. 

And  you are really a glutton for punishment.

"And they led Jesus away to the high priest: and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes". Mark 14:53

I can only suspect that you are now going to deny that Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus were even  members of the Sanhedrin.




I certainly maintain as before that I don't recall either of them being in these kangaroo courts.  

And I can maintain with some confidence that they had to have been there.
Only if you take the view that your speculation is somehow worth more than data and evidence. You have no evidence that they were there. You have speculation. And really only stuff you have read in a little book somewhere. 


You must have missed this>>."And they led Jesus away to the high priest: and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes". Mark 14:53


I don't recall saying that the kangaroo court was not dealing with a capital crime.

So then the trial did concern a capital crime?

the trial was about finding something to get Jesus before the Roman governor. 
I agree. But that is irrelevant to this thread. So we don't  need to be visiting that point again.



>>Are you suggesting that two disciples of Jesus were not in the court encloser where the "kangaroo court" was taking place where one is named and the other not named?
I don't know who was in the trial with Jesus except those who are named either with names or as witnesses.
Ok. We can return to that point again later. Although I have shown you that at least two names had to have been there even if they did have "sick wives having babies while on holiday". #58


You mentioned Judas Iscariot earlier (he that Satan had entered,Luke 22:3 &John 13:27 )  and I mentioned Simon called Peter ( he that Jesus himself called "Satan" and his "stumbling block"Matthew 16:23). Do you agree with these biblical verses? Or are you going to flat out deny they are from the bible?


#71
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen

I was not intending to convey the idea that there was only a once off meeting per se. 

Of course you are. You are simply attempting to play down the close relationship Nicodemus had with Jesus as if it just a flash in the pan.. And still refusing to say if or not he was a disciple.
There is no reason to doubt me. I have no interest in playing down the relationship.  I agreed that he met with Jesus secretly. I just don't see evidence that this relationship remained secret after that first meeting.  I'm still not convinced he was a disciple. But for the record, so what? 


We know he met in secret with Jesus, we know he spoke up for Jesus and we know he afforded large and costly amounts of myrrh and aloes to anoint Jesus and we know he assisted Joseph of Arimathea with the entombment of Jesus.
Ok. If you say so.  I assume you will produce the data to prove each of these so called facts. 

I agree to speculating as you have also done on this thread. But I can assure you that you will be extremely hard pressed to find a biblical scholar that would deny that Nicodemus was a secret disciple of Jesus. But have it you way.
Fine. But does any scholar actually produce a verse that says he was a disciple or is it based on assumptions that since he was an associate of Jesus that he must have been a disciple as well? 

I do not think we can so sure that by the time of the trial of Jesus that either were disciples of Jesus.
Ok. So if neither of these men were not disciples of Jesus why all the loving care of the funeral arrangements. Why did one ask for the body, and another bother spending a very large amount of money on someone that meant nothing to them?  And why did one allow his own private tomb to be used for the burial, if they were not  once disciples? In fact why even bother with this man Jesus at all, if they were not disciples of Jesus.  Your reasoning makes no sense at all if the bible is to be believed.
For the record, I have read the John passage you provided - thanks for that. And that clearly puts Joseph as a secret disciple. And let's be clear for a moment. Secret is not talking about secret rituals and all sorts of nonsense you like to talk about. It is saying Joseph was keeping his relationship hidden from the Sanhedrin.  But your paragraph above is not a carte blanche for you. Joseph and Nicodemus didn't not have to be a disciple to provide any of the matters above. You obviously don't get out very much to see that wealthy benefactors often do this type of thing for people they admire.  They don't have to be disciples to do so. Yet I don't see this as a hill to die on in this discussion. I am happy to concede that they both might be secret disciples. 

There is always the question of apostle v disciples.

  Yes, I thought you would play semantics with this point.  So what is a disciple? It is a dedicated follower, <<<this is a fact. I agree the word  often in scripture does becomes interchangeable. There is no denying that 12 disciples were set apart from the many others and designated Apostles (to be sent). But is not an Apostle also a follower of Jesus? In fact, of all his disciples there are three in particular that followed almost everywhere, and Simon called Peter it seems hardly ever left his side.
I wasn't playing semantics. I was having a similar discussion with other people about another point in John 10 and used the same argument.  My point though was not focused primarily on the apostles being disciples. It was about the fact that disciples in that time had specific definitions. And it seems that Joseph of Arimathea falls outside that specific definition. As I said above - happy to admit you were right about that point. 

In John for instance apostle is typically replaced with disciple. I have no doubt in my mind that they were associates of Jesus. That they met with him and even were instructed in various ways. This doesn't make them a disciple...............................So unless you can find a place in the NT which specifically labels them disciples - I would not concede the point
  "And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus but secretly for fear of the Jews", John 19:38KJV.
So once again, you have shown yourself to be lacking in bible scripture.
I asked for the reference from you - since you are the one making the point.  I am pleased that finally you produced a verse.  

I also think that their relationship with Jesus was known amongst the Sanhedrin.
Well unless secret doesn't mean secret then you are wrong.
Well nothing you have said so far has supported whether the Sanhedrin knew or not.  John 19 reveals to the reader he was a secret disciple for fear of the Jews. Why do you think he would be fearful of the Jews?  The fact that neither Joseph nor Nicodemus were named at the trial - despite the fact that both were known to the gospel writers - is telling. The immediate thought is because they were not there. And the most likely reason they were not there is because they were not invited to the trial - since the Sanhedrin knew they were Jesus' disciples.  I think the notion that they were not named because they were the two witnesses is simply too unbelievable to give any credit to. There is absolutely no data to support such an absurdity. 

I also think that their relationship with Jesus was known amongst the Sanhedrin.  this is one of the reason -
But it is not a reason, is it?  It is nothing more than a desperate speculation on your part and what you only "think" whereas everything else points to the contrary.
You are arguing the opposite case with no data - and you think I am desperate?  I disagree with you - that everything else points to the contrary. 
And you have not managed to debunk or dispute anything I have said so far. You have done nothing here but offer extremely lame reasons why I AM  wrong, here> because one was sick- the others wife was having baby, while they were both taking a holiday.  #58
I don't have to debunk what you are saying. you have not yet offered anything but pure speculation. I never said these were reasons that they gave. I said - in response to your argument that they had to be there was absolute - that I am sure that reasons existed which would provide them an excuse not to be there. One reason which you have not debunked yourself is that they were not invited because the Sanhedrin were suspicious of them.  the fact that Joseph was fearful of the Jews certainly provides a basis for that idea. 




I think that they were not invited to some of the more dubious meetings - and perhaps illegal meetings. 

And you would have been wrong, because the bible says you are wrong. 

On the contrary, I think it would have been in the interests of the writers of the gospels to know whether there were supporters at these meetings and who they might have been. 

 I never used  or mentioned any such word as "supporters" on this thread. I have said continually - disciples. 

And  you are really a glutton for punishment.

"And they led Jesus away to the high priest: and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes". Mark 14:53

I can only suspect that you are now going to deny that Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus were even  members of the Sanhedrin.
It doesn't say that all the elders  and all the scribes were there. Just all the chief priests.  I already agreed that they were members of the Sanhedrin. But let's say that all was mentioned for both elders and the scribes.  Does that mean all that were present - or does that mean all that lived in Jerusalem? Or does it mean all that were in Judea? Or does it all that were in Israel? We don't know why the two were not present - I don't think they were. but let's say they were present - that still doesn't mean that they were the two witnesses. does it? I would like to know how you are going to make such a link. 

So let's be clear. I don't think they were there. But if they were - it's likely they were acting on the side of the defence. that's how courts work - even back then - prosecutors and defence. someone had to be testing the evidence of the witnesses. Someone who cared for the truth and a fair trial. Of course it might have worked more like an inquisitorial system - but still a defence and a prosecutor would have been involved. 



I certainly maintain as before that I don't recall either of them being in these kangaroo courts.  
And I can maintain with some confidence that they had to have been there.
Only if you take the view that your speculation is somehow worth more than data and evidence. You have no evidence that they were there. You have speculation. And really only stuff you have read in a little book somewhere. 


You must have missed this>>."And they led Jesus away to the high priest: and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes". Mark 14:53


I have already addressed that. 





>>Are you suggesting that two disciples of Jesus were not in the court encloser where the "kangaroo court" was taking place where one is named and the other not named?
I don't know who was in the trial with Jesus except those who are named either with names or as witnesses. 
Ok. We can return to that point again later. Although I have shown you that at least two names had to have been there even if they did have "sick wives having babies while on holiday". #58
Actually you haven't shown that.  You have produced a verse which says "all the chief priests attended", And you have not even produced any data to say which "all " that they were talking about? 

You mentioned Judas Iscariot earlier (he that Satan had entered,Luke 22:3 &John 13:27 )  and I mentioned Simon called Peter ( he that Jesus himself called "Satan" and his "stumbling block"Matthew 16:23). Do you agree with these biblical verses? Or are you going to flat out deny they are from the bible?
I don't know what your point is.  But are you going to suggest that Judas is one of the witnesses? And Peter was the other one? 

I will deny both those points. 
Topic's author
#72
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
You mentioned Judas Iscariot earlier (he that Satan had entered,Luke 22:3 &John 13:27 )  and I mentioned Simon called Peter ( he that Jesus himself called "Satan" and his "stumbling block"Matthew 16:23). Do you agree with these biblical verses? Or are you going to flat out deny they are from the bible?
I don't know what your point is.

I have simply asked you a question _Do you agree with these biblical verses? Or are you going to flat out deny they are from the bible?

#73
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Tradesecret

Of course you are. You are simply attempting to play down the close relationship Nicodemus had with Jesus as if it just a flash in the pan.. And still refusing to say if or not he was a disciple.
There is no reason to doubt me. I have no interest in playing down the relationship.  I agreed that he met with Jesus secretly. I just don't see evidence that this relationship remained secret after that first meeting.  I'm still not convinced he was a disciple. But for the record, so what? 


We know he met in secret with Jesus, we know he spoke up for Jesus and we know he afforded large and costly amounts of myrrh and aloes to anoint Jesus and we know he assisted Joseph of Arimathea with the entombment of Jesus.
Ok. If you say so.  I assume you will produce the data to prove each of these so called facts. 

I agree to speculating as you have also done on this thread. But I can assure you that you will be extremely hard pressed to find a biblical scholar that would deny that Nicodemus was a secret disciple of Jesus. But have it you way.
Fine. But does any scholar actually produce a verse that says he was a disciple or is it based on assumptions that since he was an associate of Jesus that he must have been a disciple as well? 
The final mention of Nicodemus in the Bible is in John 19 after Jesus’ crucifixion. We find Nicodemus assisting Joseph of Arimathea in Jesus’ burial. Joseph is described in John as a rich man and in Mark 15:43 as a member of the Council. He is also described in John 19:38 as a disciple of Jesus, albeit a secret one because he was afraid of the Jews. Joseph asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Nicodemus brought 75 pounds of spices for use in preparing the body for burial and then assisted Joseph in wrapping the body and placing it in the tomb. The sheer amount of burial spices would seem to indicate that Nicodemus was a rich man and that he had great respect for Jesus.

It is impossible that the two betrayed Jesus.
Joseph of Arimathea is venerated as a saint by the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and some Protestant churches. The traditional Roman calendar marked his feast day on 17 March, but he is now listed, along with Saint Nicodemus, on 31 August in the Martyrologium Romanum. Eastern Orthodox churches commemorate him on the Third Sunday of Pascha (i.e., the second Sunday after Easter) and on 31 July, the date shared by Lutheran churches.
#74
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
I see that these are parts of verses within the bible. I am not sure whether I agree with them or not is relevant.   Yet, you are predictably wanting to use these verses to your own end. 

So just saying I agree with them is not the same as saying I agree or will agree with your interpretation of them.  I don't for a moment think that Jesus was literally calling Peter, Satan. It was to suggest that his character at the time he made his comments  was in line with the same motives as Satan had. Which was to prevent Jesus from doing what God has asked him to do. Peter and Satan - both were still oblivious to the fact that Jesus' death was actually his victory, not a defeat. 

Did Satan literally entered Judas? That's a good question. Certainly for a while Judas went about fulfilling scripture in according to his role to betray Jesus. And we know from the gospels and Acts that eventually he was so guilty about his role that he killed himself. He never repented or else he would never have killed himself. 

But there is no evidence - no data - that he appeared at this kangaroo court.  Given his role as the betrayer of Jesus - it would seem pretty basic that if he was one of these two unknown witnesses - that his name would have been printed.  It would have added to his betrayal. Yet his name is not mentioned. My view is that once he got his money that he had a change of heart - feeling guilty - and then went out and probably got drunk - or tried to and then went out to kill himself, once he tried to give the money back.  

But his betrayal was complete once he led the Jews to the garden and kissed Jesus and received his payment.  There was no need for him to be a witness. 

My personal view- and it is only since we have been chatting about it - and I have not researched - so all speculation - is that they were simply two people that were loyal to either the Jews or to themselves. They were known as false witnesses - so - they were not real witnesses - which in my view ACTUALLY rules them out as disciples.   If they were not witnesses - not true ones - no matter what they said  - they were not disciples.   Interestingly enough, I don't think there is any evidence to suggest that either Nicodemus or Joseph were at the temple when Jesus made his comments.  The apostles were there. but not the others. 

In any event - I think the best you can do is - speculate further. Perhaps get your secret book of Mark out. It might give you a few more ideas. 

Topic's author
#75
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
You mentioned Judas Iscariot earlier (he that Satan had entered,Luke 22:3 &John 13:27 )  and I mentioned Simon called Peter ( he that Jesus himself called "Satan" and his "stumbling block"Matthew 16:23). Do you agree with these biblical verses? Or are you going to flat out deny they are from the bible?
I don't know what your point is.

I have simply asked you a question _Do you agree with these biblical verses? Or are you going to flat out deny they are from the bible?


I see that these are parts of verses within the bible. I am not sure whether I agree with them or not....
Yes indeed they are in the bible, aren't they.  In fact, they are in every bible that we know of written in English, aren't they?


I am not sure whether I agree with them or not....

 So are you suggesting that the gospel writers are being disingenuous and/or ambiguous?



#76
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Gee let me quote what I said exactly.  


"I see that these are parts of verses within the bible. I am not sure whether I agree with them or not is relevant.   Yet, you are predictably wanting to use these verses to your own end. 

So just saying I agree with them is not the same as saying I agree or will agree with your interpretation of them. "

it's amazing how when you actually see what I wrote - that we can see how deceptive you are? 



Topic's author
#77
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret

I am not sure whether I agree with them or not....is relevant.

Ok you are not sure if or not you agree with what is actually written in scripture, I can understand that. Relevance is in in the eye of the beholder.

 So are you suggesting that the gospel writers are being disingenuous and/or ambiguous?


#78
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
I am not saying I am unsure of whether I agree with the passages in the scripture. I am saying - I don't see how what I think about them is relevant. 

I am not worried about the gospel writers - they are honest and human. It is you on the other hand I find disingenuous and intentionally ambiguous. 


I am just waiting to see how you are going to spin whatever it is you are going to spin. 

This is your story Stephen.  It is not mine. I doubt it is the gospel writers either. 

But let's see - I am a patient man. Especially given the distractions you like to throw in. 
Topic's author
#79
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret

You mentioned Judas Iscariot earlier (he that Satan had entered,Luke 22:3 &John 13:27 )  and I mentioned Simon called Peter ( he that Jesus himself called "Satan" and his "stumbling block"Matthew 16:23). Do you agree with these biblical verses? Or are you going to flat out deny they are from the bible?
I don't know what your point is.

I have simply asked you a question _Do you agree with these biblical verses? Or are you going to flat out deny they are from the bible?

I am not sure whether I agree with them or not....is relevant#75

So are you suggesting that the gospel writers are being disingenuous and/or ambiguous?

I am not saying I am unsure of whether I agree with the passages in the scripture. I am saying - I don't see how what I think about them is relevant. 
So although you agree that the bible verses are actually bible verses, you refuse to  commit yourself and say weather or not you believe them or if you recognise their import. Ok. 


Ok. So will show why I believe them to be relevant to me and this thread. Let's look at them one by one dealing with Judas first..

Luke22 1:6 JKV 
1Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.
2 And the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill him; for they feared the people.
3 Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.
4 And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray him unto them.
5 And they were glad, and covenanted to give him money.
6 And he promised, and sought opportunity to betray him unto them in the absence of the multitude.

 So there is no misunderstand here that Judas had planned and finally did betray Jesus, is there? The gospel writers describe the cause this as betrayal  as "Satan entering Judas" don't they?   And I am sure the gospel writers of the day had their reasons for describing the actions of Judas in this fashion, maybe it was simply a metaphor of the day for anyone that did wrong or sinful. Indeed, you ask yourself :Did Satan literally entered Judas?#74  But there is no getting away from the biblical  fact that Judas had committed an act of Satan.  And not the first time was it? He used to steal money from the funds didn't he?John 12:6.  One could go as far as to call him a right little money grabbing Devil.

And John tells a similar story adding:

John 13:20-27,  And after the sop Satan entered into him [Judas]. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.

 So both these gospel writers are clearly laying the blame for the actions of Judas at Satan's door  either using metaphor or the verses are to be taken literally? So again there is no getting away from the biblical fact that Judas had committed an act of Satan.

Now let's look at Simon called Peter.

This is astonishing by the fact that there is no misunderstanding about who is being called what directly by who, is there.


20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art a stumbling block
24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
 to me: for thou savours not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Are the gospel writers again using metaphor or are we to take it that Simon called Peter is literally being called "Satan" by the lord himself and had actually believed him to be Satan?

 This is an interesting verse because in many of the bibles written in English the words- stumbling block  change considerably:
Example;

You are
a dangerous trap to me.
 a hindrance  to me.
 an offence unto me.
 a scandal unto me.
 an obstacle in my way.

So the title Satan is being directly linked to both of these disciples also known by Jesus as his chosen  "Apostles" and none of the other there disciples are.


This is your story. It is not mine. I doubt it is the gospel writers either. 
They are all verses in context from Scripture, tradesecret. Unless you are denying they are?


#80
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
I am still waiting for you to add something new. 

I think that the question of Judas is that Satan did cause him to betray Jesus.  Probably, more literal than metaphorical.

and in relation to Peter,  Jesus' words are more metaphorical than literal. 

It is correct that Satan is linked with both of them.  

And the fact is both in their own way betrayed Jesus. Judas with a kiss in the Garden for money. And Peter by denying Jesus because he was afraid. 

Judas was sorry but did not repent. And killed himself.  Peter too was sorry, repented and the Lord restored him after the resurrection.

Judas threw his money back to the Jewish leaders -  and Peter interestingly enough because he saw Jesus alive and resurrected and was filled with the Holy Spirit lost his fear and boldly spoke the word of God about Jesus - to the point that he was arrested, beaten up, and then went out again and preached. Right up until the day he too was crucified.  As some have said - it is one thing to die for a cause you believe in - but why would you die for a cause you know is a lie.  And the very fact of his character changed from coward to bold - from a fisherman to one who stood and taught and eventually wrote books.  Incredible stuff. 

but were either Judas or Peter the false witnesses? nary a scrap of evidence. But still we will wait for Stephen to produce his evidence. 


Topic's author
#81
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
So just saying I agree with them is not the same as saying I agree or will agree with your interpretation of them.

But haven't interpreted them at all, have I?   I have simply quoted the verses exactly as they are written in the gospels and as usual, you haven't come off the fence on whether you actually believe them at all, literally or morally. You had even persistently denied that Joseph of Arimathea was even a secret disciple of Jesus until I had to point it out to you that it was indeed fact!  There by showing that your own bible education for what it's worth, came to zero.


I think that the question of Judas is that Satan did cause him to betray Jesus.  Probably, more literal than metaphorical.

Then that is your own question asked and answered.>> Tradesecret wrote: Did Satan literally entered Judas?>> #74
 So in Judas then we have an apostle that had betrayed Jesus, stole money from the funds hence had committed an act of Satan. Or, as the bible puts it; "Satan entered Judas"  and      " literally" according to you.
We know from the gospels that one of the two disciples that are said to have followed Jesus after his arrest "was known to the high priest".

John 18:15 Simon Peter and another disciple were following Jesus, "because this disciple was known to the high priest," 
And we know for certain that Judas knew the chief Priests. Is this a coincidence?  And further it is said that this "other disciple " went with Jesus into the high priest’s courtyard".   So there he is standing in front of the high priests and with Jesus standing right next to him, with Peter waiting to be let in. And he is let in, isn't he?
The other interesting thing here shows a perfect example of an "Apostle" - Peter- also being referred to as a disciple and all in the same breath. So, what was  Peter also called "Satan". in this instance? 






#82
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
So just saying I agree with them is not the same as saying I agree or will agree with your interpretation of them.

But haven't interpreted them at all, have I?   I have simply quoted the verses exactly as they are written in the gospels and as usual, you haven't come off the fence on whether you actually believe them at all, literally or morally. 

You are making lots of insinuations. Again I never denied them, just not going to concede to your interpretation before you put it up.  You are doing a similar thing to Brother - when he quotes a verse out of context and says "do you believe it"? Not everyone just thinks we have to believe every verse in the bible - when it is ripped out of context.  And context, whether you think it is a hairy chestnut or not, is a valid means to interpreting a verse.   


I think that the question of Judas is that Satan did cause him to betray Jesus.  Probably, more literal than metaphorical.

Then that is your own question asked and answered.>> Tradesecret wrote: Did Satan literally entered Judas?>> #74
 So in Judas then we have an apostle that had betrayed Jesus, stole money from the funds hence had committed an act of Satan. Or, as the bible puts it; "Satan entered Judas"  and      " literally" according to you.
We know from the gospels that one of the two disciples that are said to have followed Jesus after his arrest "was known to the high priest".

I use the word probably - not absolutely.  But do we know which disciple was known to the high priest? And was there only one or two or perhaps even 11 or 12? 

High Priests are generally known to most people.  

John 18:15 Simon Peter and another disciple were following Jesus, "because this disciple was known to the high priest," 
It seems doubtful that Peter and Judas were hanging around each other. 


And we know for certain that Judas knew the chief Priests. Is this a coincidence? 
Do we know for certain that he knew the high priest?  Had he met the high priest? Possibly. Number one dogs don't normally do their own dirty work when meeting with the outsourced hired hands.  They like to keep a bit of distance.  But let's say for the same of "your" argument that they did meet, does this mean that they know each other - in the sense of "was known to the high priest"?  I meet people quite a lot. But meeting someone in a meeting for work or business or even at church, doesn't necessarily mean I know them - to say I know them. People who want to namedrop might say - yes, I know him, I met him at a party. But meeting someone does not necessarily mean knowing him.  Do you think that this verse was suggesting that the high priest let would let this disciple in because he had met him to conduct some kind of backhanded secret meeting to betray someone or because there was more likely a long and familiar relationship. I would suggest the latter makes more sense. Still, this is your narrative. 


And further it is said that this "other disciple " went with Jesus into the high priest’s courtyard".   So there he is standing in front of the high priests and with Jesus standing right next to him, with Peter waiting to be let in. And he is let in, isn't he?
Was Peter let in? I will wait for the verse which says Peter was let in. Yes, I could read the bible to find it - or better still use my computer program but I have other things I need to do - and besides this is your narrative.   

The other interesting thing here shows a perfect example of an "Apostle" - Peter- also being referred to as a disciple and all in the same breath. So, what was  Peter also called "Satan". in this instance? 
I honestly have no idea what you are asking here.   Peter was an apostle. he was a disciple. And Jesus had referred to him as "satan.  So what? 

This is your story - and so far you have added nothing that is not known to most people. You have suggested things - but not actually said what it is that you want to say.   



Topic's author
#83
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
So just saying I agree with them is not the same as saying I agree or will agree with your interpretation of them.

But haven't interpreted them at all, have I?   I have simply quoted the verses exactly as they are written in the gospels and as usual, you haven't come off the fence on whether you actually believe them at all, literally or morally or metaphorically.

   You had even persistently denied that Joseph of Arimathea was even a secret disciple of Jesus until I had to point it out to you that it was indeed fact!  There by showing that your own bible education for what it's worth, came to zero.

You are making lots of insinuations. Again I never denied them, just not going to concede to your interpretation before you put it up.

 Well you are on this thread showing on more that one occasion denying among a few other things, that Joseph of Arimathea was even a disciple of Jesus never mind a secret one.  And I am not expecting you to concede a single thing.  But you problem is that you simply do not now your scriptures enough no matter from which early age you claim to have memorised them from.


" asking do you believe it"?

Asking you if you agree or believe anything is a genuine question. You should know that. Besides I already know that you are a believer, so I wouldn't even go there unless it was imperative to this thread. I have only ask you if or not you agree with something from which you always shy away. But as you may well also know,  a no answer can speak volumes.

I think that the question of Judas is that Satan did cause him to betray Jesus.  Probably, more literal than metaphorical.

Then that is your own question asked and answered.>> Tradesecret wrote: Did Satan literally entered Judas?>> #74
 So in Judas then we have an apostle that had betrayed Jesus, stole money from the funds hence had committed an act of Satan. Or, as the bible puts it; "Satan entered Judas"  and      " literally" according to you.
We know from the gospels that one of the two disciples that are said to have followed Jesus after his arrest "was known to the high priest".

I use the word probably - not absolutely.  But do we know which disciple was known to the high priest? And was there only one or two or perhaps even 11 or 12? 

No we don't do we. But what we do know as fact is that of all of the twelve Judas -he that Satan entered- was known to the priesthood. 




John 18:15 Simon Peter and another disciple were following Jesus, "because this disciple was known to the high priest," 
It seems doubtful that Peter and Judas were hanging around each other. 
Again, this is where your bible education shows a terrible lacking. Are you now honestly saying that Judas - one of Jesus ' hand picked twelve and Peter also one of Jesus' hand picked SAME twelve didn't hang around together when just a few post back you told us that " the disciples went everywhere with Jesus", when trying to force us to believe that there was a difference between the words apostle and a disciple? #68 Which incidentally was also debunked by the bible itself. Here>
>>>>.John 18:15 Simon Peter and another disciple were following Jesus.<<, Do you see that, or are you again ignoring this stone cold fact where the BIBLE verse categorically states that these two " disciples" followed Jesus to the High Priests compound?
Are you now going to deny that Simon Peter also called "Satan"  didn't " hang around "with Judas the other disciple that the BIBLE also says "Satan had entered".  You are scraping the barrel and doing some serious claw clutching, Tradesecret.



And we know for certain that Judas knew the chief Priests. Is this a coincidence? 
Do we know for certain that he knew the high priest?
Yes because the BIBLE says so. And if you had read what I wrote above you will notice that is something else from the BIBLE I had to point out to you. But do you see what you have done there with that question?  Well of course you don't because it is an impossibility of yours to look at the bible in slightest critical way.
But you can put the keys to that farm you say that you own on the fact that I will  be coming come back to that particular question that I am glad  you asked.



And further it is said that this "other disciple " went with Jesus into the high priest’s courtyard".   So there he is standing in front of the high priests and with Jesus standing right next to him, with Peter waiting to be let in. And he is let in, isn't he?
Was Peter let in?

 Well don't you know? #52



 I could read the bible to find it -

But you do read the bible don't you. You often tell us that you read the bible in its entirety " OT once every year and the NT twice a year.  I know it reasonable well and can even read Hebrew and Greek."  #52   
Odd then isn't it, that you know or even understand very little about these scriptures.

 

The other interesting thing here shows a perfect example of an "Apostle" - Peter- also being referred to as a disciple and all in the same breath. So, what was  Peter also called "Satan". in this instance? 
I honestly have no idea what you are asking here.   Peter was an apostle. he was a disciple. And Jesus had referred to him as "satan".  So what? 

That is because you have gone into full ignorance mode, Tradesecret. Yes Jesus called Simon Peter "SATAN" and you have attempted on more than one occasion on this thread to convince us that there is a difference  between disciple and an apostle. You only now agree that they are one and the same thing but only after I again showed you that the BIBLE  shows  that there is no other difference at all accept for status of rank. They are still ALL disciples.


This is your story - and so far you have added nothing that is not known to most people. You have suggested things - but not actually said what it is that you want to say.   
I intend to.
But now and again I have to pause the narrative because you are causing me to respond to your own conjecture, assumptions and your reams of  you "speculating about", which is something you have outdone me by at least 10 to 1.

conspiracy theory

 Indeed, ironic isn't it?  An assumed (by you) conspiracy theorist questioning the biggest conspiracy theory in all of Christendom.



#84
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen
@Tradesecret
@Shila


.
Stephen,

Upon your well thought out treatise upon "The Story of the "certain" Witnesses," listen, we are both aware that Miss Tradesecret holds the title of being the most Bible stupid and ignorant pseudo-christian upon this Religion Forum, bar none!  Therefore, you might as well talk to a 5 year old child, or maybe even a baby, that has more Bible sense than Miss Tradesecret!  She knows that I have a file upon her that is a mile long in showing her total and complete Bible ineptness, and that I can bring forth at any given time to prove my point.

In trying to deal logically with Miss Tradesecret and Shila, who may be leaving in the short term because of her outright smutty sexual innuendos, that of a hell bound prostitute, is useless because of our superior knowledge of the JUDEO-Christian Bible over theirs, along with other members as well!

Besides, look at these two ungodly woman Bible fools that blatantly go against Jesus' teachings in the fact that they are NOT following this passage: "Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." (1 Timothy 2:11-12)

 “The woman Folly is loud; she is seductive and knows nothing.” (Proverbs 9:13)

.




#85
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Hello Stephen,
Well you are on this thread showing on more that one occasion denying among a few other things, that Joseph of Arimathea was even a disciple of Jesus never mind a secret one.  And I am not expecting you to concede a single thing.  But you problem is that you simply do not now your scriptures enough no matter from which early age you claim to have memorised them from.
It is true that I put to you that neither Nicodemus and Joseph were NOT disciples. I have never said I memorised all of the scriptures. I said that from a young age I began memorising scriptures. That part is true. I have never said I memorised the entire bible.  I have read the bible many times - still I don't remember every bit in it. Do  forget things or have others remind me of things? Yes.  

My point above, despite the fact that I have heard it said many times by different people, was not due to a lack of knowledge, but as I have put several times - because I don't trust you.  You are determined to put the historical narrative in your own manner and according to your agenda, despite what real scholars do. 

I don't have an issue believing the bible - that is a truism. Yet this doesn't mean I accept the manner by which you interpret it. Just as you don't accept the way I interpret it. 

I disagree with you in respect of Judas.  Was he well known? Well it depends on what the writer was trying to say? Did Peter go in? Again I said - this is your narrative - let's see what you want to say. did Peter and Judas know each other? Of course they did. But were they hanging around on this night like you suggest? There is no data to support that. Last time Peter saw Judas was at the garden - where he tried to strike of a man's ear due to Judas' betrayal. It is highly doubtful that Peter would have felt like hanging around Judas. 

I have maintained there is a difference between the apostles and the disciples. As I have maintained or at least attempted to demonstrate that there is a difference between disciples and perhaps secret disciples.  But you have another entire narrative about secrets and disciples which has no basis in the bible and whenever I read the word secret in your writings - it is clear you want to push people that way.  

You are always intending to do stuff. Just get on with it. You are not a teacher - you are just someone wanting to push a novel idea you read in someone's else book which has been discredited many times. 
Topic's author
#86
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
You see, you are doing it again. You are causing me to respond to your own conjecture, assumptions and your reams of  you "speculating about", not to mention your If's but's and maybe's. And your denials.

Well you are on this thread showing on more that one occasion denying among a few other things, that Joseph of Arimathea was even a disciple of Jesus never mind a secret one.  And I am not expecting you to concede a single thing.  But you problem is that you simply do not now your scriptures enough no matter from which early age you claim to have memorised them from.
It is true that I put to you that neither Nicodemus and Joseph were NOT disciples.
Well not quite, what you did was flat out deny that they were disciples saying that there was "no evidence or data to support it". And yet again, I had to show you; a biblical scholar and a man chosen by god, that you were wrong by having to show you the relevant BIBE verses, AGAIN!


I have never said I memorised all of the scriptures.
But you do. When you told us of your amazing ability, you didn't say I have been taught to memorise "just some of the bible but not all", did you?


Tradesecret wrote: I have been taught to memorise the bible from very young. I have read the bible numerous times. I try and read the OT once every year and the NT twice a year.  I know it reasonable well and can even read Hebrew and Greek.  #52
"Numerous times. and The NT twice a year"! yet didn't even know anything about these two KEY players in the life of Jesus.


 I have read the bible many times - still I don't remember every bit in it. Do  forget things or have others remind me of things? Yes.
You do , even when prompted in the right direction, you are still unable to recall anything . 


My point above, despite the fact that I have heard it said many times by different people, was not due to a lack of knowledge, but as I have put several times - because I don't trust you.
Well it certainly is "due to your lack of knowledge". You simply didn't and don't know anything about these scriptures. And it is irrelevant whether or not you trust me. That has absolutely nothing to do with your lack of bible study or this thread.


You are determined to put the historical narrative in your own manner and according to your agenda.
 I am determined to highlight all the possibilities as to the identity of the "certain" accusers. If that is what you mean by "my agenda", then you are correct.... for the first time on this whole thread.


I don't have an issue believing the bible - that is a truism. Yet this doesn't mean I accept the manner by which you interpret it.

 How many times? It is not me "interpreting"anything... at all. I am simply quoting exactly as the BIBLE puts it and in its chronological order as the BIBLE says these events played out. And you are more than welcome to correct me.


I disagree with you in respect of Judas.  Was he well known? Well it depends on what the writer was trying to say? Did Peter go in?

So again, you are entitled to disagree with me. I wouldn't expect anything different. And again, you are showing your blatant lack of biblical knowledge.


Well it depends on what the writer was trying to say

 Are you saying the bible isn't clear on any of the points I have raised?


did Peter and Judas know each other? Of course they did. But were they hanging around on this night like you suggest? There is no data to support that. Last time Peter saw Judas was at the garden [...........] It is highly doubtful that Peter would have felt like hanging around Judas
"Doubtful", there are many things about this particular event in Jesus' life that are doubtful, but here again, it is you that are speculating, again, and having a fit and become accusative when I even put my toes into the territory of speculation. 


I have maintained there is a difference between the apostles and the disciples.

Yes this will be your denials I mention. Even after I have shown you the BIBLICAL facts to the contrary. HERE>>John 18:15 Simon Peter and another disciple were following Jesus".   So you are clearly contradicting what the bible itself states.


As I have maintained or at least attempted to demonstrate that there is a difference between disciples and perhaps secret disciples.

You are trying to move the goal posts.
You have clearly said that there is question of  difference between disciples and apostles. HERE>> "Tradedsecret wrote: There is always the question of apostle v disciples.#68 and you go on to attempt to make your case for said difference. 
You have never spoken here  of there being a difference between "disciples and perhaps secret disciples." But if you had, the difference should have been obvious to you - Nicodemus and Joseph or Arimathea were secret!!!!!


 But you have another entire narrative about secrets and disciples which has no basis in the bible and whenever I read the word secret in your writings - it is clear you want to push people that way.  
 Well for someone that calls himself - TRADE-SECRET, that is a bit rich. And how can we forget the things said and done in secret by Jesus although he denies it at his trial? AND that Jesus had SECRET disciples<<< have you forgotten that already?


You are not a teacher - you are just someone wanting to push a novel idea you read in someone's else book which has been discredited many times. 

 You haven't a clue what I am or am not, trade-SECRET.



Again I said - this is your narrative - let's see what you want to say.

No. It is only the biblical narrative that I am highlighting and bringing into question. And you will see what I have to say once you stop causing me to spend hours responding to your own conjecture, assumptions and your reams of  you "speculating about", not to mention your if's but' and maybe's.... And your denials.

Tell me, Trade -SECRET. What do these Simons have in common, if anything?


Simon “called” Peter.
Simon Zealot.
Simon the Pharisee.
Simon the Leper.  






#87
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Yes I do know what you are and it is not a very pleasant thing. 

Everything you read - you read it intentionally wrong.  I explain my position and you just say that I am lying.  That to me indicates very clearly that you are not genuine.  It also tells me that you are "proud" in an arrogant way. It also tells me that you don't care about anything else - save and except your narrative. 

Once again you have not contributed a thing. Just once again revealed that your only way of discussing things is by "attempting" to attack others.  You can ridicule me or you like - but you haven't got a clue. And that is ok with me.  

What do they all have in common?  I suppose they all like ice cream.  You don't understand the biblical narrative. You understand only the secret book of Mark which has been discredited many times.  

And you are not even very good at ad hominem arguments. what you are good at is whining.  Yes, I will give you a plus 100 for whining.  
Topic's author
#88
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Tradseceret  wrote at> #87.....

Playing the man and not the ball doesn't and won't ever win you an argument.
And your non answer to my question  speaks volumes about you, here >>>

#86 
Stephen wrote: Tell me, Trade -SECRET. What do these Simons have in common, if anything?
Simon “called” Peter.
Simon Zealot.
Simon the Pharisee.
Simon the Leper.  


Tradsecret wrote:  .....ice cream. #87
So I think it best I continue in my endeavour to attempt to I dentify these two "certain" accusers. Unless of course your reply of "ice cream" can be verified BIBLICLY!?


 As explained above,#70 I have pointed out the BIBLICAL fact that both Simon called Peter and Judas Iscariot are both either, in metaphor or literally, are either  possessed by "SATAN" in the case of Judas and directly  called "SATAN" by the lord Jesus himself. As I have already shown with verses from the BIBLE>

Judas Iscariot earlier (he that Satan had entered,Luke 22:3 &John 13:27 ) Simon called Peter ( he that Jesus himself called "Satan" and his "stumbling block"Matthew 16:23#70

What is SATAN or A SATAN? Well one doesn't have to look much further than the BIBLE itself.  Here below are are two identical verses from two different BIBLES written in English;

Psalm 109:6
King James Version (KJV)
“Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand”.

Psalm 109:6
New International Version (NIV)
“Appoint someone evil to oppose my enemy;
    let an accuser stand at his right hand”.

So as can be clearly seen, the word SATAN means nothing more than accuser. In fact nearly all bible written in English use the word "Accuser" with only few others using the word "devil" OR "adversary".  

I had already pointed out above at #79 the verse where we have Jesus himself saying to Simon called Peter and SATAN:

Matthew 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art a stumbling block to me.":  and its variations including;

"thou art a dangerous trap to me".
"thou art a hindrance  to me".
"thou art an offence unto me".
"thou art a scandal unto me".
"thou art an obstacle in my way".






#89
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Playing the man and not the ball doesn't and won't ever win you an argument. 
Well that is how you play - I thought you just wanted me to join in.

Again, I think you are just cutting and pasting someone else's work. 

Try and to do something original. 


Topic's author
#90
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Interesting it is that although this thread has been relatively left alone by other members and seems to have boiled down to just you and me, rather than taking advantage of this perfect and rare opportunity to discuss and debate and seek to prove the rightness of your cause by the use of any effective argument or discussion you would rather me just shut up and go away. That won't be happening anytime soon, and your slights and veiled jibes are not working. 


 think you are just cutting and pasting someone else's work. Try and to do something original. 

Then if that is what you sincerely believe, I suggest you seek out this other work and search it for flaws and pit falls and good argument. Because to my knowledge no one has discussed or questioned or written about the identity of these two "certain " accuser and I would love to see this work for myself as I am sure others here would.

Meanwhile, if you genuinely want to discuss this topic give this rare opportunity, I suggest that you look into your boy Simon Peter who the lord called Satan or any of the other nine Simons, as I have done. For instance: 
when Jesus was invited to Simon the Leper's house, is Simon literally suffering from leprosy? Meanwhile, I shall endeavour persevere.