Bible Questions?

This:

has also been suggested as the standard 1st century Roman crucifixion.

 

From Queer Theology:

Everyone knows that Jesus went to a wedding at Cana in Galilee ( John 2.1–11). But who
got married? Strangely, we are not told. The story is not about the happy couple, but about
some of their guests – Jesus and his mother and his disciples – and how one of them –
Jesus – turned water into wine, the best wine at the feast, and how this was the first of Jesus’
signs: a revelation of his glory. But who got married? Who was the bridegroom to whom
the steward spoke in his amazement that the best wine had been kept until last, when everyone
was drunk (2.10)?


The story of the wedding is not a simple tale, or not only a simple tale, but also a parable,
a story that reveals theological truths. It is not a parable that Jesus tells, but one in which he is
told, in which he is revealed. Everything in the story has a double meaning, at least a double
meaning. It is itself and more than itself. The wedding takes place on the third day (2.1); the
third day after Jesus has talked with Nathanael (1.43–51) and told him that he will see visions
of glory (1.51), which – in a liturgical setting – is also the third day after Jesus’ death, when he
rises in glory. The latter “third day” resonates in the former for all Christian readers who
encounter this story in the setting of the Eucharist, at the thanksgiving meal in which Jesus’
last three days are ritually recalled and inhabited. Moreover, the story itself recalls the
Eucharist in which it is told, for Christ turns water into wine just as now – in the liturgical
present – he turns wine into blood, when the cup of the new and everlasting covenant (his
death) is shared in the eucharistic meal. Thus in the wedding at Cana, Jesus gives a sign of what
will come to pass – is coming to pass – and has come to pass, in the church’s recollection of
the story, which thus turns out to be as much about its narrators as about Jesus: they are the
guests at the feast where now wine, not water, is turned into something much more potent
than the “best wine” that so amazed the steward. They are the guests at the wedding and the
bridegroom is Christ himself.

In the Scriptures, God is the husband of Israel, and, in the gospels, Christ is husband to his
church, he is the bridegroom of new Israel. The motif is common to all the gospels. Jesus
identifies himself as the bridegroom whose presence dispels mourning and invites feasting
rather than fasting (Matthew 9.15; Mark 2.18–20; Luke 5.33–5). And so similarly John the
Baptist, who declares that he “who has the bride is the bridegroom. The friend of the bridegroom,
who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom’s voice” ( John 3.29).
John is the friend who rejoices, whose “joy has been fulfilled” (3.29). John is bride to Jesus,
and the same is true of all who believe in Jesus. At the end of the story of the wedding at
Cana, after Jesus has worked the first of his signs, we are told that “his disciples believed in
him” (2.11). They became the brides of Christ, and this is why the story does not tell us who
was getting married at Cana, at whose wedding the wine was wondrously replenished. Orrather it does: Christ was marrying his disciples, and all who come to believe on the “third
day,” who come to share in the new wine of the resurrection. The entire story rests on the
ancient idea that God is to Israel as husband to wife, bridegroom to bride, and that now, in
Jesus, that relationship is perfected: the bridegroom arrives in person, and all are called to
become his bride. But it is, as we cannot help but notice, a queer kind of marriage: the
bonding of men in matrimony.

 

Honestly, Ukr, I don't mean any offense. I am just trying to figure this out.

Does that look glamourous? I dunno but it seems like more of a trouble to put him up in that way. They hated Jesus so it makes sense that his mockers would give him a mockers death... Those pictures does the same but the stake much more so... it also creates a symbol... I can't think of anything as pathetic as a stake for Jesus to die on.

I'm not sure what to think.

 

I do not think it intrinsically "makes" a symbol. It appears to have been standard practice.

1) The condemned are humiliated by being made to carry their own crossbeam, and then
2) The Romans were able to re-use the poles upon which they were put and keep them placed in areas that were bound to get lots of attention by onlookers.

I really have a problem with many of the Watchtower style beliefs (like that the Star in the East was sent by Satan).

 

I think it means it's impossible to enter heaven by our own effort, because there will always be something else to do to achieve perfection. It's the transition from religion to grace.

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of Pascals Wager.

 

No, but the question is what is the motivation to plant and water? It can't be to save ourselves, because Jesus said it's impossible for man to reach heaven by himself. So exertion doesn't determine if you go to heaven accepting grace does and then the planting and watering is a joyfull response to it.

 

These do not appear to be photographs, they appear to be paintings from the Renaissance, which would hardly make them proof of point.

As for "I still contend that the Watchtower Society rendering saturos and xylon as "stake" to be an overly simplistic translation"? Is that not the definition of the words?

And what about the prophecy that Galatians speaks of;
(Galatians 3:13) Christ by purchase released us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse instead of us, because it is written: “Accursed is every man hanged upon a stake.”

That is in; (Deuteronomy 21:22-23) “And in case there comes to be in a man a sin deserving the sentence of death, and he has been put to death, and you have hung him upon a stake, his dead body should not stay all night on the stake; but you should by all means bury him on that day, because something accursed of God is the one hung up; and you must not defile your soil, which Jehovah your God is giving you as an inheritance.

I suppose you're going to say that the Hebrew word used here also means "cross" even though it was written centuries before the roman empire even existed. Or perhaps you think that this Bible prophecy "got it wrong".

 

Appears to have been standard practice? Appears to who?

And carrying a simple stake would not have been humiliating? What's your point?

The Romans couldn't have reused a simple stake and a simple stake wouldn't have drawn attention? If the Romans were executing thousands at a time, why would they go to the trouble of making a "cross" when a simple stake would do?

A little off the subject don't you think? Not trying to divert attention are you? But anyway what is your problem with that?

 

So what do you think Jesus meant when he said exert yourselves vigorously to get through the narrow gate?

 

I won't go into this whole thing but I will say that not all of Jesus disciples were men so the conclusion is wrong.

 

What do you think he means when he says "for man this is impossible"?

Salvation doesn't depend on exertion, but the grace of God. Then exertion can be used for compassion's sake much like Jesus on the cross and not for trying to get into heaven.

 

True, but it as an interesting thought.

 

The Bible goes into how astrologers are just human 'wise men', but then God makes a fool of their predictions (such as the book of Daniel). So the use of astrology by the 'Wise Men' to get to Jesus which ended up putting Jesus at risk makes sense that Satan would tickle the fancy of human knowledge to try to get baby Jesus killed.

 

Makes sense to me but Ukr-Cdn seems to have a problem with that.

 

ROFL!!!

tell me about this! I never heard that the JW think the Eastern Star was Satanic?

is this the Star that led the three wise men?

 

I have a question: Doesn't this say that the "crucified" one is accursed by God and will defile the land of Israel?

About the Magi, isn't that interpretation reading things into the text. No where does it say that it was Satan. The Magi were the first Gentiles to worship the Christ presumably. this also points to the universality of Christ's gospel. He isn't just the Jewish Messiah, he is Lord of all Creation. Because they saw what Herod intended to do, they were able to save Christ by going another way. If they had gone through Jerusalem, Herod would have had an easier time. it was also done to fulfill what is written 'out of Egypt I call my Son". The star also didn't lead them to Bethlehem, Herod told them to go there, but the star lead them to the house.

Also, the tragic slaughter of the innocents mirrors the slaughter of the boys in Egypt from which Moses was freed. Jesus is the new Moses, the new Law Giver. Isn't it fitting that Jesus' life mirror Moses'?

Part of the problem I have is that they are doing what I say other do about the perpetual virginity. The place certain conditions on the actions in the Bible. Shouldn't the star have gone straight to Jesus?, they ask. Why didn't God stop the star?, it is certainly within his power. Why didn't God give them a vision of what Herod intended before they saw him. Maybe the only road to Bethlehem from their direction was through Jerusalem.

 

How could Jesus carry something this big?

 

Good question.

 

his the son of God....come on...

 

Well, he was in good shape and did turn over those tables