Opinionated2
Referring to John 3:16ers, i.e. those who believe that God gave his "only-begotten son", you imply that it must be a cruel god who would allow his son to die on the cross.

But of course Jesus did not die on the cross, the Bible says so. In John's gospel it is said that when he had had enough, Jesus said "I thirst" and someone held up a sponge soaked in 'vinegar', after which he seemed to be dead. So they took him down without breaking his legs and placed him in a tomb where Nicodemus brought him aloes (a purgative). Next we hear he is up and walking around, talking to his disciples and showing Thomas that he has survived despite his wounded hands and side. Incidentally, the fact that he bled when the soldier jabbed him with a spear shows that he was not dead, the dead don't bleed. So, if the Bible clearly says that Jesus did not die on the cross, why are all these church people going around lying that he did? And if they are lying about that, what other lies have they been telling us?

It seems as soon as religion and Christianity come up for discussion, computers everywhere light up. Christianity is a guiding philosophy, that is poorly taught by some, and brilliantly taught by others. Brilliant scholars in an independent Catholic Church in England in 1215 proposed that the New Testament be the English Constitution, and were immediately overruled by the Pope. In 1297 the Magna Carta was enacted by Parliament and remains in force but ignored by the poorly educated self serving Chairmen, of what should be Christian committees called together to determine if laws made by a Parliament are good or bad.

The Four Gospels of the Holy Bible were confirmed as Statute Law by the Coronation Oath 1688 ( Imp) and the Cambridge Bible still carries the Official Seal, of the Queen. Every Parliamentarian in the Parliament of the Commonwealth swears allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second and to the principles set out in those four Gospels.

The best Bible Stories I have ever heard and the best Bible education I have ever seen is from Brian Houston and his team at Hillsong. He teaches the Bible on Television on a Sunday morning, and his team of gifted and dedicated pastors, teach it every weekend in Sydney. Hillsong is not successful because it wants money, it is successful because it teaches the lessons from the Bible with flair and honesty. The Bible makes judging the one unforgiveable sin. It teaches that there is a living God, that the power and glory of Almighty God are real, and that the lessons of the New Testament are relevant wherever you live and whatever you do.

And they believe in miracles. Kevin Rudd believed in miracles, when he won the leadership of the ALP by three votes. He then delivered a miracle and Howard has gone. This was a miracle Latham could not deliver in 2004. Latham lost 2% a week for seven weeks and lost an un-losable election. He was goaded into admitting he was an atheist.

As a collective the Body of Christ rarely gets it wrong

Since it seems to be a consistent theme in your posts, PtB, I'd like to ask you to expand a little on some of your more cryptic references to Magna Carta.

>>Brilliant scholars in an independent Catholic Church in England in 1215 proposed that the New Testament be the English Constitution<<

Of course, it might be sheer coincidence that this is the date of King John agreeing to the demands of his barons. In which case, who were these scholars, and in what form did they put forward such a proposal?

If not, where in Magna Carta do we find reference to it?

>>In 1297 the Magna Carta was enacted by Parliament and remains in force but ignored by the poorly educated self serving Chairmen,..<<

A far as I am aware, only three of the clauses "remain in force" from the 1297 version - freedom for the church, "ancient liberties" for London, and habeas corpus.

I presume it is the first of these that you perceive as being ignored - can you perhaps explain how you arrive at this conclusion? It isn't entirely clear from your (many) posts on the topic.

Sympneology,

TY for bringing up John 3:16ers again I was going to get back to that.

I was also going to bring up the points you raise they are most important.

John 19:30, Matthew 27:50, Mark 15:37, Luke 23:46 all state Jesus died. (I haven't checked every version)

What was in the wine (vinegar)?

Mark 15:23 mentions the oil Myrrh - http://www.3dchem.com/moremolecules.asp?ID=167&othername=Myrrh%20(Botanical:%20Commiphora%20Molmol).

Matthew 27:34 mentions gall (hemlock)http://strongsnumbers.com/hebrew/7219.htm Gall means bitter but hemlock (a poison) can cause unconsciousness and death. http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/821362-overview

John 19:39 "...Nicodemus took Myrrh and Aloes" Myrrh has antiseptic qualities and alloes have healing properties (not embalmers) http://www.peacehealth.org/KBASE/cam/hn-2036003.htm

Why did Jesus die so quickly compared to others who were crucified.

Do people really know John 3:16?

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him, shall not perish but have everlasting life"

Lets analyse it... God (an entity), gave Jesus (another entity), so that whosoever believeth (believers) in him (Who Jesus or God?) shall have eternal life.

So this one passage pours doubt on the trinity as does Jesus in John 14:28 "...because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I".

It states "whosever believeth" - so it includes, homosexuals, witches, etc. as long as they believe in God or Jesus or whoever "him" is.

Many Christians should be wondering how they missed all these contradictions and irregularities.

Should some hang their heads in shame for the way they have mistreated and maligned minorities in their misuse of God's word?

How can "because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I" be taught wrongly?

I am waiting to hear from all those preachers out there who allegedly believe this stuff!

The most often quoted passage from the Bible is a nest of worms for Christians!

I think I mentioned that John 3:16ers are in the Christianity pre-school.

Christians - please print and ask your preachers to join this discussion. They teach this stuff now please let them explain the problems.

The Bible is looking very dubious as a reference.

The books of the New Testament were selected from a vast range of early Christian material. What we are left with is an extremely limited and prejudiced view of the teachings of Jesus, and just how limited that view is can be seen from the composition of the New Testament.

There are twenty seven books in the New Testament. Of these, twenty-three are epistleistic and four are Gospels. Of the Gospels, one, John, is epistleistic and the other three are known as the synoptic Gospels. The synoptic Gospels are not essential to the Christian faith, and in some ways are embarrassments. Three of the four Gospels were originally written in Greek.

The exception is Matthew, which was originally written in Hebrew and translated into Greek at a later date. Even though the dating of the Greek version of Matthew suggests that it was the last of the Gospels to be written, it may be the first because of its Hebrew heritage. It may even be a first-hand account of the life of Jesus.

The Old Testament is far more important to Christian dogma than are the Gospels: it justifies the position taken in the New Testament.
That is the parts of the OT that can be used very selectively by Christians to justify Jesus as the Messiah. The rest of the OT can safely be ignored by Christians and regularly is.

The epistleistic writings in the New Testament largely follow the doctrine of one man, Paul. Three-quarters of the New Testament is in the form of letters written by Paul and his immediate circle of friends. The reasons for the letters, or the replies, are not given. The New Testament is a one-sided conversation and the result is that the New Testament represents the views of one man, and that man is not Jesus.

The position of the New Testament is not in doubt. It is not the work of God, nor is it infallible. That leaves the OT that is largely irrelevant to Christianity anyway.

Opinionated2,

You wrote: "What was in the wine (vinegar)?"
and quote Mark 27:34 concerning gall (hemlock), which is probably the right answer. Hemlock was a popular poison at the time for committing suicide a la Socrates. Jesus probably had an arrangement for someone to provide him with this way out of his agony, since death by crucifixion normally took days and sometimes weeks. Hemlock would cause him to quickly lose consciousness (give up the ghost) so that his disciples could say he was dead and there was no need to break his legs.

His life was saved, however, because the followers of Simon Magus, one of the two 'thieves' pursuaded Pilate that it would be offensive to the Jewish law to allow the men to remain on the crosses on the Sabbath, which began at sundown, so they were all taken down and imprisoned. The legs of Simon Magus and Judas Iscariot were broken and they were placed in a different cell from Jesus. Simon, like many of the Magians, was a therapeut. He got Nicodemus to bring myrrh and aloes to Jesus. The myrrh was used to treat his wounds to prevent infection and gangrene setting in. The aloe juice was administered as a purgative to get rid of the poison. Simon was able to big-note himself then as the one who magically "resurrected" Jesus.

"Why did Jesus die so quickly compared to others who were crucified?"
He appeared to die because he lost consciousness from the poison. The others were conscious when taken down, that is why their legs were broken, to prevent their escape.