Are the saints in Paradise and Heaven glorified or waiting for us?

The Righterzpen said:

If you read the passages carefully, you will see that these incidence were actually two different sets of people.

Yes, there was a Roman military presence in Jerusalem. (What people today think is "the temple mount" was actually a Roman military base = the Antonia fortress. The temple was south of this in the City of David. Archeological digs have found evidence of "apparatus" that were used in animal sacrifices in their digs in the City of David.) So the Roman military was in the fort; but king Herod and the Sanhedrin had their own "security forces". Those "security force" / "temple guards" were the first people who came to arrest Jesus. They were not Roman soldiers.

Matter of fact, there were two groups of people from the "temple security forces" who came to arrest Jesus. The first group (which was just "a small band") came with Judas. This is the "Who are you looking for" / "Jesus" / "I am" incident where those who came to arrest Jesus fell over backwards. Jesus and the disciples left that area (walking past these people who'd fallen on the ground because they were under God's judgement) and went from "the winter garden" to (a) "gethsemane"

"Gethsemane" was not a "garden". Gethsemane(s) were caves in the mount of olives where olive presses were housed. These were also "camp grounds" that people sheltered in during feasts when the city would become full of people. So Jesus's encounter with "the angel of death" happened in one of these caves. (Thus we know this was midnight.) After this incident with the angel. A larger band of temple guards comes to get Jesus. They take him to the high priest's "house". This "trial" happens in the "court yard" / "basement" of this "group of living quarters". This was most likely in "the wealthy part of town" behind the temple.

Now God had set up a system where people were to be tried in the "hall of the Sanhedrin" which was next to the temple. (I believe it was on the left hand side of the temple.) And trials were suppose to take place during the day; in the sight of God and the people. They didn't do that though; they grabbed Jesus in the middle of the night and hauled him into some guy's basement.

Interestingly, the "hall of the Sanhedrin" had been damaged by an earthquake; that likely coincided with the appearance of John the Baptist in the wilderness some roughly 3.5 years earlier. Secular history records this earthquake as having originated up in Greece near Crete.) Interestingly too, this earthquake had affected the temple doors. They could not shut them. So from that point on, one could see into the temple from outside and the next "barrier" one would have seen, was the veil that covered the holy of holies. (Keep this thought in the back of your head; because events during the crucifixion that the Roman soldiers actually witnessed, tell us pretty much where Jesus was crucified.)

Jesus had not contended with Roman soldiers as part of the trial until the Jewish leaders brought him to Pilate. They did this because they knew they could not legally execute him. If they'd killed Jesus, the Romans would be coming after them.

So the next event that takes place is the "crowing of the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]". That was not a chicken in someone's court yard. "The [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]" was two blasts of a trumpet that took place about 5 to 10 minutes apart. Its purpose was to let Roman soldiers know that the commencement of the next watch was about to begin. Once they heard the first trumpet, they had until the next trumpet to get to their watch station.

Now somewhere in the vicinity of 6 to 10. thousand people lived in the Antonia fortress at any given time. There was one complete legion "assigned" (about 6000 soldiers) and than "civilian support staff". These would have been people who supplied the army. In the colonial era they were called "camp followers". The Romans called them this too. They were people (often times soldiers' family members) hired by the military to secure supplies and assist the army at taking care of some of the administrative / logistical stuff of feeding and housing 6000 soldiers.

Pilate was the military governor of that area, who would have functioned something like modern military unit command structure in the US, if martial law is declared. Pilate didn't always stay in Jerusalem. He was only there during feast days. Otherwise he "lived" in Caesurae. This was true of soldiers stationed in Antonia. They weren't all always in the city. They'd be deployed to the city from surrounding areas during feast days because of increasing crowds and multiple past experiences of civil unrest.

Now the "political backdrop" of Jesus's trail was rather interesting. Pilate was on "probation" because of a riot that had occurred (likely) sometime the previous one to two years, where he had severely put it down. People had complained to Rome over Pilate's actions. So he'd been called to Rome prior to Jesus's arrest to account for how he'd dealt with this riot. The people who'd organized this riot were rabbis from Galilee.

Also though, there is another interesting caveat to this series of "political events" related to Pilate; that is recorded in Luke 17. There is the record of an event where Pilate sent a bunch of soldiers into the temple, after some Galileans who these soldiers killed inside the temple. Luke describes it as (the soldiers) "mixed (these Galileans') blood with their own sacrifices". And the event was likely in response to suspicions of ritual human sacrifices which Jews have been accused of for centuries. Now today you can't mention these things without being called "anti-Semitic"; but this is definitely an accusation that has been well documented through history. The earliest records of this go back to the Maccabean rebellion. (This accusation is part of the Greek's "side of that story", so to speak.)

So, Pilate sends a bunch of soldiers into the temple who kill a bunch of Galileans and shortly after that; another event happens that kills another bunch of people. The "tower of Shalom" collapses. The Tower of Shalom was a cylindrical structure that held birds for sacrifices; but also was part of the apparatus that supported a walk way that encircled part of the court where sacrifices were prepared. It was near the "original location" where the "money changers" had been. But once the earthquake that destroyed the "hall of the Sanhedrin" happened. They moved the Sanhedrin library to where the money changers were and put the money changers out into the "court of the gentiles". So had this earthquake affected the stability of the Tower of Shalom? (Probably; and so later it had collapsed and killed a bunch of people.) Now granted, it didn't kill as many people as it could have because of having shifted things around because of the damage the earthquake caused.

So because of the civil unrest, Pilate, the political backdrop, the riots, the Galileans in the temple who had likely murdered someone. (Thus could be why Barabbas was slated to be executed that day. Barabbas's name; means either "son of the father", or "son of the rabbi"; depending on who you ask.) (The Greeks had recorded this human ritual sacrifice as a "vow" the Jews had vowed to hate the Greeks "forever" wherewith Jews would abduct a Greek citizen once a year to be used in a ritual sacrifice.) So yes, if this had been indeed what had happened; it would have made sense that Pilate would have ordered, that if the soldiers found the guilty parties in possession of victims' blood, or human body parts; they would have killed them on the spot.

So within all of this greater "political conflict"; the people saw all these events as having been connected.

So next thing that happens is the Sanhedrin bring Jesus to Pilate somewhere between 3 AM and sunrise. "Hoping" they can just pass Jesus off; go eat their passover meal (because they had to eat it before sunrise) Pilate would execute Jesus and they'd all be happy.

Obviously that isn't exactly how it went down though. Pilate knew something was up with their scheme. Pilate was in the Antonia Fortress and they brought Jesus into what was called "the hall of judgement". This was a military tribunal "court room" that would usuall hear cases against soldiers. Now the Sanhedrin wouldn't go in this hall because they claimed they'd defile themselves. (Well, they were defiled of their own wickedness already; but anyways.)

Interestingly, within this "hall of judgement" was a natural rock formation (which the Romans had incorporated as part of the floor of "the judgement hall"). Today there is a Mosque over this rock formation that the Jews claim is the "corner stone" of the temple. (It's not; but anyways.) The whole place was called "the praetorium". All Roman military bases had a praetorium. They included a court, a "public square", military planning / "administrative" offices and a temple to Mars, who was the Roman god of war. Mars was considered the "father of the army" And in this temple was a statue of a soldier (often times nude, with a helmet and a weapon) but Mars was not always totally nude.

The "public square" was called "the pavement" which contained an area where soldiers would be flogged for crimes committed. Now depending on the crime; would constitute what level of flogging took place. Sometimes soldiers were flogged to death as a means of execution, because it was illegal in the Roman empire to crucify soldiers. Crucifixion was considered too much of a shameful death for someone who'd served in the military. (Which actually getting into the Roman army was quite an ordeal; and once you served as a full fledged soldier for (I believe it was 20 years) you obtained Roman citizenship; which entitled you to a trail, retirement and other "veteran bennies". Being in the army and becoming a citizen was a BIG DEAL.

But soldiers who'd committed crimes worthy of death would be executed by the men of their own legion. Outside of combat; that was considered the most honorable way for a soldier to die. The legion would bury them (or cremate them) and in some cases a "death benefit" would be given to the soldier's "official wife". I believe she would also attain Roman citizenship and possibly his sons? Thus soldiers had to be very judicious about who their "official wife" was. She reflected on his honor as a soldier. Sons of soldiers often joined the army and legions became "self propagating" extended families. Once you joined the army, you joined for life and your legion was your family. The Roman army didn't "rotate soldier duty stations" they rotated legions. If a legion had suffered devastating losses in a battle; they would break this legion into smaller groups "retire" the legion standard and incorporate these soldiers into the most successful legions. And they did this to avoid the soldiers who'd suffered heavy losses from becoming demoralized.

Now if they were executing the soldier; they would use a "flagellum" with sharp implements in it that would break the skin and tear muscles, so the soldier would bleed out and die faster. If the sentence wasn't death; they would use a leather "cat of nine tales" that wouldn't cause enough damage that would prevent the soldier from performing his duties. And like OT law; which demanded no more than 39 stripes; the Roman army followed this same prescription for "flogging discipline". If the soldier had done something not worthy of flogging, than they'd "run the gauntlet". This was to run as fast as you could through two lines of soldiers who'd hit you as you passed and once you got to the end of the line; your punishment was over. Militaries today still retain similar "initiation rituals". When I made 3rd class petty officer; a bunch of guys in my unit punched me in the arm.

So Pilate speaks to Jesus in this military tribunal hall. Pilate declares that Jesus has committed no crime worthy of being executed. He tries to appease the Sanhedrin by saying in essence: "OK, I'll order 'your boy' here to get a whoppin." and let him go. Which means Jesus would have gotten a non-fatal flogging with either a "cat of 9 tales" or even a single strand whip; that a soldier under discipline would have received. Which in the case of "39 lashes" means they would have struck Jesus 3 times with a "cat of 9 tales". It wouldn't have been fatal. It wasn't intended to be fatal because it wasn't an "execution flogging". Certain soldiers in a legion were specifically trained for "carrying out disciplinary actions" or for "carrying out executions" and part of that "agreement" was that the "disciplinarian" knew that if they killed someone they weren't suppose to; they forfeited their own life for that. Also, if they refused to kill someone they agreed to execute; they would be executed. "Execution squads" rotated that duty so the same soldiers weren't doing this all the time.

So, Pilate's plan was to will turn Jesus over to the army to "chastise" and be done with it. Well this causes the Sanhedrin to get into a "big tizzy"; so Pilate moves this whole proceeding out into the "public square" of the Antonia fortress which is called "the pavement". Pilate had already proclaimed to the Sanhedrin his sentence on Jesus. (The soldiers had already flogged Jesus.) So the next thing Pilate does is to present this sentence (and the evidence that it was carried out) to the people. They demand for Jesus to be crucified and so Pilate sends for a wash basin and before the people; washes his hands and declares to the people "From this point forward; any blood of this innocent man spilled from here forward, is on your heads. Understand what this means to you." And the people respond saying "Let his blood be on us and our children." (Now think about that for a minute in the context of the judgement of God! It's pretty ominous.)

So yes, when the point of execution came, you are correct; the phrase "Father forgive them for they know not who it is they do this to." was directed specifically at the Roman guard who were carrying out the execution.

So at the point Jesus dies the veil in the temple is torn in two and the centurion (who as the head of the execution squad is responsible to report back to Pilate that those who were to be executed are actually dead. He "signs" the "death certificate".) And if the family (or someone else) wished to claim the body for burial; they could.

Now the temple faced east and directly across from the temple would have been what was called "the red heifer alter". Now these would have been within eye-line sight of each other because the priest who performed the temple sacrifice and the one who performed the red heifer alter sacrifice had to perform their duties at the same time. So thus they had to be able to see each other.

So in order for the centurion to see the veil in the temple be torn. Remember the doors of the temple would not close because of the earthquake some 3.5 years earlier; so the centurion could see into the temple and witness this happening. This means the site of the crucifixion, had to be somewhere in the vicinity of the red heifer alter. So the site of the crucifixion was on the Mt. of Olives. At the point Jesus died; there was another earthquake (half the Mt. of Olives slides into the valley and "the graves were opened". You can still see evidence of this today.) and the centurion declares: "Truly this was the son of God."

Now at the point they divided Jesus's clothing; just before Jesus says "Father forgive them for they know not who it is they do this to". The text attributes the recognition of the dividing of Jesus's clothing as a fulfillment of prophecy to be something that was actually known to the soldiers. (Very interesting!) Now how the soldiers on this particular execution squad knew that? The Bible doesn't explain that to us. Yet the way Jesus states: "Father forgiven them.... " is interesting also. That phrase is actually given in the form of a command; and it probably followed what ever the command the centurion would have given to carry out the execution. What Jesus said was also conveyed in a means of "reflective speech" that it would be understood by everyone who heard him say it; who it was directed at. This was not a random universal declaration of forgiveness. It was directed at a specific group of people for a specific reason. (And probably did pizz off some pharisees and other Jewish leaders. Who all mysteriously 'vanished' once the sun was darkened come noon.)

So yes! Moral of this lengthy response is. If you pay attention to what the Bible says. There's an AWFUL LOT OF INFORMATION in there that speaks ACTUALLY SCREAMS to it's TRUTH!

Click to expand...

Valletta said:

Jews disagreed on what consisted of Holy Scripture. We know that the Apostles taught from the Septuagint, roughly two thirds of the OT quotes in the NT are from the Septuagint. At some point a group of Jews did reject some books, including the Gospels and Maccabees. Remember that Maccabees contains the one account in the Bible, referred to in Hebrews, about those who were tortured and died for their belief in the Resurrection. The Catholic Church went with what the Apostles taught rather than with that group of Jews. There are no apocryphal books in the 73 books of the Bible, any and all apocryphal text was rejected by the Catholic Church.
Our Bible remains the same as it was in the 300s, same books, same order of books.

Click to expand...

The Righterzpen said:

Well the other interesting thing about this is; the question of the ark of the covenant. When the vail was rent; was the holy of holies empty? That's been a question that historians have tossed around for a long time. There is no mention of the ark in Scripture, after just about the time the Babylonian captivity commences. So, what happened to it? (Not sure anyone knows.) Although there are people who claim to know where it is / claim to be in possession of it. (Probably lost in a government warehouse in the midwest somewhere! )



Yes, this is true and Acts also states that many people came to believe afterwards too.



There's an interesting caveat to this in Scripture too. The first time Peter whacked off someone's ear; Jesus healed the person. We don't read that Jesus healed this injury in another account of (the same action - but was it the same event - or did Peter do this twice?) One of these accounts gives us the name of the servant. But I don't think this name shows up anyplace else in Scripture. So did the same guy have an ear cut off twice? (Not particularly clear either.) But if he did; that's rather ominous too. You arrest for the sake of condemning to death the person who just healed you! Talk about human beings being "totally depraved"!



Jesus in the flesh didn't condemn anyone directly, to the point of rising from the dead; but people long before the incarnation and after the ascension definitely bore condemnation. Even while Jesus was walking the earth, events considered "judgement of God" did occur. The tower of Shalom falling for example.

Also though, there certainly were people that Jesus had informed that they were condemned. John 8:13+, Matthew 23:13+. Jesus had also declared such things to cities and towns too.



Oh and it certainly wasn't because they were insincere. Herod "sincerely" killed John the Baptist. They sincerely wanted Jesus crucified. Although obviously not everyone. Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus were part of the Sanhedrin.

Nicodemus makes a very interesting statement when he comes to talk to Jesus though. He says "We know you have come from God because no man could do what you do if God was not with him." Note the word "we". Nicodemus is speaking for / of the Sanhedrin. Make no mistake. These leaders KNEW Jesus was the Messiah.



I have NEVER (in any direction) fallen down when someone prayed for me.

Again, consistency with the Scripture. If a person's experience isn't consistent with Scripture. It's not the Scripture that's wrong!

1 Samuel 4:18 Eli the priest falls backwards, breaks his neck and dies when the ark is taken.
The passage in John when those who come to arrest Jesus fall over backwards

Then you have a bunch of other passages that talk about "going back", "falling backwards" and "backsliding".

Genesis 49:16-18,
Psalm 9:3,
Isaiah 28:13,
Isaiah 59:14 speaks of when judgement is "turned away backwards" and truth has fallen in the street. That's not a sign of God's favor.
Jeremiah 3:12



Than what's falling over backwards?



Ezekiel describes being in an upright position with God's hand around his body, (like a child would hold a barbie doll or action figure). Ezekiel is watching this vision facing away from God.

Scripture does not describe specifically what position Daniel is in when he has these visions. Only that he kneels to pray and describes these as "visions in the night". In the description of the visions; Daniel is standing, watching these things come to pass. We know this because he talks to people / angels he describes as standing next to him.

Scripture though does state Daniel, as being so troubled by his visions that all he did (I think it said for a week) was lay in bed. But like Jeremiah instructed to lay on one side and then the other; Daniel probably "curled up in a ball" and cried.



When Jesus healed people; what did he tell them to do? (Stand up.)

Also look at the kinds of people Jesus healed. You know what a quadriplegic who's been in a wheelchair for 20 years looks like? How about profoundly disabled non-verbal people confined to wheelchairs? How about a schizophrenic in a state of psychosis? I've yet to see a legitimately medically documented case of someone with those types of levels of disability instantaneously healed without medical intervention.

THOSE were the kinds of people Jesus healed, that dumbfounded the public.

Again, experience should be consistent with Scripture.

Click to expand...

The Righterzpen said:

Not according to Scripture it doesn't.



Nothing in Scripture indicates what position anyone was in when God "put them in a deep sleep". And as far as doctors operating on people. They put you in what ever position they need to put you in to get the surgery done.



Except all places in Scripture where it says someone fell over backwards; were all indicative of Judgement. Again, if your experience doesn't follow Scripture; it's not Scripture that's wrong.



Conjecture on your part. Nothing in Scripture supports this.



Receive, or conceive? Conception is the only legitimate argument I could see one could make, for "receiving".



Again, no Scriptural evidence. Jesus was very clear that the disobedient of that generation were under judgement.

Matthew 11:
23 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.

24 But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.

25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

Mark 6:
10 And he said unto them, In what place soever ye enter into an house, there abide till ye depart from that place.

11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

Matthew 12:
41 The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.

42 The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.

Click to expand...