First let me say that what you explain to me about the Madists will at least be time well spent. You are losing me though. I just don't get it what the Madists believe about this. Are you saying they think that Jesus came when he did for an earthly rule then before his death, but that he changed the plan to the Jews because of some failure to communicate? And that Jesus then proceeded with death because he was going to postpone what he intentionally meant to do the first time he came but failed?
Don't they know that Jesus does NOT EVER fail?
Well, Jesus did teach that he would die for them, and even John the baptizer shouted it out and taught it from the beginning of Jesus' ministry. Do the Madists think that Jesus would rule on earth and die a natural death of old age?
It was even prophesied about in the Old Testament that the Savior would be the propitiation for our sins by HIS DEATH.
Please don't give up on explaining the Madist false doctrines to me just yet. At least it is time well spent on someone who deservedly wants you to explain, unlike the madists.
There is a thread here about them not knowing about his death until it actually happened. That is a MAD fabrication, among others. I believe it is one of Jerry's. It says that they never heard of that until the post Trans announcement, and then they rejected it/had it hidden from them. To me that is starting the drama with the first 2 chapters deleted.
Most of them are Galilean, 1-2 of them are actual zealots. That group especially needed to change from its zealot ways. (In the Jerusalem region, most people just acquiesced to Roman control; a major revolt had started under Judas the Galilean in the year of the Lk 2 census and is mentioned in Acts 5.) A crucified Messiah did not suit their tastes.
All rebels/insurrectionists/zealots were crucified. Some 2000 were executed that way in the year Christ was crucified. That's why the trial of Jesus has a foment to it that is a regular scene; his was not the only trial of its kind by any means, and Pilate truly could not pin down anything wrong about him, like he could have many others and Bar-abbas. Note in Mt 2:22 that all through his childhood, policing the zealots was a high priority, enough to relocate his parents upon their return from Egypt.
So while Jesus kept himself distinct from the zealots, there is a bit of Galilean resentment for Jerusalem that comes through in his crucifixion, because he should have been released by current trial standards. God meant for him to be counted as one of the evil ones, symbolic of the general condition of mankind. Is 53:9, 12.
But what the disciples expected was a Messiah who would not be treated that way. Would not get caught as a secret zealot. Would organize enough of a resistance to provide overwhelming force, etc. And then be the king. And all this would be supernatural, miraculous.
It is OK for MADs to say (like Jerry) that Mt 16:16 is that kind of Christ EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT HIS DEATH AND TRUE MISSION WAS ALREADY EXPRESSED. MADs try to say they were not. They read the songs of Lk 1-2 in the same non-Christian sense as those materials that are from the exile. RD says the old covenant continues until the death of Christ--even in how a person is supposed to read the synoptics (you can't really do this in John).
The obvious questions arise: how did Mt 1:21 get written, then? Was Matthew adding it back in after the fact because Christ told him to? Wasn't it already there?--that is the plain meaning of the text.
