See other Israel/Zionism Articles
Title: Jesus was not a Jew
Source:
jesuswasnotajew
URL Source: http://www.jesuswasnotajew.com/
Published: Jul 1, 2010
Author: Pastor Eli
Post Date: 2010-07-01 17:13:54 by Itistoolate
Keywords: None
Views: 1105
Comments: 92
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 67.
#6. To: Itistoolate, all (#0)
Jesus was a Palestinian.
You're really stupid.
Your witty commentary really brings something special to the site. If we can't have yukon, at least we've got you.
Well Riggs. Saying Jesus wasn't a Jew is kind of stupid, or ignorant at best. So I can't call them smart.
You know Stone, I have to agree with you here.
Here are the Jews acknowledging Jesus as one of their own.
Interesting thing about that. If you were to read the Gospels in the order in which they were written, you'd notice that in the first one, Mark, it's the Romans who are the villians. Under most circumstances, earlier sources are more accurate than later ones. With the passage of time, each additional Gospel shifted more of the blame to the Jews, until by the time John was written poor old Pontius Pilate was as much of a victim of the Jews as was Jesus. Writers tailor their material to the times they're writing in, and the old timers were no different. As Christianity grew as a religion, the hostility between it and Judaism became more pronounced.
Mmmm...never thought of that. And yet Pilate was a vicious man, an exceptionally harsh Roman governor even by their standards. I've heard this preached to the effect that Pilate was a sweet guy who was just trying to save Jesus' life. But Pilate pretty much executed anyone at the drop of a hat.
Interesting thing about that. If you were to read the Gospels in the order in which they were written, you'd notice that in the first one, Mark, it's the Romans who are the villians. Mmmm...never thought of that. Don't. It's false. Per my quotes of all 4 Gospels above, it's Matthew - the first Gospel, which has "the Jews" saying "His blood be on us and on our children." And every single Gospel states that Pilate told the crowd he found Jesus innocent of charges, and proposed to punish then release him, to which they replied "Crucify him!" With John also adding the Jews claimed their King was Caesar.
Mark is widely considered the oldest by scholars of all stripes. I don't have confidence that the early Roman church knew or cared which was the oldest or whether they placed them in chronological order when the order of the canon was established. Mark is also widely known to have been the key Gospel, the one that was most widespread in the early church. Parchment was precious so if a church body had any gospel copy at all, they had Mark. The evidence for this is quite strong. Mark was in very wide circulation very early on. And there are indications that it was written only a few years after the crucifixion while the others were written years or decades later. Mark was apparently written by a scribe to Peter. It is believed he was at Rome when Peter and Paul were there establishing the church there. After they left, he wrote all the things he heard Peter preach over and over. He was associated with Peter, not with Paul. He is referred by church fathers like Irenaeus decades later as an "interpreter" of Peter. It is supposedly most likely his given name was John Mark.
Mark is also widely known to have been the key Gospel, the one that was most widespread in the early church. Parchment was precious so if a church body had any gospel copy at all, they had Mark. The evidence for this is quite strong. Mark was in very wide circulation very early on. And there are indications that it was written only a few years after the crucifixion while the others were written years or decades later. John is a Gospel author who was actually present at all events his work states, as opposed to being a narrator passing on accounts from other people. For this reason John's account should be considered the most historically factual. In your attempts to overlook the facts that Jews repudiated Jesus on many occasions, and instigated and eagerly took responsibility for his torture and death, you've come up with some quite convoluted reasoning and contradictory facts. First of all, it's Matthew - the very first Gospel author - who narrates that the Jews said Jesus' blood should be on them and on their children. If you want to claim the first Gospel is the most accurate, you've already undermined your own position. Then all 4 Gospels clearly show your claims the Romans and Pilate were somehow pushing for Jesus' death are equally unfounded. All 4 Gospels clearly show Pilate repeatedly trying to persuade the Jews not to create turmoil by demanding Jesus' death, even going so far as to have Jesus brutally flogged, then displaying his bleeding person to the mob, hoping they'd show some compassion and be satisfied short of a crucifixion. The Jew response of course was to continue to demand death. All 4 Gospels also clearly assign blame for the crucifixion to the Jews, not the Romans, and also to Judas who turned Jesus over to the Jews, not the Romans. Judas, however, showed remorse once he saw the consequences of his action. There is no record of any Jews acting similarly. The continuous attempts to whitewash Jews for their rejection and crucifixion of Jesus contain some of the most convoluted and bizarre denials of logic and reality ever put forth publicly. People with such warped and twisted thought processes have a mental pathology not suited for human beings. It is not too farfetched to suggest this pathology comes from a place where demonic entities and other subhuman beings find a suitable habitat.
John Mark, not John. John Mark was not a witness or disciple of Jesus that we know of. John was. John Mark was a scribe to Peter, John was not. The Jews were pushing buttons. But don't pretend the Romans or Pilate were all cuddly either. Or that they had anything but malice for a religious troublemaker like Jesus. They had crucified thousands of Zealots all over the region but especially near Jerusalem. They weren't a bit squeamish over crucifying a religious dissident of any kind. It was religion that caused problems for Rome over and over in Israel, this wasn't something they took casually.
It was religion that caused problems for Rome over and over in Israel, this wasn't something they took casually. This is why the Romans allowed Jews to run their own temple smack in the middle of Jerusalem, I take it. Romans were only concerned with people leading armed attacks against Romans. They allowed and accepted freedom of religion to the extent it didn't interfere with Roman authority. There is also an incident recorded by Josephus where Pilate removed Roman iconographic insignia, from Jerusalem because Jews declared they would rather die than accept that insignia within their city. If you're repeating hasabra arguments, tell them they need better material.
There are no replies to Comment # 67. End Trace Mode for Comment # 67.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#29. To: wudidiz (#6)
Jesus was a Palestinian.
#36. To: A K A Stone (#29)
#37. To: JRiggs (#36)
#38. To: A K A Stone (#37)
Well Riggs. Saying Jesus wasn't a Jew is kind of stupid, or ignorant at best.
#39. To: JRiggs, A K A Stone, Former Lurker, (#38)
(Edited)
#40. To: AGAviator (#39)
#52. To: JRiggs (#40)
Interesting thing about that. If you were to read the Gospels in the order in which they were written, you'd notice that in the first one, Mark, it's the Romans who are the villians.
With the passage of time, each additional Gospel shifted more of the blame to the Jews, until by the time John was written poor old Pontius Pilate was as much of a victim of the Jews as was Jesus.
#53. To: TooConservative, JRigg (#52)
(Edited)
#57. To: AGAviator (#53)
(Edited)
Per my quotes of all 4 Gospels above, it's Matthew - the first Gospel, which has "the Jews" saying "His blood be on us and on our children."
#59. To: TooConservative (#57)
(Edited)
Mark is widely considered the oldest by scholars of all stripes. I don't have confidence that the early Roman church knew or cared which was the oldest or whether they placed them in chronological order when the order of the canon was established.
#60. To: AGAviator (#59)
John is a Gospel author who was actually present at all events his work states, as opposed to being a narrator passing on accounts from other people. For this reason John's account should be considered the most historically factual.
The continuous attempts to whitewash Jews for their rejection and crucifixion of Jesus contain some of the most convoluted and bizarre denials of logic and reality ever put forth publicly. People with such warped and twisted thought processes have a mental pathology not suited for human beings. It is not too farfetched to suggest this pathology comes from a place where demonic entities and other subhuman beings find a suitable habitat.
#67. To: TooConservative, X-15, FormerLurker (#60)
They weren't a bit squeamish over crucifying a religious dissident of any kind.
Replies to Comment # 67.