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: 1163
Comments: 92
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 76.
#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.
John Mark, not John. John Mark was not a witness or disciple of Jesus that we know of. Why do you repeat this unconventional folklore with little or no substantive evidence behind it? It was religion that caused problems for Rome over and over in Israel, this wasn't something they took casually. Last but not least, Judas betrayed Jesus to a group of Jews, not to the Romans. Explain how Jesus came into Roman custody unless the Jews delivered him to the Romans so the Romans could kill him for them. All your arguments attempting to absolve Jews for the death of Jesus while claiming at the same time Jesus was a Jew are prevarications and outright lies. To believe them it is necessary to completely disbelieve the New Testament, which I think is the real agenda at work here.
The Jews had a remarkable degree of autonomy, unique among the Roman provinces. This is because religion was such a hot issue there. So Rome gave them more independence and required the Sanhedrin to keep the religious peace. This didn't work all that well sometimes. Any religious troublemaker was likely to be executed. Or just strangled by order of the rabbis. This was not unusual. The Sanhedrin did convict him and deliver him to the civil arm for execution of sentence, the usual practice of state churches in that era and up until after the Reformation. So the Jews were not innocent. Jesus was challenging their authority and His entry to Jerusalem was a major religious event, the city was riled up, something the authorities had seen many previous times when religious rioting broke out. But the Romans certainly weren't innocent either. They did more to create this situation that led to the crucifixion than you seem to acknowledge here.
All 4 Gospels tell the same basic story: Jewish mobs, led by their religious leaders, who previously had unsuccessfully attempted to kill Jesus on many different occasions, finally got the opportunity they'd been waiting for, when a Jesus disciple abetted a Jewish mob taking him. To challenge these completely separate corroborating narratives is to state the New Testament accounts are completely unbelievable. Romans were solely concerned with people who would do them harm. They did not go looking for people based on religious beliefs. The Jews decided to have Jesus killed, and managed to generate enough turmoil where the Romans "washed their hands" of the matter and let the consequences devolve to the Jews, as the Jews themselves asked for, where they remain to this day. When you decide to have someone killed, after repeated unsuccessful attempts to murder him, it's safe to say you don't consider him one of your own.
I'm going to regret posting to you, but this couldn't go without rebuttal. When Stalin ordered Russians shot by the millions, it's pretty fair to assume that he didn't stop considering them Russian. If he had, he would have been mistaken. When mobsters order a hit on another mobster, they don't stop considering the guy taking the hit as being a mobster. If they do, they would be mistaken.
Tell me any Russian privileges people executed by Stalin retained. And is a person hit by La Cosa Nostra or Eme considered a LCN or Eme member when he's killed, or is he considered a traitor, piece of human garbage unworthy to live? And we're getting into the shell game of "What is a Jew?" here. Depending on the context Jew apologists change "Jew" from an ethnic, to a religious, to a family, to a secular nationalist concept without batting an eye, and implying that falling under one definition automatically makes the other 3 equally valid. Jesus's mother was ethnically Hebrew. That makes one of the 4 definitions above apply. However the other 3 are definitely not in play and are explicitly contradicted by voluminous narratives. One for four on the criteria of "What is a Jew" is not very good performance, especially when three for four contradict.
They were killed. By guns or other means. But they didn't stop being considered Russian when he gave the orders for the slaughter, they were just "the wrong kind of Russian". Don't recall Stalin ever mentioning that they were no longer Russian. Do you? In any event, your quote I was responding to was faulty logic based on specious reasoning. I was just pointing it out to you, to help prevent you from making it a second time. Cheers.
Wrong. As Russians had certain rights and privileges, upon passing of death sentence they became various phrasings "enemies of the state," with zero rights and privileges. Do you wish to dispute that? Don't need to. Are you so devoid of research skills you can't even find references to sentenced people being referred to as "traitors," "counter- revolutionaries," "anti-revolutionaries," or "enemies of the people" and never as "Russians?" "The people" being ***Russians,** what is your basis for classifying "enemies of the people" as Russians too? ROTFLAMO, pedant. Answer my rebuttals. Cite execution orders referring to sentenced people as "Russians" instead of "traitors," "counter-revolutionaries," "anti-revolutionaries," or "enemies of the people." QED.
The argument was settled already, you were using specious logic, there's nothing more to say. I think we're done at this point. But thanks for replying. Hope your day goes well.
Since you can't answer my rebuttals, insofar as you have nothing substantive to add, correct.
There's nothing to answer kid, trying to discuss themes with people who twist logic and words as you do is a pointless effort. You'd be easier to deal with if you were capable, even a little bit, of accepting responsibility for your errors. You can't, you're a progressive, it's in your blood to never admit error no matter how trivial. I'll be off now, to put you on bozo. I honestly have no idea why you come to libertarian-ish sites. Your business of course, it's just something I wonder from time to time.
#78. To: SonOfLiberty (#76)
(Edited)
ASSERTION: When Stalin ordered Russians shot by the millions, it's pretty fair to assume that he didn't stop considering them Russian. If he had, he would have been mistaken. UNANSWERED REBUTTAL & FACTS: People sentenced by Stalin were never referred to as "Russians," which would have put them on the same status as regular citizens. Instead they were labeled as "traitors," "counter- revolutionaries," "enemies of the state," and "enemies of the people." ((((((((Crickets)))))))) DISPOSITION: "Wahhh..I'll be off now, to put you on bozo" Whatever, loser. I didn't flag you.
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.
#63. To: TooConservative, X-15, Former Lurker (#60)
(Edited)
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 Gospel's authorship is anonymous. However, in chapter 21 it is stated that it derives from the testimony of the 'Disciple whom Jesus loved', identified by Early Church tradition with John the Apostle, one of Jesus' Twelve Apostles. It is closely related in style and content to the three surviving Epistles of John such that most commentators routinely treat the four books together
We're discussing a specific execution which Pontius Pilate, the Roman procurator at the time, not known as particularly lenient, nevertheless tried to prevent Jesus execution: Both because his wife warned him not to harm Jesus, and also because he clearly saw the Jewish mob agitation against Jesus as unjust.
#68. To: AGAviator (#63)
#69. To: TooConservative (#68)
(Edited)
#70. To: AGAviator (#69)
When you decide to have someone killed, after repeated unsuccessful attempts to murder him, it's safe to say you don't consider him one of your own.
#71. To: SonOfLiberty (#70)
(Edited)
When Stalin ordered Russians shot by the millions, it's pretty fair to assume that he didn't stop considering them Russian. If he had, he would have been mistaken.
#72. To: AGAviator (#71)
Tell me any Russian privileges people executed by Stalin retained.
#73. To: SonOfLiberty (#72)
(Edited)
They were killed. By guns or other means. But they didn't stop being considered Russian when he gave the orders for the slaughter,
Don't recall Stalin ever mentioning that they were no longer Russian. Do you?
Your quote I was responding to was faulty logic based on specious reasoning.
#74. To: AGAviator (#73)
#75. To: SonOfLiberty (#74)
Specious logic, there's nothing more to say.
#76. To: AGAviator (#75)
Replies to Comment # 76.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 76.