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:1144 Comments:92
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.
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.
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.
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------- "Let them all pass all their dirty remarks (One Love) There is one question I'd really love to ask (One Heart) Is there a place for the hopeless sinner Who has hurt all mankind just to save his own?"
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."
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 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.
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------- "Let them all pass all their dirty remarks (One Love) There is one question I'd really love to ask (One Heart) Is there a place for the hopeless sinner Who has hurt all mankind just to save his own?"
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.
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 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.
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.
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 Passover, when trouble with the Jews was nearly a certainty. That's why Pilate was in town to begin with.
Pilate wasn't going to take any chances with a Jewish radical causing problems for him. The Jewish leaders turned him over for committing some offense, who knows what, and Pilate dispatched him.
This total BS that he left it to the crowd to decide makes no sense. Pilate was not a compassionate man. It's likely the entire trial only took a couple of minutes.
#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.
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?
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
It was religion that caused problems for Rome over and over in Israel, this wasn't something they took casually.
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.
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------- "Let them all pass all their dirty remarks (One Love) There is one question I'd really love to ask (One Heart) Is there a place for the hopeless sinner Who has hurt all mankind just to save his own?"
Traditionally, the Gospel of Matthew was seen as the first Gospel written. The Gospel of Mark was written after Matthew, with the Gospel of Luke then dependent on Matthew, Mark, and other eyewitness testimony. [3] This is commonly referred to as Augustinian hypothesis. Unlike some competing hypotheses, this hypothesis does not rely on, nor does it argue for, the existence of any document that is not explicitly mentioned in historical testimony.
----------------------------------------------------------------- "Let them all pass all their dirty remarks (One Love) There is one question I'd really love to ask (One Heart) Is there a place for the hopeless sinner Who has hurt all mankind just to save his own?"
You can believe the religious crap if you like, but it's not history, it's legend
So saith you, while revealing your true agenda.
As if what you assert with even less history to it is is not legend.
----------------------------------------------------------------- "Let them all pass all their dirty remarks (One Love) There is one question I'd really love to ask (One Heart) Is there a place for the hopeless sinner Who has hurt all mankind just to save his own?"
#67. To: TooConservative, X-15, FormerLurker (#60)
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.
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------- "Let them all pass all their dirty remarks (One Love) There is one question I'd really love to ask (One Heart) Is there a place for the hopeless sinner Who has hurt all mankind just to save his own?"
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------- "Let them all pass all their dirty remarks (One Love) There is one question I'd really love to ask (One Heart) Is there a place for the hopeless sinner Who has hurt all mankind just to save his own?"
I'm going to regret posting to you, but this couldn't go without rebuttal.
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.
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.
"The more artificial taboos and restrictions there are in the world, the more the people are impoverished.... The more that laws and regulations are given prominence, the more thieves and robbers there will be." - Lao Tzu, 6th century BC
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.
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------- "Let them all pass all their dirty remarks (One Love) There is one question I'd really love to ask (One Heart) Is there a place for the hopeless sinner Who has hurt all mankind just to save his own?"
Tell me any Russian privileges people executed by Stalin retained.
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.
"The more artificial taboos and restrictions there are in the world, the more the people are impoverished.... The more that laws and regulations are given prominence, the more thieves and robbers there will be." - Lao Tzu, 6th century BC
They were killed. By guns or other means. But they didn't stop being considered Russian when he gave the orders for the slaughter,
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 recall Stalin ever mentioning that they were no longer Russian. Do you?
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?
Your quote I was responding to was faulty logic based on specious reasoning.
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------- "Let them all pass all their dirty remarks (One Love) There is one question I'd really love to ask (One Heart) Is there a place for the hopeless sinner Who has hurt all mankind just to save his own?"
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.
"The more artificial taboos and restrictions there are in the world, the more the people are impoverished.... The more that laws and regulations are given prominence, the more thieves and robbers there will be." - Lao Tzu, 6th century BC
Since you can't answer my rebuttals, insofar as you have nothing substantive to add, correct.
----------------------------------------------------------------- "Let them all pass all their dirty remarks (One Love) There is one question I'd really love to ask (One Heart) Is there a place for the hopeless sinner Who has hurt all mankind just to save his own?"
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.
"The more artificial taboos and restrictions there are in the world, the more the people are impoverished.... The more that laws and regulations are given prominence, the more thieves and robbers there will be." - Lao Tzu, 6th century BC
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.
Temple lackeys most likely, members of the priestly families.
No indication of much presence of the crowds that had cheered Jesus on his triumphal entry to Jerusalem. No doubt, they feared supporting him publicly, just as the disciples did.
You seem to be trying to offer some variety of the Serpent Seed doctrine, something from Oneness Pentacostalism or Shepherd's Chapel. The problem is that no one accepts this idea.
You do understand that your version of things seems to invalidate some of the prophetic claims that Jesus fulfilled. So the theological hole you're digging starts getting deeper than you seem to realize.
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------- "Let them all pass all their dirty remarks (One Love) There is one question I'd really love to ask (One Heart) Is there a place for the hopeless sinner Who has hurt all mankind just to save his own?"
"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."
If Jesus says their father is the devil and Jesus is a Jew then His Father is the Devil?
You seem to be trying to offer some variety of the Serpent Seed doctrine, something from Oneness Pentacostalism or Shepherd's Chapel. The problem is that no one accepts this idea
No, nothing of the sort.
I'm offering the completely corroborating versions of the Synoptic Gospels that organized groups of Jews, led by their ecclesiasticals, attempted to kill Jesus throughout his ministry and ultimately succeeded by getting the Romans to carry out his crucifixion.
And that Jesus expected this but was ultimately able to overcome it by his resurrection from death.
Now to be sure a lot of teachings of Jesus and other details about his life didn't get recorded. John 12:25 states "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."
Some of these details are being filled in by continuing revelations to various people in subsequent years, throughout the Middle Ages, and most recently Edgar Cayce and the Italian mystic Maria Valtorto.
However none of this subsequent information contradicts the NT. So accounts in the NT should be considered basically accurate but incomplete. And the NT does say explicitly that Jews, not the Romans, were the impetus behind Jesus's death.
----------------------------------------------------------------- "Let them all pass all their dirty remarks (One Love) There is one question I'd really love to ask (One Heart) Is there a place for the hopeless sinner Who has hurt all mankind just to save his own?"
AGAIN: Jesus speaking to the Jews (scribes and Pharisees)"
"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do
Mattew 3: 7-9
7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?
8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance.
9 And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.
10 The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.
----------------------------------------------------------------- "Let them all pass all their dirty remarks (One Love) There is one question I'd really love to ask (One Heart) Is there a place for the hopeless sinner Who has hurt all mankind just to save his own?"
Jesus of Nazareth was labeled "King of the Jews"; that is from antiquity, of course.
And Jesus' reply to them was "My Kingdom is not of this world."
----------------------------------------------------------------- "Let them all pass all their dirty remarks (One Love) There is one question I'd really love to ask (One Heart) Is there a place for the hopeless sinner Who has hurt all mankind just to save his own?"
Some of these details are being filled in by continuing revelations to various people in subsequent years, throughout the Middle Ages, and most recently Edgar Cayce and the Italian mystic Maria Valtorto.
So you're sort of a Christian with ties to the Psychic Friends Network?
So you're sort of a Christian with ties to the Psychic Friends Network?
No, I'm someone who takes information from sources I deem reliable.
----------------------------------------------------------------- "Let them all pass all their dirty remarks (One Love) There is one question I'd really love to ask (One Heart) Is there a place for the hopeless sinner Who has hurt all mankind just to save his own?"
It's evident to all observers that open discussion of these scripture inevitably leads to catcalls and invective in those cases where the disputants cannot actually get at each others' throats.
Where the antagonists are in physical proximity to one another, one can expect harassment and physical violence. History has shown that these disputes often end in burnings, drawing and quartering and outright war.
This is the reason that the Catholic Church banned the reading of scripture, and why English kings formerly only allowed their subjects to read them under license.
I must say that I've read this thread with interest, but the more I hear all of you verbally tearing chunks out of one another, the less I want to have to do with the whole business.