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: 1043
Comments: 92
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-40) not displayed.
.
.
.
#41. To: AGAviator, AllTheKingsHorsesCantDoIt (#39)
One last picture to close out the jews sordid little adventure with the Son of God: __________________________________________________________ That's what THE JEWS SAID ABOUT JESUS. Game, set, match. Pfffft.....
__________________________________________________________ Watch the first video at the source. Jesus speaking to the Jews (scribes and Pharisees) King James Bible kingjbible.com/john/8.htm "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?
Not my story, I just reprinted it. Source
__________________________________________________________ No Gospel denies that Jesus made a whip to expel the merchants and priests in the Jewish temple, that Jewish mobs tried to kill Jesus on several occasions, or told the Roman Pilate the guilt of taking an innocent man's blood should be on the Jewish people and on their descendants. Since all Gospels state the Jews explicitly told the Roman governor he was not to blame for Jesus's death, your misinterpretations of any Gospels as blaming the Romans have no merit.
----------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Marley You need to read more deeply. The only Gospel that says anything about blood on the hands is John. But more to the point, no Gospel is an eyewitness account of anything, since they were all written long after the events took place. They were then copied, edited, and translated. Errors and changes crept in at every stage. They're all based on oral history mixed in with the writer's bias. The only thing that's certain is that Jesus was an Apocalyptic Jew, like his mentor John the Baptist.
Excellent post.
----------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Marley And you will NEVER enter Valhalla. This is Valhalla, notice the abundance of drink and poontang. That sure beats whining rapture monkeys and free harp lessons
WWGPD? - (What Would General Pinochet Do?)
The history plays out this way: After Jesus was crucified by the Pharisees and some of the Saducees (who had bribed and blackmailed Pontius Pilot), Just noting here that it wasn't the Romans who arrested him. He was arrested by order of the religious authorities, brought to the Sanhedrin council where he was beaten and then turned over to the Romans, which was a violation of their own rules for one of their own to be subjected to Gentile sentencing, because they wanted the death penalty for Him and it was forbidden for them to impose that at the time. these SECTS prospered under Roman rule for another 70 years. But their intrigues against Rome and open rebellions and murders of Roman citizens and soldiers finally forced Rome to act. As punishment for the Hebrews of Judea, Rome attacked Jerusalem and plundered the city in 70 AD and prohibited any Hebrews from ever again setting foot inside that city. All Hebrews in the city were either put to the sword or enslaved in the mines and Roman galleys. And all Hebrews in all of Palestine were ordered to leave and never come back. And from that time the Hebrews began to fan our across the Middle East and Europe in what they call the Diaspora. Just noting here that they did not need the excuses of WWII or pogroms to go back there. The Romans weren't barring them for close to 2000 years from re- settling there if they wanted to and neither were the Muslims who protected those who were there, although Muslims get about no appreciation for their protections of them through the years and neither do others. Far from it. But why was Rome in the area? Because the Hebrews had 2 Hebrew Maccabean kings at once and they quarrled, then Rome was brought in to settle things between them. Something similar is happening in America -- Money and Usury v. the Constitution, Israel First v. America First, Globalists/Internationalist- Trotskyites/Communists v. our Constitutional Republic but this time its not Rome they're trying to bring in as the dominant ruler. It's the UN that bows and genuflects to Israel.
------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Wrong, and nowhere in the following passages is any reference to any Gospel blaming the Romans. Matthew 27: 19-25 19 While Pilate was sitting on the judge's seat, his wife sent him this message: "Don't have anything to do with that innocent man, for I have suffered a great deal today in a dream because of him." 20 But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed. 21 "Which of the two do you want me to release to you?" asked the governor. "Barabbas," they answered. 22 "What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called Christ?" Pilate asked. They all answered, "Crucify him!" 23 "Why? What crime has he committed?" asked Pilate. But they shouted all the louder, "Crucify him!" 24 When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. "It is your responsibility!" 25 All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!" Mark 15: 6-15 6 Now it was the custom at the Feast to release a prisoner whom the people requested. 7 A man called Barabbas was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the uprising. 8 The crowd came up and asked Pilate to do for them what he usually did. 9 "Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews?" asked Pilate, 10 knowing it was out of envy that the chief priests had handed Jesus over to him. 11 But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have Pilate release Barabbas instead. 12 "What shall I do, then, with the one you call the king of the Jews?" Pilate asked them. 13 "Crucify him!" they shouted. 14 "Why? What crime has he committed?" asked Pilate. But they shouted all the louder, "Crucify him!" 15 Wanting to satisfy the crowd, Pilate released Barabbas to them. He had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified. Luke 23: 13-23 13 Pilate called together the chief priests, the rulers and the people, 14 and said to them, "You brought me this man as one who was inciting the people to rebellion. I have examined him in your presence and have found no basis for your charges against him." 15 Neither has Herod, for he sent him back to us; as you can see, he has done nothing to deserve death. 16 Therefore, I will punish him and then release him."[c] 18 With one voice they cried out, "Away with this man! Release Barabbas to us!" 19 (Barabbas had been thrown into prison for an insurrection in the city, and for murder.) 20 Wanting to release Jesus, Pilate appealed to them again. 21 But they kept shouting, "Crucify him! Crucify him!" 22 For the third time he spoke to them: "Why? What crime has this man committed? I have found in him no grounds for the death penalty. Therefore I will have him punished and then release him." 23 But with loud shouts they insistently demanded that he be crucified, and their shouts prevailed. 24 So Pilate decided to grant their demand. 25 He released the man who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, the one they asked for, and surrendered Jesus to their will. 2 The soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on his head. They clothed him in a purple robe 3 and went up to him again and again, saying, "Hail, king of the Jews!" And they struck him in the face. 4 Once more Pilate came out and said to the Jews, "Look, I am bringing him out to you to let you know that I find no basis for a charge against him." 5 When Jesus came out wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe, Pilate said to them, "Here is the man!" 6 As soon as the chief priests and their officials saw him, they shouted, "Crucify! Crucify!" But Pilate answered, "You take him and crucify him. As for me, I find no basis for a charge against him." 7 The Jews insisted, "We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God." 8 When Pilate heard this, he was even more afraid, 9 and he went back inside the palace. "Where do you come from?" he asked Jesus, but Jesus gave him no answer. 10 "Do you refuse to speak to me?" Pilate said. "Don't you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?" 11 Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin." 12 From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jews kept shouting, "If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar." 13 When Pilate heard this, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judge's seat at a place known as the Stone Pavement (which in Aramaic is Gabbatha). 14 It was the day of Preparation of Passover Week, about the sixth hour. "Here is your king," Pilate said to the Jews. 15 But they shouted, "Take him away! Take him away! Crucify him!" "Shall I crucify your king?" Pilate asked. "We have no king but Caesar," the chief priests answered. 16 Finally Pilate handed him over to them to be crucified ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Marley That's if THOSE historical legends are indeed true. If you look at the links I provided, you'll find that the very body which spawned modern day Christianity admits that the New Testament didn't exist till the 4th century, ie. over 400 years after the birth of Jesus. So NONE of the "letters" from any of the apostles are legitimate, they are all forgeries. I've read that about St Paul and I'm not going to spend energy on that at the moment. The problem with the forgery argument is that there are quite a few Church Fathers scattered in various places who quote verbatim from the Gospels in the first and second centuries. St Polycarp was a disciple of St John. St Ignatius was the child seated on the lap of Christ in the Gospels and knew the disciples well. The Didache is most likely the Apostolic Decree mentioned in the Book of Acts. St Justin the Martyr quoted heavily from the Old and New Testament. All of these quote the Gospels. Another issue is saying the Catholic Church is hopelessly corrupted and has altered scriptures or invented them as needed, and I'm specifically referring to the idea of the New Testament as whole being a forgery. That's well and fine, but then you'd have to prove the Eastern Orthodox Church did the same, and not only them, but the Coptic Church as well. And then you'd have to prove these Church Fathers are all forgeries too since they are witnesses and the Orthodox and Copts are in on it as well. But the real issue is Constantine. And you need to understand why the first Council was called. St Polycarp held to a fixed date of Nissan 14 to celebrate Pascha (Easter) in the tradition of St John. Others in the Church held a floating date. These two parties agreed to disagree but this issue finally came to a head in the reign of Constantine. Another issue was Arius teaching Christ was a created being, thus not always eternal. It was the basis of many bitter disputes between churches. The resolution to this was the creation of the Nicene Creed. If memory serves, the Council refused to go along with Constantine's wishes on what to do with the followers of Arius. There were leftover issues from the early Gnostics and their scriptures. There were issues about what should be in the canon of Scripture since some regions held some books to be part of the Canon while others did not (Didache, Book of the Apocalypse/Revelation as examples). So the argument can be made that the Church at some point had to put pen to paper and state what writings constituted Scripture. The first Council started this process, but it did not end for several hundred more years. But to be fair, when reading Irenaeus of Lyons and Origen, there was already pretty solid agreement about what was and what was not Scripture outside a handful of writings like mentioned above. And this was 200 years prior to the first Council.
"What began in Russia will end in America."- 1930, Elder Ignatius of Harbin, Manchuria.
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Marley Did Jesus teach you to behave like this?
Here are the Jews acknowledging Jesus as one of their own.
Obama is the miscegenated bastard of a white communist whore. True story.
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
#42. To: A K A Stone (#32)
You're a heretic.
Obama is the miscegenated bastard of a white communist whore. True story.
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
#43. To: A K A Stone, FormerLurker (#32)
#44. To: FormerLurker (#26)
Nice story, but where are the references?
Obama is the miscegenated bastard of a white communist whore. True story.
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
#45. To: JRiggs, former Lurker, X-15 (#40)
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.
"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?"
#46. To: AGAviator (#45)
No Gospel denies that Jesus made a whip to expel the merchants and priests in the Jewish temple, that Jewish mobs tried to kill Jesus on several occasions, or told the Roman Pilate the guilt of taking an innocent man's blood should be on the Jewish people and on their descendants.
#47. To: X-15 (#24)
And so, these Pharisees regrouped and continued the teachings that had been condemned by Jesus as the works of the devil. And since the Saduceees had been converted to Christianity, and the Essenes had been destroyed by the Roman legions, the Pharisees found themselves as the sole inheritors of the Hebrew belief system. And as the sole inheritors of the Torah and the oral Tradition of the Elders, they assumed leadership of all of the remaining Hebrews who followed the teachings of Moses and not the teaching of Jesus
"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?"
#48. To: A K A Stone (#32)
#49. To: X-15 (#24)
#50. To: JRiggs, X-15, Former Lurker (#46)
You need to read more deeply. The only Gospel that says anything about blood on the hands is John.
John 19: 1-16 1 Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged.
"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?"
#51. To: FormerLurker (#21)
Paul was an agent of Rome, and never met Jesus. Paul persecuted the true followers of Jesus, and had them rounded up and murdered.
#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)
"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?"
#54. To: A K A Stone (#31)
You're stupid too.
Waiting too late to oppose tyranny has always led to bloodshed.
Hair Extensions Five Towns Merrick Manhasset Roslyn Massapequa Amityville Wantagh Farmingdale East Meadow Long Island, NY
#55. To: Critter (#54)
Hey Critter. If someone thinks Jesus wasn't a Jew they ARE STUPID. Quick question for you. Was Jesus a Jew?
#56. To: A K A Stone (#55)
what is your reply to #43?
#57. To: AGAviator (#53) (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. 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.
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."
#58. To: A K A Stone (#27)
I'm a lot smarter than you are. Jesus was not a Jew as understood today. The word "Jew" did not exist then. Ignore it all you want, but the sign above his cross read "King of the Judeans," not "King of the Jews."
You're stupid.
St. Ausgustine on the State: "It was a criminal band that achieved legitimacy not by renouncing aggression, but rather by attaining impunity."
#59. To: TooConservative (#57) (Edited)
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.
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Marley
"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?"
#60. To: AGAviator (#59)
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 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.
#61. To: TooConservative (#60)
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.
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.
#62. To: AGAviator (#53)
Chronologically, the first Gospel is Mark.
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."
#63. To: TooConservative, X-15, Former Lurker (#60) (Edited)
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. 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Marley
"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?"
#64. To: AGAviator (#50)
There is exactly zero historical evidence backing up this statement, and history is all I'm interested in here. You can believe the religious crap if you like, but it's not history, it's legend.
Now it was the custom at the Feast to release a prisoner whom the people requested.
#65. To: JRiggs (#62)
Wrong. More folklore. The Gospels are arranged in the order they were written. Chronologically, the first Gospel is Mark.
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Marley
"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?"
#66. To: JRiggs, X-15, FormerLurker (#64)
So saith you, while revealing your true agenda. As if what you assert with even less history to it is is not legend.
You can believe the religious crap if you like, but it's not history, it's legend
----------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Marley
"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)
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.
They weren't a bit squeamish over crucifying a religious dissident of any kind.
----------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Marley
"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?"
#68. To: AGAviator (#63)
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.
#69. To: TooConservative (#68) (Edited)
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Marley
"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?"
#70. To: AGAviator (#69)
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.
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.
"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
#71. To: SonOfLiberty (#70) (Edited)
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.
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Marley
"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?"
#72. To: AGAviator (#71)
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.
Tell me any Russian privileges people executed by Stalin retained.
"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
#73. To: SonOfLiberty (#72) (Edited)
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.
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Marley
"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?"
#74. To: AGAviator (#73)
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
#75. To: SonOfLiberty (#74)
Since you can't answer my rebuttals, insofar as you have nothing substantive to add, correct.
Specious logic, there's nothing more to say.
----------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Marley
"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?"
#76. To: AGAviator (#75)
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
#77. To: AGAviator (#69)
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. I suppose most everyone has some pet theory.
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.
#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.
----------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Marley
"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?"
#79. To: Itistoolate (#43)
Father forgive them for they know not what they do.
#80. To: Turtle (#58)
Utter nonsense.
Jesus was not a Jew as understood today. The word "Jew" did not exist then
.
.
.
Comments (81 - 92) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest