Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jesus died because of the SINS of every Man Woman Boy and Girl , and no JEW on earth could kill him.
You know - as much as I don't agree with you on the basic premise, I DO agree with you that from a religious perspective, if Jesus WAS the intended Messiah in an earthly sense, then nobody could have technically obstructed God's Divine Will (as the common conservative argument is made: Jesus was meant to be the Earthly Messiah of the Jews [some say Divine, even at that point], Jews killed Jesus, God abandoned them, Jesus became the Divine Messiah of the Gentiles). If the Jews HAD killed Jesus, they would have been thwarting God's Divine Will.
So on the one hand, from a religious point of view - there is no culpability involved for anyone - Jesus was meant to die, Jews or Romans or whatever. It shouldn't matter from a religious point of view. Which is why the very suggestion that the Jews rejected and then killed him (or helped him to his death) doesn't even make sense from a religious perspective that posits an Omnipotent God. Despite claims to the contrary, a prerequisite of being the Messiah was not being betrayed by the people you were saving.
You know - as much as I don't agree with you on the basic premise, I DO agree with you that from a religious perspective, if Jesus WAS the intended Messiah in an earthly sense, then nobody could have technically obstructed God's Divine Will (as the common conservative argument is made: Jesus was meant to be the Earthly Messiah of the Jews [some say Divine, even at that point], Jews killed Jesus, God abandoned them, Jesus became the Divine Messiah of the Gentiles). If the Jews HAD killed Jesus, they would have been thwarting God's Divine Will.
So on the one hand, from a religious point of view - there is no culpability involved for anyone - Jesus was meant to die, Jews or Romans or whatever. It shouldn't matter from a religious point of view. Which is why the very suggestion that the Jews rejected and then killed him (or helped him to his death) doesn't even make sense from a religious perspective that posits an Omnipotent God. Despite claims to the contrary, a prerequisite of being the Messiah was not being betrayed by the people you were saving.
Now if you take a good look at the Historical JESUS you will see that the JEWS tried to kill JESUS many...many...many times ( but) failed , and that within itself tells everybody that the JEWS or for that matter the Italian the (Romans) couldn't even pull it off.
Now if you take a good look at the Historical JESUS you will see that the JEWS tried to kill JESUS many...many...many times ( but) failed , and that within itself tells everybody that the JEWS or for that matter the Italian the (Romans) couldn't even pull it off.
We'll have to politely disagree on this - because from my experience, it's pretty certain that any scholarly historical ventures into showing that Jews tried to kill Jesus have turned up a definate "NO" to that quest. Biblical scholarship on the Historical Jesus is pretty unanimous on this one, I think you'll find.
As usual - I reccomend, for a popular audience, the very excellent work by Elaine Pagels' The Origin Of Satan (the title is misleading, but once you understand that it's about the demonization of one's enemies in Early Christianity, it makes more sense). She explains that she will not be telling a history of Satan and how he was understood throughout time, but that she is more interested in the "social implications of the figure of Satan: how he is invoked to express human conflict and to charcterize human enemies within our own religious traditions" (p. xviii, Vintage Books, New York, 1995). She writes that "in this book, then, I invite you to consider Satan as a reflection of how we perceive ourselves and those we call 'others' " (ibid).
And the most glaring example of this is how quickly Christianity turned on it's progenitor: Judaism; and it's adherents. We have been living with this sudden change for the last 2000 years. Check the book out, if you have time. Then talk to me about how "the Jews tried to kill Jesus".
Lucy - you too.
We'll have to politely disagree on this - because from my experience, it's pretty certain that any scholarly historical ventures into showing that Jews tried to kill Jesus have turned up a definate "NO" to that quest. Biblical scholarship on the Historical Jesus is pretty unanimous on this one, I think you'll find.
As usual - I reccomend, for a popular audience, the very excellent work by Elaine Pagels' The Origin Of Satan (the title is misleading, but once you understand that it's about the demonization of one's enemies in Early Christianity, it makes more sense). She explains that she will not be telling a history of Satan and how he was understood throughout time, but that she is more interested in the "social implications of the figure of Satan: how he is invoked to express human conflict and to charcterize human enemies within our own religious traditions" (p. xviii, Vintage Books, New York, 1995). She writes that "in this book, then, I invite you to consider Satan as a reflection of how we perceive ourselves and those we call 'others' " (ibid).
And the most glaring example of this is how quickly Christianity turned on it's progenitor: Judaism; and it's adherents. We have been living with this sudden change for the last 2000 years. Check the book out, if you have time. Then talk to me about how "the Jews tried to kill Jesus".
Lucy - you too.
Who arrested JESUS in the dead of night and took him to the Italian (Roman) authorities , and demanded that he be put to death for attempting to overthrow the Romans Empire in Israel ?
Who arrested JESUS in the dead of night and took him to the Italian (Roman) authorities , and demanded that he be put to death for attempting to overthrow the Romans Empire in Israel ?
Who arrested JESUS in the dead of night and took him to the Italian (Roman) authorities , and demanded that he be put to death for attempting to overthrow the Romans Empire in Israel ?
It this a rhetorical question, or a leading question?
Your view of the account seems to be colored by a few things.
1- Israel?
According to historical records, and the Biblical account, the Northern Kingdom of Israel (as opposed to the Southern Kingdom of Judah) fell to the Neo-Assyrians and ceased to be an independent nation by 721 BC. Israel then became a province of the Assyrian Empire, with Samaria as the capital, and ruled by an Assyrian administrator. This was under Shalmaneser V and, later, Sargon II. This is probably when we can stop using the term "Israel".
Judah rebelled against Sennacherib in 701 BC, was practically destroyed but survived the fate of being turned into an Assyrian province - albeit after having portions of its territory given away to Philistine city-states. It became a vassal-state of the Assyrian Empire. In time, the Assyrian Empire fell to the Neo-Babylonians who then conquered Judah around 586 BC. Eventually, the Persian Empire conquered the Neo-Babylonians and took control.
Syria-Palestine became a regular name for referring to the region. Several further power exchanges later (Persians to the Greeks, the Greeks to the Ptolemies and Seleucids, and they to the Romans), there was no longer an "Israel" - and there hadn't been one for a long time. "Palestine" (which originally stems from Assyrian names for much of the land of Canaan, derived from the "Phillistines") was known to the Romans under various different provinces - and it is these that make up the background for the New Testament story. Judea, Samaria, Galilee, etc.
So I'm afraid there was no "Israel" for Jesus to free from the Romans. Pontius Pilate was not the Procurator of Israel - he was the Procurator of Judea.
2- So [someone] arrested Jesus in the dead of night and took him to the Roman authorities? You already know the answer you prefer - the one given in the Gospels. We are all already aware of what the Gospels claim - so just asking rhetorically "who the Gospels say arrested him" does not help prove that the Gospels are reliable. And that's the entire point of what Biblical scholarship and historical studies on Jesus has brought into question: the Gospel accounts are non-objective sources with a definate theological bias.
Why this is so - is available from many different reputable sources. Merely quoting scripture does not help "prove" that scripture is a reliable historical document. It was never intended to be - it was intended to be "Good News" (thus the name "Gospel"), and this betrays it's bias already.
I'm not quite sure what your question is adding to the topic, besides stating again what has caused this whole ruckus....
It this a rhetorical question, or a leading question?
Your view of the account seems to be colored by a few things.
1- Israel?
According to historical records, and the Biblical account, the Northern Kingdom of Israel (as opposed to the Southern Kingdom of Judah) fell to the Neo-Assyrians and ceased to be an independent nation by 721 BC. Israel then became a province of the Assyrian Empire, with Samaria as the capital, and ruled by an Assyrian administrator. This was under Shalmaneser V and, later, Sargon II. This is probably when we can stop using the term "Israel".
Judah rebelled against Sennacherib in 701 BC, was practically destroyed but survived the fate of being turned into an Assyrian province - albeit after having portions of its territory given away to Philistine city-states. It became a vassal-state of the Assyrian Empire. In time, the Assyrian Empire fell to the Neo-Babylonians who then conquered Judah around 586 BC. Eventually, the Persian Empire conquered the Neo-Babylonians and took control.
Syria-Palestine became a regular name for referring to the region. Several further power exchanges later (Persians to the Greeks, the Greeks to the Ptolemies and Seleucids, and they to the Romans), there was no longer an "Israel" - and there hadn't been one for a long time. "Palestine" (which originally stems from Assyrian names for much of the land of Canaan, derived from the "Phillistines") was known to the Romans under various different provinces - and it is these that make up the background for the New Testament story. Judea, Samaria, Galilee, etc.
So I'm afraid there was no "Israel" for Jesus to free from the Romans. Pontius Pilate was not the Procurator of Israel - he was the Procurator of Judea.
2- So [someone] arrested Jesus in the dead of night and took him to the Roman authorities? You already know the answer you prefer - the one given in the Gospels. We are all already aware of what the Gospels claim - so just asking rhetorically "who the Gospels say arrested him" does not help prove that the Gospels are reliable. And that's the entire point of what Biblical scholarship and historical studies on Jesus has brought into question: the Gospel accounts are non-objective sources with a definate theological bias.
Why this is so - is available from many different reputable sources. Merely quoting scripture does not help "prove" that scripture is a reliable historical document. It was never intended to be - it was intended to be "Good News" (thus the name "Gospel"), and this betrays it's bias already.
I'm not quite sure what your question is adding to the topic, besides stating again what has caused this whole ruckus....
Well it was the nation of Israel in the hearts of the people no matter what they were forced to call it during their's oppression. The Bible is the planet earth " greatest book in the whole of History For This Planet that we live on " no other book have sold more copies or been held in highter regard or held in highter esteem than the Bible.
The Bible is the planet earth " greatest book in the whole of History For This Planet that we live on " no other book have sold more copies or been held in highter regard or held in highter esteem than the Bible.
There is the Bible, or, if you prefer, the Jewish Bible; and, then there is the Christian Bible.
Well it was the nation of Israel in the hearts of the people no matter what they were forced to call it during their's oppression. The Bible is the planet earth " greatest book in the whole of History For This Planet that we live on " no other book have sold more copies or been held in highter regard or held in highter esteem than the Bible.
Why would it have been "the nation of Israel in the hearts of the people", when a large majority of Jewish people were living in other parts of the world - despite having the freedom to move to Judea whenever they pleased? One of the core aspects of Judaism, at this time, was that their "homeland" was not the core-asepct of their faith, and neither was the Temple.
One of the ideological differences between the Pharisees and the Saduccees was the importance of the Temple for worship: the former had long ago realized that a continuing relationship with God would have to exist outside of the Temple, while the latter felt that the Temple was still the only proper place to worship God, along with the strict observance of the Torah. AS the historical events I listed above should show, the Temple had been destroyed by the Neo-Babylonians and the Israelites had to transform their religion: prayer (as an acceptable means of worship) became more important, obeying the dictates of Jeremiah to stay where they were and pray for the welfare of the city in which they lived became a staple practice (the prayer is still recited), and Judaism was spawned.
Notice the core word used in Judaism - is it Israelitism? Is it centered in the absolute sanctity of their former land? No. How could it be, when the Temple had been destroyed? The later rebuilding of the Temple was merely temporary, for the Romans destroyed it in the famous Jewish Revolt circa 67 BC. Even after the initial rebuilding of the 1st Temple (ushering in what's known as 2nd Temple Judaism) did not usher in a period of Jews returning to their "homeland" - many Jews chose to remain where they had been, especially in Babylon and Alexandria, Egypt. It was the Babylonian Jews who later produced the very influential Babylonian Talmud - a key component of later Judaism. This Babylonian Talmud was more influential and "authoritative" (if one can claim that) than the Talmud produced by those Jews living in Jerusalem! The Egyptian community, as well, produced the Septuagint - the Greek translation of the Jewish books that had been produce up until that time, and the very same translation from which the New Testament authors quote and base their theology on.
I think you're confusing the modern ideological secular movement of Zioinism - the movement that pushed for a homeland for the Jews once again - with some sort of idea that all Jews shared this goal, even in Greco-Roman times. But even this has not produced some mass Exodus to the area, just like the Persian decree to allow the Jews to return to their conquered land did not produce the same results. Many Jews hold a special place in their heart for the city of Jerusalem, and many biblical prophecies specifically have to do with Jerusalem and it's foreseen importance. What is not consistently important to the late biblical authors is the importance of the "land of Israel" or "Palestine".
So - once again, I encourage you to take a broader look at the history of the "Promised Land". You will find that many of your preconceptions, based on some sort of weird biblical view that was not unanimous among the biblcial authors, is mistaken. Any reputable book on the history of Palestine will help you approach the subject well-armed with facts, and not misconceptions you seem to be deriving from modern ideas.
And what Walter says is correct, as well - the "Bible" should be qualified when you speak of it. There are many "Bibles" out there, each with it's own number of books which they consider sacred: different canons for different people. The extremely conservative view of certain Christianits that labeled the Hebrew Bible as the "Old Testament" is merely an interpretational view of the importance they placed on those documents - not some conclusive truth that the Christian Bible was delievered to mankind by God, complete and finished. Almost as if it dropped from the sky, or that one day God said "Okay, fellas - it's done! That's a wrap!"
I notice you quote someone - it would be nice if you gave credit where it's due. Where's your quote from?
Many Jews hold a special place in their heart for the city of Jerusalem ...
If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her skill.
If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth,
If I prefer not Jerusalem above my highest joys.
-- Psalm 137
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
