I simply dont understand

[TypicalRussian]

It began with the Christian Biblical teaching that Jews and their descendents are responsible for the killing of Christ.

that is a biblical fact, it was even confirmed by the church in the 60's after debate

 

[NewfieMom]

that is a biblical fact, it was even confirmed by the church in the 60's after debate

This statement has just been allowed to remain here, unchallenged, for a long time. This is not the forum in which I would usually debate ancient history, but theology is not history. It is unproven whether Jesus existed historically. If he did, he lived and died a Jew and was executed by the Romans.

Was Jesus a Real Person?

From burial shrouds to pieces of the cross, there are a lot of Christian relics in the world parading as evidence that Jesus Christ lived.

www.livescience.com

Furthermore, The poster who wrote the sentence above did not specify to which church he is referring when he writes, "the church" confirmed it as a Biblical fact that Jews bore responsibility for the death of Jesus. There is no one church to which everyone subscribes.

 

[TypicalRussian]

This statement has just been allowed to remain here, unchallenged, for a long time. This is not the forum in which I would usually debate ancient history, but theology is not history. It is unproven whether Jesus existed historically. If he did, he lived and died a Jew and was executed by the Romans.

Was Jesus a Real Person?

From burial shrouds to pieces of the cross, there are a lot of Christian relics in the world parading as evidence that Jesus Christ lived.

www.livescience.com

Furthermore, The poster who wrote the sentence above did not specify to which church he is referring when he writes, "the church" confirmed it as a Biblical fact that Jews bore responsibility for the death of Jesus. There is no one church to which everyone subscribes.

ok so it went from "who killed Jesus" to "Jesus didn't exist",

Jesus certainly existed, I have studied this extensively(hence why most of my posts are in beliefs and skepticism),

For example, if didn't exist then why would the followers of Jesus make up such a degrading and shameful death such as crucifixion?

 

[NewfieMom]

ok so it went from "who killed Jesus" to "Jesus didn't exist",

Jesus certainly existed, I have studied this extensively(hence why most of my posts are in beliefs and skepticism),

For example, if didn't exist then why would the followers of Jesus make up such a degrading and shameful death such as crucifixion?

I disagree. I think the original question was not, "who killed Jesus?" but "why have the Jews been hated for millennia?" (although not worded that way). I agree that questions about religion are more appropriately addressed in Beliefs and Skepticism.

 

[Chagos]

that is a biblical fact, it was even confirmed by the church in the 60's after debate

Which church?

 

[TypicalRussian]

Which church?

every one, maybe prot ones dont think so

 

[TypicalRussian]

I disagree. I think the original question was not, "who killed Jesus?" but "why have the Jews been hated for millennia?" (although not worded that way). I agree that questions about religion are more appropriately addressed in Beliefs and Skepticism.

alright then, the church's official position is true but i dont think it should be spun into anti semitic policies

 

[Chagos]

every one, maybe prot ones dont think so

So you can't answer.

Okay.

 

[TypicalRussian]

So you can't answer.

Okay.

lol i just answered it

name a church that doesnt confirm that Jews killed Jesus

 

[Chagos]

lol i just answered it

name a church that doesnt confirm that Jews killed Jesus

How 'bout the Roman Catholic?

Nostra Aetate, 2nd Vatican council.

stating clearly that neither the Jews of the time nor those living today can be held responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus.

 

[NewfieMom]

How 'bout the Roman Catholic?

Nostra Aetate, 2nd Vatican council.

stating clearly that neither the Jews of the time nor those living today can be held responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus.

I read the statement recently. I believe the current position of Roman Catholic Church is that we are all responsible for the death of Jesus because we are sinners who benefit from his sacrifice, but I am not a theologian.

 

[Chagos]

I read the statement recently. I believe the current position of Roman Catholic Church is that we are all responsible for the death of Jesus because we are sinners who benefit from his sacrifice, but I am not a theologian.

Yeah well, I'm not engaging on the theological side. All historical data just simply shows (and quite clearly at that) how the Romans executed Jesus.

Of course one can argue the historicity of Jesus overall and, consequently, history itself here. But that's not my issue here, nor that of the OP's question.

Fact is that, quite beyond the issue of any man called Yeshua, Pilate threw executions order around before he even got out of bed in the morning.

Also the legend of the Jews having pressured him for Yeshua's death (still maintained by the Vatican, even where it nowadays specifies the Jewish priests) is a convenient narrative, designed later by the early Christians to curry favor with the Romans, along the lines of "we're not blaming you because we're actually with you, twas that lot over there who also gave you all the other troubles".

We call that brown-nosing today.

 

[Chagos]

This whole "you can't have a democracy between different types of people" is something I have seen a lot of conservatives state. I have yet to see sociological data to support it though.

Personally, I do not see why such a thing would not be possible.

The fear thus expressed is a common trait among people insecure in their identity. IOW feeling the very same threatened by "dem others".

Singapore is a prime example of such fears not amounting to much, so is Switzerland and even Belgium.

Just to name those that immediately come to mind.

 

[Chagos]

Representative democracy was first created by America- one of its defining historical achievements, and it has always been one of the most multicultural places in the planet.................~

Well, I reckon Iceland beat you to it as (also) did the Swiss.

But that's just nitpicking and takes nothing from what you state.

 

[Chagos]

Wrong. Remember Pilate washed his hand of the deal and it was the CHURCH LEADERS that wanted Christ killed.

Nope.

Historically un-evidenced, the Christian Bible not being a work of history.

 

[ataraxia]

ok so it went from "who killed Jesus" to "Jesus didn't exist",

Jesus certainly existed, I have studied this extensively(hence why most of my posts are in beliefs and skepticism),

For example, if didn't exist then why would the followers of Jesus make up such a degrading and shameful death such as crucifixion?

Because how else are you going to create a martyr myth?

I personally think such a historical figure as Jesus probably did exist- probably some kind of itinerant prophet/faith-healer. He also was probably crucified by the Romans for being a rabble-rouser. They did that commonly. Such prophet figures were not uncommon in 1st century Palestine under Roman rule. One who was probably even more famous than Jesus in his time and a near-contemporary:

Apollonius of Tyana - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There also was probably a cult that grew around this cult prophet, a heretical Jewish off-shoot. At first, the leaders of this cult really thought of it as purely a Jewish religion. Peter was outraged with Paul for going around trying to bring in non-Jews, and in the process getting rid of the laws and requirements that defined what it meant to be a Jew in the first place. After all, Jesus had said himself that he had not come to subvert the law. But this thing got beyond them and took on a life of its own.

Many centuries later, the emperor Constantine wanted to find a religion to unify his fragmenting and disunified empire. He recognized that religion can be a powerful unifying political force, and just happened to pick Christianity under which to do it. It was a contingent choice. He had other choices. But even the Christians couldn't agree on any unified or coherent set of ideas or beliefs. So Constantine convened the Council of Niceae and gave them a deadline to come up with a coherent religion. It didn't matter to him what it was, as long as it was something. The emperor himself even personally attended this and breathed down their necks until they did it.

The rest, as they say, is history.

 

[TypicalRussian]

Because how else are you going to create a martyr myth?

I personally think such a historical figure as Jesus probably did exist- probably some kind of itinerant prophet/faith-healer. He also was probably crucified by the Romans for being a rabble-rouser. They did that commonly. Such prophet figures were not uncommon in 1st century Palestine under Roman rule. One who was probably even more famous than Jesus in his time and a near-contemporary:

Apollonius of Tyana - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There also was probably a cult that grew around this cult prophet, a heretical Jewish off-shoot. At first, the leaders of this cult really thought of it as purely a Jewish religion. Peter was outraged with Paul for going around trying to bring in non-Jews, and in the process getting rid of the laws and requirements that defined what it meant to be a Jew in the first place. After all, Jesus had said himself that he had not come to subvert the law. But this thing got beyond them and took on a life of its own.

Many centuries later, the emperor Constantine wanted to find a religion to unify his fragmenting and disunified empire. He recognized that religion can be a powerful unifying political force, and just happened to pick Christianity under which to do it. It was a contingent choice. He had other choices. But even the Christians couldn't agree on any unified or coherent set of ideas or beliefs. So Constantine convened the Council of Niceae and gave them a deadline to come up with a coherent religion. It didn't matter to him what it was, as long as it was something. The emperor himself even personally attended this and breathed down their necks until they did it.

The rest, as they say, is history.

all lie

 

[ataraxia]

all lie

Really? Which part? Apollonius of Tyana? Or the agenda of the Council of Nicea?

 

[mrjurrs]

Thanks for expanding on it, I would have preferred something more scientific, but we will go with what you presented.

However, to answer your question. Consider England, which was at first celtic, but then have waves of other ethnicities that fundamentally changed their culture. There were (in some order, I don't feel like looking it up) the French, the Normans, the Saxons, the Romans, the Angles, the Jutes, the Frisians, etc. England is still there and is still doing well. Why does American not need to follow this model (except I suspect we would both prefer that immigration to be peaceful in the case of the US)?

Long periods of assimilation neglects to add that most of that came from laws restricting immigration.

 

[TypicalRussian]

Really? Which part? Apollonius of Tyana? Or the agenda of the Council of Nicea?

what agenda? particularly at the the council of Nicea?

 

[ataraxia]

what agenda? particularly at the the council of Nicea?

Constantine wanted to use Christianity as a unifying force to help keep his empire together. But for that to happen, he needed this religion to have a coherent set of beliefs- because up until then it had only been just a bunch of bickering sects and contradictory beliefs. That was the primary agenda of the Council of Nicaea.

“ there was little agreement about Christianity’s beliefs and teachings, the nature of Jesus and God, what writings were sacred, or even how to worship. There was a wide variety of views, many of which were later declared heresies: Donatists in North Africa, Gnostics in Egypt and Arians in Syria. And do not forget the Adoptionists, the Modalists, the Manicheans, the Montanists, the Marcionites, the Ebionites, the Nestorians and the Meletians, to name just a few.”

UW Religion Today: How Constantine Created the Christian Church | News | University of Wyoming

www.uwyo.edu

 

[TypicalRussian]

Constantine wanted to use Christianity as a unifying force to help keep his empire together. But for that to happen, he needed this religion to have a coherent set of beliefs- because up until then it had only been just a bunch of bickering sects and contradictory beliefs. That was the primary agenda of the Council of Nicaea.

“ there was little agreement about Christianity’s beliefs and teachings, the nature of Jesus and God, what writings were sacred, or even how to worship. There was a wide variety of views, many of which were later declared heresies: Donatists in North Africa, Gnostics in Egypt and Arians in Syria. And do not forget the Adoptionists, the Modalists, the Manicheans, the Montanists, the Marcionites, the Ebionites, the Nestorians and the Meletians, to name just a few.”

UW Religion Today: How Constantine Created the Christian Church | News | University of Wyoming

www.uwyo.edu

the council of nicea didnt have an agenda, its theology was right

 

[ataraxia]

the council of nicea didnt have an agenda, its theology was right

That's odd. How can a council not have an agenda? Why have one if there's no agenda?


First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia
The First Council of Nicaea was the first ecumenical council of the church. Most significantly, it resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine, called the Nicene Creed. With the creation of the creed, a precedent was established for subsequent local and regional councils of bishops (synods) to create statements of belief and canons of doctrinal orthodoxy—the intent being to define unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom.[8]