Who killed Jesus? (1 Viewer)

[Chevalier]

O man, a Jewish historian says he was divine. I guess that ends my arguement, and I should admit to myself that he was divine?:rofl



Again, I guess I should shut up and except this, for god sakes, a Jewish Historian is asserting this. Please, give some hardcore,credible evidence, opposed to dimwitted Jewish passages or Christian back-peddling.

That's rather racist Kal-el. Believe or not, God will be the judge.

 

[tecoyah]

That's rather racist Kal-el. Believe or not, God will be the judge.

It may have seemed Bigotted....but there was no racism in his statement. And to be Honest....if the God of the Bibles is the judge you refer to, well....we are ALL pretty well F***ed. You included.....My Friend

*note, the use of "my friend" is a trademark of Chevalier. Any resemblance,like appearance, or similarity to the owner of this statement is unintended and we are not to be held responsible for anger, disatisfaction, or ridicule that is created by its use.*

 

[Chevalier]

It may have seemed Bigotted....but there was no racism in his statement. And to be Honest....if the God of the Bibles is the judge you refer to, well....we are ALL pretty well F***ed. You included.....My Friend

*note, the use of "my friend" is a trademark of Chevalier. Any resemblance,like appearance, or similarity to the owner of this statement is unintended and we are not to be held responsible for anger, disatisfaction, or ridicule that is created by its use.*

Then you do not know the God of the Bible my friend. And I have no sole proprietorship of the affectation "my friend" and the statement was racist. Twice it pointed out that because of Jewish authorship the statement was not credible. That constitutes racism, my friend. When a person cannot be trusted at their word and the sole criterion of that distrust is their ethnicity, it is racism.

 

[tecoyah]

Then you do not know the God of the Bible my friend. And I have no sole proprietorship of the affectation "my friend" and the statement was racist. Twice it pointed out that because of Jewish authorship the statement was not credible. That constitutes racism, my friend. When a person cannot be trusted at their word and the sole criterion of that distrust is their ethnicity, it is racism.

Actually, I am quite familiar with my own interpretation of the "God" found in several versions of biblical text. Though I personally prefer the entity portrayed on the Old Testament (he was quite a bastard). I would recommend you never assume a lack of scholarship based on disagreement of perception, as it tends to shed a negative light on yourself.
As for the racist remark you refer to, I will again point out the semantic error. It may be bigotted against the Jewish Faith, but in the generally accepted understanding of said faith....one does not need to be of a certain race, to be jewish.

rac·ism Audio pronunciation of "racism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rszm)
n.

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

big·ot Audio pronunciation of "bigot" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bgt)
n.

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.


The attempt at Sarcastic Humor I used in the disclaimer for "My Friend", was an attempt to show you how very condescending some people (myself included) find its use in this context.

 

[kal-el]

That's rather racist Kal-el. Believe or not, God will be the judge.

Actually, it wasn't intented to be racist at all. It dosen't matter whether the historian was black, white, red, green, arab, whatever. A Jewish Historian, that's 1 person who says Christ was divine. I don't deny the existance of Jesus, I just don't buy the whole "divine" thing.

 

[MSgt]

Actually, it wasn't intented to be racist at all. It dosen't matter whether the historian was black, white, red, green, arab, whatever. A Jewish Historian, that's 1 person who says Christ was divine. I don't deny the existance of Jesus, I just don't buy the whole "divine" thing.

Why not? You believe in Superman. Aquaman next week.

 

[kal-el]

Why not? You believe in Superman. Aquaman next week.

Yes, but unlike most people I'm able to distinguish between a fictional character and a real one. Yea aquaman, I think they need to bring the flash back.

 

[Chevalier]

Actually, I am quite familiar with my own interpretation of the "God" found in several versions of biblical text. Though I personally prefer the entity portrayed on the Old Testament (he was quite a bastard). I would recommend you never assume a lack of scholarship based on disagreement of perception, as it tends to shed a negative light on yourself.
As for the racist remark you refer to, I will again point out the semantic error. It may be bigotted against the Jewish Faith, but in the generally accepted understanding of said faith....one does not need to be of a certain race, to be jewish.

rac·ism Audio pronunciation of "racism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rszm)
n.

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

big·ot Audio pronunciation of "bigot" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bgt)
n.

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.


The attempt at Sarcastic Humor I used in the disclaimer for "My Friend", was an attempt to show you how very condescending some people (myself included) find its use in this context.

Sorry I took your humor seriously because I should have "guppy" stamped on my ample forhead. I tend to take people at their word.

Please go back and read our friend's quote again, the assessment is that the person is not credible because of Jewish heritage. There is a particular Jewish ethnicity, in that time period that would have been considered an ethnicity, adherents to The Law that were non-Jewish were identified as "God-fearers."

My friend, I do not assume a lack of scholarship based on difference of perception. I assume that you have not plumbed the depths of the faith that shaped the texts. Otherwise you would know the coarse language would not have been necessary. My statement is a statement of faith, my statement is an observation of your statement from within that faith. Non-participation in the reality of the faith is your choice, but it makes you a poor candidate to comment on the God of that faith. It's a matter of location not perspective. Though I do understand why you would see it as mere perspective.

You are reading academically, not from participation in the reality of onto-relationship with God. The categories you have for understanding, the matrix of understanding are both different. You place yourself in a different categorical reality so our matrices of understanding do not co-inhere. See perspective implies both can see the "target." That is not true of location. Were we in the same room you and I would both see a half bookcase of books from different angles of perspective. We are not in the same room, so I can describe a half bookcase, but that does not make the bookcase real for you.

Our locations in and outside the circle of faith preclude comparable perspectives. You proceed from the assumption that God doesn't exist, so you have your own interpretation made up of academic and anthropocentric understanding of different versions of the Bible, but no experience of the reality because that isn't part of your categorical matrix. Conversely, my understanding of the Bible is based in studying the Bible in part by studying Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, and Latin, along with cultural anthropology, philosophy, world religions, psychology, cosmology, chemistry and relativity while walking in personal relationship with the God of the Bible. My categorical matrix may not be as academically rigorous as yours, but it contains one aspect that academics can't account for alone: the relationship with God. It makes me no better than anyone, it reveals my glaring faults to me, and they are plenty, but it also fills me with love for all of humanity.

 

[Chevalier]

Actually, it wasn't intented to be racist at all. It dosen't matter whether the historian was black, white, red, green, arab, whatever. A Jewish Historian, that's 1 person who says Christ was divine. I don't deny the existance of Jesus, I just don't buy the whole "divine" thing.

Thank you for contextualizing your words, Kal.

 

[Chevalier]

Yes, but unlike most people I'm able to distinguish between a fictional character and a real one. Yea aquaman, I think they need to bring the flash back.

Oh come on guys, Vision or Green Lantern could take those guys in a second:rofl :spin: :2wave:

 

[MSgt]

Oh come on guys, Vision or Green Lantern could take those guys in a second:rofl :spin: :2wave:

Green Lantern....cool character. I'm referring to Hal Jordan when he doesn't create dumb things with his ring and certainly not the other idiot.

 

[kal-el]

Thank you for contextualizing your words, Kal.

No problem man.

Green lantern? I'm not familiar with him, what were his powers? He was marvel, right?

 

[Chevalier]

No problem man.

Green lantern? I'm not familiar with him, what were his powers? He was marvel, right?

It's been a few er ah decades since I read it, I lost interest with the new one. But he had a ring that was a weapon, shield and let him fly. They had a few comic books with Green Arrow and Green Lantern I think so he might have been DC. Vision was all Marvel. He was one of the Avengers and was married to the Scarlet Witch. I suppose the closest equivalent would be Cyclops from X-Men, but Vision was an alien machine I think.

 

[dthmstr254]

O man, a Jewish historian says he was divine. I guess that ends my arguement, and I should admit to myself that he was divine?:rofl

Josephus was a traitor according to the Jews. he defected to the Romans instead of committing suicide with the rest of his company in the Jewish-Roman War! doesnt seem as though he would have much motivation to play the side of the Jewish people. he was such a player to the Romans that they spared his life, acting as though he was some oracle, Jewish historian, :lol: you make me laugh.

 

[Lucidthots]

Actually, it wasn't intented to be racist at all. It dosen't matter whether the historian was black, white, red, green, arab, whatever. A Jewish Historian, that's 1 person who says Christ was divine. I don't deny the existance of Jesus, I just don't buy the whole "divine" thing.

Actually we are all divine!

 

[Tashah]

Jewish historian, you make me laugh.

Actually, Flavius Josephus (37 CE - 100 CE) was a Jewish historian in both the figurative and literal sense. According to his autobiography, he was born into a Jewish aristocratic family (Sadducee) and eventually became a high-priest. The circumstances and motive of his surrender to the Romans has never been well understood. Although some view his writings as apologia, his works are considered crucial to era historians. His major works include The Jewish War, Jewish Antiquities, and Against Apion. To my knowledge... he is always referred to as The Jewish Historian, Josephus.

The question of this thread is 'Who killed Jesus?'. Many precondition their response to this question because they rely exclusively on the Gnostic Gospels and the later writings of Paul. There is a phrase in Hebrew... Elu v'elu divrei elohim hayyim hen which translates as Many diverse voices make up the words of the living God. Consider this truism as you ponder the question above.

 

[laska]

If you believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God, and an integral aspect of the Holy Trinity... then the only possible answer to this question is that Jesus killed Jesus. To believe that Caiaphas or Pilate killed Jesus implies that either they had the power to commit deicide, or that Jesus is not God.

Mortals cannot kill Gods. If you understand Passion theology, it is obvious that the core message proclaims that the death of Jesus was meant as a sacrifice of atonement, rather than a simplistic execution. In other words, the execution was merely the vehicle of atonement.

The question then becomes, was Caiaphas or Pilate at all culpable? If the death of Jesus was in essence... an act of atonement orchestrated on high by God the Father, then the answer to this question must be no. At a maximum, they can only be characterized as 'tools' of God.

Think back to the Book of Exodus. God wanted the Israelites to leave Egypt and begin their journey to Canaan. God could have accomplished this transformation instantaneously... but He didn't. God used Moses and Pharaoh as 'tools'... each with a distinct purpose. Moses would lead the people and become a conduit between the Israelites and God. God then hardened Pharaoh's heart. Why? Because God wished to visibly demonstrate to the Israelites His almighty power... and thus the ten plagues upon Egypt. God showed the Israelites that their God was more powerful than all of the pagan gods that the Egyptians worshiped.

Just as Moses and Pharaoh were 'tools' of God in the Torah... Caiaphas and Pilate were also 'tools' of God in the New Testament. In their own manner, each of these 'tools' were engaged in the work of God.

Hey Tashah,
It is my belief that the verses in Exodus is a translation error, that God did not harden Pharaoh's heart. I think that Jesus was half God/half mortal. The mortal part allowed Him to be able to die, the immortal part of Him meant that He had the power over death. The Atonement was meant to happen but this does not mean God planted it in the heart of the Sanhedrin and Romans to murder him. God knew the hearts of those men(who had corrupt hearts on their own) and He can see the beginning from the end. God knew Christ would be martyred be them and just shielded Him until the proper time, imo.

Anyone who wants to give the Jewish people a hard time because of the actions of a small band of corrupt religious leaders should understand that Jesus was a Jew, His apostles were Jewish before His Atonement, and almost all of His followers were Jewish. If you believe Jesus was the Messiah, how in the world can you do anything but thank the Jewish people and honor them. Jesus is a Jew and He taught against hate of all kinds and to have charity for all mankind.

 

[Tashah]

Hey Tashah,
The LDS (Mormons) believe that the verses in Exodus is a translation error, that God did not harden Pharaoh's heart.

Anything is possible. However, until someone can convince me that the LDS can translate ancient Hebrew better than Jewish Torah scholars, the verses pertaining to Pharaoh remain intact.

I think that Jesus was half God/half mortal. Being mortal he could die, but He had power over death and so He could only die if he chose to allow it to happen. The Atonement was meant to happen but this does not mean God planted it in the heart of the Sanhedrin and Romans to murder him. God knew the hearts of those men (who had corrupt hearts on their own) and He can see the beginning from the end. God knew Christ would be martyred be them and just shielded Him until the proper time, imo.

You are being very presumptuous in knowing the mind of God and ascribing His actions to suit your beliefs. You are simply using Christian theology to justify Christian theology. As I have demonstrated to you previously, the Principle of Inerrancy is a theological device that is flawed. Must we rehash this debate again... and in public no less?

Anyone who wants to give the Jewish people a hard time because of the actions of a small band of corrupt religious leaders should understand that Jesus was a Jew, His apostles were Jewish before His Atonement, and almost all of His followers were Jewish. If you believe Jesus was the Messiah, how in the world can you do nothing but thank the Jewish people and honor them. Jesus is a Jew and He taught against hate of all kinds and to have charity for all mankind.

Agreed. Jesus was a Jewish rabbi. His teachings do not deviate from Torah Judaism. What he did preach that was unique (and angered the conservative Sadducee priesthood), was that Judaism should be inclusionist rather than exclusionist. He argued (persuasively) that Judaism was not the proprietary and exclusive domain of the Israelites, but rather a universal covenant between God and mankind... with the Israelites being chosen by God to be the conduit of this holy universality.

 

[Hope]

Hi,

I'm a new member to this forum and am unacquinted with the different users. I found this topic interesting and read through some of the posts.

Does any modern Jew deny the Jewish Hands that killed Jesus son of Mary?

And if the majority of Christians agree that Jews helped the Romans in killing Christ, how do they justify their more than "friendly" relationship with Conservative Jews and even the state of Israel?

Any feedback from any angle would be nice.

Thanks.

 

[George_Washington]

Anything is possible. However, until someone can convince me that the LDS can translate ancient Hebrew better than Jewish Torah scholars, the verses pertaining to Pharaoh remain intact.

Agreed. Mormonism is rather...uhhh...odd. lol

 

[Tashah]

Hi,
I'm a new member to this forum and am unacquinted with the different users. I found this topic interesting and read through some of the posts.

Welcome to Debate Politics Hope.

Does any modern Jew deny the Jewish Hands that killed Jesus son of Mary?

There were a lot of hands in the death of Jesus Hope... Jewish, Roman, and Christian.

And if the majority of Christians agree that Jews helped the Romans in killing Christ, how do they justify their more than "friendly" relationship with Conservative Jews and even the state of Israel?

It's in poor taste to commingle politics with religion Hope... not a good way to inauguarate your initial post.

Any feedback from any angle would be nice. Thanks.

It's been my distinct pleasure Hope. Oh by the way... last week I banned six nicks from the obscure 'ntli.net' which just happens to be your ISP also. Small world isn't it Hope?

 

[laska]

Anything is possible. However, until someone can convince me that the LDS can translate ancient Hebrew better than Jewish Torah scholars, the verses pertaining to Pharaoh remain intact.

The errors would have occured in an older copy than is currently available.

You are being very presumptuous in knowing the mind of God and ascribing His actions to suit your beliefs. You are simply using Christian theology to justify Christian theology. As I have demonstrated to you previously, the Principle of Inerrancy is a theological device that is flawed. Must we rehash this debate again... and in public no less?

I did not mean to be presumptious. I am not a natural writer and I did not mean to come across this way. This is just a scenario that I believe is plausible from my perspective. I was just trying to show an alternative view that is consistent with view of the nature of God being one of virtue who does not plant in the hearts of men anything that is wicked, and still allow for the foreknowledge of the Atonement. You used inerrancy to show a particular logic and I just added another plausible scenario. I agree we have re-hashed this enough privately. I probably should not have responded.

 

[Tashah]

You used inerrancy to show a particular logic and I just added another plausible scenario. I agree we have re-hashed this enough privately. I probably should not have responded.

Nonsense laska. Your reply was legitimate and I do respect your viewpoint. I didn't mean to seem brusque. This is simply a touchy topic and I feel the need to articulate my pov with purpose and conviction. The only contention I have with your methodology is in its basis... it relies strictly on theology rather than on a broad-based and inclusive initiative. But that is your right here, to state your opinions and beliefs as you understand and interpret them. Despite my return volleys... I always welcome your input and appreciate your contributions!

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Hi,

I'm a new member to this forum and am unacquinted with the different users. I found this topic interesting and read through some of the posts.

Does any modern Jew deny the Jewish Hands that killed Jesus son of Mary?

And if the majority of Christians agree that Jews helped the Romans in killing Christ, how do they justify their more than "friendly" relationship with Conservative Jews and even the state of Israel?

Any feedback from any angle would be nice.

Thanks.

Welcome to DP.

Umm God killed Jesus. It was a part of God's plan. And, as the story goes, it's a wonderful, wonderful thing that Jesus got whacked.
If Jesus wasn't whacked, then there could not have been redemption for the rest of us slobs.

The connection between this and modern politics is ephemeral at best.

 

[dthmstr254]

Actually, Flavius Josephus (37 CE - 100 CE) was a Jewish historian in both the figurative and literal sense. According to his autobiography, he was born into a Jewish aristocratic family (Sadducee) and eventually became a high-priest. The circumstances and motive of his surrender to the Romans has never been well understood. Although some view his writings as apologia, his works are considered crucial to era historians. His major works include The Jewish War, Jewish Antiquities, and Against Apion. To my knowledge... he is always referred to as The Jewish Historian, Josephus.

The question of this thread is 'Who killed Jesus?'. Many precondition their response to this question because they rely exclusively on the Gnostic Gospels and the later writings of Paul. There is a phrase in Hebrew... Elu v'elu divrei elohim hayyim hen which translates as Many diverse voices make up the words of the living God. Consider this truism as you ponder the question above.

the problem was, his Testimonium Flaviatus was written AFTER he had defected. he stated also that Pontif Pilate had "condemned him to be crucified". so technically, according to Josephus, Jesus not only rose from the dead, "fully restored to life", but was condemned to die by Pilate. you might remember that he was forced to surrender or die in the Jewish Roman War, and that his cohorts did commit suicide rather than give up, which is what Jews then considered more honorable to do. however, Josephus effectively defected to the Romans by surrendering and becoming a POW. he was supposed to be executed, but he tricked the Roman executioner and leaders into sparing him by acting like an oracle, which is another big way to be considered a traitor to the Jews, especially because none of his prophecies from that day ever came true, which would label him as a false prophet, making the Jews more likely to disown him.
hmmmm. so far he has quite the rap sheet, shall i add more?