How surprising to see you enthusiastically wallowing in blood libel ... :clap
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Jews killed Jesus
- Thread starter TashaN
- Start date
imaginaryme
Active Member
What!?!?
Josephus is worthless, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny mention the title "Christus;" meaning it could have been anybody, and the disciples' "fifty years after" testimony ain't flying... but I haven't actually done the research, so my second hand stuff may be fluff...
Let me mention the research I have done. Lucius Cornelius Sulla. Ever hear of that guy? After his death, the Roman elite despised this character so much that they undertook every effort - and these people were ****** - every effort to erase his life from the historical record. Yet, today; no one questions the existence of Sulla. How is this believable - that one of history's great villains is certain, yet this miraculous savior is uncertain? Is it a conspiracy?
kai
ragamuffin
Jesus claims all responsibility, and is explicitly the willing Suffering Servant
If you take the Christian view doesnt Christian theology state that Jesus' entire purpose was to come to die. ? wasnt everyone jew or Roman all playing their part in that purpose?
so what gives with the blame thing?
If you take the Christian view doesnt Christian theology state that Jesus' entire purpose was to come to die. ? wasnt everyone jew or Roman all playing their part in that purpose?
so what gives with the blame thing?
Last edited:
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
.
It's fiction and not at all relevant, but to answer the question,
What does Matthew say?
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!"
24When 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!"
25All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!"
Sounds like the Jews had something to do with it as far as Matthew is concerned.
kai
ragamuffin
So all we have to do is wash our hands and say " I am innocent of this mans blood" and hey presto! absolution!
As far as all the gospel writers were concerened it was important to make the Jews into the "bad" guys, not the Romans. As an emerging new religion it was important to not **** the Romans off. It makes sense their writings would be trying to keep the peace with the Romans. It also makes sense that they would blame the Sanhedrian sp? because they had rejected the new religion and their supposed Messiah. The gospels are a political piece of propoganda in a time when it was important to know who to side with!!
Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
the phrase "Josephus is worthless" demonstrates your utter lack of familiarity with historical methodology and content.
Let me mention the research I have done. Lucius Cornelius Sulla. Ever hear of that guy? After his death, the Roman elite despised this character so much that they undertook every effort - and these people were ****** - every effort to erase his life from the historical record. Yet, today; no one questions the existence of Sulla. How is this believable - that one of history's great villains is certain, yet this miraculous savior is uncertain? Is it a conspiracy?
Yet this miraculous saviour is certain. The denial isn't so much a product of conspiracy but inconvenience. Just as the Romans and Jewish authorities put him to death originally, we are attempting the same thing, and for much the same reason. Jesus is a troublemaker.
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
Agreed.
Wrong. Before we tread down this road again, see my threads on this subject here:
Groundwork in historical jesus research
Addressing Dogsgod and the mythic Jesus myth
It isn't.
Last edited:
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
It's called an agenda. That agenda is to never pass up an opportunity to make Jewish people look bad, all the while maintaining that Muslims are not responsible for the terrorist acts of radical Muslims. I don't know about you, but I am sensing a double-standard.
Given his past comments as "The_Truth", I don't see how anyone could be greatly surprised, Jay.
"Behold the Lamb of God who comes to take away the sin of the world. Happy are we who are called to this sacred banquet."
If the lamb doesn't die, then the sin isn't taken away.
I agree that it's not a good thing, but then that's why (or part of why) I'm not a Christian.
Good things can and do come from bad actions. Doesn't make them good. For example, consider population problems in a hypothetical 3rd world country. If some war leader bent on genocide exterminated large portions of the population, it may very well help the population problem, and have positive results. It is still a travesty.
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
It's called an agenda. That agenda is to never pass up an opportunity to make Jewish people look bad, all the while maintaining that Muslims are not responsible for the terrorist acts of radical Muslims. I don't know about you, but I am sensing a double-standard.
Given his past comments as "The_Truth", I don't see how anyone could be greatly surprised, Jay.
Are Muslims responsible for the terrorist acts of radical Muslims? Are Jews responsible for the terrorist acts of radical Jews? Are Christians responsible for the terrorist acts of radical Christians?
DarkSun
:eltiT
"God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son; that whoever believes in Him will not perish, but gain eternal life." (John 3:16)
Salvation isn't a good thing...?
But I digress, I don't agree with this anyway.
Last edited:
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Firstly - anyone reading the story of Pilate should be struck by the weakness of his position - it's obvious that his handwashing was a cop-out and a futile gesture at washing away his guilt.
Secondly - just who was it that nailed Jesus to the cross? OH YEAH - Roman soldiers. Who whipped Him? OH YEAH - Roman soldiers. Who beat him and forced him to carry that cross down the Via Dolorosa? OH YEAH - Roman soldiers. Who gambled at the foot of the cross to win his robe? OH YEAH - Roman soldiers.
So - to me it's always been apparent that the guilt of Jesus' death is shared evenly between Jews and Gentiles - that's a pretty obvious truth in the gospel stories - unless of course, it fits your personal agenda to ignore the facts.
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
The story is pure fiction. How does one base an agenda on fiction? Pilate was willing to free Jesus but the Jews called for his execution. Read the story.
imaginaryme
Active Member
Guy was a Flavian, dude.
This is the thing, though. I'm familiar with the Jesus in a Christian's heart - and that Jesus is A-OK in my book. But I have an agenda... :devil:
Nah, agenda is a good thing; that way one possesses a degree of certainty in one's actions - and in this case it is a matter of long-term considerations. I feel that to preserve Christianity in the long term, it would be beneficial to remove the man from the historical record... but don't get all crazy on me, it has to do with quantum theory, mathematics, and the trouble that is brewing... by participating on these forums, I can gauge the "direction of the wind," as it were... and I may be way ahead of the times. It's cool.
imaginaryme
Active Member
...and you are a research monster. I'm gonna have to go and check this stuff out. Thanks.
imaginaryme
Active Member
We are all, in a sense, products of our environment... I never trusted Paul, even in the Bible... and here's a link to a book I have read...
Caesar's Messiah Main Page
My questioning of the "historical Jesus" arose from personal research done into the fall of the Roman Republic... and (but this was back in '96, so...) I think it was a single line from Plutarch mentioning something like "a commoner was crucified for inciting rebellion" that made me stop and go... wait a minute... shouldn't there be more about this guy?
That said, I'm gonna go read link number two from big O.
and here's a link to a book I have read...Caesar's Messiah Main Page
My questioning of the "historical Jesus" arose from personal research done into the fall of the Roman Republic... and (but this was back in '96, so...) I think it was a single line from Plutarch mentioning something like "a commoner was crucified for inciting rebellion" that made me stop and go... wait a minute... shouldn't there be more about this guy?
That said, I'm gonna go read link number two from big O.