The Jews killed Jesus

[Oberon]

That's not a typo for Dr. R. M. Price (Fellow of the Jesus Seminar, with PhDs in systematic theology and New Testament studies), is it?

Edit: the article touches on a few points that I've seen Dr. Price put forward elsewhere, but I can't say for sure whether he's the author (especially since two of his books are cited in the bibliography).

No. R.G. Price is a nobody.

(Fellow of the Jesus Seminar, with PhDs in systematic theology and New Testament studies), is it?

R. M. Price is a legitimate scholar, although his academic expertise and work focuses primarily on theology and philosophy rather than NT studies, while most of his popular work has been either fiction or books on the "mythic" christ. He is I believe the only PhD in NT studies of some sort out of thousands and thousands who considers it possible that Jesus was a myth. However, his books fail for the same reason the other mythicists do: they don't interact enough with other scholarship, and focus instead on building strawmen to knock down.

One of my favorite arguments of R. M. Price is the assertion that, since Paul refers to Jesus' brothers, and knew at least one of them, this must mean that there was some group called "brothers of the lord" (who were not actual brothers) for which there is no record anywhere. Price simply makes it up because the fact that Paul knew Jesus' brother is too inconvenient.

 

[dogsgod]

Like many other religious figures, "Jesus Christ" began as a theological concept, was later used as a character in allegorical stories, and was then historicized as someone whom people believed really existed. The belief in a literal "human" Jesus most likely emerged as eucharist rituals and theology developed around the concept of the "flesh" and "blood" of Christ and these concepts merged with allegorical narratives about the figure. R G Price

The irony in all of this is that Jews are persecuted for killing what is most likely a completely fictitious character.

 

[Oberon]

Like many other religious figures, "Jesus Christ" began as a theological concept, was later used as a character in allegorical stories, and was then historicized as someone whom people believed really existed. The belief in a literal "human" Jesus most likely emerged as eucharist rituals and theology developed around the concept of the "flesh" and "blood" of Christ and these concepts merged with allegorical narratives about the figure. R G Price

1. Who is R. G. Price and why should anyone pay attention to him/her?
2. I've already pointed out the errors Price made concerning the sanhedrin by quoting Neagoe's book (Cambridge University Press).
3. We have no mention of Jesus prior to Paul, who mentions that he lived and died, that he had a brother still living during Paul's time.
4. Shortly after Paul, Mark writes his work and places the story of Jesus in a time only a few decades earlier in a well known place with historical people.

Where is the purely "theological" Christ?

 

[The Riley Family]

Where is this done? And who said anything about scholars? The NT was written in Greek. The aramaic names were translated or transliterated, and sometimes both. Paul, for example, calls peter kephas, which is hebraic, while the gospel authors use the greek petros.

Luke 3:29
Acts 7:45
Heb 4:8

We said scholars. We said it for the reason you state below "Modern scholars who translate".

The OT was written in Hebrew. Modern scholars who translate it transliterate the hebrew names into english (or whatever language).

We agree but they also use the LXX and the Christians did predominately if not exclusively use the LXX at one time.

They do the same for the NT. In the OT, the name hebrew name Joshua becomes english Joshua, wherease the greek name Iesous becomes Jesus.

What is Joshua translated to in Hebrew? What is jesus translated to in Hebrew?
If the NT was translated from the Greek into Hebrew what name would they use?
Why do they use the name Joshua three times in most English translations of the NT for the same spelling as jesus then?

First, I don't believe he was the messiah.

We second that, we don't believe the one called jesus today is the Messiah either.

Second, obviously Greek speakers (and keep in mind that greek was a primary language even for many jews in 1st century palestine) called him Iesous.

Are you sure about that? If your name was John would everyone in Mexico commonly call you Juan or in Israel call you Yochanan or in Ireland call you Sean. Everywhere you visited or moved to they would call you something different then? Or would they commonly pronounce it in the English form of John in which you were named?

By choice some Johns go by Jack as some Roberts go by Bob. But in the US at least it seems the use of variants is within a limited scope. It's not like Hmmm my name is John but which one of the variants should I go by today?

John has 85 variant forms: Anno, Ean, Eian, Eion, Euan, Evan, Ewan, Ewen, Gian, Giannes, Gianni, Giannis, Giannos, Giovanni, Hannes, Hanno, Hans, Hanschen, Hansel, Hansl, Iain, Ian, Ioannes, Ioannis, Ivan, Ivann, Iwan, Jack, Jackie, Jacky, Jan, Jancsi, Janek, Janko, Janne, Janos, Jean, Heanno, Jeannot, Jehan, Jenkin, Jenkins, Jens, Jian, Jianni, Joannes, Joao, Jock, Jocko, Johan, Johanan, Johann, Johannes, John-Carlo, John-Michael, Johnn, Johon, Johnie, Johnnie, Johnny, John-Patrick, John-Paul, Jon, Jona, Jonnie, Jovan, Jovanney, Jovanney, Jovanni, Jovonni, Juan, Juanito, Juwan, Sean, Seann, Shane, Shaughn, Shaun, Shawn, Vanek, Vanko, Vanya, Yanni, Yanno and Zane.
John - meaning of John name

It was probably aramaic.

Like "Yeshua" or "Yehoshua" or the like?

It is also made clear that that the Jewish elite (priests and scribes) were responsible for handing him over to be killed. You even quoted this:

We quoted it because it is true but they handed him over to the Gentiles hoping they would actually do the killing for them. They were correct in saying according to their law he had to die and they were correct in saying it was against that same law for them to kill him.

The "they" here delivering Jesus to be killed are Jews, not gentiles.

Exactly the point, they delivered him to the Gentiles. According to the law he had to die and die the way he did. He even stated this over and over and over. He also forgave them for doing it. Who are we then to hold them accountable?

No, I'm not. What I am saying is that the ones most instrumental in Jesus' death were a select group of Jewish elites, who made sure that the romans would kill him

Jewish elites, as you say, because of jealousy handed him over to the Romans. The Romans tried to release him. The crowd was stirred up by the "elites" and since a riot was beginning the Romans wanted to please the crowd so the Roman handed him over to be crucified.

As you say the Romans killed him. Romans are Gentiles = Gentiles killed him.

If you had a child that was killed, heaven forbid, would you be any less enraged with the killers than the instigators? Would you hold the Killers less accountable than the instigators?

 

[dogsgod]

[/b]

1. Who is R. G. Price and why should anyone pay attention to him/her?
2. I've already pointed out the errors Price made concerning the sanhedrin by quoting Neagoe's book (Cambridge University Press).

You did nothing of the sort, and had you read what you dismissed out of hand you would have realized you did nothing of the sort.

3. We have no mention of Jesus prior to Paul, who mentions that he lived and died, that he had a brother still living during Paul's time.
4. Shortly after Paul, Mark writes his work and places the story of Jesus in a time only a few decades earlier in a well known place with historical people.

Where is the purely "theological" Christ?

You would have to know theology when you're reading it.

 

[Oberon]

Luke 3:29
Acts 7:45
Heb 4:8

We said scholars. We said it for the reason you state below "Modern scholars who translate".

First, only one of your quotes has "Jesus" in it. Second, the reason modern scholars do this is to make the translation less confusing for readers. These are references to the OT. So, many translators use the OT/hebrew names to clarify.

We agree but they also use the LXX and the Christians did predominately if not exclusively use the LXX at one time.

They don't use the LXX. They use modern editions of the hebrew/aramaic texts.

And christians no longer use the lxx or vulgate because they typically don't read greek or latin.

What is Joshua translated to in Hebrew?

You mean transliterated? יהושׁוּע

What is jesus translated to in Hebrew?

Again, not a translation.

Why do they use the name Joshua three times in most English translations of the NT for the same spelling as jesus then?

Again, modern translations try to make things easier by using OT transliterations for OT names, but Jesus was known as Jesus as from the greek texts to the vulgate and a long time prior to modern english.

Are you sure about that? If your name was John would everyone in Mexico

You have to understand that greek was the common language and often only or primary language for much of the eastern population. So yes, he would have ben called Yesoos/Iesous.


As for the rest of your points, the romans had little to no interest in Jesus. The jewish priests did. They didn't want him around. So they made sure the romans would execute him.

 

[The Riley Family]

romans would execute him.

Thanks for the dialog and the information. The bottom line as you have said is the Romans executed the Messiah. Romans as you know are Gentiles so it was the Gentiles who executed, crucified, killed the Messiah. The Jews handed him over to them after they themselves condemned him. The Lord is merciful and for those who believed in him he allowed them to be free of any condemnation for that act. He will do the same today. He said they would never see him again until they say blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. So there is a hope for the Jew who has suffered at the hands of so many.

Do you think the Christians and other have persecuted the Jews out of jealousy?

Also transliteration is to represent letters or words in the corresponding characters of another alphabet. What would the process be for Jesus, in English, to be transliterated directly into Hebrew?

 

[Oberon]

Thanks for the dialog and the information. The bottom line as you have said is the Romans executed the Messiah. Romans as you know are Gentiles so it was the Gentiles who executed, crucified, killed the Messiah.

Are you familiar with the european or salem witch trials? The one who accused another of being a witch was really the one responsible for the death or other punishment of the accused. Or how about the Nazis? If a german identified a Jew who was hiding to the Nazis, wouldn't that individual also be "guilty?" The point is that were it not for the particular jews (scribes, priests, etc) who were angered by Jesus' actions and who notified the romans and persuaded them he was a threat, Jesus would not have been executed.

Do you think the Christians and other have persecuted the Jews out of jealousy?

No. I think Jews have been persecuted because many christians and muslims see them as people who rejected the "true faith."

Also transliteration is to represent letters or words in the corresponding characters of another alphabet. What would the process be for Jesus, in English, to be transliterated directly into Hebrew?

I already gave you the hebrew equivalent.

 

[Gabethewiking]

As this thread seem to reached its end, I thought I would still give some insight here.

The New and Old Testament is an interesting read (as long as you do not believe it in literally), especially as it shows the History of Jewish thought and the branching of the Jewish groups.

The Old Testament is written by Jews for Jews. What this means, being "A Jew" would be hard to tell in this time, so lets just call them "original jews", shall we. It is pro jew, everyone else is less worth and put to death, that is the gist of it.

The New Testament is, on the other hand, Anti-Semitic in todays standard. Our old friend and really bad actor Mel Gibson made a movie based on the New Testament, and then being accused of being a anti-semitic is the irony of, well, ironic. Well of course the movie is anti-semitic, its based on the New Testament, an anti-semitic text trying to incoperate more followers.


The best way to explain this to someone is simple that the New Testament was written by none 'real' jews that wanted to expand their religion and did not agree with the rest of them (following the Torah/Old Testament). Of course, these people where Jews, but as they had other opinions, they where also heathens in this sense.

Torah / Old Testament = Pro Jew, for Jew, Everyone else to die (following scripture).

New Testament = Pro 'New' Jews (Known today as Christianity), Everyone else that does not follow/Agree with them to die.

There is nothing strange, surprising or shocking about this, it is history and follow the logic of the contemporaries of that time. Conflict brings problems, other religions causes splitting so they need to keep them in line, Our way, or the High way. Christianity managed because of the more open policy of entering the religion, to beat the 'old' (True) jews in numbers, as we can see today, whiles our Jewish friends kept their Bit (Torah) and modified to the contemporary world and kept it in the family (the reason so many jews have power and money as relations like this give a superior advantage).

Anyway, thats my thought.


Added: If you missed the point about the topic, With this in mind, it is quite Obvious that the "jews" persecuted Jesus, even if the Jesus character is a Jew persecuted by other Jews, the point is that they are different Jews with different beliefs just as Adventis versus Catholic etc.

 

[The Riley Family]

You say you know the Lord was a Jew, so what do you think he will do to those who claim they know him yet persecute the Jews of which he is?

Isaiah 26:10 Let favor be shown to the wicked, yet he will not learn righteousness. In the land of uprightness he will deal wrongfully, and will not see the LORD’s majesty. 26:11 The LORD, your hand is lifted up, yet they don’t see; but they will see your zeal for the people, and be disappointed. Yes, fire will consume your adversaries.