Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What is the point of this thread?
I mean seriously?
4 gospels, two of the greatest apostles, basically every major gospel writer tells us in no uncertain terms that the Jews killed Jesus; it is the epicentre of the new testament, and half of the people here are denying the fact.
Its pointless. You're all lost causes. Sorry.
No sugar to coat the truth
Jesus was Jewish, I would think many Jews have accomplished great things because they like Jesus and his disciples followed God. God would not kill people only because they are Jewish. Hitler was of the devil and that is why he killed Jews.
Jesus was visiting a Samaritan woman by a well when he told her, "Salvation is from the Jews (John 4:22).
Was Jesus killed because many hated God's commandment against murder? The Romans did not please God with their many false religions and idols. Many millions of Christians have been killed. It is not because they abandoned God. People who killed them were worse. Recently I have seen Muslims killing, converting and driving out Christians. It is not to be blamed on the Christians.
The Romans and the Jews were worried because Jesus was gaining political power. Why blame it on the Jews. What Jews were involved? it could not be an entire people. What Romans were involved?
As Faithful, Obedient Jews, those Authors (and Even Christ Himself) ABSOLUTELY held that APOSTATE Jews were indeed deserving of special Punishment for Rejecting Messiah.
Are we reading the same Bible?
Here's what My Bible says:
"Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites...you are the sons of them that killed the prophets. Fill up then the measure of your fathers. You serpents, generation of vipers, how will you flee from the judgment of hell? Therefore behold I send to you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them you will put to death and crucify, and some you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city: That upon you may come all the just blood that hath been shed upon the earth, from the blood of Abel the just, even unto the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, whom you killed between the temple and the altar. Amen I say to you, all these things shall come upon this generation. Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered together thy children, as the hen doth gather her chickens under her wings, and thou wouldest not? Behold, you house shall be left to you, desolate" (Matthew 23:29,33-38)
When He approached Jerusalem, He saw the city and wept over it, saying, "If you had known in this day, even you, the things which make for peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes. For the days will come upon you when your enemies will throw up a barricade against you, and surround you and hem you in on every side, and they will level you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation." (Luke 19:41-44)
"When therefore the Lord therefore of the vineyard comes, what will he do unto those vine-growers? They said unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will rent out his vineyard unto other vine-growers, who shall render him the fruits in their seasons. Jesus said unto them, Did you never read in the scriptures, 'The stone which the builders rejected, this became the chief corner stone: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?' Therefore say I unto you, the kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits of it. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they understood that He was speaking about them." (Matthew 21:40-45)
Yes they did.
If a judge sentences a man to death,when the man dies, it will be the judge who killed the man, even though it was by the hands of someone else. It is the judge’s decision to kill the man, not the people who are performing the killing.
Same for the Jews. They demanded Jesus be killed, and Pilate listened and had him killed (at their demand)
Acts of the Apostles 2:34-36
No group is collectively responsible for the behavior of some of its members.Guys, I was just looking at a TV show where a guest has created a documentary on the Holocaust and one speaker in the documentary said "the Jews did not kill Christ".
my thinking is the Romans physically killed Christ but it was the Jews who forced it so they were responsible and accountable, your thoughts on this please?
Too long to read but the last line is wrong. Pilate found Jesus innocent of the charge of challenging the Roman authority. Rome has no beef with Jesus or the Christians for decades. It was the Jews who did and killed the Christians until Nero started doing so as well.I will reply by citing a portion of a sermon that I delivered almost 15 years ago:
Messiah means literally "anointed one" and was the common way in which the Jews referred to kings of the dynasty of David. "Anointed" refers of course to the method of investiture of the Jewish kings. It translated into the Greek as "Christos". The Jews regarded themselves as a "theocracy"... a kingdom ruled by God. The Jews also envisaged a (metaphorical) throne room in which there were three thrones. God occupied the central throne. At "the right hand of God" was the throne of the "king messiah" who was the reigning king of the house and family of David. At "the left hand of God" was the throne of the "priest messiah" who was the high priest of the house and family of Zadok. Ideally there were always two messiahs who were known collectively as the "sons of God". All these terms, "messiah", "kingdom of God", "at the right hand of God" and "son of God" were political rather than religious statements. It was a later generation of gentile Christians who re-interpreted these phrases in a very different religious sense. Both before and after the death of Jesus the early Christians, who were, after all, practicing Jews, understood these terms in their traditional sense. Jesus in claiming to be the messiah had not committed any blasphemy... there was no religious crime that the high priest could legitimately charge him with. That is why he went to the Romans to do the job.
Keep in mind as well that our gospels were written by practicing Jews for a primarily Jewish audience. The early Christians were not expelled from the synagogues until about the year AD 90. They were familiar with the terminology just mentioned. Unlike the average reader today they knew that a term like "son of God" carried the meaning mentioned above and did not infer in any way that the person so described was in any way divine. As a matter of fact the inference of divinity would have been profoundly shocking to them, indeed they would have called it blasphemy. Thousands of Jews and later Christians went to their deaths for refusing to admit that the emperor was divine. It was only later, when the Jewish influence on the early church had diminished to the point of non-existence, that Christian believers in their ignorance of these terms began to take them at face value. Whenever we read a document we should always ask ourselves "How were these words intended by the author and how were they understood by the reader?" We must never try to impose a modern understanding on words that are almost 2,000 years old.
He was, however posing a direct challenge to Roman political authority. As we have already seen, the Romans responded very vigorously to any such challenge. The fact that they did not respond immediately on his entry into Jerusalem can be attributed in the first place to surprise, but more importantly to the fact that the high holy season was at hand. Jerusalem was crowded with perhaps a many as a million pilgrims and any military intervention at the time could trigger a full scale riot or possibly a major insurrection. The Romans chose to bide their time, but from Palm Sunday onward the fate of Jesus was sealed.
Two days later Jesus and his disciples enter the temple and forcefully eject the merchants and money changers. Now he has the full attention of the high priest Joseph Caiaphas. Notice that Jesus still has not committed a religious crime (blasphemy). The notoriously brutal temple guards did not act against Jesus at this time probably for the same reason that the Romans did not act on Palm Sunday.
Two days later Jesus is caught away from the crowds in the garden of Gethsemane. One gospel informs us that the arrest was carried out by a Roman cohort plus a detachment of temple guards. A Roman cohort at full strength consists of six hundred heavily armed legionnaires. Even if it were only part of a cohort, say, a century of one hundred soldiers, it seems obvious that they were not taking any chances with Jesus fighting his way out of the trap that they had sprung on him.
He is now dragged before the high priest and the “elders’. It is quite unlikely that there was any kind of formal trial at this time. To begin with there was no substantive religious charge that could be brought against him. It was not blasphemy to claim to be the "messiah" or a "son of God". If there was a blasphemy, a trial before the Sanhedrin would have brought that out and a sentence of death by stoning could have been brought down. The Sanhedrin did not lose the right to impose the death penalty until the year AD 39. The execution would have to be ratified by the Roman governor. This was just a rubber stamp procedure, after all what did the Romans care about Jews stoning one of their own to death for some obscure religious crime?
We also must take into account the nature of the Sanhedrin itself. It was a very dignified body of seventy elders somewhat in the nature of a supreme court. The high priest chaired but did not control the Sanhedrin, the majority of whose members were Pharisees. The Pharisees opposed the high priest at just about every turn. The high priest was in fact perhaps the most hated man in Judea. Under Roman administration, the high priest was personally appointed by the Roman governor. Caiaphas was the personal choice of Roman procurator Valerius Gratus. The Pharisees regarded Caiaphas as a collaborator and a traitor. The Sanhedrin was not likely to respond to a sudden midnight summons from the high priest. As a matter of fact, it was explicitly forbidden for the Sanhedrin to meet at night or on a religious holiday. They were also not to meet in any place but the Chamber of Hewn Stone on Temple Mount.
You might recall from the Acts of the Apostles that Peter and some of the disciples were actually charged with blasphemy and brought to trial before the Sanhedrin. They were dismissed after being defended by Rabbi Gamaliel who was himself a member of the Sanhedrin and a prominent Pharisee. If Jesus appeared before the high priest at all it was simply to be remanded over to Pontius Pilate. The Romans wanted him for a lot more than disturbing the peace in the temple. They wanted him for sedition and treason.
I am also convinced that the trial before Pilate was a foregone conclusion... a trial in name only. The Bible, however, portrays Pontius Pilate as a reasonable person, a gentleman who thought Jesus was innocent, albeit a little deluded. We also get the impression that Pilate is somewhat of a wimp in that he allows himself to be manipulated by the high priest and elders into executing Jesus.
In truth this portrayal of Pilate is far from factual. He was an ambitious, greedy and brutal man. He once ordered his troops into the temple to loot the treasury. It must be noted that he was not the first nor the last Roman governor to do this. This serves to indicate just how much he was swayed by the opinions or threats of the elders or the high priest who was after all his personal appointee. He was also responsible for the suppression of a number of rebellions at great loss of life. His main objective during his tenure of office seems to have been to be to see just how much he could get away with in offending Jewish religious sensibilities. He was eventually dismissed from office by the emperor for "causing an unnecessary massacre". I suppose that this by way of contrast to all the necessary massacres he was responsible for. Are these the marks of a wimp? of a reasonable man? Certainly not! The trial of Jesus, if there was one, was in name only. Jesus had challenged Roman political authority...Jesus must die.?
It is not accurate to imply that Pilate was responsible. It was entirely the desire of the Jews who were unable to endure the wrath of God on that was on them, and their way of playing legality against Pilate's better judgement:The Jewish religious establishment was on good terms with the Romans, and had few problems with Jesus being put to death, but ultimately Jesus was sentenced in a Roman court of law.
The Jews = Israel = rejected by God in 33AD for rejecting Jesus as the Christ/Messiah and murdering Him.My point was The Jews did not kill Jesus.
I don't think you can blame the entire Jewish race for the actions of a handful.
I’d say that the Jews who forced it were certainly guilty of crucifying Jesus. That said, when we reject Christ, we also are crucifying Him. Remember, God is not bound in time. While historically the crucifixion took place a long time ago, we still crucify Christ. We also are crucified with Christ and die with Him and are raised again in new life. Now, we bear that Cross with Jesus. We all are accountable for the crucifixion of Christ...every single one of us, for none of us are without sin.Guys, I was just looking at a TV show where a guest has created a documentary on the Holocaust and one speaker in the documentary said "the Jews did not kill Christ".
my thinking is the Romans physically killed Christ but it was the Jews who forced it so they were responsible and accountable, your thoughts on this please?
In the beginning, weren't the Jews a race? But anybody can become a Jew, as far as I know.Sorry that was never my intention or my thinking blaming the "entire" Jewish nation, I was comparing the Romans who did the actual deed to the small group of Jews who caused it.
BTW, my understanding is that the Jews are not a "race" but rather a religion?
In the beginning, weren't the Jews a race? But anybody can become a Jew, as far as I know.
Guys, I was just looking at a TV show where a guest has created a documentary on the Holocaust and one speaker in the documentary said "the Jews did not kill Christ".
my thinking is the Romans physically killed Christ but it was the Jews who forced it so they were responsible and accountable, your thoughts on this please?
I do not accept this teaching, it is gross injustice.Seems like your the only one who isn't getting it. You nailed Christ to the cross with your sins. That is unless your sinless.
Guys, I was just looking at a TV show where a guest has created a documentary on the Holocaust and one speaker in the documentary said "the Jews did not kill Christ".
my thinking is the Romans physically killed Christ but it was the Jews who forced it so they were responsible and accountable, your thoughts on this please?
No one killed Jesus, he was a sacrifice's, he even said him self you only do to me what I allow.
The Jews hung him on the cross, but he died him self as a scarifies for our sins.
That doesn't take away the fact that it was at the hand of someone else, and not his own that he was killed.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?