There are similarities between Egyptian and Judasism just as there as a ton of similarities between Roman/Greek and Christianity. Both evolved from the same culture, and it would be ignorant of one to deny that they have many things in common.
@Field:
CC - I’ll agree with that. Many self-professed “saviors” or revolutionaries made a stand in Roman occupied Judea. People were rebelling in any form the could against the Empire and their own leaders who were “going along with them” (not that they had much choice, looking for some sense of survival). Some were killed or disappeared if making a big enough stink. Jewish authorities would not stand for any troublemakers to take what little they had left away…
Really? Can you name some for me? The Jews complained against Jesus because he was causing a disturbance. It would be just as though you were having your birthday party and some guy comes in and starts telling you that you’re a horrible person and will go to hell. He starts disturbing the whole process and won’t stop. What will you do if not call the police on him? I mean, what they do to him afterwards is none of your concern. About the idea of the Jews wanting Pontius Pilate fo kill him, I don’t believe a word of it. There’s tons of bias in those stories. I mean, who wouldnt be bitter at a people who just refused to accept your new religion. f course you’d be angry with them, maybe even to the point of portraying them as horrible people.
Why is it so unbelievable that the Jew want Jesus to die ?
emugod - John the Baptist was probably most popular after Jesus…
Yes, but he was a follower of Jesus. According to the above post, there were others besides Jesus and his movement. I’d like to here some examples of these others.
Yes, but he was a follower of Jesus. According to the above post, there were others besides Jesus and his movement. I’d like to here some examples of these others.
there were a good 12 others, in addition to people who were spawned off of them.
Of the 12, only John son of zebbeddee did not die a martyr’s death.
Why is it so unbelievable that the Jew want Jesus to die ?
Because it really doesn’t reflect Jewish society of the time. Also, the New Testament depicts a large crowd at his death and I highly doubt this. he was not that important that so many people would go and see him and cheer for him to die. It seems very imbellished as to how the evil Jews wanted to kill Jesus. Also, the bias of the authors of the New Testament also makesi t hard to belive that the story is true. I’m sure there were those who wanted him to die, but on a large scale, I highly doubt it. The Jews of the time were religious and the religion doesn’t teach to publicly cheer and call upon someone to die. Quite the opposite in fact. Nobody in Jewish history has ever been given the death sentence by a Jewish court, the way they work is different from the courts of today.
Why is it so unbelievable that the Jew want Jesus to die ?
Because it really doesn’t reflect Jewish society of the time. Also, the New Testament depicts a large crowd at his death and I highly doubt this. he was not that important that so many people would go and see him and cheer for him to die. It seems very imbellished as to how the evil Jews wanted to kill Jesus. Also, the bias of the authors of the New Testament also makesi t hard to belive that the story is true. I’m sure there were those who wanted him to die, but on a large scale, I highly doubt it. The Jews of the time were religious and the religion doesn’t teach to publicly cheer and call upon someone to die. Quite the opposite in fact. Nobody in Jewish history has ever been given the death sentence by a Jewish court, the way they work is different from the courts of today.
I thought Roman executions were spectator sport’s regardless of the victim’s celebrity status. Jewish leaders at that time were very weary of troublemakers (regardless of their message) who could be listed as “revolutionaries” by the Roman authorities. They wanted to hold onto what little control and power they still retained. Some versions of the story make it seem that the Jewish leadership was “out to get Jesus”, but it may be more that they were trying to keep their own puppet positions while they still could. More “people” oriented leadership feared strict fallout from the Romans…
You think that Jews are evil? Or why did you add that adjective?
Me thinks you’d have a hard time with “Ol’ Blood and Guts.”
@cystic:
Why is it so unbelievable that the Jew want Jesus to die ?
Because it really doesn’t reflect Jewish society of the time. Also, the New Testament depicts a large crowd at his death and I highly doubt this. he was not that important that so many people would go and see him and cheer for him to die. It seems very imbellished as to how the evil Jews wanted to kill Jesus. Also, the bias of the authors of the New Testament also makesi t hard to belive that the story is true. I’m sure there were those who wanted him to die, but on a large scale, I highly doubt it. The Jews of the time were religious and the religion doesn’t teach to publicly cheer and call upon someone to die. Quite the opposite in fact. Nobody in Jewish history has ever been given the death sentence by a Jewish court, the way they work is different from the courts of today.
- with regards to Jewish society of the time - the Jews were an oppressed people, looking for Christ, they were fanatical and well populated with zealots, many of whom (including Judas) were looking for someone to liberate them (violently if possible) from the Romans.
- His ministry was very important if you believe the NT. Besides miracles and his radical teachings, he was both a very popular and a hated figure depending on who you were looking at. If you don’t believe the NT, then you’re right - it would appear that he was a nobody.
- It’s not a matter of the “evil Jews” wanting to kill Jesus. This is a popular refrain by white supremacists. No, Jesus and all of the important early Christians were Jewish. There was more going on than a nation of evil Jews. Christ was sent to earth to die, and the Romans killed him at the request of some very powerful, fanatical Jews.
- Bias - of 2 authors (Matthew and John) ok given that they were his followers, but the other two (Luke and Mark) were historians who witnessed what had happened and believed. There was no other real reason for “bias” here.
- Things were different back then. Also God was working in mysterious ways then, and so was the evil one. You, of course, are right. We don’t know the number of people who were there. It was likely many - close as it was to Passover, and in Jerusalem, and Jesus was an important prophet of the day. But i wasn’t there, and the bible does not give numbers. I do believe that there were crowds there, and never undersestimate the power of a crowd of people.
Jesus’ time was slightly before the zealots, it was during the Sadducees, who were the priests and the Pharisees, who were the majority of the nation. There were also Essenes, a sect that lived in the desert. The belief is that Jesus was from one of those along with his followers. I don’t believe that the Jews wanted him to die, at least, not most of them. I mean, you;d want someone who causes a huge disturbance to be punished, but the versions I’ve read in the New testament show it as though they wanted to make sure he’d die. the two historians you speak of, I don’t believe they are an accurate source because at the time, historicans had to imbellish their stories in order for them to be popular and in order to make a living, something Josephus Flavius had to do when he wrote his two books on the Great Revolt and on King Herod.
F_alk, I wasnt saying I believe Jews are evil, you might not be familiar with sarcasm in English. It’s when you say something with a certain tone when you want to show how it’s not true, you mean to imply that the opposite is true. Of course I have enver been there, but the only true sources that I find are good for studying the time is Josephus Flavius’ books and the Roman records. The Roman records never mention Jesus, which means either he didn’t exist or he wasnt important enough to be put into their records. I prefer the latter because I doubt there was no historical Jesus.
You want to know about the Jewish court system now? That’s a long topic to get into, the Talmud tractates of Makkot, and Sanhedrin are on the law court from what I know and also Baba Kamma, Baba Metziah (which I’m currently studying) and Baba Batra (the longest tractate). It’s very complex, kind of liek the secular law system.
seems very imbellished as to how the evil Jews wanted to kill Jesus.
You know i don’t think jews are evil.
- It’s not a matter of the “evil Jews” wanting to kill Jesus. This is a popular refrain by white supremacists. No, Jesus and all of the important early Christians were Jewish. There was more going on than a nation of evil Jews. Christ was sent to earth to die, and the Romans killed him at the request of some very powerful, fanatical Jews.
I think it’s a good resumé (exept the “he was send to earth”).
The Roman records never mention Jesus, which means either he didn’t exist or he wasnt important enough to be put into their records. I prefer the latter because I doubt there was no historical Jesus.
This support the scenario CC just said.
How does it support what CC said? CC said that Jesus had an important ministry while it appears that the Romans did not consider him important at all. It’s quite contradictory to what CC said.
i wish i could pull the names of the Roman historians who did mention Jesus out - i believe that there were 2 of them that were brought up in a different thread.
Also Luke and Mark were not writing to be popular historians, but rather reciting things that they had heard and seen in letters to people.
As far as Jesus having an important ministry, do you consider that Roman historians would consider a guy who was executed in Israel one day after preaching about stuff to be a historically significant occassion? Would a 1890’s Britain historian include a refernce to a regional news story in Manitoba about a religious figure? I’m curious if a British historian would even have mentioned Louis Riel, nevermind someone of a different faith than everyone else.
:lol:
@cystic:
i wish i could pull the names of the Roman historians who did mention Jesus out - i believe that there were 2 of them that were brought up in a different thread.
Also Luke and Mark were not writing to be popular historians, but rather reciting things that they had heard and seen in letters to people.
As far as Jesus having an important ministry, do you consider that Roman historians would consider a guy who was executed in Israel one day after preaching about stuff to be a historically significant occassion? Would a 1890’s Britain historian include a refernce to a regional news story in Manitoba about a religious figure? I’m curious if a British historian would even have mentioned Louis Riel, nevermind someone of a different faith than everyone else.
What about the Dead Sea Scrolls? They clearly mention a form of Christianity in their days, over 100 years before Jesus. How do you explain that? And how do you explain the fact that in the dead sea scrolls it says a “young gilr” and not a “virgin” in the Isaiah quotes relied on by the church to claim that Mary was a virgin?
