Reincarnation

Hypatia_Alexandria

Well-known member
Oh, were you there? How do you know that Pontuis Pilate was not heeding the Jewish Sanhedrin on this matter.
Sources much closer to the time refute your silly assumptions.
You cannot use the four canonical gospels to prove the veracity of the four canonical gospels. That is circular logic.

We have others sources that tell us how Rome governed its provinces in the early years of the empire
So why do you think these guys wanted Jesus killed. Exactly for that Him a man claiming to be one with God. So they ran to the Romans. Pilate washed his hands, for he could find no guilt in Jesus, and obviously put a sign up to justify his giving in to the Jews.

Not that difficult to understand you know.
Those accounts are later Christian apologetics. Do you have any comprehension concerning the impact of 70 CE on the fledgling Christian communities? Here was a cult [not a religion by Rome's definition] that worshipped a recently crucified Jew who had also threatened insurrection. Christians were already viewed with some suspicion by their neighbours. Clandestine meetings were frowned on in Rome. And as with any secret cult/sect/society local gossip supplied lurid accounts of what they actually got up to.
Absolutely. That is what the Jewish people even today expected. Not what Jesus expected though. It was confirmed at His babtism that He was the Messiah, and he confirmed Himself that he would be raised from the dead by referencing Johnah and that He would raise Himself using the Temple as metahor.
That is all your preconceived opinion and nothing more.
You obviously have not properly read why the Jewish Sanhedrin wanted Him killed and as it was Passover, why they lay false charges against him before Rome.
The only reason the Sanhedrin might have wanted this man removed is that he threatened the status quo. However, that is a debatable point.

I would also point out that the four gospel accounts differ as to when the interrogation took place. Was it on the eve of Passover or afterwards? The writer of John says one. The writers of the Synoptics say the other.
Wenn jemand Unsinn schreibt, gehe ich davon aus, dass er die historische Realität nicht versteht.
 

Manfred

Well-known member
You cannot use the four canonical gospels to prove the veracity of the four canonical gospels. That is circular logic.

We have others sources that tell us how Rome governed its provinces in the early years of the empire
And you think they had an SOP and every case was not judged by its merit.
Pilate must have been an idiot to think Jesus was a threat to Rome.

Those accounts are later Christian apologetics. Do you have any comprehension concerning the impact of 70 CE on the fledgling Christian communities? Here was a cult [not a religion by Rome's definition] that worshipped a recently crucified Jew who had also threatened insurrection. Christians were already viewed with some suspicion by their neighbours. Clandestine meetings were frowned on in Rome. And as with any secret cult/sect/society local gossip supplied lurid accounts of what they actually got up to.
What dribble

The only reason meetings became clandestine was because of severe persecution.
Why discount apologetic's. You think all lied, to gain torture.
You further think that there is one teaching of insurrection that Rome feared.... Ridiculous. The opposite is true. The Christians believed that they should obey their masters and not rebel
That is all your preconceived opinion and nothing more.

The only reason the Sanhedrin might have wanted this man removed is that he threatened the status quo. However, that is a debatable point.
His teaching did

I would also point out that the four gospel accounts differ as to when the interrogation took place. Was it on the eve of Passover or afterwards? The writer of John says one. The writers of the Synoptics say the other.
When ever 4 different people view an event or when they ask different witnesses who were there to recount what happened, you think it would be identical? That would be the height of vanity.

Wenn jemand Unsinn schreibt, gehe ich davon aus, dass er die historische Realität nicht versteht.
Du liegst absolut richtig. Vielleicht müssen Sie Ihren eigenen Rat befolgen.
 

Hypatia_Alexandria

Well-known member
And you think they had an SOP and every case was not judged by its merit.
Pilate must have been an idiot to think Jesus was a threat to Rome.
In order to establish the kingdom of god in Israel - i.e. a theocracy - entailed the removal of Rome in that region.

You do not consider that Pilate [and Rome] regarded that as a threat?

As previously noted this region seethed with resentment against Rome and had already witnessed two serious rebellions. Nor was this the only Messianic movement. There had been others before Jesus and there would be others who proclaimed, or were proclaimed, to be Messiahs after him.

The only reason meetings became clandestine was because of severe persecution.
What severe persecution in the late first century CE?
The Christians believed that they should obey their masters and not rebel
Precisely the reason why the Christian Christ is portrayed in those four canonical gospel passion narratives as pacific. This figure stood as a direct contrast to the rebellious Jews of 66-70 CE.
That is all your preconceived opinion and nothing more.
If you do not have any understanding of the region's history and the impact of the First Jewish War on fledgling Christianity, you are not going to make sense of all this.
His teaching did
His teaching could have risked violence. For many Jews the Sadducees were regarded as quislings acquiescing to Rome in exchange for maintaining their position and privileges.

You should also remember that the position of the High Priest was in the power of the Praefectus who could appoint and remove individuals [as Pilate's predecessor had done several times]. Furthermore, at this period the sacerdotal vestments required by the High Priest for Jewish Holy Days were held in the Antonia and only handed over for the duration.
When ever 4 different people view an event or when they ask different witnesses who were there to recount what happened, you think it would be identical? That would be the height of vanity.
Then they are not reliable witnesses.
 

Manfred

Well-known member
In order to establish the kingdom of god in Israel - i.e. a theocracy - entailed the removal of Rome in that region.

You do not consider that Pilate [and Rome] regarded that as a threat?

As previously noted this region seethed with resentment against Rome and had already witnessed two serious rebellions. Nor was this the only Messianic movement. There had been others before Jesus and there would be others who proclaimed, or were proclaimed, to be Messiahs after him.

Not by a man with 72 followers no.
He found no fault with Jesus. The Sanhedrin threatened rebellion if Jesus was not charged.
Pilate even offered Barabbas a known killer and thief in the place of Jesus, and the Jews shouted in unison for Jesus to be killed.

What severe persecution in the late first century CE?
The insurrection happened 70 AD by Jews. At this time Christians were also severely persecuted.

Precisely the reason why the Christian Christ is portrayed in those four canonical gospel passion narratives as pacific. This figure stood as a direct contrast to the rebellious Jews of 66-70 CE.
Nothing but speculation.
Pilate wanted to free him. The Jews freed a known killer and thief in order to have Jesus crucified.

If you do not have any understanding of the region's history and the impact of the First Jewish War on fledgling Christianity, you are not going to make sense of all this.
Jewish war on Christianity?
While Jesus was alive? When was the Jewish war?

His teaching could have risked violence. For many Jews the Sadducees were regarded as quislings acquiescing to Rome in exchange for maintaining their position and privileges.
No. His teaching definitely could not Prove that it could?

You should also remember that the position of the High Priest was in the power of the Praefectus who could appoint and remove individuals [as Pilate's predecessor had done several times]. Furthermore, at this period the sacerdotal vestments required by the High Priest for Jewish Holy Days were held in the Antonia and only handed over for the duration.
So? It proves that they had the ear of the Preafectus and that they could manipulate a situation.

Then they are not reliable witnesses.
Says who? Do you think your opinion trumps that of many witnesses.
 

Hypatia_Alexandria

Well-known member
Not by a man with 72 followers no.
From where do you get that figure?

Furthermore, this was a major Jewish festival, the usual population of Jerusalem would be swollen by thousands of pilgrims coming in from surrounding areas. That is the reason the Praefectus went to Jerusalem at Jewish festivals, taking with him additional troops to support the garrison in the Antonia in case trouble should break out.
He found no fault with Jesus.
That is nothing but later Christian apologetics as I have made clear. Claiming, or being acclaimed as, the Jewish Messiah - the King of the Jews - was a capital offence.
The Sanhedrin threatened rebellion if Jesus was not charged.
More Christian sensationalism.
Pilate even offered Barabbas a known killer and thief in the place of Jesus, and the Jews shouted in unison for Jesus to be killed.
The Passover amnesty is a manifest fiction.

Furthermore, why should a Roman military governor be intimidated and swayed by a vociferous local mob into condemning a prisoner he had previously acknowledged to be innocent of any crime?
The insurrection happened 70 AD by Jews.
Do not forget 4 BCE and 6 CE.
At this time Christians were also severely persecuted.
Where were Christians "severely persecuted" in 70 CE?
Pilate wanted to free him.
If Pilate sincerely believed in Jesus' innocence he could have had the prisoner transferred to Caesarea for further interrogation.

The Jews freed a known killer and thief in order to have Jesus crucified.
I recommend you check the Greek.
Jewish war on Christianity?
There was no Christianity at that period. Or are you trying tell us that Jesus was a Christian?
While Jesus was alive?

When was the Jewish war?
The First Jewish War was 66 CE. The rebellion of Judas was 6 CE and the rebellion put down by Varus was in 4 BCE.
No. His teaching definitely could not Prove that it could?
To establish a theocracy required the removal of Rome. Now how Jesus anticipated that to be accomplished is open to speculation. However, proclaiming, or being proclaimed as the Jewish Messiah carried a capital sentence.
So? It proves that they had the ear of the Preafectus and that they could manipulate a situation.

It proves nothing of the sort.

However, it does prove that you hold to the old calumny of the Jews as the Christ killers.

And we know where that ultimately led, don't we? To the gates of Treblinka and Auschwitz.

 

Manfred

Well-known member
From where do you get that figure?

Furthermore, this was a major Jewish festival, the usual population of Jerusalem would be swollen by thousands of pilgrims coming in from surrounding areas. That is the reason the Praefectus went to Jerusalem at Jewish festivals, taking with him additional troops to support the garrison in the Antonia in case trouble should break out.

That is nothing but later Christian apologetics as I have made clear. Claiming, or being acclaimed as, the Jewish Messiah - the King of the Jews - was a capital offence.

More Christian sensationalism.

The Passover amnesty is a manifest fiction.

Furthermore, why should a Roman military governor be intimidated and swayed by a vociferous local mob into condemning a prisoner he had previously acknowledged to be innocent of any crime?

Do not forget 4 BCE and 6 CE.

Where were Christians "severely persecuted" in 70 CE?

If Pilate sincerely believed in Jesus' innocence he could have had the prisoner transferred to Caesarea for further interrogation.


I recommend you check the Greek.

There was no Christianity at that period. Or are you trying tell us that Jesus was a Christian?



The First Jewish War was 66 CE. The rebellion of Judas was 6 CE and the rebellion put down by Varus was in 4 BCE.

To establish a theocracy required the removal of Rome. Now how Jesus anticipated that to be accomplished is open to speculation. However, proclaiming, or being proclaimed as the Jewish Messiah carried a capital sentence.


It proves nothing of the sort.

However, it does prove that you hold to the old calumny of the Jews as the Christ killers.

And we know where that ultimately led, don't we? To the gates of Treblinka and Auschwitz.
Oh please, your appeal to me not using the gospels is a sad attempt.
Your emotional appeal that Hitler hated the Jews because they were so called Christ killers is just intellectual laziness and worthless.

You think a man with less than 100 followers, who healed people, spoke about love of enemies, and instructing his followers and the Sanhedrin to give to Caesar what is due Caesar was this big insurrectionist that threatened Rome. It is ridiculous.

What did threaten Rome was the piousness of Christians after the death of Jesus.
That is why emperors like Nero had them tortured and killed in their thousands. His depravity was exposed and that he could not stand.

Nothing has changed since.
Christianity remains non violent. Anyone can be born into a religion. That does not automatically make you a follower of God.
It is logic 101
 

Manfred

Well-known member
So the "Feeding of the 5,000" is wrong? There were no crowds to welcome Jesus into Jerusalem?
Do you know what happened after the feeding of the 5000?
How many stayed?
Even his disciples said that this was a difficult teaching, and He was left with few.

You do know the same crowds that were singing Hosanna, were shouting crucify him, crucify him. We want Barnabas, crucify HIM
 

Manfred

Well-known member
So the "Feeding of the 5,000" is wrong? There were no crowds to welcome Jesus into Jerusalem?
Do you know what happened after the feeding of the 5000?
How many stayed?
Even his disciples said that this was a difficult teaching, and He was left with few.

You do know the same crowds that were singing Hosannah, were shouting crucify him, crucify him. We want Barnabas, crucify him!
 

Hypatia_Alexandria

Well-known member
Oh please, your appeal to me not using the gospels is a sad attempt.
Your emotional appeal that Hitler hated the Jews because they were so called Christ killers is just intellectual laziness and worthless.

You think a man with less than 100 followers, who healed people, spoke about love of enemies, and instructing his followers and the Sanhedrin to give to Caesar what is due Caesar was this big insurrectionist that threatened Rome. It is ridiculous.

What did threaten Rome was the piousness of Christians after the death of Jesus.
That is why emperors like Nero had them tortured and killed in their thousands. His depravity was exposed and that he could not stand.

Nothing has changed since.
Christianity remains non violent. Anyone can be born into a religion. That does not automatically make you a follower of God.
It is logic 101
You cannot cite the gospel accounts in order to verify the gospel accounts.

And whether you like it or not your religion from its New Testament texts roots has the Jews as the Christ killers, It is there in the gospel of Matthew, that of John, as well as in Acts.

You might also Read some of both ante and post Nicene ECFs on the Jews.

The Christian religion and its adherents have persecuted the Jews for nearly two millennia for those calumnies that first appear your Christian writings. Hitler came from a devout Christian society, as did Himmler and other leading Nazis and they merely utilised existing resentment and hatred.


1610729128150.png
 

Manfred

Well-known member
The Christian religion and its adherents have persecuted the Jews for nearly two millennia for those calumnies that first appear your Christian writings. Hitler came from a devout Christian society, as did Himmler and other leading Nazis and they merely utilised existing resentment and hatred.

Ignorance = bliss

Why did Hitler hate the Jewish people?

Your claim that he was a devout Christian because his parents were is ridiculously naive.

If the RCC who persecuted not only Jewish People but also reformed Christians and Muslims is your go to, then your argument is just as ignorant.

If Jesus teaches to love to your enemies, and not to persecute them, and you love your enemies and you do not persecute them then you are a Christian, or a follower of the teachings of Christ.

If you hate your enemies and persecute them, and you do not follow the teachings of Christ, then you obviously are not a Christian or a follower of Christ.

You would compare those who actually follow the teachings of Christ, with those who do the exact opposite and claim to do it under a banner of Christianity and say both are devout Christians?

That is just being presumptive and ignorant.
Your claim that believers in Christ who never taught insurrection or never condoned violence, go against His teachings and do these things and are followers of Christ? It is an oxymoron.
 

rossum

Well-known member
Why did Hitler hate the Jewish people?

Your claim that he was a devout Christian because his parents were is ridiculously naive.
So, let's see what the man himself had to say:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."​
-- Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922​

If the RCC who persecuted not only Jewish People but also reformed Christians and Muslims is your go to, then your argument is just as ignorant.
Not just the RCC, but the Protestant churches as well. Luther wrote 'On the Jews and their Lies' in 1543, after his split from Rome.
 

Manfred

Well-known member
So, let's see what the man himself had to say:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."​
-- Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922​
Well he obviously couldn't even get his facts right as Jesus never summoned anyone to fight against the Jews.
So your gullibility in thinking this excuse to add to the main excuse warrants even consideration makes you naive.
Any fanatic can claim to be a Buddhist but if they do not follow those teachings do you call the Buddhist just because of the claim.
Hitler can claim Jesus as his lord and savior as much as he wants, it is obvious he never knew Jesus and vise versa.

Jesus has some strong words for those who say Lord Lord, we did this and that in your name..... Look it up.
Not just the RCC, but the Protestant churches as well. Luther wrote 'On the Jews and their Lies' in 1543, after his split from Rome.
Context of that letter?
Your link does not work.
Man up, and bring the context.

Perhaps Jesus a Jew was also anti Semitic?
39 They answered him, “Abraham is our father!” Jesus replied, “If you are Abraham’s children, you would be doing the deeds of Abraham. 40 But now you are trying to kill me, a man who has told you the truth I heard from God. Abraham did not do this! 41 You people are doing the deeds of your father.”

Then they said to Jesus, “We were not born as a result of immorality! We have only one Father, God himself.” 42 Jesus replied, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come from God and am now here. I have not come on my own initiative, but he sent me. 43 Why don’t you understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot accept my teaching. 44 You people are from your father the devil, and you want to do what your father desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not uphold the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he lies, he speaks according to his own nature because he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 But because I am telling you the truth, you do not believe me. 46 Who among you can prove me guilty of any sin? If I am telling you the truth, why don’t you believe me? 47 The one who belongs to God listens and responds to God’s words. You don’t listen and respond because you don’t belong to God.”
 

Hypatia_Alexandria

Well-known member
Ignorance = bliss

Why did Hitler hate the Jewish people?
Anti-Semitism was rife across Europe. Hitler was not unique in his attitude.
Your claim that he was a devout Christian because his parents were is ridiculously naive.
No. I pointed out that he came from a "devout Christian society". Austria was a devout Catholic country.
If the RCC who persecuted not only Jewish People
It was not simply the RCC. Many good Lutherans were members of the Nazi Party and individuals like Martin Niemöller were caught up in traditional Lutheran Christian anti-Semitism.

In a sermon in August 1935, just a matter of weeks before the first Nuremburg Laws were issued, Niemöller drew several parallels between the Nazis and their German supporters, and the Jews. That sermon is replete with those various Christian libels about Jews wherein Niemöller closely followed the traditional path that the Christian church had paved for nearly two millennia. In his sermon Niemöller stated that the Jews stood as the standard by which he judged (and by which God would judge) the Nazis and their followers for their actual, and potential, shortcomings. He presented the Jews as the paradigmatic evildoers in Christendom, claiming that Jewish history was “dark and sinister” and that the Jewish people could neither live nor nor die because they were "under a curse [that is] the eternal Jew" and this was evinced by the image of the Jew as "a restless wanderer who has no home and cannot find peace".

Much of the language Niemöller used in that sermon would not have been out of place in a speech by Goebbels.
 

Slyzr

Well-known member
The old lie that the Jews killed the Christ lies at the root of Christian anti-Semitism. Why do you imagine your religion persecuted the Jewish people for upward of 1700 years?




That traditional "history" of Christian martyrdom is mistaken. Christians were not routinely persecuted, hounded or targeted by the Roman authorities. Very few Christians died, and when they did so they were often executed for what today, might be considered political reasons. It should be noted that there is a distinct difference between persecution and proscription.



Again, you need to familiarise yourself with the recent history of this region and how Rome governed the province. Although practically ignored in the gospel accounts, Judaea was, in fact, an area seething with discontent and insurrection and from the late first century BCE and early first century CE there were several mass movements of Jewish peasants who came from villages or towns and who rallied to the leadership of charismatic figures who were viewed as “anointed kings of the Jews” i.e. Messiahs.

Nor were some of those Messianic movements of previous years easily subdued. At least one, led by Athronges, a shepherd, took quite some time for either the Roman or Herodian troops to eventually suppress it.

Then in 6 CE the area witnessed the serious uprising of Judas of Galilee which again was savagely put down resulting in thousands of crucifixions (see Josephus Jewish War II:5:2]. Judas established the fourth branch of Jewish philosophy, the Zealots and his son Menachem, who was another Messianic claimant, would go on to lead the initial revolt against Rome in 66 CE.

Despite his crucifixion by the Romans for sedition and insurrection, those later [post 70 CE] Christian apologists removed Jesus' from the orbit of the recently rebellious Jews. Jesus is portrayed in all four gospel passion narratives as entirely pacific and Rome [in the figure of Pilate] is portrayed sympathetically. It is Rome/Pilate who desperately wants to release this man. It is the Jews who demand Jesus' death and so Rome/Pilate is the weak and helpless accessory forced by the Jews to comply with their bloodlust and give them Jesus. Indeed in the gospel of John it is the Jews who carry out the crucifixion.
Good post....

IMO ....... the Jew's were trying to get the Romans to crucify Jesus.

And the Romans' through it right back at them.
 
Top