C
Crusaderbear
Guest
Read the whole Passion…
- Status
S
SnoopSword
Guest
NO! In the above context and in general, the JEWS caused the death of Jesus:
1 The 2:15 For some of the Jews killed the prophets, and some even killed the Lord Jesus. Now they have persecuted us, too. They fail to please God and work against all humanity. (NLT has the most ‘correct’ translation of this verse).
When we were at the trial, we were shouting to let Jesus go. When Jesus was giving his sermon at the mount, we were there, following him in awe. When Mary was knocking door to door, we recognized her voice and let her in because we’re Catholics.
This is very important because as a baptized Catholic, you are of a different ‘race’ than the rest of mankind. Don’t believe me? Its in the Catechism under baptism (forgive me for not posting the citation as I’m on the iPad right now). Your soul bears a different concious towards Christ.
Note: Jesus death is complicated and legalistic and takes on many aspects. Technically the Jews didn’t actually kill him (by their hands) or that could create theological/prophetical problems. They failed at killing him by themselves so relied on other means to accomplish their father’s goals (John 8:44). How do you think Israel was formed? They used the same methods to launch the greatest Christian persecution in history. Spray paint on the Church walls etc. Christian tours have converted to non-Christian Egypt style mythology tours of the Old Testament with a Pro-Jewish slant. Christian cities are now Jewish or Muslim in growth with the Christians being pushed out and persecuted.
The ‘bees nest’ got excited all over the middle east and local Christians beared the actual concequences when historically a large chunk of Syria, Egypt was Christian. Almost all of Lebanon. If people here only know what they have done to Christiany throught the entire middle east region youd finally see what the their end goal really is. There ONE people persecuted shrinking in number - Christians. And thats why Israel is there. And lets give thanks to the Reformation for making all this possible. People cannot have proper discernment outside the Church.
Anyhow, I learned the best way to treat Jesus death was when debating Muslims, I came across one of their veres and bingo! It said something like:
“Jesus didn’t die on the cross, it just appeared that way”.
We must ask, is Jesus really ‘dead’? I’d ask you to show me the corpse. The Shroud shows proof of what happened to his corpse. If we say he was ‘dead’ then he wasnt God. God came into the flesh and participated with humanity. His risen flesh and blood is here with us until this very day. I know death is legalistic and complicated especially where Jesus is concerned, but there is also mystery attatched. If we say the wrong things about his death, then it could deny his divinity or invalidate is victory. But again if Jesus is dead, show me the corpse.
Most atheists are seekers (my priest told me that actually). And I’ve come to conclude that is true. Their main issue is the behavior and hypocricy of the quasi-Christians mentioned above. Some simply have Aspergers or high functioning autism which makes them prone to atheism (a couple of studies show this). Ask the most vocal and legalistic of the group ‘are your parents Jewish’? and you’ll be AMAZED at the answers.
Seeking Atheists rarely place blame on Jesus himself for anything evil. But when you find that person who DOES accuse Jesus, simply ask the above question and you’ll begin to see a pattern. Also if you see a ‘Christian’ who literally defends Satan, just ask them the same question and you’ll be amazed. They REALLY DO speak up very quickly when you accuse Satan of anything and literally defend him. They also tend to support Judas…
(note: some would say everything in this post is only applicable to males)
J
James248
Guest
Technically he was killed because of a minority complex (one man for the nation), and because of political expediency in the case of Pilate. But the religious leaders did charge him with claiming to be the King of the Jews and discouraging paying taxes to Caesar., which fall under maiestas, meaning treason. ALL subjects of the empire could be tried for treason, whether citizens or not.
L
LilyM
Guest
Thanks! I was about to say - sarcastic tone or not, in essence this does appear to be the charge for which Jesus was killed, hence the sign above His head did not say “blasphemer” or make any other reference to His religious views.
G
Gorgias
Guest
"LilyM:
Luke:
“Pilate then summoned the chief priests, the rulers, and the people and said to them, “You brought this man to me and accused him of inciting the people to revolt. I have conducted my investigation in your presence and have not found this man guilty of the charges you have brought against him, nor did Herod, for he sent him back to us. So no capital crime has been committed by him.”
Matthew:
“When Pilate saw that he was not succeeding at all, but that a riot was breaking out instead, he took water and washed his hands in the sight of the crowd, saying, ‘I am innocent of this man’s blood. Look to it yourselves.’”
So, although the leaders in Jerusalem claimed treason, Pilate rejected it. Jesus wasn’t crucified for treason against the Roman empire.
They claimed it, but Pilate (and Herod) didn’t buy it. In fact, in the Gospels, Pilate tells them that he’s innocent. Nevertheless, he allows a crucifixion, in order to avoid a riot:
Luke:
“Pilate then summoned the chief priests, the rulers, and the people and said to them, “You brought this man to me and accused him of inciting the people to revolt. I have conducted my investigation in your presence and have not found this man guilty of the charges you have brought against him, nor did Herod, for he sent him back to us. So no capital crime has been committed by him.”
Matthew:
“When Pilate saw that he was not succeeding at all, but that a riot was breaking out instead, he took water and washed his hands in the sight of the crowd, saying, ‘I am innocent of this man’s blood. Look to it yourselves.’”
So, although the leaders in Jerusalem claimed treason, Pilate rejected it. Jesus wasn’t crucified for treason against the Roman empire.
J
James248
Guest
Then why the sign? Why “If you release Him you are no friend of Caesar’s?”
P
patrick457
Guest
Let’s review the political situation in Judaea first.
I often say that Roman rule in Judaea Province is indirect. While the Roman prefect (praefectus) officially governed the area, actual daily government was left to native (Jewish and Samaritan) authorities, who acted as the middlemen: for example, in Jerusalem it is the high priest, his circle of advisors, and the aristocracy - “the chief priests, the scribes and the elders” that the gospels speak of. There were a few Roman soldiers in garrisons acting as token lookouts for trouble, but otherwise, Jewish cities, towns and villages were run by Jewish magistrates and elders, according to Jewish law.
The prefect only showed up in Jerusalem during the major pilgrimage festivals (such as Passover) to check for any potential unrest. During the rest of the year, however, he and most of his soldiers are in Caesarea Maritima with other gentiles, away from the sight of the Jews.
Why would Rome decide to govern this difficult area through the local priesthood? Actually, the priests were not their first choice; they preferred a strongman, like Herod, but, in the absence of such, they fell back on the region’s own tradition: rule by the aristocracy, especially the priestly aristocracy.
For over 400 years, from the late 6th or early 5th century BCE to 37 BCE, when Herod conquered Jerusalem, the Jews in Palestine had been governed by a priestly aristocracy. The biblical stories of Saul, David, Solomon, and their successors are so well known that we think of Israel as usually being a monarchy. That is an error, probably caused by the simple fact that our Bible contains many more books that reflect the period of the monarchy than the subsequent period, when priests ruled Jerusalem and Judea under a remote and usually non-interfering empire-successively Persia, Alexander the Great, Ptolemaic Egypt, and Seleucid Syria. About as many years had passed under high priestly rule as under monarchical rule, and the priestly years were very recent. First-century Jews in Palestine had before them only two historical models of government: monarchy and priestly aristocratic oligarchy. Many, many Jews preferred the aristocracy to a monarchy, since kings tended to be dictators. Many Palestinian Jews disliked both of the two recent royal families, the Hasmoneans and the Herodians. Most of the high priests had been more collegial rulers than Herod and Archelaus, and most Jews also knew that the priests would interfere with even fewer aspects of their culture than had Herod and Archelaus. Consequently, a lot of Jews preferred the new arrangement in Jerusalem and Judea. There was a remote empire, represented on Palestinian soil by one Roman of rank (supported by a handful of troops). This Roman and his small military force lived among a lot of other gentiles in Caesarea, seldom came to Jerusalem, and did nothing to plant Greco-Roman laws and customs in the Jewish parts of the country. In place of Roman officials in all the main cities of Palestine and of Roman soldiers patrolling the towns and villages, motivating shopkeepers and farmers to cater to their tastes, we should think of one Roman official, protected by a few Roman soldiers, living in or around one city, with only very small outposts occupying forts in potentially hostile territory rather like the U.S. cavalry in Indian territory. Effective rule was in the hands of local aristocrats. This was true in smaller communities as well as in Jerusalem. Throughout the province of Judea, cities, towns, and villages were locally governed by leading local citizens.
This is pretty much why the chief priests and the aristocracy arrested Jesus: any vendetta aside, it was their responsibility to do so in the first place. They had to keep public order, and people like Jesus are a threat to the peace. They are literally in between the local populace and the Roman governor. The aristocrats had to answer to Rome, because they were the responsible government.
It was the oligarchs’ responsibility to arrest any troublemaker and review their case. Ideally, they would then turn the person over to the prefect to be dealt with accordingly (because Jewish courts did not seem to officially have the right to exercise capital punishment). And that’s what happened with Jesus.
I often say that Roman rule in Judaea Province is indirect. While the Roman prefect (praefectus) officially governed the area, actual daily government was left to native (Jewish and Samaritan) authorities, who acted as the middlemen: for example, in Jerusalem it is the high priest, his circle of advisors, and the aristocracy - “the chief priests, the scribes and the elders” that the gospels speak of. There were a few Roman soldiers in garrisons acting as token lookouts for trouble, but otherwise, Jewish cities, towns and villages were run by Jewish magistrates and elders, according to Jewish law.
The prefect only showed up in Jerusalem during the major pilgrimage festivals (such as Passover) to check for any potential unrest. During the rest of the year, however, he and most of his soldiers are in Caesarea Maritima with other gentiles, away from the sight of the Jews.
Why would Rome decide to govern this difficult area through the local priesthood? Actually, the priests were not their first choice; they preferred a strongman, like Herod, but, in the absence of such, they fell back on the region’s own tradition: rule by the aristocracy, especially the priestly aristocracy.
For over 400 years, from the late 6th or early 5th century BCE to 37 BCE, when Herod conquered Jerusalem, the Jews in Palestine had been governed by a priestly aristocracy. The biblical stories of Saul, David, Solomon, and their successors are so well known that we think of Israel as usually being a monarchy. That is an error, probably caused by the simple fact that our Bible contains many more books that reflect the period of the monarchy than the subsequent period, when priests ruled Jerusalem and Judea under a remote and usually non-interfering empire-successively Persia, Alexander the Great, Ptolemaic Egypt, and Seleucid Syria. About as many years had passed under high priestly rule as under monarchical rule, and the priestly years were very recent. First-century Jews in Palestine had before them only two historical models of government: monarchy and priestly aristocratic oligarchy. Many, many Jews preferred the aristocracy to a monarchy, since kings tended to be dictators. Many Palestinian Jews disliked both of the two recent royal families, the Hasmoneans and the Herodians. Most of the high priests had been more collegial rulers than Herod and Archelaus, and most Jews also knew that the priests would interfere with even fewer aspects of their culture than had Herod and Archelaus. Consequently, a lot of Jews preferred the new arrangement in Jerusalem and Judea. There was a remote empire, represented on Palestinian soil by one Roman of rank (supported by a handful of troops). This Roman and his small military force lived among a lot of other gentiles in Caesarea, seldom came to Jerusalem, and did nothing to plant Greco-Roman laws and customs in the Jewish parts of the country. In place of Roman officials in all the main cities of Palestine and of Roman soldiers patrolling the towns and villages, motivating shopkeepers and farmers to cater to their tastes, we should think of one Roman official, protected by a few Roman soldiers, living in or around one city, with only very small outposts occupying forts in potentially hostile territory rather like the U.S. cavalry in Indian territory. Effective rule was in the hands of local aristocrats. This was true in smaller communities as well as in Jerusalem. Throughout the province of Judea, cities, towns, and villages were locally governed by leading local citizens.
This is pretty much why the chief priests and the aristocracy arrested Jesus: any vendetta aside, it was their responsibility to do so in the first place. They had to keep public order, and people like Jesus are a threat to the peace. They are literally in between the local populace and the Roman governor. The aristocrats had to answer to Rome, because they were the responsible government.
It was the oligarchs’ responsibility to arrest any troublemaker and review their case. Ideally, they would then turn the person over to the prefect to be dealt with accordingly (because Jewish courts did not seem to officially have the right to exercise capital punishment). And that’s what happened with Jesus.
G
Gorgias
Guest
He’s tweaking at them.
Because that’s what they tried (unsuccessfully) to convince him of…
J
James248
Guest
Well they succeeded because Pilate handed Him over to be crucified.
D
dshix
Guest
Actually, it was less that the Jews convinced Pilate that they were right, and more that they intimidated him.
When they said “If you release Him you are no friend of Caesar’s”, Pilate knew at that moment that if he released Jesus, the Jews would immediately cause a massive uprising, and accuse Pilate of treason against Rome. This would almost definitely end Pilate’s career and eventually land him in prison or dead, because Rome had already warned him to put down the uprisings in that region, “or else”.
Pilate foresaw this and took the easy way out: killing Jesus.
G
Gorgias
Guest
J
James248
Guest
Which is what happened 6 years later.
P
patrick457
Guest
I’ve probably said this a number of times in various threads already, but one thing you must understand is that the Romans governed Judaea Province via indirect rule: the Roman governor (the prefect - in this case Pilate) is nominally in charge, but in reality, native (Jewish and Samaritan) magistrates ran the government on his behalf. That’s actually pretty much why it was the chief priests, the aristocracy and the Temple police that arrested Jesus. It was technically their job to do so on behalf of the prefect, since they were the responsible officials for Jerusalem. It was their duty to keep the peace. They would arrest Him, examine Him, then hand Him over to Pilate to be sentenced, since he was the one that had the right to execute.
I’ll admit, given what we know about Pilate from the extrabiblical sources (Philo and Josephus), I won’t say that he ‘lacked courage’ or that he easily capitulated to the demands of the local people. I won’t go as far as those modern historians who say Pilate was a total monster who butchered Jews for the fun of it and the gospel accounts of Jesus’ trial before him is mostly fictional, but I don’t really buy the weak, vacillating image of Pilate folks often glean from the gospels either.
Personally, I agree with this assessment (and this) and think that there might have even been some kind of play-acting going on when Pilate was trying to ‘release’ Jesus. I do think Pilate saw Jesus as a threat (if he was really convinced Jesus was innocent and the Jewish leaders are full of it I think he would have done what he did usually and beat them on the spot; I mean, he didn’t care when his men later slaughtered the Samaritan prophet and his disciples either); he just manipulated things to make the chief priests look bad while he got off relatively scot-free.
I’ll admit, given what we know about Pilate from the extrabiblical sources (Philo and Josephus), I won’t say that he ‘lacked courage’ or that he easily capitulated to the demands of the local people. I won’t go as far as those modern historians who say Pilate was a total monster who butchered Jews for the fun of it and the gospel accounts of Jesus’ trial before him is mostly fictional, but I don’t really buy the weak, vacillating image of Pilate folks often glean from the gospels either.
Personally, I agree with this assessment (and this) and think that there might have even been some kind of play-acting going on when Pilate was trying to ‘release’ Jesus. I do think Pilate saw Jesus as a threat (if he was really convinced Jesus was innocent and the Jewish leaders are full of it I think he would have done what he did usually and beat them on the spot; I mean, he didn’t care when his men later slaughtered the Samaritan prophet and his disciples either); he just manipulated things to make the chief priests look bad while he got off relatively scot-free.
H
humble_catholic
Guest
Thanks , this is the answer I was looking for. Something concrete that explained the situation
God bless
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
The Romans tolerated kings under their dominion. It was one of the ways Romans kept various subject peoples quiet. They were often allowed to keep their own kings, their own laws, and their own religions. But they were all subject to Roman rule, Roman taxes, Roman commerce, Roman law (if it conflicted) and from time to time they had to pay homage to the Roman gods that was just lip-service.Grace but what is the Roman law against anyone calling himself a king ? Isn’t that treason ?
I sure wish I had some links that cheated this issue up but I can’t seem to find any that are definitive on this
Rome could be brutal almost beyond belief, but it could also be surprisingly tolerant. If, say, Rome wanted some kingdom or other, it first offered the king and his people Roman rule, but keeping their own ruler, customs, etc. If they accepted it, they had to accept certain aspects of Roman dominion, but were largely self-governing. If they resisted, they were treated without mercy.
K
Kielbasi
Guest
Not really, because Israel was just a conquered land ruled by Rome and Jesus wasn’t a Roman by any stretch of the word.
D
dshix
Guest
Ha, very true; but at least he bought himself 6 more years.
Glad to help.Thanks , this is the answer I was looking for. Something concrete that explained the situation
God bless
S
SnoopSword
Guest
Very debatable.
What if I told you that God was setting up the Graco-Roman empire as his True Holy Land and Kingdom during the time of the Old Testament?
What If I told you that Jesus and the Centurion is really there to demonstrate that Jesus is of Rome, and that the Law and Sabbath was actually ‘alien’ to him (yes, ‘alien’ is what the Catechism calls the religion/worship of the old covenant meaning it was ‘alien’ to Christ. It DID point to Christ however and often type-shadowed the (authentic) Faith in Spirit and truth)
What if I told you theres additional correspondances of Pilot to the Rome, perserved until this day where Pilot speaks so fondly of Jesus. After all, a learned intilectual like Pilot wanted to know ‘what is truth?’
And why did was he named Jesus? Names like Jesus and Nicodemus arent native names like Herod and Judas Iscariot (things that make you go hmmmm).
Was Rome or Greece crucifying people out in the open in their homelands? No? Did you know crucifixion is based off the OT Law?
So who is Christ closer to considering all this? Someone of Rome, an Israelite?
I’d say he was ANYTHING BUT Judean - i mean come on… he had to leave just to leave just to save his life! - Both as Baby AND as adult! Thats why he dwelled and lived in Galilee and was referred to more than once as a Galilean (way up north near Lebanon and Syria). You know, the same Gallilee refered TWICE as ‘Galillee [land] of the GENTILES’.
well wait… EXEPT for Judas Iscariot - he was the ONLY Judean and his last name was named after a town in Judea.
So I certainly do NOT consider a closed possibility that he was of Rome in a certain capacity. What does ROMANS 1:7 say? TO ALL WHO ARE IN ROME. Some is Jesus Roman? Umm… in a general context YES he was in Rome and proves so back then and through history.
On thing he is NOT though, is King of the Judeans. His own did notmrecieve him and made that charge AGAINST HIM. They used it to mock him. Because he wasnt one of them.
Rome = Good (Romans 1:7)
Synagogue (Sindacyte) Of Satan = Bad
The good did not kill Jesus. The light doesn’t mix with dark like they want us to believe. Such modern teachings are from the Synagogue/Lodge - not the One Holy Catholic and Apostalistic Church of ROME amd her Kingdom (empire) of God.
S
SnoopSword
Guest
No.Thanks , this is the answer I was looking for. Something concrete that explained the situation
God bless
The CONCRETE answer is the taboo one people dont like to talk about. The high priest had a dream that Jesus would die for the sins of their racial bretheren and bring them all back from the the diaspora. So hecause ofmthis, they PLOTTED TO KILL HIM.
(And this is EXACTLY the same perversion that is happening today because hundreds of years ago Christians started to believe the LIE of Anti-Chirst that ROME KILLED JESUS and were the ENEMY. Now they even call them 'those who KILLED the Saints… yes. Some American Bible Thumper sitting at home claiming The Roman Church are KILLERS OF SAINTS (Apocalypse).
This is what the spirit of Anti-Christ does. It perverts your mind into the twining of good and evil as one when they are in OPPOSITION to each other. The Spirit of anti-Christ will cause you to worship the great man of miracles that deceived the world! How? Easy - his name is Jesus who came 2000 years ago - Now everyone is fooled. No one knows if their believeing the right Jesus.
I thank God he allowed Jesus to take on nick names like Yashua. That way Christians can EASILY identify him. Yashua and YHVH and the Ruach. Yup. way to go. The ‘dark trinity’ is what people refer to it as in Apocalypse.
But if you want to excuse those who killed Christ just so you can place the blame on Rome to defend those who persecute you and hate you, well then, all I can say is I made the same mistake for years amd worse, but ultimately I could not be decieved. And your baptism should ensure you can not be decieved either.
L
LilyM
Guest
Well he DIDN’T release Jesus, so why “unsuccessfully”?
- Status