Muslim or Jew?

[Benjamin8o8]

http://theislampath.com/smf/Smileys/default/salam.gif

Salaam/peace

oucch , don’t hurt yourself like this . If Jesus (p) was always there as God , how & why he is not mentioned in Jewish book as God ?
Also , Jews don’t think Jesus (p) fulfilled the prophecies . QUOTE]

Tell that to the 500 Jews that converted and were put to death. And to the 3000 thousand that got baptised by Peter:ehh:

 

[Muslim_Woman]

In the name of Allah , Most Gracious, Most Merciful

Salaam/peace

Tell that to the 500 Jews that converted

what about 50,000 ( or more ) Jews who did not ?

 

[greystoke]

Pilate said three times “I FIND NO GUILT IN THIS MAN”. He gave the Jews a chance, he asked them either Barrabas or Christ. St. John’s Gospel is all about the Jews killing Christ. He actually states this in the Gospel. Pilate did not want to kill Christ, for in his heart he truly knew He was the Messiah, otherwise he wouldn’t of wrote “JESUS OF NAZARETH, KING OF THE JEWS.” When the Jews tried to dispute this sign that hung over His precious head, Pilate answered “It is what it is”.
Stop sugar coating Christ’s death. I am tired of people here saying no one was responsible for his death, especially not the Jews. I am tired of this. No one else yelled “CRUCIFY HIM” more than the Jews. That’s it.

Kind of like blaming the Americans for killing Abraham Lincoln…a, gulp, American himself.

Jesus was a Jew. So were his disciples. So were all the Gospel writers. But a non-Jew editing Scripture afterwards, who wanted to deflect blame from Rome, would have added just the kind of “exhonoration” of Pilate that you mention.

Bottom line, why didn’t they stone him? They would not have had to even consult the Roman authorities, much less get them to kill Christ.

The Romans killed him. And everyone blames the Jews.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Kind of like blaming the Americans for killing Abraham Lincoln…a, gulp, American himself.

Jesus was a Jew. So were his disciples. So were all the Gospel writers. But a non-Jew editing Scripture afterwards, who wanted to deflect blame from Rome, would have added just the kind of “exhonoration” of Pilate that you mention.

Bottom line, why didn’t they stone him? They would not have had to even consult the Roman authorities, much less get them to kill Christ.

The Romans killed him. And everyone blames the Jews.

Jesus Christ said “THE ONE WHO HAS HANDED ME OVER TO YOU HAS CAUSED THE GREATER SIN.” You my friend are in total denial of the Gospels, and you are calling the Apostles liars. It is written in the Four Gospels that the Jews were in fact the cause of Christ’s death. If you are learned in your Gospels, you will see that Pilate DID NOT want to condemn Christ but was in fact intimidated by the Jews hatred of Him.
I do not hold anyone today responsible for this, but 2,000 years ago the Jews WERE responsible. To deny this is to deny the Gospels of Christ.
Why are people so afraid to tell the truth? I am in no way an anti-semite because of the truth, it is what it is.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

OneTrueCathApos, if you are going to claim that it is right to condemn “the Jews” in perpeuity for the crucifixion of Christ, do you then accept the Muslim argument that any and all Christians are “Crusaders”? Your reasoning reminds me a lot of theirs, and I don’t accept it.

The Crucifixtion and the Crusades are two totally different situations. I thank God for the Crusades, otherwise, we’d all be Muslim. Furthermore, the Muslims invaded FIRST the Byzantines and their Emporer called Rome to help. We did what we did for the faith. No one here denies this but you in fact deny the death of Jesus and whose responsibility it was…sad…

 

[dzheremi]

The Crucifixtion and the Crusades are two totally different situations. I thank God for the Crusades, otherwise, we’d all be Muslim. Furthermore, the Muslims invaded FIRST the Byzantines and their Emporer called Rome to help. We did what we did for the faith. No one here denies this but you in fact deny the death of Jesus and whose responsibility it was…sad…

I’m not sure you understand my reason for making this comparison. I certainly don’t think the two situations are the same, but they are comparable insofar as some radical Muslims view all Christians as crusaders by analogy to the original event. You, similarly, seem to want to extend the responsibility for Christ’s crucifixion onto modern day Jews how have nothing to do with it.

Regardless of your or my or any Christian’s personal view of the Crusades, none of us who are alive today participated in them, so the Muslim argument is ridiculous.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

I’m not sure you understand my reason for making this comparison. I certainly don’t think the two situations are the same, but they are comparable insofar as some radical Muslims view all Christians as crusaders by analogy to the original event. You, similarly, seem to want to extend the responsibility for Christ’s crucifixion onto modern day Jews how have nothing to do with it.

Regardless of your or my or any Christian’s personal view of the Crusades, none of us who are alive today participated in them, so the Muslim argument is ridiculous.

Wrong. As I said in my prior post, the Jews OF THAT DAY were responsible for the death of Jesus. The Gospels do not lie.

 

[Benjamin8o8]

In the name of Allah , Most Gracious, Most Merciful

Salaam/peace

what about 50,000 ( or more ) Jews who did not ?

They kept the traditions and believes of the Jews that crucified Jesus Christ 2000 years ago, and are now still waiting for a long-expected Massiah.

 

[greystoke]

Jesus Christ said “THE ONE WHO HAS HANDED ME OVER TO YOU HAS CAUSED THE GREATER SIN.” You my friend are in total denial of the Gospels, and you are calling the Apostles liars. It is written in the Four Gospels that the Jews were in fact the cause of Christ’s death. If you are learned in your Gospels, you will see that Pilate DID NOT want to condemn Christ but was in fact intimidated by the Jews hatred of Him.
I do not hold anyone today responsible for this, but 2,000 years ago the Jews WERE responsible. To deny this is to deny the Gospels of Christ.
Why are people so afraid to tell the truth? I am in no way an anti-semite because of the truth, it is what it is.

Assuming that the Gospels remained unedited, and that no passages were inserted by non Jewish Christians at a later date, then we have a question that needs answering, yet everyone ignores it:

Why did the Jewish authorities not have Him stoned? They did not have to get* any* help or permission from the Romans to do away with Him for blasphemy.

That tells me that it was the other way round:

The Romans wanted to crucify him for sedition, and sought the help of the Sanhedrin. The latter were Jewish collaborators, not the general population of Jews at the time.

Down through the centuries the accusation of Deicide has been used to justify persecution of the Jews.

The amazing cry:

“let his blood be upon us, *and upon our children” *

is part of this accusation. Since the original Gospel writers were Jews, as opposed to later editors when Christianity became the Roman state religion, I am sure that this is an insertion to exhonorate Rome, along several other passages.

The Apostles weren’t liars(altho’ they seemed to think that Paul was).

Later editors, now thoroughly Romanized, may well have been in a quandary about Rome killing the Messiah. Their editing may have been a little creative.

This has already been acknowledged to have happened in many other cases, such as the reference to “born of a virgin” in Isaiah, and quoted in Matthew, when in fact it should read “born of a young woman”.

greystoke

 

[Valke2]

Assuming that the Gospels remained unedited, and that no passages were inserted by non Jewish Christians at a later date, then we have a question that needs answering, yet everyone ignores it:

Why did the Jewish authorities not have Him stoned? They did not have to get* any* help or permission from the Romans to do away with Him for blasphemy.

greystoke

I don’t believe the Jewish court had the authority to impose the death penalty when they were under Roman rule.

 

[greystoke]

I don’t believe the Jewish court had the authority to impose the death penalty when they were under Roman rule.

Yes they did have the authority…according to the Gospels themselves.

They stoned people for adultery, blasphemy, etc.

No need to involve the Romans at all, *if they were punishing someone for a religious offence. *

The Romans took a very dim view of what they considered sedition. Must have been a little embarrassing for Constantine to admit Messiah was killed by the Romans. I believe that Scripture was edited, perhaps heavily, when Christianity became the official religion of Rome. The purpose: to make the Jews look worse and the Roman authorities look better.

Even if Pilate truly washed his hands and claimed “I am innocent of the blood of this man”, that does not exhonorate him! And since Jesus was greeted by throngs of well wishers when he came into Jerusalem riding on an ***, I’m sure the bulk of the people who had seen him in action or even heard of him, held him in great esteem.

His very popularity would have been seen as a threat by Roman authorities. Messiah meant he was a successor of David as the “annointed one of Israel”, and therefore the rightful King. The Sanhedrin were collaborating with the Romans, and would have been threatened by Jesus…to the extent of his popularity with the people.

Whatever happened, there is no way that the majority of Jews at the time bayed for his blood. If anyone called out “crucify him, crucify him”, they would have been in the service of the collaborators.

The fatal words “let his blood be upon us* and upon our children” * have killed millions of Jews down through the ages. I believe no Jew wrote that, it simply doesn’t make any sense. But a Jew-hating Christian could come up with a detail like that, to justify persecution.

greystoke

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Yes they did have the authority…according to the Gospels themselves.

They stoned people for adultery, blasphemy, etc.

No need to involve the Romans at all, *if they were punishing someone for a religious offence. *

The Romans took a very dim view of what they considered sedition. Must have been a little embarrassing for Constantine to admit Messiah was killed by the Romans. I believe that Scripture was edited, perhaps heavily, when Christianity became the official religion of Rome. The purpose: to make the Jews look worse and the Roman authorities look better.

Even if Pilate truly washed his hands and claimed “I am innocent of the blood of this man”, that does not exhonorate him! And since Jesus was greeted by throngs of well wishers when he came into Jerusalem riding on an ***, I’m sure the bulk of the people who had seen him in action or even heard of him, held him in great esteem.

His very popularity would have been seen as a threat by Roman authorities. Messiah meant he was a successor of David as the “annointed one of Israel”, and therefore the rightful King. The Sanhedrin were collaborating with the Romans, and would have been threatened by Jesus…to the extent of his popularity with the people.

Whatever happened, there is no way that the majority of Jews at the time bayed for his blood. If anyone called out “crucify him, crucify him”, they would have been in the service of the collaborators.

The fatal words “let his blood be upon us* and upon our children” * have killed millions of Jews down through the ages. I believe no Jew wrote that, it simply doesn’t make any sense. But a Jew-hating Christian could come up with a detail like that, to justify persecution.

greystoke

Denial at it’s best…

 

[greystoke]

As for the Crusades, tho’ terrible things happened for sure, they were a response to Islamic Jihad, ie Crusade, against Christians for over four long centuries centuries. Turkey used to be Christian, having been converted by Saint Paul…and not at the point of a sword!

. Even what is now Saudi Arabia used to be Christian, Jewish, and pagan. If a muslim is found with a bible in Saudi, automatic DEATH PENALTY.

So in spite of the fiascoes and massacres, I believe that the Crusades were a necessary evil to stop the lethal march of a political system/religion of war.

 

[greystoke]

Denial at it’s best…

If you mean denial of Jewish Blood Guilt, thank you.

Please explain why the Jewish authorities didn’t stone him? Why were the Romans involved at all?

That is the “elephant in the room”, yet it seems to be as * invisible*, as the beam in our eye in the parable.

Am I the only one who can see it?

(the elephant that is…what plank?)

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

If you mean denial of Jewish Blood Guilt, thank you.

Please explain why the Jewish authorities didn’t stone him? Why were the Romans involved at all?

That is the “elephant in the room”, yet it seems to be as * invisible*, as the beam in our eye in the parable.

Am I the only one who can see it?

(the elephant that is…what plank?)

**You are calling the Gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John total liars because in their Gospels the Jews were responsible. The Jewish authorities did not stone him because IT WASN’T IN THE PLAN. The Romans ruled the world back then but they never cried CRUCIFY HIM, nor did they choose Barrabas over Christ. The Jews were responsible IN THAT TIME. Come on people, face it and stop trying to use excuse after excuse for Christ’s death…geez… **

 

[R_not]

**You are calling the Gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John total liars because in their Gospels the Jews were responsible. The Jewish authorities did not stone him because IT WASN’T IN THE PLAN. The Romans ruled the world back then but they never cried CRUCIFY HIM, nor did they choose Barrabas over Christ. The Jews were responsible IN THAT TIME. Come on people, face it and stop trying to use excuse after excuse for Christ’s death…geez… **

And what is your point? We all killed Him. the Jews and Romans who did the deed are not alive.

JESUS FORGAVE THEM. So, why not try to forgive their descendents - both Romans (which comprised of Europeans, Africans and Middle Easterners, and Jews. Roman soldiers were not known for their daintiness, nor care and concern for those they tortured.

I don’t know why people get overly obsessive about this part of it all. Jesus specifically asked for their forgiveness on the cross. If a dying Jesus put through a torture/death I cannot even imagine can forgive them, then I can too.

 

[chosen_people]

**You are calling the Gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John total liars because in their Gospels the Jews were responsible. The Jewish authorities did not stone him because IT WASN’T IN THE PLAN. The Romans ruled the world back then but they never cried CRUCIFY HIM, nor did they choose Barrabas over Christ. The Jews were responsible IN THAT TIME. Come on people, face it and stop trying to use excuse after excuse for Christ’s death…geez… **

Given your understanding that the Jews killed Jesus, what does that say about the Jews of today and how should that affect the way Catholics relate to Jews?

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Given your understanding that the Jews killed Jesus, what does that say about the Jews of today and how should that affect the way Catholics relate to Jews?

The Jews of today have nothing to do with His death. The Jews reject Christ today as they did 2,000 years ago so nothing has changed regarding that.
I believe the Jews were once the Chosen People of God, but not anymore. Christ chose the Jews to lead them to the Gentiles which we all believe in Him.
I don’t understand why Christians here get so upset to say the Jews were responsible for the death back then. We know that Christ died for all our sins, but I didn’t see any gentiles back then shouting Crucify Him, did you?

 

[Lev23]

The Jews of today have nothing to do with His death. The Jews reject Christ today as they did 2,000 years ago so nothing has changed regarding that.
I believe the Jews were once the Chosen People of God, but not anymore. Christ chose the Jews to lead them to the Gentiles which we all believe in Him.
I don’t understand why Christians here get so upset to say the Jews were responsible for the death back then. We know that Christ died for all our sins, but I didn’t see any gentiles back then shouting Crucify Him, did you?

Time for you to mature in your faith. I suggest taking a bible class in your local parish, if they offer one.

If God preserves a remnant of the nation of Israel today, which he does in the Church, the Jews(Israel) are still God’s people. See Romans 9,10, 11.

Greater Israel has been hardened so that the gentiles may come in, the wild shoots can be grafted into the promises given to Israel. St.Paul teaches that the Gentiles in the Church should boast over the broken branches of Israel, because if God did not spare the broken branches, he will not spare them either(Romans 11). Israel is now disobedient, like the gentiles, which means that God may show mercy to them all.

Also, not “all” gentiles believe in Christ.

You keep focusing on the Jews in Jerusalem that had to do with Jesus crucifixtion. Why don’t you also show the same focus of the hundred’s of Jews in Jerusalem that shouted-“Hosanna-blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord”. The next time your at a Palm Sunday Mass, and you are holding your palm branch, look around at everyone else doing the same. You are recreating what Jews did for our Lord some 2000 years ago!!!

 

[LutheranDK]

Yes they did have the authority…according to the Gospels themselves.

Please tell me where in the Gospels you read about a stoning taking place?
(taking place, not being referred to!)

They stoned people for adultery, blasphemy, etc.

That’s what the Law said. But “Israel” was not independant. It was subject to Rome, and Rome was the only authority which could sentence someone to death.
(The stoning of Stephen has more resemblance to a lynching than a trial)

No need to involve the Romans at all, *if they were punishing someone for a religious offence. *

Yes, because only Rome could sentence someone to death. Of course, they’d have to convince Rome to do so…

The Romans took a very dim view of what they considered sedition. Must have been a little embarrassing for Constantine to admit Messiah was killed by the Romans. I believe that Scripture was edited, perhaps heavily, when Christianity became the official religion of Rome. The purpose: to make the Jews look worse and the Roman authorities look better.

And your evidence for this theory, is…what?
What we know today as the NT can be traced back to the late 1st-early 2nd century. Those are the facts.

Even if Pilate truly washed his hands and claimed “I am innocent of the blood of this man”, that does not exhonorate him!

Indeed, it does not. Your point being?

And since Jesus was greeted by throngs of well wishers when he came into Jerusalem riding on an ***, I’m sure the bulk of the people who had seen him in action or even heard of him, held him in great esteem.

At least at that point. Something changed, though, as we read in the Gospels. When Jesus started to let people know who He really was, they turned on Him - accusing Him of blasphemy. I still don’t see your point.

His very popularity would have been seen as a threat by Roman authorities.

The Romans didn’t give a rat’s behind about Jewish prophets and their popularity. Jesus made no attempt to usurp political power, and the Romans knew this.

Whatever happened, there is no way that the majority of Jews at the time bayed for his blood. If anyone called out “crucify him, crucify him”, they would have been in the service of the collaborators.

It’s altogether unreasonable to think that all Jews were present in the courtyard of the Antonia palace, yes. But your point keeps eluding me (and yourself?)

The fatal words “let his blood be upon us* and upon our children” * have killed millions of Jews down through the ages. I believe no Jew wrote that, it simply doesn’t make any sense.

I do not really care what you think. The most likely theory, based on what we know of the scriptures, and the style in which they’re written, suggests 1st century Jewish authorship of those words.

But a Jew-hating Christian could come up with a detail like that, to justify persecution.

Another problem with that theory of yours is that the Church wasn’t in a position to persecute anyone until Constantine the Great. And to claim that Matthew is from the time of Constantine the Great is utter lunacy.

Care to try again?