The Collective Messiah

[Bubba_Switzler]

Finally, you had something to say against the Roman angels who were raping in Israel almost daily.

You have yet to substantiate this claim.

Do you want to hear more about this. A 19th Century German Scholar called Erick Rinnerman, in his book “The Myth of the Pax Romana,” mentions that in the year 4 BCE there was a revolt of the Pharisees against Herod. He was about to fall when he appealed to Rome for help and Caesar ordered the 10th Legion stationed in Syria to pass to Israel and put the revolt down…

The question is not what the Romans did when they they put down rebellions. The question is whether the Romans were oppressive rulers of Israel, raping Jewish daughters almost every day. You have yet to substantiate that claim.

Bubba:

The fact remains that Roman rule was no worse than was typical in the time and was, net, very beneficial to Israel. More importantly, Israel suffered far worse for its choice to wage war against Israel, something that surprises nobody.

You must be a famous Jewish hater to say that what the Romans did in Israel was beneficial to Israel. What about if what this German Scholar wrote about Mary was true? Was that beneficial?

There is no dispute that the Romans were ruthless in putting down rebellions. That is not the issue. The issue is whether they were otherwise reasonable rulers, particularly of Israel in 1C-2C AD.

So what have the Romans ever done for Israel? Here are some examples:

youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso

Bubba:

You seem determined to avoid facing the simple fact that Israel destroyed itself in 1C-2C AD for no good reason.

What Israel did could not be suffered any longer, war was preferred to thousands of crucifixions of Jews almost daily. Otherwise Josephus would be lying. I prefer to believe that you are the one lying because of your antisemitic hatred of Israel.

So you are saying that the Jews of 1C-2C preferred the destruction of the Temple, Jerusalem, and Israel and the murder of millions of Jews, and expulsion into the diaspora, and the cloud of antisemitism to living under the rule of the Romans? Who in their right mind would make that choice?

Jewish suffering did not end with the wars with Rome. They increased a thousand-fold.

Bubba:

I’m curious why you feel the need to change the subject from the culpability of the Jews for the destruction of Israel to the death of Jesus?

What did you expect? The NT accuses the Jews with having killed Jesus, and now you make angels out of the Romans and devils out of the Jews.

The NT accurately describes the hand of the Jewish authorities in the death of Jesus as it does the Romans. Nowhere does the NT say that “the Jews killed Jesus”?

But, again, that is beside the point. The question at hand is Jewish culpability in the destruction of Jerusalem and Israel in 1C-2C AD.

Bubba:

Is it so hard to admit that your ancestors screwed up royally in 1C-2C AD?

Why don’t you tell me why you are such a Jewish hater to lie so blatantly?

Where is the lie in this that you feel the need to dismiss my recitation of history as hatred of Jews? Is Jewish identity so invested in myth that it cannot entertain historical facts?

The Jews of 1C-2C AD decided to wage war against the super-power of their time. Not once but twice. (More if you count various smaller rebellions.) And as a result Rome destroyed Israel as thoroughly as it had Carthage.

 

[SteveLohr]

It is not merely that Jews are alergic to Jesus today. They have been so at least since the Mishnah was first recorded. If Paul corrupted Jesus’ words you would have expected the Jewish authorities of the day to have corrected Paul and to have set the early Christians correct.

And if they could have, the skeptics would have started by simply opening Jesus’ tomb, and showing that he was still dead inside. The problem the 1st century skeptics faced (and still face) is that the tomb was empty.

 

[djeter]

Michael J. Gorman has written a wonderful little book called Reading Paul where he offers a very compact but perceptive review of Paul’s NT writings.

I summarized one chapter on how Paul reconceived the nature of God from OT to NT. I think it adds to your thread here, which had some very good posts (although may have gotten a little overheated here and there – but that is a good thing, you should be passionate about these things).

See if you like it:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/06/02/understanding-paul-3-how-paul-reconceived-the-nature-of-god/

DJ

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Michael J. Gorman has written a wonderful little book called Reading Paul where he offers a very compact but perceptive review of Paul’s NT writings. I summarized one chapter on how Paul reconceived the nature of God from OT to NT. I think it adds to your thread here, which had some very good posts (although may have gotten a little overheated here and there – but that is a good thing, you should be passionate about these things).

It’s very interesting to contrast Paul and Marcion who, it must be remembered, was rejected as a heretic (though before there was any formality to that). Nevertheless, I often hear theological claims that are very Marcionish.

I think that there is no question but that anyone who reads Paul in his entirety cannot help but see his love of his fellow Jews. But it is also true that Paul was a theological innovator, arguably the first Christian theologian, who rethought Judaism in light of Jesus.

 

[KyivAndrew]

You are right. Even today many Jews believe in afterlife, but the majority don’t. Little by little we are returning to the Scriptures that do not approve the belief in afterlife.

Maimonides, perhaps Judaism’s most famous scholar, made belief in the resurrection one of the 13 Principles of Jewish faith. Those Principles are the closest thing Judaism has to a Creed which most Jews can adhere to. I believe Maimonides knew more about Jewish belief than you or I.

“The present chapter will explain in what manner those that worship God who have obtained a true knowledge concerning God; it will direct them how to come to that worship, which is the highest aim man can attain, and show how God protects them in this world till they are removed to ETERNAL LIFE.” That’s from Maimonides’ Guide For the Perplexed. Go figure.

Then there is Rashi on the resurrection, another hugely important Rabbi in Jewish history who is said to have known the entire Tanakh by heart.
Here I quote Psalms Chapter 104 verse 30, with Rashi’s commentary below in brackets telling the reader that “resurrection of the dead” is being written of here.
30. You will send forth Your spirit and they will be created, and You will renew the surface of the ground.

(You will send forth Your spirit: with the resurrection of the dead)

Here I quote Proverbs Chapter 6 verse 22 with Rashi’s commentary again in brackets:
22. When you walk, it shall lead you; when you lie down, it shall guard you, and when you awaken, it shall speak for you. כב.
(“When you walk: in your lifetime. :
it shall lead you: Heb. תנחה אותך, like תנהיגך. :
when you lie down: in the grave. :
and when you awaken: for the resurrection of the dead, to stand in judgment. :
it shall speak for you: It shall speak on your behalf.”)

Please note Rashi’s interpretation of “and when you awaken” meaning “for the resurrection of the dead, to stand in judgment”

Here I quote Psalms Chapter 78 verse 38 with Rashi’s commentary on the resurrection in brackets:
38. But He is merciful, He expiates iniquity and does not destroy; many times He takes back His wrath and does not arouse all His anger. לח.
But He is merciful: to them and constantly expiates their iniquity, and He did not destroy them. :
(many times: Many times He withdraws His wrath from them, and even if He punishes them, He does not arouse all His anger but little by little, because He remembers that they are flesh and that the evil inclination is hidden in their heart. That is a spirit that goes away when they die, and that spirit does not return to them in the world to come. When they are resurrected, the evil inclination will have no control over them.“A spirit that goes away and does not return” cannot be explained to mean their spirit of life, because if you say so, you have denied the resurrection of the dead. In this manner, it is explained in Aggadath Tehillim (Mid Ps. 78:8).)

Here, Genesis, Chapter 2, verse 7 with Rashi’s commentary in brackets:
7. And the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and He breathed into his nostrils the soul of life, and man became a living soul.

(formed: וַיִּיצֶר, with two “yuds,” hints at] two creations, a creation for this world and a creation for the [time of the] resurrection of the dead, but in connection with the animals, which do not stand in judgment, two“yuds” are not written in [the word וַיִּצֶר describing their creation. — [from Tan. Tazria 1])

Dear Ben, in actual fact I believe the fastest growing branches of Judaism (the Lubavitchers, Hasidim in Israel and here) actually do believe these tenets of faith in resurrection after death and that this life is not all that there is. This belief is not just confined to Maimonides, Rashi, but also was shared by other stellar names like Nahmanides and Besht. Collectively, on the resurrection and its application to Judaism, they represent an incredible intellectual powerhouse, and I will go with them and not Ben Masada as to what Judaism says about an afterlife.

I don’t think I’ll post further on this thread because I really do get headaches trying to keep up with all your fancy colours (do you feel your arguments knocking Christianity are stronger when you use colours?) and because you really do not seem to be engaged in any meaningful back and forth on Jewish/Catholic dialogue but seem to enjoy playing gotcha as opposed to listening or willing to learn what some post. I really have no use for such threads. Give me a rabbi like David Novak from Toronto who can sincerely sit down with Christians (he’s on the board of the religious journal First Things and will always point out similarities and differences between Catholicism and Judaism as a true Jewish moral man and a man who has much to teach of Judaism and where it is in disagreement with Christianity. I believe the way you post IMHO unfortunately can do the opposite of educating Catholics on Judaism or even testing their faith - your posts seem to leave a bad taste to some. Hence, my wish not to get involved in a colour spat. I’ve made my point here and will leave. May God Bless You Ben.

 

[Ben_Masada]

You have yet to substantiate this claim.

Of course, I expected that you would not believe. If it had been the other way around, you would promptly believe. That’s normal.

The question is not what the Romans did when they they put down rebellions. The question is whether the Romans were oppressive rulers of Israel, raping Jewish daughters almost every day. You have yet to substantiate that claim.

You are claming to be a paragon of Roman History when you fail right on the outset with your sickly bias attitude.

There is no dispute that the Romans were ruthless in putting down rebellions. That is not the issue. The issue is whether they were otherwise reasonable rulers, particularly of Israel in 1C-2C AD.

If they had been reasonable rulers the Jews would have tolerate them. You know what happened. Why don’t you take it as evidence?

So what have the Romans ever done for Israel? Here are some examples:

youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso

Extorting moneys and increasing the population with bastards. Even Jesus could have been one of them.

So you are saying that the Jews of 1C-2C preferred the destruction of the Temple, Jerusalem, and Israel and the murder of millions of Jews, and expulsion into the diaspora, and the cloud of antisemitism to living under the rule of the Romans? Who in their right mind would make that choice?

I am saying that death is preferred to be slaves of Gentiles in our own Land. The Bible is very clear about never to allow a King in Israel who is not of our own kind.

Jewish suffering did not end with the wars with Rome. They increased a thousand-fold.

But because of Rome.

The NT accurately describes the hand of the Jewish authorities in the death of Jesus as it does the Romans. Nowhere does the NT say that “the Jews killed Jesus”?

Take a look at Acts 2:36. “Therefore, let the whole House of Israel know beyond any doubt that God has made both Lord and Messiah this Jesus whom YOU CRUCIFIED.” Either the book of Acts is not part of the NT or you speak too much about what you don’t have a clue what you are talking about.

But, again, that is beside the point. The question at hand is Jewish culpability in the destruction of Jerusalem and Israel in 1C-2C AD.

Of course, how could you forget? The eyes and ears of any anti-Semite are closed to anything else but looking for reasons to blame the Jews with.

Where is the lie in this that you feel the need to dismiss my recitation of history as hatred of Jews? Is Jewish identity so invested in myth that it cannot entertain historical facts?

You ignore the truth of History where Jews are concerned. Why don’t you read a little of Josephus about the character of Roman Governors that passed by Israel, especially Pilate? To say that Pilate was beneficial to Israel would be the same as to justify what Hitler did to the Jews 70 years ago.

The Jews of 1C-2C AD decided to wage war against the super-power of their time. Not once but twice. (More if you count various smaller rebellions.) And as a result Rome destroyed Israel as thoroughly as it had Carthage.

**Really! Are you sure! You are so full of nonsense that you have forgotten to ask yourself where are those Romans today and where is Israel. They are back in the dust and we live. Do you know the meaning of the expression in Hebrew for
“Am Israel Hi?” Israel lives and Rome rests in the dust. They destroyed Carthage but not Israel. Israel cannot be destroyed. And I mean it literally. If Israel ever ceases as a People before the Lord forever, Mankind must go. You would not be there venting your hatred against us. Read Jeremiah 31:35-37. Your existence depends on our staying alive. No wonder Jesus said that salvation is of the Jews. (John 4:22) But people like you love to bite the hand that feeds you. **

 

[Ben_Masada]

Maimonides, perhaps Judaism’s most famous scholar, made belief in the resurrection one of the 13 Principles of Jewish faith. Those Principles are the closest thing Judaism has to a Creed which most Jews can adhere to. I believe Maimonides knew more about Jewish belief than you or I.

Yes, I agree with you that Maimonides knew much more about Jewish belief than you and I. But the way you understand his knowledge about Jewish belief is what makes the difference.

“The present chapter will explain in what manner those that worship God who have obtained a true knowledge concerning God; it will direct them how to come to that worship, which is the highest aim man can attain, and show how God protects them in this world till they are removed to ETERNAL LIFE.” That’s from Maimonides’ Guide For the Perplexed. Go figure.

**“Metaphysical Philosophy is the highest method to worship God when one is protected by the hand of God by previous preparation in other sujects like… Then, with such a knowledge we will be ready to contemplate in spirit the One Who is incorporeal without endangering our minds” That’s also from Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah. Go figure. **

Then there is Rashi on the resurrection, another hugely important Rabbi in Jewish history who is said to have known the entire Tanakh by heart.
Here I quote Psalms Chapter 104 verse 30, with Rashi’s commentary below in brackets telling the reader that “resurrection of the dead” is being written of here.
30. You will send forth Your spirit and they will be created, and You will renew the surface of the ground.

(You will send forth Your spirit: with the resurrection of the dead)

How can I disagree with you without hurting your sensibilities? Since I have to say something, here we go: No, Psalm 104:30 has nothing whatsoever to do with physical resurrection. Let Rashi be the Biblical paragon you claim he is but I can’t compromise the truth. He either did not share that comment or he was totally wrong. This is only an item among others to evidence God’s provision for man’s existence. You can read from verse 27 till 30 to see the chain of development.

Here I quote Proverbs Chapter 6 verse 22 with Rashi’s commentary again in brackets:
22. When you walk, it shall lead you; when you lie down, it shall guard you, and when you awaken, it shall speak for you. כב.
(“When you walk: in your lifetime. :
it shall lead you: Heb. תנחה אותך, like תנהיגך. :
when you lie down: in the grave. :
and when you awaken: for the resurrection of the dead, to stand in judgment. :
it shall speak for you: It shall speak on your behalf.”)

Proverbs 6:22 is talking about the peace that Law observance brings. It has nothing to do with physical resurrection.

Please note Rashi’s interpretation of “and when you awaken” meaning “for the resurrection of the dead, to stand in judgment”

That’s you adding your meaning to the mind of Rashi. The meaning of the passage is, as you live, the Law is your guide, as you sleep, the Law is your guard, and as you awake, the Law keeps the channel of communication open with your God. You will have a much better idea if you read Psalm 119. The whole chapter.

Here I quote Psalms Chapter 78 verse 38 with Rashi’s commentary on the resurrection in brackets:
38. But He is merciful, He expiates iniquity and does not destroy; many times He takes back His wrath and does not arouse all His anger. לח.
But He is merciful: to them and constantly expiates their iniquity, and He did not destroy them. :
(many times: Many times He withdraws His wrath from them, and even if He punishes them, He does not arouse all His anger but little by little, because He remembers that they are flesh and that the evil inclination is hidden in their heart. That is a spirit that goes away when they die, and that spirit does not return to them in the world to come. When they are resurrected, the evil inclination will have no control over them.“A spirit that goes away and does not return” cannot be explained to mean their spirit of life, because if you say so, you have denied the resurrection of the dead. In this manner, it is explained in Aggadath Tehillim (Mid Ps. 78:8).)

Rashi could not have seen physical resurrection in Psalm 78:38 because it is just not there. It’s impossible. He would betray the Tanach with such a contradiction.

Dear Ben, in actual fact I believe the fastest growing branches of Judaism (the Lubavitchers, Hasidim in Israel and here) actually do believe these tenets of faith in resurrection after death and that this life is not all that there is. This belief is not just confined to Maimonides, Rashi, but also was shared by other stellar names like Nahmanides and Besht. Collectively, on the resurrection and its application to Judaism, they represent an incredible intellectual powerhouse, and I will go with them and not Ben Masada as to what Judaism says about an afterlife.

**It doesn’t mean anything because the fastest growing religion is Islam. Does it mean they have the Truth? **

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Bubba Switzler;5370088:

You have yet to substantiate this claim.

Of course, I expected that you would not believe. If it had been the other way around, you would promptly believe. That’s normal.

So you are not going to offer any evidence whatsoever for your claim that the Romans raped Jewish daughters nearly every day? You just expect me to take your word for it?

You are claming to be a paragon of Roman History when you fail right on the outset with your sickly bias attitude.

I’m not claiming any special knowledge of Roman history. The points I’ve made are available to anyone who has a cursory knowledge of the Romans. My ancestors, like yours, were conqured by the Romans so I have no bias for them. I simply respect their role in history, which pales next to my respect for the Jewish role in history.

If they had been reasonable rulers the Jews would have tolerate them. You know what happened. Why don’t you take it as evidence?

You are simply assuming (or perhaps taking on faith) that your acestors of 1C-2C AD were incapable of making a mistake and then deducing that they must have been justified. But we do know what happened and we do know that their situation was a thousand times worse after as before and we do know that reasonable people do not make such a choice.

Extorting moneys and increasing the population with bastards. Even Jesus could have been one of them.

Extorting money? I guarantee that the Romans took less than the current rulers of Israel. As for the bastards, are you returning to the rape claim that you have yet to substantiate or merely complaining about the usual soldierly fornication?

I am saying that death is preferred to be slaves of Gentiles in our own Land. The Bible is very clear about never to allow a King in Israel who is not of our own kind.

So you are now agreeing with me that the Israelis virtualy committed suicide merely because they did not want to be ruled by the Romans?

Bubba Switzler;5370088:

Jewish suffering did not end with the wars with Rome. They increased a thousand-fold.

But because of Rome.

Because of Rome and the Jewish hotheads of 1C-2C AD who would prefer death to being ruled by the Romans.

Take a look at Acts 2:36. “Therefore, let the whole House of Israel know beyond any doubt that God has made both Lord and Messiah this Jesus whom YOU CRUCIFIED.” Either the book of Acts is not part of the NT or you speak too much about what you don’t have a clue what you are talking about.

Acts 2:36 is from a speech by Peter and in the same speech, here is what he says (Acts 2:22) “With the help of evil people, you put Jesus to death.” The Gospels provide the detailed account of Jesus crucifixion, in this speech, Peter is simply speaking in vague generalities to a group of people to shame them into repentence.

Bubba Switzler;5370088:

But, again, that is beside the point. The question at hand is Jewish culpability in the destruction of Jerusalem and Israel in 1C-2C AD.

Of course, how could you forget? The eyes and ears of any anti-Semite are closed to anything else but looking for reasons to blame the Jews with.

Are you then claiming that the destruction of Jerusalem and Israel was simply a natural catastrophe that befel Israel like a hurricane or an earthquake?

You ignore the truth of History where Jews are concerned. Why don’t you read a little of Josephus about the character of Roman Governors that passed by Israel, especially Pilate? To say that Pilate was beneficial to Israel would be the same as to justify what Hitler did to the Jews 70 years ago.

Sorry, no. Equating Pilate to Hitler would be a grand favor to Hitler. Pilate may have been an incompetent and arrogant governor but he did not hate the Jews. He was not bent on exterminating them.

No, my claim is 1) that Roman rule was a net benefit to Israel (in spite of incompetent governors), and 2) no matter how bad the Romans were, things were better before the wars with Rome than after.

And nobody is justifying what the Romans did to Israel. The question is simply Jewish culpability: did the Jews take decision that led to their destruction. Could the Jews have chosen differently and not have suffered that catastrophe? The answer is clearly yes.

Bubba Switzler;5370088:

The Jews of 1C-2C AD decided to wage war against the super-power of their time. Not once but twice. (More if you count various smaller rebellions.) And as a result Rome destroyed Israel as thoroughly as it had Carthage.

Really! Are you sure! You are so full of nonsense that you have forgotten to ask yourself where are those Romans today and where is Israel. They are back in the dust and we live. Do you know the meaning of the expression in Hebrew for “Am Israel Hi?” Israel lives and Rome rests in the dust. They destroyed Carthage but not Israel.

Yes, a remnant survived. But then there is still a Rome as well, under new management so to speak. Modern Italy bears only a resemblance to ancient Rome as modern Israel bears only a resemblance to Biblical Israel.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Israel cannot be destroyed. And I mean it literally. If Israel ever ceases as a People before the Lord forever, Mankind must go. You would not be there venting your hatred against us. Read Jeremiah 31:35-37. Your existence depends on our staying alive. No wonder Jesus said that salvation is of the Jews. (John 4:22) But people like you love to bite the hand that feeds you.

This part I agree with. Which is why I am so disgusted with your disinterest in historical fact and your investment in Rabbinical myth. Unlike most of my fellow Christians I do not believe in Replacement Theology. So the fate of the Jews does interest me.

It is interesting to contemplate what would have happened if the Jews of 1C-2C AD had simply heeded Jesus and not made war against the Romans.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

It doesn’t mean anything because the fastest growing religion is Islam. Does it mean they have the Truth?

Just FYI, it’s not Islam. Percentage wise, the “fastest growing religion” will always be the fad cult de jour. Longer term, Islam is certainly in the running but Christianity tops Islam in the acquisition of new adherants. Where Christianity is falling down is in losing membership to non-relgious (e.g. Europe).

 

[SteveLohr]

This part I agree with. Which is why I am so disgusted with your disinterest in historical fact and your investment in Rabbinical myth. Unlike most of my fellow Christians I do not believe in Replacement Theology. So the fate of the Jews does interest me.

It is interesting to contemplate what would have happened if the Jews of 1C-2C AD had simply heeded Jesus and not made war against the Romans.

I believe it would assist the disscusion if we had a working definition of “Replacement Theology” in this thread. In particular, I would be interested in Ben’s definition of it. The reason I mention it, is that there are several definitions of it. Some are not against Christian doctrine, and some are. But if we are to have a fruitful discussion of this issue, we must be working from a common definition. Given that Ben is the one who is raising the issue, I would like to hear what he believes “Replacement Theology” is, and how this definition is supported by the New Testament.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I believe it would assist the disscusion if we had a working definition of “Replacement Theology” in this thread. In particular, I would be interested in Ben’s definition of it. The reason I mention it, is that there are several definitions of it. Some are not against Christian doctrine, and some are. But if we are to have a fruitful discussion of this issue, we must be working from a common definition. Given that Ben is the one who is raising the issue, I would like to hear what he believes “Replacement Theology” is, and how this definition is supported by the New Testament.

I, myself, have a very loose definition for the simple purpose of expressing my own disbelief: I do not believe that the Jewish role in God’s revelation ended with Jesus and the apostles as many Christians assert.

I do believe that Christians have, through the circumcision of their hearts, assumed a place alongside the Jews but not to replace the Jews.

I suspect that the God still means to use the Jews for some great purpose but that this is on hold while the Jews remain in their Rabbinical cul de sac. The Jews are not, today, priests to all nations; they merely struggle to survive.

The reason that I’m pounding Ben on Jewish culpability in the destruciton of Jerusalem and Israel is to point out that Jewish suffering is largely a consequence of Jewish choices, not a gentile (or Christian) conspiracy against them as Jews have come to believe.

As for the development of the idea, it occured sometime after Acts and before Constantine. That is, after, and largely as a result of, Jewish self-destruction.

 

[Ben_Masada]

So you are not going to offer any evidence whatsoever for your claim that the Romans raped Jewish daughters nearly every day? You just expect me to take your word for it?

"The Myth of the Pax Romana" by Erick Hinnerman, a German Scholar of the 19th Century. You asked for it. How does it help you?

You are simply assuming (or perhaps taking on faith) that your acestors of 1C-2C AD were incapable of making a mistake and then deducing that they must have been justified. But we do know what happened and we do know that their situation was a thousand times worse after as before and we do know that reasonable people do not make such a choice.

You don’t know. You are assuming and speculating.

Extorting money? I guarantee that the Romans took less than the current rulers of Israel. As for the bastards, are you returning to the rape claim that you have yet to substantiate or merely complaining about the usual soldierly fornication?

You cannot guarantee based on assumptions. And regarding the Roman rapes in Israel, I gave you the source above. Enjoy it.

So you are now agreeing with me that the Israelis virtualy committed suicide merely because they did not want to be ruled by the Romans?

Only in Masada they did. In Jerusalem and throughout the Galilee they fought for their lives. You are assuming things with the purpose to confuse me but you won’t succeed.

Acts 2:36 is from a speech by Peter and in the same speech, here is what he says (Acts 2:22) “With the help of evil people, you put Jesus to death.” The Gospels provide the detailed account of Jesus crucifixion, in this speech, Peter is simply speaking in vague generalities to a group of people to shame them into repentence.

Peter never delivered that speech for two reasons: He was a Nazarene Jew and not a Gentile. If you read Acts 2:14, a Jew would never introduce himself to an assembly of Jews, by saying, “You who are Jews here in Jerusalem, listen to me…” And the second reason is that he was not an anti-Semite to falsely accuse the Jews with having crucified Jesus. (Acts 2:36) He knew the Romans had done it. Even Pope John 23rd once asked the Jewish People to forgive Christianity for this false accusation of 2000 years old, that you still perpetuate. As I can see, Antisemitism is hard to die. Even the magnanimity of a Pope can’t cause you to back up.

Sorry, no. Equating Pilate to Hitler would be a grand favor to Hitler. Pilate may have been an incompetent and arrogant governor but he did not hate the Jews. He was not bent on exterminating them

**In that case, Josephus was a liar because he says that Pilate hated the Jews so, that he would sometimes provoke them just to have a chance to crucify some more. Thousands of Jews were crucified almost daily. Occupied crosses could be seen from almost everywhere. But as you say the Romans were beneficial to the Jews. **.

No, my claim is 1) that Roman rule was a net benefit to Israel (in spite of incompetent governors), and 2) no matter how bad the Romans were, things were better before the wars with Rome than after.

How could things be better after the destruction they caused in Israel?

And nobody is justifying what the Romans did to Israel. The question is simply Jewish culpability: did the Jews take decision that led to their destruction. Could the Jews have chosen differently and not have suffered that catastrophe? The answer is clearly yes.

NO, there was not Jewish culpability. If the Romans had not come to Israel, Israel would have never been destroyed and neither the Temple. You can’t see this Logic because I am sure you have a second agenda. The Jews enjoyed a lot of prosperity under the Hasmonians. And this was just prior to the Romans. Do you deny it?

Yes, a remnant survived. But then there is still a Rome as well, under new management so to speak. Modern Italy bears only a resemblance to ancient Rome as modern Israel bears only a resemblance to Biblical Israel.

**I am sure you are not that stupid to see that you are exagerating on your “only a resemblance to Biblical Israel.” Italy yes, only a resemblance, but not Israel. **

 

[Ben_Masada]

This part I agree with. Which is why I am so disgusted with your disinterest in historical fact and your investment in Rabbinical myth. Unlike most of my fellow Christians I do not believe in Replacement Theology. So the fate of the Jews does interest me.

It is interesting to contemplate what would have happened if the Jews of 1C-2C AD had simply heeded Jesus and not made war against the Romans.

**Wow! That’s a break. You probably have forgotten that this part of the Forum is for religious discussion and not History. Now, for a Christian to say that he or she does not believe in Replacement Theology with Galatians 4:21-31 is a cop-out. I would believe him or her only after he or she tore that chapter out of the NT.

Would you be able to quote Jesus telling the Jews not to make war against the Romans? I am sure you can’t. So, why assume something that’s not down in the text? It could work with people who have no knowledge of your Bible, but not with me. **

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ah, so now you are relying on the Dd Vinci Code for your history?

Well, there is always fire where smoke rises from.

The Gospel of Judas was a product of the Gnostic sect of Egypt produced a couple hundred years after the NT gospels. This is true of all the alternatives and, in any case, none describe Jesus as a Pharisee (or “in the line of” the Pharisees). None support the claim that Paul corrupted Christianity.

And whoever claimed here that Paul corrupted Christianity? Can you produce a post of mine that I have said that? Where is the Logic of one to found a church to corrupt it afterwards? Paul created Christianity. He did not corrupt Christianity. You are trying to put words in my mouth which were never in my mind.

Called Chritians by the pagans from the Greek Christos which the Jewish Christians used to communicate the concept of the Hebrew Messiah. It is entirely unremarkable and irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

**Show to me in your NT that pagans were responsible for the term “Christians” on the followers of Paul. You can’t because there is no such a thing. You are shooting your credibility on the foot by trying to rewrite your own Bible. Luke is the one that said the discipoles were first called Christians in Antioch after Paul spent a whole year there preaching about Jesus as Christ. (Acts 11:26) **

Following the suppression of Bar Kokhba’s revolt, the emperor Hadrian changed the name of the province to Syria Palaestina and Jerusalem became Aelia Capitolina in order to humiliate the Jewish population by attempting to erase their historical ties to the region.

And as you have said, the Romans were beneficial to Israel.

Your claim that there was never a country of Palestine is technically correct because the province of Palestine simply passed from the Romans to the Turks to the British. However, the historical fact remains that Israel was destroyed by the Romans after the BarKohba revolt and Jews who survived were dispersed into the diaspora where they were no longer treated with respect but rather with suspicion and oppression.

Especially by the Church, whose first decrees, after Constantine made it the official religion of the Empire, was against the work of proselytizing by the Jews. Only God knows how much we have suffered at the hands of the Church since then.

All as a consequence of Israel’s rebellions against Rome.

**You are wrong. All as a consequence of Rome’s conquest of Israel. **

Nope, Paul didn’t invent Replacement Theology. That came later as the synthesis of Roman antisemitism and Christian theology. Galatians 4:21-31 is simply more of Paul’s teaching against the Judiazers who sought to impose the Mosaic law upon the gentile Christians.

It means you do not understand the text, which is only too clear about Replacement Theology.

Antisemitism was born of the Jewish revolts against Rome. Rome became antisemitic long before it became Christian. This is a simple fact of history. Gentile Christians were antisemtic because they were Romans and because the newly created Rabbinical Judiasm had so mistreated the Jewish Christians.

That’s another vivid ingnorance of History. Rabbinical Judaism never persecuted the Church. The opposite is true. After Constantine adopted Christianity, the Jews had no more peace.

 

[wisdomseeker]

SteveLohr;5358993:

Yes, Steve, I do. With all the sincerity of my heart. Sorry if I startled you with the surprise. I know Catholics don’t believe it. But if we are to have a Jesus who was a religious Jew, Rabbi or Teacher, the evidences are just too shouting about Jesus as a married man. It’s so today, and much more so in the First Century.

Ben, can you give us an account of what happened after Jesus got married and where is His descendents today?

:byzsoc:

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Bubba Switzler;5373427:

So you are not going to offer any evidence whatsoever for your claim that the Romans raped Jewish daughters nearly every day? You just expect me to take your word for it?

“The Myth of the Pax Romana” by Erick Hinnerman, a German Scholar of the 19th Century. You asked for it. How does it help you?

This, at least, is a step in the right direction. Problem is I can find no such book on Amazon nor any reference to it on Google. Can you provide an exerpt and explain his sources since he obvioulsy was not there?

Bubba Switzler;5373427:

You are simply assuming (or perhaps taking on faith) that your acestors of 1C-2C AD were incapable of making a mistake and then deducing that they must have been justified. But we do know what happened and we do know that their situation was a thousand times worse after as before and we do know that reasonable people do not make such a choice.

You don’t know. You are assuming and speculating.

That is the conclusion that the evidence supports. That is what any unbiased observer would conclude.

Bubba Switzler;5373427:

Extorting money? I guarantee that the Romans took less than the current rulers of Israel. As for the bastards, are you returning to the rape claim that you have yet to substantiate or merely complaining about the usual soldierly fornication?

You cannot guarantee based on assumptions.

No, it is a plain fact that modern taxes are many times higher than Roman taxes ever were.

“The tax rate under normal circumstances was 1% and sometimes would climb as high as 3% in situations such as war.”
unrv.com/economy/roman-taxes.php

Bubba Switzler;5373427:

So you are now agreeing with me that the Israelis virtualy committed suicide merely because they did not want to be ruled by the Romans?

In Jerusalem and throughout the Galilee they fought for their lives. You are assuming things with the purpose to confuse me but you won’t succeed.

No they didn’t. Their lives were not at risk except insofar as they did not submit to Roman rule! They did not fight to protect their lives but to protect their pride and to feed their hatreds!

Bubba Switzler;5373427:

Acts 2:36 is from a speech by Peter and in the same speech, here is what he says (Acts 2:22) “With the help of evil people, you put Jesus to death.” The Gospels provide the detailed account of Jesus crucifixion, in this speech, Peter is simply speaking in vague generalities to a group of people to shame them into repentence.

Peter never delivered that speech for two reasons: He was a Nazarene Jew and not a Gentile. If you read Acts 2:14, a Jew would never introduce himself to an assembly of Jews, by saying, “You who are Jews here in Jerusalem, listen to me…” And the second reason is that he was not an anti-Semite to falsely accuse the Jews with having crucified Jesus. (Acts 2:36) He knew the Romans had done it. Even Pope John 23rd once asked the Jewish People to forgive Christianity for this false accusation of 2000 years old, that you still perpetuate. As I can see, Antisemitism is hard to die. Even the magnanimity of a Pope can’t cause you to back up.

I rather doubt that the Pope shares your revisionist history. Peter’s speech is quite credible for the simple reason that he did not intend it as you have read it. We see such speeches all the time addressed to people who may have done no more than to stand aside while evil was done. This, of course, is the basis of Jewish accusations against most Germans in WWII, for example. People are not always precise in their speech, particlarly when they are seeking to motivate people.

Bubba Switzler;5373427:

Sorry, no. Equating Pilate to Hitler would be a grand favor to Hitler. Pilate may have been an incompetent and arrogant governor but he did not hate the Jews. He was not bent on exterminating them

In that case, Josephus was a liar because he says that Pilate hated the Jews so, that he would sometimes provoke them just to have a chance to crucify some more.

More likely he was exagerating since Pilate was responsible for keeping order in Judea. The last thing he would do is intentionally provide trouble.

Thousands of Jews were crucified almost daily. Occupied crosses could be seen from almost everywhere. But as you say the Romans were beneficial to the Jews.

No doubt inbetween the mass rapings.

Bubba Switzler;5373427:

No, my claim is 1) that Roman rule was a net benefit to Israel (in spite of incompetent governors), and 2) no matter how bad the Romans were, things were better before the wars with Rome than after.

How could things be better after the destruction they caused in Israel?

You tell me! It’s your claim that your ancestors of 1C-2C acted reasonably in bringing Rome upon them.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Bubba Switzler;5373427:

The question is simply Jewish culpability: did the Jews take decision that led to their destruction.

NO, there was not Jewish culpability. If the Romans had not come to Israel, Israel would have never been destroyed and neither the Temple.

And if the Assyrians had never come to the kingdom of Israel then it would have have been destroyed. And if the Babylonians had never come to Judea it, and the first temple, would never have been destroyed. But guess what! Empires come and go.

Your ancestors in 1C-2C AD made some really bad choices given their circumstances.

You can’t see this Logic because I am sure you have a second agenda. The Jews enjoyed a lot of prosperity under the Hasmonians. And this was just prior to the Romans. Do you deny it?

By the time of the Romans, the Hasmonians were hopelessly corrupt. They invited the Romans in, first to protect them from the Selucids and then to resolve their succession dispute. But it was inevitable that Rome would have come sooner or later anyway.

Bubba Switzler;5373427:

Yes, a remnant survived. But then there is still a Rome as well, under new management so to speak. Modern Italy bears only a resemblance to ancient Rome as modern Israel bears only a resemblance to Biblical Israel.

I am sure you are not that stupid to see that you are exagerating on your “only a resemblance to Biblical Israel.” Italy yes, only a resemblance, but not Israel.

Modern Israel bears a closer resemblance to modern Ireland than to Biblical Israel.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Bubba:

This part I agree with. Which is why I am so disgusted with your disinterest in historical fact and your investment in Rabbinical myth. Unlike most of my fellow Christians I do not believe in Replacement Theology. So the fate of the Jews does interest me.

It is interesting to contemplate what would have happened if the Jews of 1C-2C AD had simply heeded Jesus and not made war against the Romans.

Wow! That’s a break. You probably have forgotten that this part of the Forum is for religious discussion and not History. Now, for a Christian to say that he or she does not believe in Replacement Theology with Galatians 4:21-31 is a cop-out. I would believe him or her only after he or she tore that chapter out of the NT.

As I noted before, Galatians 4:21-31 is not a statement of Replacement Theology.

Would you be able to quote Jesus telling the Jews not to make war against the Romans? I am sure you can’t. So, why assume something that’s not down in the text? It could work with people who have no knowledge of your Bible, but not with me.

"You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.
Matthew 5:38-40

13Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words. 14They came to him and said, “Teacher, we know you are a man of integrity. You aren’t swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not? 15Should we pay or shouldn’t we?”
But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. “Why are you trying to trap me?” he asked. “Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” 16They brought the coin, and he asked them, “Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?”
“Caesar’s,” they replied.

17Then Jesus said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”
And they were amazed at him.
Mark 12:13-17

41If a soldier forces you to carry his pack one mile, carry it two miles.
Matthew 5:42

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Bubba Switzler;5369720:

The Gospel of Judas was a product of the Gnostic sect of Egypt produced a couple hundred years after the NT gospels. This is true of all the alternatives and, in any case, none describe Jesus as a Pharisee (or “in the line of” the Pharisees). None support the claim that Paul corrupted Christianity.
And whoever claimed here that Paul corrupted Christianity? Can you produce a post of mine that I have said that? Where is the Logic of one to found a church to corrupt it afterwards? Paul created Christianity. He did not corrupt Christianity. You are trying to put words in my mouth which were never in my mind.

Ah, but it is not the least bit of a controvery to say that Paul founded the gentile Church nor that he was a prolific interpreter of Jesus and of the Torah in light of Jesus. The question is: what happened to the Jewish Christians? What happened to the Jerusalem Church which was the center of authority and to which Paul reported?

It was destroyed by the wars with Rome and by the Rabbinical Jews so that only the gentile Church remained.

In any case, referring to the Gnostic Gospels as an authority is absurd.

Bubba Switzler;5369720:

Called Chritians by the pagans from the Greek Christos which the Jewish Christians used to communicate the concept of the Hebrew Messiah. It is entirely unremarkable and irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Show to me in your NT that pagans were responsible for the term “Christians” on the followers of Paul. You can’t because there is no such a thing. You are shooting your credibility on the foot by trying to rewrite your own Bible. Luke is the one that said the discipoles were first called Christians in Antioch after Paul spent a whole year there preaching about Jesus as Christ. (Acts 11:26)
You are shooting yourself in the foot by repeatedly ignoring the fact that the Apostles did not speak English. The original Greek (from the uncorrected Codex Aleph) reads “Chrestian” which is loosely translated as “follower of Christos”. See Christians, ISBE Vo 1, p622. Acts 11:26 says that they were “called Christians”, not that they called themselves Christians!

The term does not mean gentile follower of Jesus nor does it mean Pauline follower of Jesus. There was no such distinction at that time.

Bubba Switzler;5369720:

Following the suppression of Bar Kokhba’s revolt, the emperor Hadrian changed the name of the province to Syria Palaestina and Jerusalem became Aelia Capitolina in order to humiliate the Jewish population by attempting to erase their historical ties to the region.

And as you have said, the Romans were beneficial to Israel.
No, I have said that 1) they were net beneficial before the wars with Rome and 2) that things were a thousand times worse for the Jews after the wars.

Hadrian’s actions “Following the suppression of Bar Kokhba’s revolt” are entirely consistent with that claim!!!

Bubba Switzler;5369720:

Your claim that there was never a country

of Palestine is technically correct because the province of Palestine simply passed from the Romans to the Turks to the British. However, the historical fact remains that Israel was destroyed by the Romans after the BarKohba revolt and Jews who survived were dispersed into the diaspora where they were no longer treated with respect but rather with suspicion and oppression.
Especially by the Church, whose first decrees, after Constantine made it the official religion of the Empire, was against the work of proselytizing by the Jews. Only God knows how much we have suffered at the hands of the Church since then.
No doubt. But antisemtism began with the Jewish wars with Rome. That the Church was complicit with this is a tragedy but beside the point. The reason that there are “Palestinians” in Israel is because of the Jewish wars with Rome.

Bubba Switzler;5369720:

All as a consequence of Israel’s rebellions against Rome.

You are wrong. All as a consequence of Rome’s conquest of Israel.
An effect can have many causes, often a chain of them.

The point, here, is that the Jews of 1C-2C could not prevent Roman conquest but they could have avoided self-destruction if they had heeded Jesus words.

Bubba Switzler;5369720:

Nope, Paul didn’t invent Replacement Theology. That came later as the synthesis of Roman antisemitism and Christian theology. Galatians 4:21-31 is simply more of Paul’s teaching against the Judiazers who sought to impose the Mosaic law upon the gentile Christians.
It means you do not understand the text, which is only too clear about Replacement Theology.

Nope, the text clearly is in reference to the applicability of the Mosaic Law to gentile Christians.

Bubba Switzler;5369720:

Antisemitism was born of the Jewish revolts against Rome. Rome became antisemitic long before it became Christian. This is a simple fact of history. Gentile Christians were antisemtic because they were Romans and because the newly created Rabbinical Judiasm had so mistreated the Jewish Christians.

That’s another vivid ingnorance of History. Rabbinical Judaism never persecuted the Church. The opposite is true. After Constantine adopted Christianity, the Jews had no more peace.
Good grief! Even the Mishnah confirms this fact. And you yourself said previously that you were glad that Rabbinical Judiasm had ejected the Jewish Christians from Judaism.

Rabbinical Judaism defined itslef, in large part, by its antipathy to Jesus and the Christians.