Why exactly did the Jews kill Jesus?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BigMike1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ethnic Jews - Such as Jesus and His Apostles
did not cease being Jewish for being The Christ // Christians

The Jewish authorities wanted Jesus done away with…

No doubt many Jews followed their leaders and felt likewise…
then again many Jews believed in and followed Jesus…
 
Last edited:
Rabbinical Judaism - did not exist until centuries After Jesus …
Messiah Jesus fulfilled the law - conquered Death -
and opened the Door to God Via the New Covenant → Faith → Worship via Spirit
Christianity is the correct Continuation/Sect of the ‘religion’ which Jesus was part of.
All Jews were and still are invited to follow Jesus / Rabbi / Prophet / God’s High Priest
Jews shall accept Jesus - in greater numbers than in the Present and Past
 
Last edited:
Catholicism’s Teachings Teach: Catholicism accepts what is true in other belief systems
 
Yes. And all who are Saved - such as that Good Samaritan -
are Catholic theology speaking - Saved “through the Church” …

This is often misunderstood.

Moses was Saved… Etc…

And… The Catholic Church did not as yet - even Exist

However - The Mystical Body of Christ aka THE CHURCH - did.

Mystici Corporis Christi (Pius XII) is worth a read…

_
 
Last edited:
The Anti-Church operating within the visible Church is known
They… bas-tard-ized Vat II…
Vat II is fine. .
 
Last edited:
I’d already assumed that that’s where you stand.

Thing is… traditionalists biggest mistake is not realizing that those who facilItated the abuses in the 'spirit of Vat II" never ever cracked open a page of Vat II

Fact is - they DisObeyed Vat II’s Norms … (ref: Sacrosanctum Concilium)

I’ve read all of Vat II - and as a member of a Liturgy Committee - am 1st hand witness to the Exact means by which some Liturgical Abuses came to be.

_
 
You’re completely free to think whatever you want to about VatII

All 16 Vat II Docs were voted upon by circa 2,500 Tridentine-Mass going Catholic Bishops - most born in the latter portion of the 19th Century AD

They disagree with that common false notion

_
 
Last edited:
EndTimes said:
All 16 Vat II Docs were voted upon by circa 2,500 Tridentine-Mass going Catholic Bishops
Click to expand...
Did they all actually want the Mass to be like that though? Or was they glad when the changes came? I know a Bishop who used to celebrate the old mass as an auxiliary Bishop because that he was told to do so by the Ordinary for a group of people, but now that he finally has his own diocese he won’t do it anymore and even discouraged a priest I know from celebrating it on a Sunday. So I don’t think we can just think of the Vatican II bishops as “Tridentine Mass going Bishops” in the same way that we think of and categorize certain FSSP priests for example that we know of, because if they all liked the Tridentine Mass that much then it would not have changed.
 
Last edited:
That’s stupid. That’s like if I handed my friend over to the police to be arrested over a false claim, and then said " The police arrested him, not me".
 
Famulus said:
That’s stupid. That’s like if I handed my friend over to the police to be arrested over a false claim, and then said " The police arrested him, not me".
Click to expand...
Then it was Judas who killed him. And, being an apostle, Judas was a Christian. Thus, the Christians killed Jesus.
 
Clearly Jesus presented as a threat to the Priestly class. He really wasn’t on the Roman radar at first.
The commentary over time suggests a few provocations.
His propensity for dining with " the unworthy." We underestimate the way UNWORTHY are viewed in our hierarchy then and now. The Gospel doesn’t reference it directly, but you can glean the cultural sentiment right from the Apostles themselves. Including Peter.
Jesus devoted parables to the subject Parables that challenged his followers and listeners cultural views.( But also a flaw in our very nature’s to endlessly try to establish our own worthiness via tear down of the worthiness of another)
The Parable of the Pharisee and Tax collector is one. Luke 18.
Jesus recites an exemplar prayer of a Pharisee in the Temple. Basically to maintain distance from tax collectors and all manner of sinner and unworthy, and unclean.
The Tax collectors prayer finds him with head bowed and a simple plea for God to show Mercy for him as a sinner.
Jesus places the tax collector ahead of the Pharisee in the kingdom. He couldn’t have offered a bigger challenge to authority.
From the Sermon one of the lesser addressed beatitudes is," Blessed is the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom Of Heaven." It is the very absence of worthiness here Jesus gifts. A spirit ripe for mercy.
Two seperate statements and passages directly to Pharisees to revisit scripture and learn that God is not interested in their sacrifice, he is interested in Mercy. Recognizing the attribute of sacrifice that directs the kindness to one’s own self( it is between sacrificer and God where the helped is incidental) vs Mercy where the focus is on ones brother.
There is of course clearing of the Temple, and more subtle teachings of this message in parables like Good Samaritan ( where the Galilee listeners considered Samaritans unclean, yet hero of the parable. A challenge to bigotry that would likely have enraged Jews from Galilee)
Pharisees historically speaking followed the law we recognise as OT. THEY also generated and followed their own law. Within this law was a clear admonition against interacting with sinners. Jesus actions would have been provacative against their percieved authority via their juridical type law, their very righteousness, and would have tarnished their perception of Jesus own worthiness.
" Why does he eat with Tax collectors and sinners?"
In short, Jesus perhaps had his fate sealed as he entered Jerusalem for these very political challenges on Palm Sunday.
These ever present, reinforced, and central teachings of Christ’s teachings are in many other teachings as well.
Judge not.
The beam in your own eye.
Let he who is without sin
The thief’s forgiveness on the cross.
It is my personal belief the teaching is not limited to a passage, maybe two, because despite it’s centrality, Christianity is still laden over millennia with the very same mistakes involving worthiness. We don’t admit it, or even recognise it, any more readily than those Pharisees. It is one of the weak points of our own circuitous church history
 
Last edited:
steph03 said:
It was me 😦

I did not hand Jésus to the authorities, but it was done because of my sins.

I did not use the hammer to nail his hands and feet to the cross, but every strike of the hammer was because of me and my numerous sins.

I did not use the whip or push down a crown of thorns on his head, but because of my so many sins it might as well have been me.

Don’t blame anyone else for Killing the Son of God. I am responsible.
Click to expand...
And I. For which I beg the mercy and forgiveness of God.
TMC said:
Perhaps most importantly, this question is historically an anti-Semitic dog whistle, which makes one wonder why it is being asked here.
Click to expand...
An honest question is possible, but yes. It’s an old, old slander against the people of Israel and their descendants.
 
Paul_Edwards said:
I was responding to what you said, you made this connection, saying:
Click to expand...
One must separate the over 2,000 Bishops who spent several years thoroughly sifting through Vat II with discussions conducted in Latin and finally fully approved of it via a democratic style Vote - Vat II began in 62 and ended 65

Paul VI’s Mass came about a few years afterward.

In doing that - what I’d asked - can be realized in its proper context.
EndTimes said:
All 16 Vat II Docs were voted upon by circa 2,500 Tridentine-Mass going Catholic Bishops
Click to expand...
Paul Edwards asked: Did they all actually want the Mass to be like that though?

So I asked: Show me what Vat II Itself - Chapter and Verse
specifically had to do with what you’re referring to in connection with “Mass” ?

Paul VI’s Mass? Comes from Paul VI - some years after Vat II ended…

_
 
Last edited:
Maximus1 said:
Clearly Jesus presented as a threat to the Priestly class. He really wasn’t on the Roman radar at first.
Click to expand...
Exactly… There are some more modern “histories” of that time -
which place blame solely upon the Romans…
and thus, would be considered by e.g., Christians - to be Dishonest.

_
 
EndTimes said:
So I asked: Show me what Vat II Itself - Chapter and Verse
specifically had to do with what you’re referring to in connection with “Mass” ?

Paul VI’s Mass? Comes from Paul VI - some years after Vat II ended…
Click to expand...
The council was not directly linked to the new mass, that’s true, but the fact is that the same bishops of this council, did not voice much disagreement about the changes that came a few years later, otherwise those changes would not have come about. Pope Paul VI would never have disregarded the advise of a massive number of Bishops, had they discouraged Him from enforcing it.

The logical conclusion is that their mindset was of a nature which would later be in favor of those changes.
 
Paul_Edwards said:
The council was not directly linked to the new mass, that’s true, but the fact is that the same bishops of this council, did not voice much disagreement about the changes that came a few years later, otherwise those changes would not have come about. Pope Paul VI would never have disregarded the advise of a massive number of Bishops, had they discouraged Him from enforcing it.

The logical conclusion is that their mindset was of a nature which would later be in favor of those changes.
Click to expand...
OK …

Then, Let’s agree then that All of the Tridentine-Mass-Going conversant in Latin - Hierarchy of the Catholic Church - many/most of whom had their start in the Church in the 19th Century - had no problems with Vatican II nor with Paul VI’s promulgation re: Mass … in 1969 AD…

Is that a wrap?

_
 
EndTimes said:
Let’s agree then that All of the Tridentine-Mass-Going conversant in Latin - Hierarchy of the Catholic Church - many/most of whom had their start in the Church in the 19th Century - had no problems with Vatican II nor with Paul VI’s promulgation re: Mass … in 1969 AD…
Click to expand...
Yes, unless evidence to the contrary is available. Obviously ArchBishop Lefebvre had a problem with them, and a few others, but I’m not sure about the vast majority, otherwise he would’ve had more support and the Pope would’ve sided with those Bishops (and there would’ve been no potential schism)
 
Last edited:
Paul_Edwards said:
Yes, unless evidence to the contrary is available. Obviously ArchBishop Lefebvre had a problem with them, and a few others, but I’m not sure about the vast majority, otherwise he would’ve had more support and the Pope would’ve sided with those Bishops (and there would’ve been no potential schism)
Click to expand...
As it is… although there’s no official ‘schism’ … there’s been a growing Split for reason that the Prophecied Apostasy has been upon us.

I’m Not referring to traditionalism, per se… Nor to Vat II Nor to Paul VI who correctly acknowledged the ‘smoke of Satan’… but to those who were Not realized back a bit - as being the actual active Modernists - aka the real source of the Legion of Abuses - and whom continue to connect with a growing Split between two large Catholic groups - of whom I’m for the sake of this paragraph, purposely Not including the traditionalists.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top