Zone1 Do most Jews believe they killed Jesus?

[norwegen]

It's fascinating reading, you should try it some day. Kingdom of God

I've read it. Nothing is in it about Jesus threatening the Roman Empire in any way.

You should try reading it.

 

[irosie91]

I've read it. Nothing is in it about Jesus threatening the Roman Empire in any way.

You should try reading it.

do you recall the attack on the money changers who were situated in the Temple courtyard. There were people in Judea who VERY VEHEMENTLY did not want them to be there. -----they were of the same political and religious orientation as was Jesus----to wit, PHARISEES. Are you aware of how vehemently the Romans HATED PHARISEES? Of the thousands
that Saint Pontius Pilate crucified---MOST WERE
PHARISEES-----like Jesus

 

[alang1216]

I've read it. Nothing is in it about Jesus threatening the Roman Empire in any way.

You should try reading it.

So preaching replacing the Romans with another kingdom would not seem a threat? Really?

 

[norwegen]

So preaching replacing the Romans with another kingdom would not seem a threat? Really?

You haven't read the NT.

 

[irosie91]

You haven't read the NT.

functionally----neither have you

 

[alang1216]

You haven't read the NT.

Actually I read the OT, NT, and a number of books on the subject. You?

 

[BreezeWood]

do you recall the attack on the money changers who were situated in the Temple courtyard. There were people in Judea who VERY VEHEMENTLY did not want them to be there. -----they were of the same political and religious orientation as was Jesus----to wit, PHARISEES. Are you aware of how vehemently the Romans HATED PHARISEES? Of the thousands
that Saint Pontius Pilate crucified---MOST WERE
PHARISEES-----like Jesus

how petty can those be for their dishonest portrayal of 1st century events ... they had them murdered for the sake of money changers. is that the jews or the 4th century christians or their alliance - who wrote the c bible.

the 1st century events were in regards to the homogenized, self perpetuating cultures demonstrated by jewish, roman standards of conduct centered to their own personal ambitions disguised as religion through the worship of a deity - that they made for their own purposes - than the reasons the heavens brought life to planet earth and the true intent for their well being that those in the 1st century had abandoned.

and murdered the messenger.

their false 10 commandments and the portrayal for their existence being the challenge to right their wrongs they refused to obey is no different today than it was in that time. to reset humanity back to the path of prosperity.

 

[norwegen]

Actually I read the OT, NT, and a number of books on the subject. You?

Yea, that's great.

What passages in the NT indicate Christ's intentions to overthrow Rome?

 

[Billo_Really]

Wasn't Jesus crucified by the Romans?

 

[Indeependent]

Wasn't Jesus crucified by the Romans?

According to the Gospels.

 

[alang1216]

Yea, that's great.

What passages in the NT indicate Christ's intentions to overthrow Rome?

In the New Testament, Jesus is referred to as the King of the Jews (or King of the Judeans), both at the beginning of his life and at the end. In the Koine Greek of the New Testament, e.g., in John 19:3, this is written as Basileus ton Ioudaion (βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων).

Romans didn't intend to share power with anyone. The gospels show the empire’s harsh response to perceived opposition. “King Herod resorts to murderous violence to kill the newborn baby who is known as ‘king of the Jews’ (Matthew 2). Herod [Antipas] beheads John the Baptist who has been critical of Herod’s personal morality and political alliances (Matthew 14:1-12).

Jesus presented a challenge to empire—and the empire struck back. In the end, even with his conflicts with the religious leaders, we must remember that Jesus was crucified—the manner of execution used by Rome for political offenders. And he was crucified with the title “King of the Jews” attached to his cross—certainly a political term.

 

[norwegen]

In the New Testament, Jesus is referred to as the King of the Jews (or King of the Judeans), both at the beginning of his life and at the end. In the Koine Greek of the New Testament, e.g., in John 19:3, this is written as Basileus ton Ioudaion (βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων).

Romans didn't intend to share power with anyone. The gospels show the empire’s harsh response to perceived opposition. “King Herod resorts to murderous violence to kill the newborn baby who is known as ‘king of the Jews’ (Matthew 2). Herod [Antipas] beheads John the Baptist who has been critical of Herod’s personal morality and political alliances (Matthew 14:1-12).

Jesus presented a challenge to empire—and the empire struck back. In the end, even with his conflicts with the religious leaders, we must remember that Jesus was crucified—the manner of execution used by Rome for political offenders. And he was crucified with the title “King of the Jews” attached to his cross—certainly a political term.

This is quite vague. So vague, it misses the point.

Throughout the gospels, the object of Jesus' contempt is the temple leadership: the Pharisees and their scribes, the elders, the chief priests. No one else.

These Jews are the hypocrites. They're the brood of vipers, the whitewashed tombs, the wolves in sheeps' clothing, and all the rest. Their temple had become the Synagogue of Satan. In the parables, they were the ones headed toward slaughter. And then they were slaughtered.

Every bit of Christ's contempt was for the Jews and what they had done to Moses and the Prophets.

Where in the NT does Jesus direct any of his contempt toward Rome?

And why would he have directed any of it toward Rome? Don't just say "because the kingdom" or some other such vagary. Rome continued on long after Christ and that generation.

 

[irosie91]

Yea, that's great.

What passages in the NT indicate Christ's intentions to overthrow Rome?

try again-----just get rome out of Judea-----read the book again-----it is very clear

 

[irosie91]

Wasn't Jesus crucified by the Romans?

the islamo-nazi version of the story is----
DA JOOOOOO MADE'EM DO IT

 

[alang1216]

This is quite vague. So vague, it misses the point.

Throughout the gospels, the object of Jesus' contempt is the temple leadership: the Pharisees and their scribes, the elders, the chief priests. No one else.

These Jews are the hypocrites. They're the brood of vipers, the whitewashed tombs, the wolves in sheeps' clothing, and all the rest. Their temple had become the Synagogue of Satan. In the parables, they were the ones headed toward slaughter. And then they were slaughtered.

Every bit of Christ's contempt was for the Jews and what they had done to Moses and the Prophets.

Where in the NT does Jesus direct any of his contempt toward Rome?

And why would he have directed any of it toward Rome? Don't just say "because the kingdom" or some other such vagary. Rome continued on long after Christ and that generation.

If you think the Romans cared about the nuances of Jewish theology you're deluded. If someone came to their attention and he was known as the King of the Jews he was dead meat since it was only Rome that appointed kings. The Romans would execute first and ask questions later especially if that someone was quoted as saying (Matthew 10:34–36) "He had come at this time not to bring peace to the earth, but a sword".

 

[irosie91]

This is quite vague. So vague, it misses the point.

Throughout the gospels, the object of Jesus' contempt is the temple leadership: the Pharisees and their scribes, the elders, the chief priests. No one else.

These Jews are the hypocrites. They're the brood of vipers, the whitewashed tombs, the wolves in sheeps' clothing, and all the rest. Their temple had become the Synagogue of Satan. In the parables, they were the ones headed toward slaughter. And then they were slaughtered.

Every bit of Christ's contempt was for the Jews and what they had done to Moses and the Prophets.

Where in the NT does Jesus direct any of his contempt toward Rome?

And why would he have directed any of it toward Rome? Don't just say "because the kingdom" or some other such vagary. Rome continued on long after Christ and that generation.

sheeeesh NORG read it again. Thruout the NT the object of contempt by the "writers of the gospels" ---chosen by Constantine----is THE
PHARISEES. You remember Constantine----EMPEROR OF ROME and .... you remember the
PHARISEES ------those ANTI-ROME guys that the romans crucified right and left. For the record---the
Pharisees did not control the Temple, ------ROME DID via its proxies

 

[Clyde 154]

What I'm saying is do most Jews agree with the Jesus being crucified? In the religion itself and amongst the jewish population. What do they truly believe?

Evidence? Simply observe history actual. Biblical Isarel was totally destroyed because they rejected Jesus as the Messiah of prophecy. Israel has not existed upon earth since the 1s century. The nation calling itself Israel is but a poor imintation of Biblical Israel. There is no King appointed by God..........there is a govenment 1st appointed not by God but the UN. There are no tribial IDs, no royal priesthood, no living by the Law of Moses but rather by laws invoked by men. Where are the annual animal sacifices at the alter to atone for sin, where are the mandated stonnings of those comitting certain crimes? Truth cannot evolve or it was never truth in the 1st place.

One can't argue with REALITY. Being a Jew is not a race of people......religion does not define races.......blood defines races. Jews are Jews by self profession not by Blood. The vast majority of those who self idendify as Jew have not been to temple since Moses was a child floating on the nile. God created all nations of peoples on earth from ONE BLOOD (Acts 17:26)

If you are guilty of breaking one Law you are guilty of breaking all God's commandments under the Law of Moses. If you profess to live under the Law of Moses you must live by all its ordiances. God informed Isarel that it would be destroyed from the earth when it failed to obey the righteous commandments of God and live up to the covenant of Moses. (Lev. 26:27-39) God told Isarel that the covenant of Moses would be replaced by the covenent of Christ......with laws not written on stone but on the heart of the believers (Jer. 31:31-34)

Today.......there is neither Jew nor Greek (gentile). All are on in Christ Jesus. And heirs to the promise made to father Abraham (Gal. 3:28-29)

 

[norwegen]

If you think the Romans cared about the nuances of Jewish theology you're deluded.

No, I sure don't. Where did you get that idea? You certainly didn't read it.

If someone came to their attention and he was known as the King of the Jews he was dead meat since it was only Rome that appointed kings.

Um, nobody actually thought Jesus was king of the Jews. Certainly not Rome. They were mocking him.

The Romans would execute first and ask questions later especially if that someone was quoted as saying (Matthew 10:34–36) "He had come at this time not to bring peace to the earth, but a sword".

He was talking neither about wielding a sword against Rome nor dividing Rome. Try reading in context. You have read the NT, correct?

 

[alang1216]

No, I sure don't. Where did you get that idea? You certainly didn't read it.

My point was that Rome wouldn't execute someone because the priests asked them to.

Um, nobody actually thought Jesus was king of the Jews. Certainly not Rome. They were mocking him.

Jesus preached about the coming Kingdom of God. What was to be Jesus' place in that kingdom?

He was talking neither about wielding a sword against Rome nor dividing Rome. Try reading in context. You have read the NT, correct?

The Romans wouldn't have cared what he meant, only what he said and not wanting peace meant war or rebellion.

 

[surada]

sheeeesh NORG read it again. Thruout the NT the object of contempt by the "writers of the gospels" ---chosen by Constantine----is THE
PHARISEES. You remember Constantine----EMPEROR OF ROME and .... you remember the
PHARISEES ------those ANTI-ROME guys that the romans crucified right and left. For the record---the
Pharisees did not control the Temple, ------ROME DID via its proxies

Nope. Rome didn't control the temple. Do you think the moneychangers were Romans?

Saducees controlled the temple.

Sadducee | Description, Doctrines, & Facts

Sadducee, member of a Jewish priestly sect that flourished for about two centuries before the destruction of the Second Temple of Jerusalem in 70 ce. The Sadducees were the party of high priests, aristocratic families, and merchants—the wealthier elements of the population.

www.britannica.com