Christians must understand that for Jews the cross is a symbol of oppression

[irosie91]

Avatar4321 the only freedom fighting christ figures were Yehuda the Galilean tax revolter and later Baracopa.
Ironically this image Rome created and used to subvert people with enslaved you to their authority and mistaken precepts. Even those sects which oppose the RCC are enslaved by the image and the harmful false teachings and affiliation pride it brings. I even showed how they enslaved atheists by reinventing and redefining ideas and concepts so as to throw them off their intended understanding thus making rational & logical helpful ideology and philosophy distasteful to those outside the faith and tainting their understanding and nature as much as they are poisonous to theirvown flocks.
Hence the term wormwood in describing The great fallen star(messenger) who made them like that poisonous deadly herb called wormwood.

God loves you. God blesses you and keeps you. God forgives you. God gives His life for you.

The Catholic Church and Christianity did not learn this from Rome or from Roman and/or Greek gods. We learned this from the Jews. Jesus is not Yehuda the tax revolter, the freedom fighter. Jesus' message was "God loves us as a Father; our sins are forgiven." This man (who was not Yehuda) spoke to the Temple (not Rome) on behalf of the destitute, on behalf of widows and orphans. He healed the sick. He reassured people that the Kingdom of God is within everyone's reach--even the reach of those who could not afford to offer Temple sacrifices. God loves them, their sins are forgiven by Him.

Jesus spoke of manna, bread from heaven, how God nourished His people with it then, now He continues to nourish us.

It does no one any good to ignore facts or pretend that Christianity's roots are in Rome, not Israel and Judaism. I can teach you about Jesus in such a way that even if they continue to reject the idea that Jesus is from God, of God, he can still be held up at a shining example of a man the Jewish faith produces: What he stands for (love of God and his fellow man); what he believes (sins are forgiven); and the care and hospitality of Jews for the destitute, the sick, the widow, the orphans. Jesus did not get this from studying Roman and Greek gods; he got this from knowing and being of the Jewish faith.

you have learned some very odd things about the life and times of Jesus. The temple at that time had absolutely nothing to do with taxes----that was rome. That
which you call "salvation" was not contingent on private humans donating "sacrifices"----most private "sacrifices" were means related. for the very poor----
a pigeon ----a few times in ones life was about it. The temple had no possible way of
supporting the poor.-----it was purely ceremonial like the present day queen of England--business conducted in the gates thereof was controlled and pillaged by rome. ---which is why the Pharisees despised the "money changers" and the roman appointed shills
who got into the priesthood------the "high priest' CAIPHAS is still a dirty name in Jewish history as it was back then. The "message" conveyed by jesus by the words ascribed to him------were simply the very popularized ideas of Hillel. It is the
details of ROMAN CHRISTIANITY that are very roman----from popes to saints to
"gods" impregnating humans all the way to the canon laws and the inquisition.
That Pontius Pilate ----still a dirty name in jewish history, gets a kind of free pass---
boggles my mind

oc

Jews are so innocent, as pure as the driven snow. Everything, I mean everything is blamed on someone else.

you responded to my post in which I highlighted a very negative JEWISH character-------CAIPHAS-------gee you are clueless

 

[hortysir]

Not that I expect any christers to realize this


Christianity bears primary responsibility for historic antisemitism. Few ideas can have been as poisonous as, and inspired more murderousness than, the idea that Jews were the Christ-killers


Christians must understand that for Jews the cross is a symbol of oppression Giles Fraser Comment is free The Guardian

Yea....they were so oppressed by the symbol of a cross that they would allow a murderer back into the fold and choose to put the Man that challenged their religious leaders on that cross.

Ok

 

[irosie91]

you have learned some very odd things about the life and times of Jesus. The temple at that time had absolutely nothing to do with taxes----that was rome.

I did not say the Temple had anything to do with taxes. I said it had to do with sacrifice. It was Hashev who said Jesus was revolting against Rome. So, no, I have not learned very odd things about the life and times of Jesus. I am spot on.

That which you call "salvation" was not contingent on private humans donating "sacrifices"----most private "sacrifices" were means related. for the very poor----a pigeon ----a few times in ones life was about it.

I doubt you know what I call "salvation." In any case, Temple sacrifice was not about salvation, it was about offering a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins.

The temple had no possible way of supporting the poor.-----it was purely ceremonial like the present day queen of England--business conducted in the gates thereof was controlled and pillaged by rome. ---which is why the Pharisees despised the "money changers" and the roman appointed shills who got into the priesthood------the "high priest' CAIPHAS is still a dirty name in Jewish history as it was back then.

Again, we are not speaking of the Temple supporting the poor, but placing burdens upon them (in the form of sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins, or in tithing). Torah Law did give examples on how to care for the poor--gleaning is one good of example of this. As you say, gleaning has nothing to do with the Temple, it has to do with one's fellow man helping others.

As you say, Caiaphas was/is still a dirty name in Jewish history. What Jews today do not seem to understand is that during the time of Caiaphas Jesus was protesting his acts and policies--just as any good Jew would do today, and I am certain many did at that time--Jesus among them, and perhaps one of the more vocal. Caiaphas didn't seem to like him--which should say something for Jesus' overall character.

The "message" conveyed by jesus by the words ascribed to him------were simply the very popularized ideas of Hillel.

Yes. Said a bit differently perhaps, but the same message. Just as his insistence that the two greatest commandments (as stated in Exodus) is to love God and to love one's fellow man. This is another reason that Jews have no reason to despise Jesus. Caiaphas had reason to despise him, but Jews and Pharisees as a whole did not.

It is the details of ROMAN CHRISTIANITY that are very roman----from popes to saints to "gods" impregnating humans all the way to the canon laws and the inquisition. That Pontius Pilate ----still a dirty name in jewish history, gets a kind of free pass---boggles my mind

I don't know where you came up with the idea that Pontius Pilate gets a free pass, so I cannot comment on that.

Pope comes from "Papa" because the Bishop of Rome was called papa because he was known as a spiritual father. The Bishop of Rome is one of thousands of bishops. He is the most well-known because if there is a disagreement among the bishops about the Church as a whole, it is the bishop of Rome who has the final call. Each Bishop runs his own diocese.

A saint is simply someone who strives to live a holy life. A Saint (note the capitalization) is someone who is particularly recognized for the holy life they led. A good comparison might be the Sports Hall of Fame.

you have learned some very odd things about the life and times of Jesus. The temple at that time had absolutely nothing to do with taxes----that was rome.

I did not say the Temple had anything to do with taxes. I said it had to do with sacrifice. It was Hashev who said Jesus was revolting against Rome. So, no, I have not learned very odd things about the life and times of Jesus. I am spot on.

That which you call "salvation" was not contingent on private humans donating "sacrifices"----most private "sacrifices" were means related. for the very poor----a pigeon ----a few times in ones life was about it.

I doubt you know what I call "salvation." In any case, Temple sacrifice was not about salvation, it was about offering a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins.

The temple had no possible way of supporting the poor.-----it was purely ceremonial like the present day queen of England--business conducted in the gates thereof was controlled and pillaged by rome. ---which is why the Pharisees despised the "money changers" and the roman appointed shills who got into the priesthood------the "high priest' CAIPHAS is still a dirty name in Jewish history as it was back then.

Again, we are not speaking of the Temple supporting the poor, but placing burdens upon them (in the form of sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins, or in tithing). Torah Law did give examples on how to care for the poor--gleaning is one good of example of this. As you say, gleaning has nothing to do with the Temple, it has to do with one's fellow man helping others.

As you say, Caiaphas was/is still a dirty name in Jewish history. What Jews today do not seem to understand is that during the time of Caiaphas Jesus was protesting his acts and policies--just as any good Jew would do today, and I am certain many did at that time--Jesus among them, and perhaps one of the more vocal. Caiaphas didn't seem to like him--which should say something for Jesus' overall character.

The "message" conveyed by jesus by the words ascribed to him------were simply the very popularized ideas of Hillel.

Yes. Said a bit differently perhaps, but the same message. Just as his insistence that the two greatest commandments (as stated in Exodus) is to love God and to love one's fellow man. This is another reason that Jews have no reason to despise Jesus. Caiaphas had reason to despise him, but Jews and Pharisees as a whole did not.

It is the details of ROMAN CHRISTIANITY that are very roman----from popes to saints to "gods" impregnating humans all the way to the canon laws and the inquisition. That Pontius Pilate ----still a dirty name in jewish history, gets a kind of free pass---boggles my mind

I don't know where you came up with the idea that Pontius Pilate gets a free pass, so I cannot comment on that.

Pope comes from "Papa" because the Bishop of Rome was called papa because he was known as a spiritual father. The Bishop of Rome is one of thousands of bishops. He is the most well-known because if there is a disagreement among the bishops about the Church as a whole, it is the bishop of Rome who has the final call. Each Bishop runs his own diocese.

A saint is simply someone who strives to live a holy life. A Saint (note the capitalization) is someone who is particularly recognized for the holy life they led. A good comparison might be the Sports Hall of Fame.

Your post has contains too many details for a simple response----I will highlight----
The declaration of SAINT by the head of church is actually a recap
of "DECLARATION OF GOD" by the roman senate-----it was what they did--
now the college of cardinals does it

your concept of burdens placed on the people in the time of Jesus by "the temple"------is something you learned----it was not happening. Your concept
of private sacrifice for forgiveness of sins was also not happening------you are
thinking of roman culture. Sacrifice was a temple ritual which actually fed
the levites and priests----who by law, had no inherited land-----nor were they
salaried Jesus does not even mention the issue in the NT which makes sense
since it was not an issue of the time. He does attack the moneychangers who
were despised by the PHARISEES because Jesus was a PHARISEE. Caiphas----was a SADDUCEE and,, therefore----despised Jesus. See?
now you learned some history. None of the priests were Pharisees----just as
rome appointed HEROD , they appointed the priests. Rome hated
Pharisees and continued to crucify them-----after they got Jesus.

 

[amrchaos]

I was thinking about this thread and it occurred to me....

Given the story behind the christian cross, is it not the most awkward symbol in history?

Think about it--who would cherish the image of an object used to torture and slay your god? It really does not make sense--even in the argument where their god suppose to come back to life.

Maybe Christians should try to make use of their other symbol--the outline of a fish.

 

[irosie91]

Not that I expect any christers to realize this


Christianity bears primary responsibility for historic antisemitism. Few ideas can have been as poisonous as, and inspired more murderousness than, the idea that Jews were the Christ-killers


Christians must understand that for Jews the cross is a symbol of oppression Giles Fraser Comment is free The Guardian

Yea....they were so oppressed by the symbol of a cross that they would allow a murderer back into the fold and choose to put the Man that challenged their religious leaders on that cross.

Ok

Jesus never challenged jewish religious leaders ------if your sunday school teacher told you that BARRABAS was a murderer------she was quite stupid---
nowhere is Barrabas described as a murderer in the NT-----unless he murdered
a ROMAN he would not be crucified. He was described as a
ROBBER-----unless he robbed a roman he would not be crucified either. Sometimes he is described as a "common criminal" -----romans did not
crucify common criminals-----they were judged by local jewish courts. Romans
crucified for CRIMES AGAINST ROME only. Barrabas was most likely an
agitator against rome as was Jesus. and the other approximately 20,000
jews crucified by PONTIUS PILATE in his ten years of PRELATE OF JUDEA

 

[irosie91]

I was thinking about this thread and it occurred to me....

Given the story behind the christian cross, is it not the most awkward symbol in history?

Think about it--who would cherish the image of an object used to torture and slay your god? It really does not make sense--even in the argument where their god suppose to come back to life.

Maybe Christians should try to make use of their other symbol--the outline of a fish.

no good---the outline of a fish is a jewish symbol that precedes the cross. It shows up in all kinds of arty things. I think that Christians used it early on
as a symbol of life in Galilee where Jesus was supposed to have had his home as
a child

 

[irosie91]

Not that I expect any christers to realize this


Christianity bears primary responsibility for historic antisemitism. Few ideas can have been as poisonous as, and inspired more murderousness than, the idea that Jews were the Christ-killers


Christians must understand that for Jews the cross is a symbol of oppression Giles Fraser Comment is free The Guardian

Yea....they were so oppressed by the symbol of a cross that they would allow a murderer back into the fold and choose to put the Man that challenged their religious leaders on that cross.

Ok

Jesus was already on the cross when that silly thing about "TAKING ONE DOWN" is supposed to have happened. ROMANS already nailed him up----
why don't you read the book?

 

[hortysir]

Not that I expect any christers to realize this


Christianity bears primary responsibility for historic antisemitism. Few ideas can have been as poisonous as, and inspired more murderousness than, the idea that Jews were the Christ-killers


Christians must understand that for Jews the cross is a symbol of oppression Giles Fraser Comment is free The Guardian

Yea....they were so oppressed by the symbol of a cross that they would allow a murderer back into the fold and choose to put the Man that challenged their religious leaders on that cross.

Ok

Jesus never challenged jewish religious leaders ------if your sunday school teacher told you that BARRABAS was a murderer------she was quite stupid---
nowhere is Barrabas described as a murderer in the NT-----unless he murdered
a ROMAN he would not be crucified. He was described as a
ROBBER-----unless he robbed a roman he would not be crucified either. Sometimes he is described as a "common criminal" -----romans did not
crucify common criminals-----they were judged by local jewish courts. Romans
crucified for CRIMES AGAINST ROME only. Barrabas was most likely an
agitator against rome as was Jesus. and the other approximately 20,000
jews crucified by PONTIUS PILATE in his ten years of PRELATE OF JUDEA

That's all He did was challenge their strict adherence to their written Law.
He healed on the Sabat. He offered salvation to Gentiles.

As to Barabas, check out Acts 3:14

 

[Meriweather]

Your post has contains too many details for a simple response----I will highlight----
The declaration of SAINT by the head of church is actually a recap
of "DECLARATION OF GOD" by the roman senate-----it was what they did--
now the college of cardinals does it

Early Christians were referred to as saints. The declaration of Saint is not a declaration of God. The Church simply investigates a life of someone who has lived a fine example of the Catholic faith and the Church (not God) gives the title.

your concept of burdens placed on the people in the time of Jesus by "the temple"------is something you learned----it was not happening. Your concept
of private sacrifice for forgiveness of sins was also not happening------you are
thinking of roman culture. Sacrifice was a temple ritual which actually fed
the levites and priests----who by law, had no inherited land-----nor were they
salaried Jesus does not even mention the issue in the NT which makes sense
since it was not an issue of the time. He does attack the moneychangers who
were despised by the PHARISEES because Jesus was a PHARISEE. Caiphas----was a SADDUCEE and,, therefore----despised Jesus. See?
now you learned some history. None of the priests were Pharisees----just as
rome appointed HEROD , they appointed the priests. Rome hated
Pharisees and continued to crucify them-----after they got Jesus.

What is a "private" sacrifice? How does it differ from a Temple sacrifice? No. I. am. not. thinking. of. Roman. culture. I have studied both. They are quite different, are they not?

Jesus was an itinerant preacher, probably not a Pharisee (although that cannot be ruled out), but definitely not a Sadducee. He may have been a Nazarite. Money changers and tax collectors were both despised by the population--not just by Pharisees.

 

[irosie91]

Not that I expect any christers to realize this


Christianity bears primary responsibility for historic antisemitism. Few ideas can have been as poisonous as, and inspired more murderousness than, the idea that Jews were the Christ-killers


Christians must understand that for Jews the cross is a symbol of oppression Giles Fraser Comment is free The Guardian

Yea....they were so oppressed by the symbol of a cross that they would allow a murderer back into the fold and choose to put the Man that challenged their religious leaders on that cross.

Ok

Jesus never challenged jewish religious leaders ------if your sunday school teacher told you that BARRABAS was a murderer------she was quite stupid---
nowhere is Barrabas described as a murderer in the NT-----unless he murdered
a ROMAN he would not be crucified. He was described as a
ROBBER-----unless he robbed a roman he would not be crucified either. Sometimes he is described as a "common criminal" -----romans did not
crucify common criminals-----they were judged by local jewish courts. Romans
crucified for CRIMES AGAINST ROME only. Barrabas was most likely an
agitator against rome as was Jesus. and the other approximately 20,000
jews crucified by PONTIUS PILATE in his ten years of PRELATE OF JUDEA

That's all He did was challenge their strict adherence to their written Law.
He healed on the Sabat. He offered salvation to Gentiles.

As to Barabas, check out Acts 3:14

no he didn't (ie did not challenge strict adherence to the written law
"healing" on the Sabbath is not a violation of the law (I should know ----
I have worked with very very neurotically observant jewish doctors)
I am not at all impressed with ACTS----it is sometimes ascribed to
LUKE who never met jesus and was not there and did not speak
Aramaic or Hebrew. He was a greek doctor. Unless barrabas had
MURDERED A ROMAN (as an act of sedition) he would not have
been crucified. The alleged desire of the "crowd" to save Barrabas
could have been a result of an act of sedition against rome that did
include the death of a roman----an act which COULD have made him
a local hero. <<<<that explanation is the only logical way to
explain the story-----which I do not find particularly credible anyway.
It is more SYMBOLIC of the roman rejection of the Pharisee POV ---
ie--anti-rome. Jesus was being remade as a FRIEND TO ROME
by the roman Christians. Jews are being described as enemies of ROME
and the "PRO ROMAN JESUS" Even Pontius Pilate----crucifier of tens of thousands THE POOR RELUCTANT GOOD GUY WAS FORCED.
DURING the period of time that the gospels were being compiled---
romans were still crucifying jews for SEDITION----only crimes
against ROME
is made into an ALMOST HERO

 

[Desperado]

Hey Guano
Let be honest here, Do the cross really intimidate you?
If so you need a thicker skin

 

[irosie91]

Your post has contains too many details for a simple response----I will highlight----
The declaration of SAINT by the head of church is actually a recap
of "DECLARATION OF GOD" by the roman senate-----it was what they did--
now the college of cardinals does it

Early Christians were referred to as saints. The declaration of Saint is not a declaration of God. The Church simply investigates a life of someone who has lived a fine example of the Catholic faith and the Church (not God) gives the title.

your concept of burdens placed on the people in the time of Jesus by "the temple"------is something you learned----it was not happening. Your concept
of private sacrifice for forgiveness of sins was also not happening------you are
thinking of roman culture. Sacrifice was a temple ritual which actually fed
the levites and priests----who by law, had no inherited land-----nor were they
salaried Jesus does not even mention the issue in the NT which makes sense
since it was not an issue of the time. He does attack the moneychangers who
were despised by the PHARISEES because Jesus was a PHARISEE. Caiphas----was a SADDUCEE and,, therefore----despised Jesus. See?
now you learned some history. None of the priests were Pharisees----just as
rome appointed HEROD , they appointed the priests. Rome hated
Pharisees and continued to crucify them-----after they got Jesus.

What is a "private" sacrifice? How does it differ from a Temple sacrifice? No. I. am. not. thinking. of. Roman. culture. I have studied both. They are quite different, are they not?

Jesus was an itinerant preacher, probably not a Pharisee (although that cannot be ruled out), but definitely not a Sadducee. He may have been a Nazarite. Money changers and tax collectors were both despised by the population--not just by Pharisees.

PRIVATE sacrifice in the context I used it refers to a sacrifice of an animal
paid for by a private person and done in the temple-----got it now? Romans
engaged in that practice WHOLESALE for all kinds of events. Jews
did it on a fairly limited scale. Regarding money changers----nope---the people who had it in for them were the PHARISEES <<<that's history. Of course
everyone hated the tax collectors but jesus did not attack the tax collectors---he attacked the MONEY CHANGERS

 

[irosie91]

for the record----the CROSS intimidated hundreds of thousands of
people-----from the GREEK EMPIRE to the ROMAN EMPIRE-----
it was their way of killing people WHOLESALE ---- An interesting factoid
of history is ------CONSTANTINE discontinued the prevalent practice of
roman crucifixtion------when he put the Christian theology into practice----
he kinds made it "HOLY" Of course rome had 300 years of crucifixtions
under its belt SINCE the crucifixtion of Jesus by that time

 

[amrchaos]

I was thinking about this thread and it occurred to me....

Given the story behind the christian cross, is it not the most awkward symbol in history?

Think about it--who would cherish the image of an object used to torture and slay your god? It really does not make sense--even in the argument where their god suppose to come back to life.

Maybe Christians should try to make use of their other symbol--the outline of a fish.

no good---the outline of a fish is a jewish symbol that precedes the cross. It shows up in all kinds of arty things. I think that Christians used it early on
as a symbol of life in Galilee where Jesus was supposed to have had his home as
a child

I don't know its history that well, but I have seen Christians use it.

Also, symbols tend to start conversations--and talking about the cross and the death of christ has more potential to turn non-believers away than to talk about the fish and what it symbolizes.

I.e. it is probably easier to push Christianity if they talk about its more salient points.

 

[hortysir]

Not that I expect any christers to realize this


Christianity bears primary responsibility for historic antisemitism. Few ideas can have been as poisonous as, and inspired more murderousness than, the idea that Jews were the Christ-killers


Christians must understand that for Jews the cross is a symbol of oppression Giles Fraser Comment is free The Guardian

Yea....they were so oppressed by the symbol of a cross that they would allow a murderer back into the fold and choose to put the Man that challenged their religious leaders on that cross.

Ok

Jesus never challenged jewish religious leaders ------if your sunday school teacher told you that BARRABAS was a murderer------she was quite stupid---
nowhere is Barrabas described as a murderer in the NT-----unless he murdered
a ROMAN he would not be crucified. He was described as a
ROBBER-----unless he robbed a roman he would not be crucified either. Sometimes he is described as a "common criminal" -----romans did not
crucify common criminals-----they were judged by local jewish courts. Romans
crucified for CRIMES AGAINST ROME only. Barrabas was most likely an
agitator against rome as was Jesus. and the other approximately 20,000
jews crucified by PONTIUS PILATE in his ten years of PRELATE OF JUDEA

That's all He did was challenge their strict adherence to their written Law.
He healed on the Sabat. He offered salvation to Gentiles.

As to Barabas, check out Acts 3:14

no he didn't (ie did not challenge strict adherence to the written law
"healing" on the Sabbath is not a violation of the law (I should know ----
I have worked with very very neurotically observant jewish doctors)
I am not at all impressed with ACTS----it is sometimes ascribed to
LUKE who never met jesus and was not there and did not speak
Aramaic or Hebrew. He was a greek doctor. Unless barrabas had
MURDERED A ROMAN (as an act of sedition) he would not have
been crucified. The alleged desire of the "crowd" to save Barrabas
could have been a result of an act of sedition against rome that did
include the death of a roman----an act which COULD have made him
a local hero. <<<<that explanation is the only logical way to
explain the story-----which I do not find particularly credible anyway.
It is more SYMBOLIC of the roman rejection of the Pharisee POV ---
ie--anti-rome. Jesus was being remade as a FRIEND TO ROME
by the roman Christians. Jews are being described as enemies of ROME
and the "PRO ROMAN JESUS" Even Pontius Pilate----crucifier of tens of thousands THE POOR RELUCTANT GOOD GUY WAS FORCED.
DURING the period of time that the gospels were being compiled---
romans were still crucifying jews for SEDITION----only crimes
against ROME
is made into an ALMOST HERO

Wow.

You might want to rest after moving those goalposts so far.

You said "nowhere in the Bible is Barabas referred to as a murderer".
You didn't say nowhere except where I don't believe it.

Jesus's very exsistance was contrary to the Jewish leaders' teachings, considering the fact that they didn't believe him to be the Messiah

 

[irosie91]

Not that I expect any christers to realize this


Christianity bears primary responsibility for historic antisemitism. Few ideas can have been as poisonous as, and inspired more murderousness than, the idea that Jews were the Christ-killers


Christians must understand that for Jews the cross is a symbol of oppression Giles Fraser Comment is free The Guardian

Yea....they were so oppressed by the symbol of a cross that they would allow a murderer back into the fold and choose to put the Man that challenged their religious leaders on that cross.

Ok

Jesus never challenged jewish religious leaders ------if your sunday school teacher told you that BARRABAS was a murderer------she was quite stupid---
nowhere is Barrabas described as a murderer in the NT-----unless he murdered
a ROMAN he would not be crucified. He was described as a
ROBBER-----unless he robbed a roman he would not be crucified either. Sometimes he is described as a "common criminal" -----romans did not
crucify common criminals-----they were judged by local jewish courts. Romans
crucified for CRIMES AGAINST ROME only. Barrabas was most likely an
agitator against rome as was Jesus. and the other approximately 20,000
jews crucified by PONTIUS PILATE in his ten years of PRELATE OF JUDEA

That's all He did was challenge their strict adherence to their written Law.
He healed on the Sabat. He offered salvation to Gentiles.

As to Barabas, check out Acts 3:14

no he didn't (ie did not challenge strict adherence to the written law
"healing" on the Sabbath is not a violation of the law (I should know ----
I have worked with very very neurotically observant jewish doctors)
I am not at all impressed with ACTS----it is sometimes ascribed to
LUKE who never met jesus and was not there and did not speak
Aramaic or Hebrew. He was a greek doctor. Unless barrabas had
MURDERED A ROMAN (as an act of sedition) he would not have
been crucified. The alleged desire of the "crowd" to save Barrabas
could have been a result of an act of sedition against rome that did
include the death of a roman----an act which COULD have made him
a local hero. <<<<that explanation is the only logical way to
explain the story-----which I do not find particularly credible anyway.
It is more SYMBOLIC of the roman rejection of the Pharisee POV ---
ie--anti-rome. Jesus was being remade as a FRIEND TO ROME
by the roman Christians. Jews are being described as enemies of ROME
and the "PRO ROMAN JESUS" Even Pontius Pilate----crucifier of tens of thousands THE POOR RELUCTANT GOOD GUY WAS FORCED.
DURING the period of time that the gospels were being compiled---
romans were still crucifying jews for SEDITION----only crimes
against ROME
is made into an ALMOST HERO

Wow.

You might want to rest after moving those goalposts so far.

You said "nowhere in the Bible is Barabas referred to as a murderer".
You didn't say nowhere except where I don't believe it.

Jesus's very exsistance was contrary to the Jewish leaders' teachings, considering the fact that they didn't believe him to be the Messiah

I moved the goal posts------in the story of jesus with the three criminals----ie when it is supposed to have happened------they are described as "three criminals"---
not "murderers" Some guy IN RETROSPECT who was not there and
did not know the spoken languages ---luke the greek doctor, LATER
describes Barabbas as a "murderer" JEWISH LEADERS? to what
jewish leaders do you refer? The person who opposed Jesus was
the SADDUCEE evil character, shill of rome CAIAPHAS --- jews hated
his guts Herod was an issue too------the "king" jewish leaders considered
INELIGIBLE for the job What are you calling "jewish leaders"?.

 

[hortysir]

Yea....they were so oppressed by the symbol of a cross that they would allow a murderer back into the fold and choose to put the Man that challenged their religious leaders on that cross.

Ok

Jesus never challenged jewish religious leaders ------if your sunday school teacher told you that BARRABAS was a murderer------she was quite stupid---
nowhere is Barrabas described as a murderer in the NT-----unless he murdered
a ROMAN he would not be crucified. He was described as a
ROBBER-----unless he robbed a roman he would not be crucified either. Sometimes he is described as a "common criminal" -----romans did not
crucify common criminals-----they were judged by local jewish courts. Romans
crucified for CRIMES AGAINST ROME only. Barrabas was most likely an
agitator against rome as was Jesus. and the other approximately 20,000
jews crucified by PONTIUS PILATE in his ten years of PRELATE OF JUDEA

That's all He did was challenge their strict adherence to their written Law.
He healed on the Sabat. He offered salvation to Gentiles.

As to Barabas, check out Acts 3:14

no he didn't (ie did not challenge strict adherence to the written law
"healing" on the Sabbath is not a violation of the law (I should know ----
I have worked with very very neurotically observant jewish doctors)
I am not at all impressed with ACTS----it is sometimes ascribed to
LUKE who never met jesus and was not there and did not speak
Aramaic or Hebrew. He was a greek doctor. Unless barrabas had
MURDERED A ROMAN (as an act of sedition) he would not have
been crucified. The alleged desire of the "crowd" to save Barrabas
could have been a result of an act of sedition against rome that did
include the death of a roman----an act which COULD have made him
a local hero. <<<<that explanation is the only logical way to
explain the story-----which I do not find particularly credible anyway.
It is more SYMBOLIC of the roman rejection of the Pharisee POV ---
ie--anti-rome. Jesus was being remade as a FRIEND TO ROME
by the roman Christians. Jews are being described as enemies of ROME
and the "PRO ROMAN JESUS" Even Pontius Pilate----crucifier of tens of thousands THE POOR RELUCTANT GOOD GUY WAS FORCED.
DURING the period of time that the gospels were being compiled---
romans were still crucifying jews for SEDITION----only crimes
against ROME
is made into an ALMOST HERO

Wow.

You might want to rest after moving those goalposts so far.

You said "nowhere in the Bible is Barabas referred to as a murderer".
You didn't say nowhere except where I don't believe it.

Jesus's very exsistance was contrary to the Jewish leaders' teachings, considering the fact that they didn't believe him to be the Messiah

I moved the goal posts------in the story of jesus with the three criminals----ie when it is supposed to have happened------they are described as "three criminals"---
not "murderers" Some guy IN RETROSPECT who was not there and
did not know the spoken languages ---luke the greek doctor, LATER
describes Barabbas as a "murderer" JEWISH LEADERS? to what
jewish leaders do you refer? The person who opposed Jesus was
the SADDUCEE evil character, shill of rome CAIAPHAS --- jews hated
his guts Herod was an issue too------the "king" jewish leaders considered
INELIGIBLE for the job What are you calling "jewish leaders"?.

Barabas wasn't on one of the other crosses.

And you tell me to read The Book

 

[irosie91]

PS ---romans did not crucify jews for murdering jews------only for killing romans---
Its an important point since jews killing roman oppressors at that time was
not much of a crime from the LOCAL JEWISH POV ----for romans at the
time of
the compilation of the NT-----all jews who rejected roman rule were
"MURDERERS" The logical explanation for the "three criminals"---
was they were convicted for BEING JEWS in rebellion against rome.
No other explanation makes sense

 

[irosie91]

Jesus never challenged jewish religious leaders ------if your sunday school teacher told you that BARRABAS was a murderer------she was quite stupid---
nowhere is Barrabas described as a murderer in the NT-----unless he murdered
a ROMAN he would not be crucified. He was described as a
ROBBER-----unless he robbed a roman he would not be crucified either. Sometimes he is described as a "common criminal" -----romans did not
crucify common criminals-----they were judged by local jewish courts. Romans
crucified for CRIMES AGAINST ROME only. Barrabas was most likely an
agitator against rome as was Jesus. and the other approximately 20,000
jews crucified by PONTIUS PILATE in his ten years of PRELATE OF JUDEA

That's all He did was challenge their strict adherence to their written Law.
He healed on the Sabat. He offered salvation to Gentiles.

As to Barabas, check out Acts 3:14

no he didn't (ie did not challenge strict adherence to the written law
"healing" on the Sabbath is not a violation of the law (I should know ----
I have worked with very very neurotically observant jewish doctors)
I am not at all impressed with ACTS----it is sometimes ascribed to
LUKE who never met jesus and was not there and did not speak
Aramaic or Hebrew. He was a greek doctor. Unless barrabas had
MURDERED A ROMAN (as an act of sedition) he would not have
been crucified. The alleged desire of the "crowd" to save Barrabas
could have been a result of an act of sedition against rome that did
include the death of a roman----an act which COULD have made him
a local hero. <<<<that explanation is the only logical way to
explain the story-----which I do not find particularly credible anyway.
It is more SYMBOLIC of the roman rejection of the Pharisee POV ---
ie--anti-rome. Jesus was being remade as a FRIEND TO ROME
by the roman Christians. Jews are being described as enemies of ROME
and the "PRO ROMAN JESUS" Even Pontius Pilate----crucifier of tens of thousands THE POOR RELUCTANT GOOD GUY WAS FORCED.
DURING the period of time that the gospels were being compiled---
romans were still crucifying jews for SEDITION----only crimes
against ROME
is made into an ALMOST HERO

Wow.

You might want to rest after moving those goalposts so far.

You said "nowhere in the Bible is Barabas referred to as a murderer".
You didn't say nowhere except where I don't believe it.

Jesus's very exsistance was contrary to the Jewish leaders' teachings, considering the fact that they didn't believe him to be the Messiah

I moved the goal posts------in the story of jesus with the three criminals----ie when it is supposed to have happened------they are described as "three criminals"---
not "murderers" Some guy IN RETROSPECT who was not there and
did not know the spoken languages ---luke the greek doctor, LATER
describes Barabbas as a "murderer" JEWISH LEADERS? to what
jewish leaders do you refer? The person who opposed Jesus was
the SADDUCEE evil character, shill of rome CAIAPHAS --- jews hated
his guts Herod was an issue too------the "king" jewish leaders considered
INELIGIBLE for the job What are you calling "jewish leaders"?.

Barabas wasn't on one of the other crosses.

And you tell me to read The Book

so from what was the MAD CROWD SAVING HIM ?
I am now functioning from a kind of dramatization of that
silly story---- I do not recall it from reading. As I recall the
reading of it-----there were three criminals along with jesus
to be crucified-----maybe it was a total of three ??? I forgot-
Jesus promised some other "criminal" that he would be
transported to Jannah along with the rest of the players. Still--
read the book-----the clues are all there.

 

[Meriweather]

PRIVATE sacrifice in the context I used it refers to a sacrifice of an animal
paid for by a private person and done in the temple-----got it now? Romans
engaged in that practice WHOLESALE for all kinds of events. Jews
did it on a fairly limited scale. Regarding money changers----nope---the people who had it in for them were the PHARISEES <<<that's history. Of course
everyone hated the tax collectors but jesus did not attack the tax collectors---he attacked the MONEY CHANGERS

Then I had it correct all along. Temple sacrifice where individuals or families brought their gift to the Temple, often for the forgiveness of sin. The purpose of the money changers was to exchange Roman coin for Temple coin, and this was done by the Annas/Caiaphas crowd, the high priests. We've already ascertained that Jesus and the Pharisees were against the exorbitant exchange rates charged by the priests.

My original point still stands. There is no reason for Jews to despise Jesus, or even most of his followers. There is no reason to trash Christianity or to say it comes from Greek/Roman mythology.