A question to all Christians

[CMike]

The romans didn't need a legal reason to kill jesus. They weren't a very democratic and benevolent group.

Actually, they did need a legal reason, because they were generally pretty good about abiding by their own laws and policies. That's how they remained such a powerful, far-flung empire for so long. Admittedly, they weren't the kindest of taskmasters, but they kept order well. In this case, their policy was to default to the laws and leaders of the governed areas in order to keep peace. The Jewish leaders insisted, so the Romans carried out their policy. But it's unlikely the Romans would have killed Him just for the hell of it.

Close but no.
The Romans held all the power so why did they need a legal reason? They wouldn't follow ANY religous law, much less JEWISH law or authority.
It was Jewish authority under Caiaphas that had Jesus arrested and then convicted. All the Romans did was go along with it because 500,000 Jews were in town for Passover and they would have done ANYTHING to maintain order and control.

There was no jewish authority at the time. The jewish court was disbanded.

The jews were unarmed with no power. They could care less what the jews wanted.

If they say an unruly jew they would just kill him.

The romans were extremely oppressive to the jews.

Your NT is wrong -- again.

 

[Gadawg73]

That's sorta my point.

My point here is that He was tried and condemned for allegedly breaking God's law, but it was in reality man's spin on it.

He was executed because the romans wanted to execute him. There doesn't need to be any other reason more than that.

Incorrect. He was executed because the Pharisees wanted him executed. The Romans could have cared less. The Pharisees chose to free Barrabas rather than Jesus.

The Romans could have cared less? chuckle.
Gunny, the Romans had a HELL of a time during Passover with all of the Jews in town.
Didn't you know that is when Jesus was executed and that is why he went to Jerusalem?
The Pharisses ruled ONLY because the Romans allowed them to Gunny.
If Jesus was making trouble he was making trouble for Caiaphas AND Pilate. With half a million Jews in town for Passover and masses of Jews stating Jesus was fulfilling the Jewish prophecy from the Hebrew Bible of the Messiah the Romans DID want to see Jesus done away with. Rome always worried about uprisings in their vast empire and Jesus posed a large threat with his charisma to the Romans. The Romans always had their underlings and locals perform their dirty work for them. Always.
Gunny, Caiaphas was a Roman appointed leader. NOTHING was done there without the full approval and, more importantly INFLUENCE of Rome and their provincial leaders and/or puppets such as Caiaphas.
The Bible paints Pilate as a weak and innocent man. That does not fit well with all other accounts of him as executing anyone prisoners without trial at will. Fact is Pilate was desperate to keep the peace and went along with it. All the riots took place during Passover and Pilate was afraid of that so he allowed the Jewish verdict to stand.
He defnintely cared Gunny. His career was at stake keeping peace there.

 

[Gadawg73]

The romans didn't need a legal reason to kill jesus. They weren't a very democratic and benevolent group.

He is incorrect. Jesus WAS arrested and persecuted for going against the Pharisees. That may have been God's will, but it was claiming Jesus broke no laws is incorrect. The Pharisees could not have brought Christ before Pilate without a mortal premise.

If Jesus had broken the law, why did Pilate find that He hadn't? The truth is, Jesus never broke the Law of Moses, under which the Jews lived. The charges against Him were trumped up.

You have to be shitting us?
Pilate was not a JEW! His law was Roman law.
Jesus rebeled against many JEWISH laws as I pointed out with working on the Sabbath.
Pilate found Jesus innocent to appease the Jews that believed he was the Messiah fullfilling Jewish prophecy.
Jesus was a radical in his time. Ignore the facts all you want but Jesus rebeled against Jewish law. Many other Jews did also. You know? The disciples and followers of Jesus.
If they didn't why did they start Christianity?

 

[Oscar Wao]

Brother, you do not have a clue about the Bible. Let me educate you once again:
Have you ever heard of the Pharisees in the Bible? Who were they and what did they demand and who did they represent?
Try reading Matthew 12 as just one of many examples where Jesus could care less of the law of his day.
Jesus had his disciples out in the fields working ON THE SABBATH.
Please inform us why the Pharisees protested to Jesus about having the disciples out working in the field on the Sabbath. Could it be that the LAW of the day was strictly against that?
Jesus taught about GOD'S LAW. The Pharisees were the protectors of oldJewish law and the 4th commandment prohibited working on the Sabbath.
News flash once again to the uninformed here: Jewish law WAS THE LAW and it was religous law of the day and Jesus did not answer to all of it and opposed a lot of it.
After all, you doknow that Jesus was born A JEW.
Folks, this is getting way too easy. Shooting fish in a barrell.
Please, someone, anyone make a valid argument concerning the Bible. A challenge of some kind, any kind that is harder than this.

No, He didn't BREAK the law or oppose it.

He FULFILLED it by saying that it wasn't a blind following of a bunch of rules was going to make one right with God, but rather faith was what made one right with God, with goodness following naturally (from the heart) afterwards.

It was all summed up in the Law of Love: Love God and others as you would love yourself. If you love God, you'll use His name properly and worship Him only. If you love others, you will treat them properly, will not murder them, steal, etc.

Working on the Sabbath was not breaking the law?
My good man, the 10 commandments WAS the law in all Jewish society of the day.

Read that passage again.

 

[tigerbob]

My church is an accepting and open church.We do not judge anyone and state they are an abomination for their beliefs or sexual orientation. We find no where in The Bible where Jesus stated anything bad about gays.
Why do many of you claim we are wrong when Jesus is the reason we celebrate life?
Why are all of you so infatuated with someone else's sex life?
What does that have to do with being a Christian? How is it being Christlike condemning gay folks?

Since this is an open question to all Christians, I can answer even though my answer is not relevant.

Why do many of you claim we are wrong when Jesus is the reason we celebrate life?

I don't.

Why are all of you so infatuated with someone else's sex life?

I'm not.

What does that have to do with being a Christian? How is it being Christlike condemning gay folks?

Nothing. It's not.

Question to you. Why are you assuming that all Christians (other than yourself, of course) demonstrate these assumed characteristics? Why are you so infatuated with someone else's faith?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

No, He didn't BREAK the law or oppose it.

He FULFILLED it by saying that it wasn't a blind following of a bunch of rules was going to make one right with God, but rather faith was what made one right with God, with goodness following naturally (from the heart) afterwards.

It was all summed up in the Law of Love: Love God and others as you would love yourself. If you love God, you'll use His name properly and worship Him only. If you love others, you will treat them properly, will not murder them, steal, etc.

But THAT is not MAN's law. He broke or was accused of and crucified for breaking MAN's law, not God's.

And it's word. He was here t fulfill the "word" of God.

Actually jesus broke the laws of G-D. He violated perhaps the most serious law that G-D gave.

Deuteronomy - Chapter 13 (Parshah Re'eh) - Deuteronomy - Torah - Bible
5. You shall follow the Lord, your God, fear Him, keep His commandments, heed His voice, worship Him, and cleave to Him. ה. אַחֲרֵי יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם תֵּלֵכוּ וְאֹתוֹ תִירָאוּ וְאֶת מִצְוֹתָיו תִּשְׁמֹרוּ וּבְקֹלוֹ תִשְׁמָעוּ וְאֹתוֹ תַעֲבֹדוּ וּבוֹ תִדְבָּקוּן:

6. And that prophet, or that dreamer of a dream shall be put to death; because he spoke falsehood about the Lord, your God Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, and Who redeemed you from the house of bondage, to lead you astray from the way in which the Lord, your God, commanded you to go; so shall you clear away the evil from your midst. ו. וְהַנָּבִיא הַהוּא אוֹ חֹלֵם הַחֲלוֹם הַהוּא יוּמָת כִּי דִבֶּר סָרָה עַל יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם הַמּוֹצִיא אֶתְכֶם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם וְהַפֹּדְךָ מִבֵּית עֲבָדִים לְהַדִּיחֲךָ מִן הַדֶּרֶךְ אֲשֶׁר צִוְּךָ יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לָלֶכֶת בָּהּ וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרָע מִקִּרְבֶּךָ:

7. If your brother, the son of your mother, tempts you in secret or your son, or your daughter, or the wife of your embrace, or your friend, who is as your own soul saying, "Let us go and worship other gods, which neither you, nor your forefathers have known." ז. כִּי יְסִיתְךָ אָחִיךָ בֶן אִמֶּךָ אוֹ בִנְךָ אוֹ בִתְּךָ אוֹ אֵשֶׁת חֵיקֶךָ אוֹ רֵעֲךָ אֲשֶׁר כְּנַפְשְׁךָ בַּסֵּתֶר לֵאמֹר נֵלְכָה וְנַעַבְדָה אֱ־לֹהִים אֲחֵרִים אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָדַעְתָּ אַתָּה וַאֲבֹתֶיךָ:

8. Of the gods of the peoples around you, [whether] near to you or far from you, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth; ח. מֵאֱלֹהֵי הָעַמִּים אֲשֶׁר סְבִיבֹתֵיכֶם הַקְּרֹבִים אֵלֶיךָ אוֹ הָרְחֹקִים מִמֶּךָּ מִקְצֵה הָאָרֶץ וְעַד קְצֵה הָאָרֶץ:

9. You shall not desire him, and you shall not hearken to him; neither shall you pity him, have mercy upon him, nor shield him. ט. לֹא תֹאבֶה לוֹ וְלֹא תִשְׁמַע אֵלָיו וְלֹא תָחוֹס עֵינְךָ עָלָיו וְלֹא תַחְמֹל וְלֹא תְכַסֶּה עָלָיו:

10. But you shall surely kill him, your hand shall be the first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. י. כִּי הָרֹג תַּהַרְגֶנּוּ יָדְךָ תִּהְיֶה בּוֹ בָרִאשׁוֹנָה לַהֲמִיתוֹ וְיַד כָּל הָעָם בָּאַחֲרֹנָה:

11. And you shall stone him with stones so that he dies, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. יא. וּסְקַלְתּוֹ בָאֲבָנִים וָמֵת כִּי בִקֵּשׁ לְהַדִּיחֲךָ מֵעַל יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ הַמּוֹצִיאֲךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם מִבֵּית עֲבָדִים:

12. And all Israel shall listen and fear, and they shall no longer do any evil such as this in your midst.

Well as absurd as it is; this is actually the case made by the Pharisees...

It's the same obtuse attitude and rejection of common sense that kept Jews in denial in Germany for a decade prior to being rounded up and slaughtered; and it's the same counter-productive, faux-piety which forces Liberal Israelis to chronically expect Palestinians might actually honor their agreement...

Christ's advocated for common sense; sound, sustainable natural principles; which by it's very essence was a threat to the Jewish power structure... and that community worked pretty much the way this cyber-community works...

You're in violation of "the Law" when those in Power SAY you're in violation of the law...

Two things here... such laws are invalid... as they serve the interests of those in power; and secondly as a result... such law can not serve justice.

So it's fair to say that Christ did violate the 'law'... and it's fair to say that he did not. The Law of the Jewish Elite was irrelevant to God and his purpose; and it's validity was in keeping with the distinction beteen the LAW of a web-forum and the commandments of that power structure and God's law or even the standing legal code of whatever culture ya happen to be in at the moment.

If that analogy doesn't work... then try any syndicate... you're living in a neighborhood; the local gang controls the streets... you begin to walk around claiming to be the new gang leader... egregeously violating the law of the local gang. So to keep things 'legal like' they turn ya in to the local cops... who are just as crooked as the gang; and they send ya down the river.

Did ya break the law? Sure... was the law ya supposedly broke a just law? Nope... thus it wasn't a valid law.

 

[xsited1]

He is incorrect. Jesus WAS arrested and persecuted for going against the Pharisees. That may have been God's will, but it was claiming Jesus broke no laws is incorrect. The Pharisees could not have brought Christ before Pilate without a mortal premise.

If Jesus had broken the law, why did Pilate find that He hadn't? The truth is, Jesus never broke the Law of Moses, under which the Jews lived. The charges against Him were trumped up.

You have to be shitting us?
Pilate was not a JEW! His law was Roman law.
Jesus rebeled against many JEWISH laws as I pointed out with working on the Sabbath.
Pilate found Jesus innocent to appease the Jews that believed he was the Messiah fullfilling Jewish prophecy.
Jesus was a radical in his time. Ignore the facts all you want but Jesus rebeled against Jewish law. Many other Jews did also. You know? The disciples and followers of Jesus.
If they didn't why did they start Christianity?

But what is important to note is that Jesus never broke the Law, nor did He distort or change it. You seem to be missing this important point. You speak of Jesus working on the Sabbath. Plucking a few heads of grain is not work. They were not harvesting a field. Man-made pharisaical laws are not YHWH's Torah.

 

[frazzledgear]

And I have no idea what sort of faith you have, btw. You've proven here that you're clueless about the contents of the bible. Additionally, I can think of no Christian denomination where members are encouraged to say things like "Our faith doesn't tolerate that". It's as if you place your faith above God and the bible, and it's hinky.

Clueless about the contents of the Bible? LOL
I took Bible classes all through private and military school asit was mandatory.
I place people and being Christlike over a book that states YOU are a sinner for eating a pork BBQ sandwich, shrimp or oysters.
The Bible is full of inacurracies. Try getting some objective education for a change. Government schools will not get you where you obviously need to be.
Get used to it. Our churches are GROWING while others are losing members.
Hate sucks.

Let's not mix up the Old Testament with the New Testament on this one, ok? The Old Testament is the history of the relationship between Jews and God. Their dietary restrictions are part of THEIR history but not part of being a Christian and Christian obligations and history. Mark 7:14-23: “Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, ‘Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. Nothing outside a man can make him unclean by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him unclean.’

As Paul states in Romans 14:14, foods are not unclean in and of themselves. And that Jesus made all foods clean for consumption. While God has given rules concerning food in the past, they were laws intended to serve a particular purpose at a particular time, not moral absolutes. The laws given to the Israelites concerning food were in force during the time of the Old Covenant, not before and not after. If they had been part of God's unchanging law -they would have been immortalized in the Commandments when God gave His law to Moses - but is glaringly absent.

And it is THIS law, the law God handed down to Moses that Jesus not only repeatedly said was God's unchanging law, but the law that followers must strive to obey -meaning Jesus said the law handed to Moses by God is the same law Christians are obligated to follow as well and that altering these laws to suit man's purpose and design was not an option.

So that somehow justifies pretending that homosexuality isn't actually a form of adultery when Jesus said that a man who divorces his wife and marries another is guilty of adultery? Some people who call themselves and their church a Christian church are NOW insisting that God's unchanging law can be changed to suit man's purposes after all? Especially any involving sins they want to continue committing so they can try and deceive themselves just to FEEL BETTER about sinning?

I have heard people insist that because Jesus never specifically discussed homosexuality it somehow means God actually has no problem at all if two men want to engage in sexual acts -and therefore homosexuality is NOT a sin whatsoever. So let's take that idiotic line of reasoning to its only logical conclusion. So God has no problem with two men engaging in sex acts for their own personal pleasure. But the idea of a man and woman not married to each other doing the same thing was so offensive to God that He made THAT part of His unchanging law -law the Jesus reaffirmed MANY times while here was and will always be God's unchanging law. So even though God made woman to be the mate of man -it is actually HETEROSEXUAL acts God has a problem with and not homosexual ones whatsoever.

You're kidding, right? I think you are a terrific example of why non-believers are not in the best position to claim to know what it is Christians are supposed to believe. After all it is people like you who first ridicule Christians for their religious beliefs -but then insist they are experts on what they are supposed to REALLY believe as Christians. Get real.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, He didn't BREAK the law or oppose it.

He FULFILLED it by saying that it wasn't a blind following of a bunch of rules was going to make one right with God, but rather faith was what made one right with God, with goodness following naturally (from the heart) afterwards.

It was all summed up in the Law of Love: Love God and others as you would love yourself. If you love God, you'll use His name properly and worship Him only. If you love others, you will treat them properly, will not murder them, steal, etc.

Working on the Sabbath was not breaking the law?
My good man, the 10 commandments WAS the law in all Jewish society of the day.

Read that passage again.

As Jesus Himself explained when He and His disciples were accused of breaking the Sabbath, that law was conditional on many things. For one thing, the priests - obviously - worked on the Sabbath. It was the busiest day of the week for them. His accusers were being hypocrites by taking an insanely narrow view of the law in his case simply because they wanted to trip Him up, and completely excusing blatant violations in those people they wanted to justify.

He had not violated the Sabbath, nor allowed His disciples to do so, because the law about the Sabbath was God's law, and violating it would have been a sin. Jesus was without sin. All accusations against Him concerned violation of excessive and unreasonable interpretations of traditions men had made around the Law of Moses, and significantly, He was a thorn in the sides of the Pharisees and Saddusees partly because they could never truly get Him on any of THOSE accusations, either.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If Jesus had broken the law, why did Pilate find that He hadn't? The truth is, Jesus never broke the Law of Moses, under which the Jews lived. The charges against Him were trumped up.

You have to be shitting us?
Pilate was not a JEW! His law was Roman law.
Jesus rebeled against many JEWISH laws as I pointed out with working on the Sabbath.
Pilate found Jesus innocent to appease the Jews that believed he was the Messiah fullfilling Jewish prophecy.
Jesus was a radical in his time. Ignore the facts all you want but Jesus rebeled against Jewish law. Many other Jews did also. You know? The disciples and followers of Jesus.
If they didn't why did they start Christianity?

But what is important to note is that Jesus never broke the Law, nor did He distort or change it. You seem to be missing this important point. You speak of Jesus working on the Sabbath. Plucking a few heads of grain is not work. They were not harvesting a field. Man-made pharisaical laws are not YHWH's Torah.

And it was Pilate's job to determine if ANY law had been broken, not merely Roman law. Does anyone really believe that the Romans sent a man in to be in charge of a conquered area without him having some knowledge of the people there and the local laws and traditions? Not to mention if Pilate's interest was solely in appeasing people, he'd have been a lot more concerned with appeasing the Jewish leaders than he would have been with the comparative handful of adherents Jesus had.

Ignore the facts all you want, Gadawg - that's certainly one of the things that got your worthless butt stuck on ignore - but stating your position as fact over and over isn't going to constitute proof or make anyone believe you any more.

Jesus was not a radical. He did not rebel against Jewish law. He did not break the law. There. I can do the same thing. Did that prove anything? Did that make anyone go, "Oh, I hadn't realized you had the ability to say it AGAIN. That must mean it's true"? Of course not.

Thanks for letting me use your post as a springboard, X.

 

[AllieBaba]

And I have no idea what sort of faith you have, btw. You've proven here that you're clueless about the contents of the bible. Additionally, I can think of no Christian denomination where members are encouraged to say things like "Our faith doesn't tolerate that". It's as if you place your faith above God and the bible, and it's hinky.

Clueless about the contents of the Bible? LOL
I took Bible classes all through private and military school asit was mandatory.
I place people and being Christlike over a book that states YOU are a sinner for eating a pork BBQ sandwich, shrimp or oysters.
The Bible is full of inacurracies. Try getting some objective education for a change. Government schools will not get you where you obviously need to be.
Get used to it. Our churches are GROWING while others are losing members.
Hate sucks.

Let's not mix up the Old Testament with the New Testament on this one, ok? The Old Testament is the history of the relationship between Jews and God. Their dietary restrictions are part of THEIR history but not part of being a Christian and Christian obligations and history. Mark 7:14-23: “Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, ‘Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. Nothing outside a man can make him unclean by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him unclean.’

As Paul states in Romans 14:14, foods are not unclean in and of themselves. And that Jesus made all foods clean for consumption. While God has given rules concerning food in the past, they were laws intended to serve a particular purpose at a particular time, not moral absolutes. The laws given to the Israelites concerning food were in force during the time of the Old Covenant, not before and not after. If they had been part of God's unchanging law -they would have been immortalized in the Commandments when God gave His law to Moses - but is glaringly absent.

And it is THIS law, the law God handed down to Moses that Jesus not only repeatedly said was God's unchanging law, but the law that followers must strive to obey -meaning Jesus said the law handed to Moses by God is the same law Christians are obligated to follow as well and that altering these laws to suit man's purpose and design was not an option.

So that somehow justifies pretending that homosexuality isn't actually a form of adultery when Jesus said that a man who divorces his wife and marries another is guilty of adultery? Some people who call themselves and their church a Christian church are NOW insisting that God's unchanging law can be changed to suit man's purposes after all? Especially any involving sins they want to continue committing so they can try and deceive themselves just to FEEL BETTER about sinning?

I have heard people insist that because Jesus never specifically discussed homosexuality it somehow means God actually has no problem at all if two men want to engage in sexual acts -and therefore homosexuality is NOT a sin whatsoever. So let's take that idiotic line of reasoning to its only logical conclusion. So God has no problem with two men engaging in sex acts for their own personal pleasure. But the idea of a man and woman not married to each other doing the same thing was so offensive to God that He made THAT part of His unchanging law -law the Jesus reaffirmed MANY times while here was and will always be God's unchanging law. So even though God made woman to be the mate of man -it is actually HETEROSEXUAL acts God has a problem with and not homosexual ones whatsoever.

You're kidding, right? I think you are a terrific example of why non-believers are not in the best position to claim to know what it is Christians are supposed to believe. After all it is people like you who first ridicule Christians for their religious beliefs -but then insist they are experts on what they are supposed to REALLY believe as Christians. Get real.

The arrogance of those who spend a few hours perusing the book and who think they're qualified to pontificate amazes me.

The dawg's comments are so off there's really no point in responding to him.

Besides which, he's claiming to have faith, then contradicting himself. It is hinky.

 

[CMike]

He was executed because the romans wanted to execute him. There doesn't need to be any other reason more than that.

Incorrect. He was executed because the Pharisees wanted him executed. The Romans could have cared less. The Pharisees chose to free Barrabas rather than Jesus.

The Romans could have cared less? chuckle.
Gunny, the Romans had a HELL of a time during Passover with all of the Jews in town.
Didn't you know that is when Jesus was executed and that is why he went to Jerusalem?
The Pharisses ruled ONLY because the Romans allowed them to Gunny.
If Jesus was making trouble he was making trouble for Caiaphas AND Pilate. With half a million Jews in town for Passover and masses of Jews stating Jesus was fulfilling the Jewish prophecy from the Hebrew Bible of the Messiah the Romans DID want to see Jesus done away with. Rome always worried about uprisings in their vast empire and Jesus posed a large threat with his charisma to the Romans. The Romans always had their underlings and locals perform their dirty work for them. Always.
Gunny, Caiaphas was a Roman appointed leader. NOTHING was done there without the full approval and, more importantly INFLUENCE of Rome and their provincial leaders and/or puppets such as Caiaphas.
The Bible paints Pilate as a weak and innocent man. That does not fit well with all other accounts of him as executing anyone prisoners without trial at will. Fact is Pilate was desperate to keep the peace and went along with it. All the riots took place during Passover and Pilate was afraid of that so he allowed the Jewish verdict to stand.
He defnintely cared Gunny. His career was at stake keeping peace there.

Really? Please provide evidence of jews at the time throwing rocks at roman soldiers?

Masses of jews did not say that jesus was the jewish messiah. A few rebels followed him at the time.

As far as the bible accounts. That's your bible, not mine.

Your bible is filled with hatred and made up accusations against the jews.

 

[CMike]

Jesus was not persecuted and killed for not obeying the laws. He was persecuted and killed because it was the will of God for Him to be. One of the things the religious leaders of His day hated most about Jesus was that they couldn't find any legitimate legal reason to attack Him.

Good grief, the more you talk, the worse that "spiffy" church of yours looks.

The romans didn't need a legal reason to kill jesus. They weren't a very democratic and benevolent group.

Actually, they did need a legal reason, because they were generally pretty good about abiding by their own laws and policies. That's how they remained such a powerful, far-flung empire for so long. Admittedly, they weren't the kindest of taskmasters, but they kept order well. In this case, their policy was to default to the laws and leaders of the governed areas in order to keep peace. The Jewish leaders insisted, so the Romans carried out their policy. But it's unlikely the Romans would have killed Him just for the hell of it.

The Romans were vicious oppressors of the jews. They cared nothing about jewish opinion.

They remained a powerful empire by vicously dealing with any resistance.

Good grief, yeah right default to the laws of the jews. How utterly rediculous.

 

[CMike]

But THAT is not MAN's law. He broke or was accused of and crucified for breaking MAN's law, not God's.

And it's word. He was here t fulfill the "word" of God.

Actually jesus broke the laws of G-D. He violated perhaps the most serious law that G-D gave.

Deuteronomy - Chapter 13 (Parshah Re'eh) - Deuteronomy - Torah - Bible
5. You shall follow the Lord, your God, fear Him, keep His commandments, heed His voice, worship Him, and cleave to Him. ה. אַחֲרֵי יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם תֵּלֵכוּ וְאֹתוֹ תִירָאוּ וְאֶת מִצְוֹתָיו תִּשְׁמֹרוּ וּבְקֹלוֹ תִשְׁמָעוּ וְאֹתוֹ תַעֲבֹדוּ וּבוֹ תִדְבָּקוּן:

6. And that prophet, or that dreamer of a dream shall be put to death; because he spoke falsehood about the Lord, your God Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, and Who redeemed you from the house of bondage, to lead you astray from the way in which the Lord, your God, commanded you to go; so shall you clear away the evil from your midst. ו. וְהַנָּבִיא הַהוּא אוֹ חֹלֵם הַחֲלוֹם הַהוּא יוּמָת כִּי דִבֶּר סָרָה עַל יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם הַמּוֹצִיא אֶתְכֶם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם וְהַפֹּדְךָ מִבֵּית עֲבָדִים לְהַדִּיחֲךָ מִן הַדֶּרֶךְ אֲשֶׁר צִוְּךָ יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לָלֶכֶת בָּהּ וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרָע מִקִּרְבֶּךָ:

7. If your brother, the son of your mother, tempts you in secret or your son, or your daughter, or the wife of your embrace, or your friend, who is as your own soul saying, "Let us go and worship other gods, which neither you, nor your forefathers have known." ז. כִּי יְסִיתְךָ אָחִיךָ בֶן אִמֶּךָ אוֹ בִנְךָ אוֹ בִתְּךָ אוֹ אֵשֶׁת חֵיקֶךָ אוֹ רֵעֲךָ אֲשֶׁר כְּנַפְשְׁךָ בַּסֵּתֶר לֵאמֹר נֵלְכָה וְנַעַבְדָה אֱ־לֹהִים אֲחֵרִים אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָדַעְתָּ אַתָּה וַאֲבֹתֶיךָ:

8. Of the gods of the peoples around you, [whether] near to you or far from you, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth; ח. מֵאֱלֹהֵי הָעַמִּים אֲשֶׁר סְבִיבֹתֵיכֶם הַקְּרֹבִים אֵלֶיךָ אוֹ הָרְחֹקִים מִמֶּךָּ מִקְצֵה הָאָרֶץ וְעַד קְצֵה הָאָרֶץ:

9. You shall not desire him, and you shall not hearken to him; neither shall you pity him, have mercy upon him, nor shield him. ט. לֹא תֹאבֶה לוֹ וְלֹא תִשְׁמַע אֵלָיו וְלֹא תָחוֹס עֵינְךָ עָלָיו וְלֹא תַחְמֹל וְלֹא תְכַסֶּה עָלָיו:

10. But you shall surely kill him, your hand shall be the first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. י. כִּי הָרֹג תַּהַרְגֶנּוּ יָדְךָ תִּהְיֶה בּוֹ בָרִאשׁוֹנָה לַהֲמִיתוֹ וְיַד כָּל הָעָם בָּאַחֲרֹנָה:

11. And you shall stone him with stones so that he dies, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. יא. וּסְקַלְתּוֹ בָאֲבָנִים וָמֵת כִּי בִקֵּשׁ לְהַדִּיחֲךָ מֵעַל יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ הַמּוֹצִיאֲךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם מִבֵּית עֲבָדִים:

12. And all Israel shall listen and fear, and they shall no longer do any evil such as this in your midst.

Well as absurd as it is; this is actually the case made by the Pharisees...

It's the same obtuse attitude and rejection of common sense that kept Jews in denial in Germany for a decade prior to being rounded up and slaughtered; and it's the same counter-productive, faux-piety which forces Liberal Israelis to chronically expect Palestinians might actually honor their agreement...

Christ's advocated for common sense; sound, sustainable natural principles; which by it's very essence was a threat to the Jewish power structure... and that community worked pretty much the way this cyber-community works...

You're in violation of "the Law" when those in Power SAY you're in violation of the law...

Two things here... such laws are invalid... as they serve the interests of those in power; and secondly as a result... such law can not serve justice.

So it's fair to say that Christ did violate the 'law'... and it's fair to say that he did not. The Law of the Jewish Elite was irrelevant to God and his purpose; and it's validity was in keeping with the distinction beteen the LAW of a web-forum and the commandments of that power structure and God's law or even the standing legal code of whatever culture ya happen to be in at the moment.

If that analogy doesn't work... then try any syndicate... you're living in a neighborhood; the local gang controls the streets... you begin to walk around claiming to be the new gang leader... egregeously violating the law of the local gang. So to keep things 'legal like' they turn ya in to the local cops... who are just as crooked as the gang; and they send ya down the river.

Did ya break the law? Sure... was the law ya supposedly broke a just law? Nope... thus it wasn't a valid law.

You are nuts.

It's really arrogant how some christians think they know jewish law better than jews who have been studying it for about 2,000 years.

Jewish law is based on the Torah. What I quoted you was directly from the Torah. That is the law G-D gave to the jews.

Jesus claimed to be a divine being. He claimed that jews can only get to G-D through him.

That is a direct contradiction to at least 30 passages where G-D said only to rely on him.

Worshipping jesus, according to the Torah, is basically the same thing as worshipping a golden calf.

It's idol worship. A violation of the ten commandments and the 7 laws given to Noach.

 

[CMike]

Also the torah is not a book about the history of the jews.

The Torah is the guidelines and the rule book that G-D gave to the jews.

There is also the oral law, which G-D gave to Moses on Mt. Sinai, which explains how to carry out the laws from the written law.

The Torah has 613 commandments that jews must do.

 

[CMike]

And I have no idea what sort of faith you have, btw. You've proven here that you're clueless about the contents of the bible. Additionally, I can think of no Christian denomination where members are encouraged to say things like "Our faith doesn't tolerate that". It's as if you place your faith above God and the bible, and it's hinky.

Clueless about the contents of the Bible? LOL
I took Bible classes all through private and military school asit was mandatory.
I place people and being Christlike over a book that states YOU are a sinner for eating a pork BBQ sandwich, shrimp or oysters.
The Bible is full of inacurracies. Try getting some objective education for a change. Government schools will not get you where you obviously need to be.
Get used to it. Our churches are GROWING while others are losing members.
Hate sucks.

Let's not mix up the Old Testament with the New Testament on this one, ok? The Old Testament is the history of the relationship between Jews and God. Their dietary restrictions are part of THEIR history but not part of being a Christian and Christian obligations and history. Mark 7:14-23: “Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, ‘Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. Nothing outside a man can make him unclean by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him unclean.’

As Paul states in Romans 14:14, foods are not unclean in and of themselves. And that Jesus made all foods clean for consumption. While God has given rules concerning food in the past, they were laws intended to serve a particular purpose at a particular time, not moral absolutes. The laws given to the Israelites concerning food were in force during the time of the Old Covenant, not before and not after. If they had been part of God's unchanging law -they would have been immortalized in the Commandments when God gave His law to Moses - but is glaringly absent.

And it is THIS law, the law God handed down to Moses that Jesus not only repeatedly said was God's unchanging law, but the law that followers must strive to obey -meaning Jesus said the law handed to Moses by God is the same law Christians are obligated to follow as well and that altering these laws to suit man's purpose and design was not an option.

So that somehow justifies pretending that homosexuality isn't actually a form of adultery when Jesus said that a man who divorces his wife and marries another is guilty of adultery? Some people who call themselves and their church a Christian church are NOW insisting that God's unchanging law can be changed to suit man's purposes after all? Especially any involving sins they want to continue committing so they can try and deceive themselves just to FEEL BETTER about sinning?

I have heard people insist that because Jesus never specifically discussed homosexuality it somehow means God actually has no problem at all if two men want to engage in sexual acts -and therefore homosexuality is NOT a sin whatsoever. So let's take that idiotic line of reasoning to its only logical conclusion. So God has no problem with two men engaging in sex acts for their own personal pleasure. But the idea of a man and woman not married to each other doing the same thing was so offensive to God that He made THAT part of His unchanging law -law the Jesus reaffirmed MANY times while here was and will always be God's unchanging law. So even though God made woman to be the mate of man -it is actually HETEROSEXUAL acts God has a problem with and not homosexual ones whatsoever.

You're kidding, right? I think you are a terrific example of why non-believers are not in the best position to claim to know what it is Christians are supposed to believe. After all it is people like you who first ridicule Christians for their religious beliefs -but then insist they are experts on what they are supposed to REALLY believe as Christians. Get real.

The utter perversion of christians of the Torah is nauseating.

Where exactly in the Torah does it say that the law has an expiration rearding eating what is kosher and what isn't?

Deuteronomy - Chapter 14 (Parshah Re'eh) - Deuteronomy - Torah - Bible

3. You shall not eat any abomination. ג. לֹא תֹאכַל כָּל תּוֹעֵבָה:
4. These are the animals that you may eat: ox, lamb, and kid, ד. זֹאת הַבְּהֵמָה אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכֵלוּ שׁוֹר שֵׂה כְשָׂבִים וְשֵׂה עִזִּים:
5. gazelle, deer, and antelope, ibex, chamois, bison, and giraffe. ה. אַיָּל וּצְבִי וְיַחְמוּר וְאַקּוֹ וְדִישֹׁן וּתְאוֹ וָזָמֶר:
6. And every animal that has a split hoof and has a hoof cloven into two hoof sections, [and] chews the cud among the animals that you may eat. ו. וְכָל בְּהֵמָה מַפְרֶסֶת פַּרְסָה וְשֹׁסַעַת שֶׁסַע שְׁתֵּי פְרָסוֹת מַעֲלַת גֵּרָה בַּבְּהֵמָה אֹתָהּ תֹּאכֵלוּ:
7. But you shall not eat of those that chew the cud, or of those that have the split hooves: the cloven one, the camel, the hyrax, and the hare, for they chew the cud, but do not have split hooves; they are unclean for you. ז. אַךְ אֶת זֶה לֹא תֹאכְלוּ מִמַּעֲלֵי הַגֵּרָה וּמִמַּפְרִיסֵי הַפַּרְסָה הַשְּׁסוּעָה אֶת הַגָּמָל וְאֶת הָאַרְנֶבֶת וְאֶת הַשָּׁפָן כִּי מַעֲלֵה גֵרָה הֵמָּה וּפַרְסָה לֹא הִפְרִיסוּ טְמֵאִים הֵם לָכֶם:
8. And the pig, because it has a split hoof, but does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. You shall neither eat of their flesh nor touch their carcass. ח. וְאֶת הַחֲזִיר כִּי מַפְרִיס פַּרְסָה הוּא וְלֹא גֵרָה טָמֵא הוּא לָכֶם מִבְּשָׂרָם לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ וּבְנִבְלָתָם לֹא תִגָּעוּ:
9. These you may eat of all that are in the waters; all that have fins and scales, you may eat. ט. אֶת זֶה תֹּאכְלוּ מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בַּמָּיִם כֹּל אֲשֶׁר לוֹ סְנַפִּיר וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת תֹּאכֵלוּ:
10. But whatever does not have fins and scales, you shall not eat; it is unclean for you. י. וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר אֵין לוֹ סְנַפִּיר וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ טָמֵא הוּא לָכֶם:
11. You may eat every clean bird. יא. כָּל צִפּוֹר טְהֹרָה תֹּאכֵלוּ:
12. But these are those from which you shall not eat: The eagle [or the griffin vulture], the ossifrage, the osprey; יב. וְזֶה אֲשֶׁר לֹא תֹאכְלוּ מֵהֶם הַנֶּשֶׁר וְהַפֶּרֶס וְהָעָזְנִיָּה:
13. and the white vulture, and the black vulture, and the kite after its species; יג. וְהָרָאָה וְאֶת הָאַיָּה וְהַדַּיָּה לְמִינָהּ:
14. And every raven after its species; יד. וְאֵת כָּל עֹרֵב לְמִינוֹ:
15. And the ostrich, and the owl, and the gull, and the hawk after its species; טו. וְאֵת בַּת הַיַּעֲנָה וְאֶת הַתַּחְמָס וְאֶת הַשָּׁחַף וְאֶת הַנֵּץ לְמִינֵהוּ:
16. The falcon, and the ibis, and the bat; טז. אֶת הַכּוֹס וְאֶת הַיַּנְשׁוּף וְהַתִּנְשָׁמֶת:
17. And the pelican, and the magpie, and the cormorant; יז. וְהַקָּאָת וְאֶת הָרָחָמָה וְאֶת הַשָּׁלָךְ:
18. And the stork, and the heron and its species, and the hoopoe, and the atalef. יח. וְהַחֲסִידָה וְהָאֲנָפָה לְמִינָהּ וְהַדּוּכִיפַת וְהָעֲטַלֵּף:
19. And every flying insect is unclean for you; they may not be eaten. יט. וְכֹל שֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף טָמֵא הוּא לָכֶם לֹא יֵאָכֵלוּ:
20. You may eat any clean fowl. כ. כָּל עוֹף טָהוֹר תֹּאכֵלוּ:
21. You shall not eat any carcass. You may give it to the stranger who is in your cities, that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner; for you are a holy people to the Lord, your God. You shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk.


Where exactly is the expiration?

And once again this is another grave violation of the Torah, where jesus challenges G-D's authority.

G-D said

Deuteronomy - Chapter 4 (Parshah Va'etchanan) - Deuteronomy - Torah - Bible

2. Do not add to the word which I command you, nor diminish from it, to observe the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

However, jesus thought that he was more powerful than G-D.

 

[Foxfyre]

Quite right.

Jesus does not mention homosexuality at all.

This all comes from Paul, who never actually met Jesus, and I suspect was a repressed homosexual.

Paul wrote the OT?

Jeez Louise! Will you people Pul-leeze make up your minds as to whether Christians care about the OT or not??????

Informed Christians care about the Old Testament as the best collection we have of manuscripts giving us a window into the lives, thoughts, faith, beliefs, imagery, poetry, prophecy, metaphors, allegories, parables, history, laws, and customs of the people who lived the OT story. That story is the telling in many different ways of their relationship with and encounters with the living God.

The New Testament continues the story of encounters with and relationship with the living God who became incarnate and walked on Earth and rose again. And because most of the people in the New Testament were people who knew the Old Testament by heart, they included in their writings many references to the Old Testament passages that they knew by heart. As a result, it is impossible to fully understand the New Testament without a solid grounding in the Old.

To Granny I would say that if Jesus was God incarnate, then we have no problem with worshipping the one Lord and God. Mary and the other New Testament figures were afforded 'sainthood' by the Roman Catholic Church but are not worshipped at least by most Christians. There are simply acknowledged and respected. Sort of like Abraham, Moses, Elijah, David et al are noted and respected from the Old Testament.

 

[ProudTwoofer]

I don't know what I am really but people, and I use the term loosely, such as the Phelps family who scream "EVIL" at anybody who is gay are nothing but bigots.

 

[CMike]

Deutronomy 4

2. Do not add to the word which I command you, nor diminish from it, to observe the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

 

[AllieBaba]

Incorrect. He was executed because the Pharisees wanted him executed. The Romans could have cared less. The Pharisees chose to free Barrabas rather than Jesus.

The Romans could have cared less? chuckle.
Gunny, the Romans had a HELL of a time during Passover with all of the Jews in town.
Didn't you know that is when Jesus was executed and that is why he went to Jerusalem?
The Pharisses ruled ONLY because the Romans allowed them to Gunny.
If Jesus was making trouble he was making trouble for Caiaphas AND Pilate. With half a million Jews in town for Passover and masses of Jews stating Jesus was fulfilling the Jewish prophecy from the Hebrew Bible of the Messiah the Romans DID want to see Jesus done away with. Rome always worried about uprisings in their vast empire and Jesus posed a large threat with his charisma to the Romans. The Romans always had their underlings and locals perform their dirty work for them. Always.
Gunny, Caiaphas was a Roman appointed leader. NOTHING was done there without the full approval and, more importantly INFLUENCE of Rome and their provincial leaders and/or puppets such as Caiaphas.
The Bible paints Pilate as a weak and innocent man. That does not fit well with all other accounts of him as executing anyone prisoners without trial at will. Fact is Pilate was desperate to keep the peace and went along with it. All the riots took place during Passover and Pilate was afraid of that so he allowed the Jewish verdict to stand.
He defnintely cared Gunny. His career was at stake keeping peace there.

Really? Please provide evidence of jews at the time throwing rocks at roman soldiers?

Masses of jews did not say that jesus was the jewish messiah. A few rebels followed him at the time.

As far as the bible accounts. That's your bible, not mine.

Your bible is filled with hatred and made up accusations against the jews.

Wrong. The bible states, and other sources at the time corraborate, that masses of Jews converted.