Christian population declined 90% under Palestinian Authority and Hamas - study

[rosends]

In a nutshell - the Jewish authorities wanted Jesus executed (I assume you don't dispute that at least)

only sort of. If you know the history of the time, then you understand that what people think of as the Jewish "leaders" really weren't the leaders. The fact that so much of the account is inaccurate is secondary, but not immaterial. As one example, the text indicates that the unnamed Jews wanted Jesus killed "because he made himself the Son of God." Except that not only is that illogical (I don't know what the Greek says but I don't know what it means to "make" yourself Son of God. If he "called" himself that, or acted like that, it wouldn't be a sin in Judaism so there would be no call for a death penalty. Under Jewish law, there are only specific ways, processes and times when a death penalty can be pursued, and this scenario does not fill those requirements.

and used their influence and contacts to achieve that objective. Like you they naively thought that God can be fooled as to who is and is not guilty of killing with their insidious interpretation of the 6th commandment, their literal letter of the law interpretation.

I don't know what interpretation of the 6th commandment you are talking about. If you could provide more information, I would appreciate it. TIA.

Jesus revealed to us that wanting someone killed is the same sin as killing them, it is the spirit that sins, not the body.

In Judaism, there are things that are considered "as if you killed a person" but because they are not actually killing, they do not get the same punishment.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

only sort of. If you know the history of the time, then you understand that what people think of as the Jewish "leaders" really weren't the leaders. The fact that so much of the account is inaccurate is secondary, but not immaterial. As one example, the text indicates that the unnamed Jews wanted Jesus killed "because he made himself the Son of God." Except that not only is that illogical (I don't know what the Greek says but I don't know what it means to "make" yourself Son of God. If he "called" himself that, or acted like that, it wouldn't be a sin in Judaism so there would be no call for a death penalty. Under Jewish law, there are only specific ways, processes and times when a death penalty can be pursued, and this scenario does not fill those requirements.

We talked once about the history of the time when I mentioned Josephus, you rejected his remarks. What written history do you have that pertains to the events described the Greek Gospels? What is the source of your "history of the time" which was 2,000 years ago?

How can you prove that the Jewish leaders at that time did not react as described to his claim he was the son of God?

I don't know what interpretation of the 6th commandment you are talking about. If you could provide more information, I would appreciate it. TIA.

The interpretation that leads you to declare that the Jewish leaders described in the Gospels, did not kill Jesus.

In Judaism, there are things that are considered "as if you killed a person" but because they are not actually killing, they do not get the same punishment.

 

[toomuchtime_]

In a nutshell - the Jewish authorities wanted Jesus executed (I assume you don't dispute that at least) and used their influence and contacts to achieve that objective. Like you they naively thought that God can be fooled as to who is and is not guilty of killing with their insidious interpretation of the 6th commandment, their literal letter of the law interpretation.

Good you're amazed, stay tuned.

Jesus revealed to us that wanting someone killed is the same sin as killing them, it is the spirit that sins, not the body.

As in all of your posts, nothing but a blend of ignorance and bigotry. Jesus was tried in the Sanhedrin and found guilty of blasphemy and sentenced to death, but because Israel was occupied by Rome, the Jewish leaders did not have the authority to carry out the sentence, so Jesus was sent to the Romans with the request Jesus be executed, but unlike in your phony narrative, the Romans found him to be insignificant to their purposes and refused. Later, as crowds gathered to demand his death, the Romans complied to keep the peace.

Only some one whose ignorance is so vast and profound as yours is would write something as stupid as this:

"Jesus revealed to us that wanting someone killed is the same sin as killing them, it is the spirit that sins, not the body."

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

As in all of your posts, nothing but a blend of ignorance and bigotry. Jesus was tried in the Sanhedrin and found guilty of blasphemy and sentenced to death, but because Israel was occupied by Rome, the Jewish leaders did not have the authority to carry out the sentence, so Jesus was sent to the Romans with the request Jesus be executed, but unlike in your phony narrative, the Romans found him to be insignificant to their purposes and refused. Later, as crowds gathered to demand his death, the Romans complied to keep the peace.

Only some one whose ignorance is so vast and profound as yours is would write something as stupid as this:

"Jesus revealed to us that wanting someone killed is the same sin as killing them, it is the spirit that sins, not the body."

Right so we agree, the Jewish authorities wanted Jesus killed (for simply telling the truth), we agree, who'd a thought !

 

[toomuchtime_]

Right so we agree, the Jewish authorities wanted Jesus killed (for simply telling the truth), we agree, who'd a thought !

What we can agree on is that the Jews did not kill Jesus and that your claim that Jesus said wanting to kill some one was the same as killing him is a lie.

 

[rosends]

We talked once about the history of the time when I mentioned Josephus, you rejected his remarks. What written history do you have that pertains to the events described the Greek Gospels? What is the source of your "history of the time" which was 2,000 years ago?

I don't reject Josephus, I consider his material with a grain of salt. His own history reflects agendized writing, and the concern of later interpolations has been something I have seen mentioned often. I think some of his writings are probably more informed or accurate, but that line of what can be trusted and what not is often blurry. To understand the environment around the times of the gospels, I have the corpus of the Jewish oral law which has substantial info about the people, diets, business practices and laws (Jewish and not) of the time. As many of the events in the gospels claim to be telling of the actions and beliefs of the jews, if they contradict what we have as recorded Jewish practice from within Jewish texts, I discount the gospels' accounts.

How can you prove that the Jewish leaders at that time did not react as described to his claim he was the son of God?

If they did, then that would prove that they were not the Jewish leaders as they would be demonstrating ignorance of Jewish law.

The interpretation that leads you to declare that the Jewish leaders described in the Gospels, did not kill Jesus.

In Jewish law, retzach is a technical term often translated as "murder." To be guilty of this requires a well documented series of steps and actions. Those steps are not shown to have been followed, so the label does not apply. It's pretty basic stuff.

 

[Waffle SS]

really? Jews don't crucify him. Italians do. And Italians did. So they killed him according to the gospels. (John 19:23 -- "Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus," -- the soldiers were Italian, right?

The Romans crucified him at the behest of jews. The jew high priest presided over Jesus' trial and actively looked for people to testify. It is well know that Pilate did not want to crucify Jesus.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I don't reject Josephus, I consider his material with a grain of salt. His own history reflects agendized writing, and the concern of later interpolations has been something I have seen mentioned often. I think some of his writings are probably more informed or accurate, but that line of what can be trusted and what not is often blurry. To understand the environment around the times of the gospels, I have the corpus of the Jewish oral law which has substantial info about the people, diets, business practices and laws (Jewish and not) of the time. As many of the events in the gospels claim to be telling of the actions and beliefs of the jews, if they contradict what we have as recorded Jewish practice from within Jewish texts, I discount the gospels' accounts.

If they did, then that would prove that they were not the Jewish leaders as they would be demonstrating ignorance of Jewish law.

But your modern interpretation of Jewish law is just that, an interpretation.

In Jewish law, retzach is a technical term often translated as "murder." To be guilty of this requires a well documented series of steps and actions. Those steps are not shown to have been followed, so the label does not apply. It's pretty basic stuff.

Are we speaking of Jewish law or what is written in the Old Testament? The law against murder is evident in Genesis, before any Jews existed.

 

[rosends]

The Romans crucified him at the behest of jews. The jew high priest presided over Jesus' trial and actively looked for people to testify. It is well know that Pilate did not want to crucify Jesus.

but the text says that the soldiers kileld him. If I ask you to kill someone and you do it, I'm to blame? In Judaism, that is specifically not the case.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

but the text says that the soldiers kileld him. If I ask you to kill someone and you do it, I'm to blame? In Judaism, that is specifically not the case.

The term "Judaism" does not appear in the Old Testament it's actually a Greek word Ioudaismos. So restricting ourselves to the ancient record we should stop using this made up term.

 

[rosends]

But your modern interpretation of Jewish law is just that, an interpretation.

it is built around material from before the common era. What makes that a modern interpretation?

Are we speaking of Jewish law or what is written in the Old Testament? The law against murder is evident in Genesis, before any Jews existed.

It is. It is a Noachide law found early on in Genesis. This is a universal law.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

it is built around material from before the common era. What makes that a modern interpretation?

When you describe the historic recorded conduct of Jews as being somehow invalid, then clearly you today hold different views to those Jews that associated with Jesus. Therefore it is you who is at odds with those Jews not those Jews at odds with any "law".

It is. It is a Noachide law found early on in Genesis. This is a universal law.

 

[rosends]

The term "Judaism" does not appear in the Old Testament it's actually a Greek word Ioudaismos. So restricting ourselves to the ancient record we should stop using this made up term.

that's true. The word "Jew" appears biblically, but not the Hebrew form that means "Judaism."

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

that's true.

I know.

The word "Jew" appears biblically, but not the Hebrew form that means "Judaism."

 

[rosends]

When you describe the historic recorded conduct of Jews as being somehow invalid, then clearly you today hold different views to those Jews that associated with Jesus.

I believe the recorded material is valid -- recorded in Jewish sources. We hold the same views as those Jews. Stuff recorded in non-Jewish sources, after the fact, is inaccurate.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I believe the recorded material is valid -- recorded in Jewish sources. We hold the same views as those Jews. Stuff recorded in non-Jewish sources, after the fact, is inaccurate.

Yet you said earlier:

I discount the gospels' accounts.

Which are Jewish accounts.

 

[rosends]

Yet you said earlier:

exactly, as I just confirmed.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

exactly, as I just confirmed.

How do you reconcile these two claims you made:

I believe the recorded material is valid

and

I discount the gospels' accounts.

 

[rosends]

How do you reconcile these two claims you made:


and

I did reconcile them as I wrote, "I believe the recorded material is valid -- recorded in Jewish sources."

the gospels are not Jewish sources.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I did reconcile them as I wrote, "I believe the recorded material is valid -- recorded in Jewish sources."

the gospels are not Jewish sources.

What criteria do you use to determine whether a source is a Jewish source?