Zone1 Do most Jews believe they killed Jesus?

[Blues Man]

Oh my! One of my friends saw me doing one specific set of things and another of my friends saw me doing very different things! I must be two different people.

So then you are saying that your god plays different games with different groups of people?

I wonder why that would be.

 

[irosie91]

How can she not know the NT account? She said she went to Catholic School.

in the catholic school----somehow the kids are
made to understand that the money-changers
are exploitative loan-sharks. As far as I know--- NT leaves out the fact that the people who
abhorred the presence of the ROMAN APPOINTED business people in the area
known as the AZZARAH----were the pharisees--- just does not appear----they is more like
mob loan sharks

 

[surada]

[QUOTE="irosie91, post:

easy. Jesus ---by virtue of the words that a credibly attributed to him, demonstrates the fact that he is a pharisee jew. HOWEVER, the really impressive truth of that fact is his attack on the money changers situated in the Temple Court Yard. HISTORICALLY--(not jelly bean history but REAL history) reveals that the PHARISEES were dead-set against the presence of those "money changers" in the Temple Courtyard. They were actually roman shills just as were the "tax collectors" who situated themselves at the gates to the city. ---they were something like KGB operatives who monitored just what the romans could pillage from the people. -----knowing these facts---READ IT AGAIN

 

[Meriweather]

you don't know the NT account of Jesus and
the money-changers-----EASY---just read
the book

One non-Biblical account has stuck with me. I cannot remember all the details about the theorists, other than he knew a lot about the Temple, its lay-out, and customs. Definitely steeped in the history and the culture of that time. He does not see how the incident could have taken place at Passover in the Court of the Gentiles.

He said the place would have been packed--no room to push over tables or swing a whip. Next, he though it extremely doubtful that Jesus would do something to separate hard earned animals from the poor at any time--let alone Passover.

He noted that Jesus had angered Temple authorities--but apparently not the people--and if Jesus had ruined their Passover, more anger would have come from the general population.

He also took into account Jesus' words, "My Father's house is a house of prayer--but you have made it a den of thieves." Money changers were businessmen, and sure they wanted a profit--but thieves?

He noted an area of the Temple, further back near where the actual sacrifices were occurring that was also near to a place of prayer. The Court of the Gentiles extended back there, but it was not the main court.

He could see where this might be an area very convenient for the elite not to have to push through crowds in the main area. For a price, they could bring their lambs to this area and be in and out in much less time. He could imagine Jesus at prayer inside the Temple in this area, and being nudged by an escaped lamb, and being incensed by the desecration. So he went out to this much smaller area and began overturning tables and shooing the lambs away before they could enter a sanctified place in the Temple. He called them a den of thieves not only because the men there made a greater profit, but because they put making money at a higher level than the holiness of the Temple.

No way of knowing if this is how the incident unfolded, but I am fond of reading accounts where people note anomalies in the generally accepted story and offer a possible solution to the anomaly(s).

 

[surada]

One non-Biblical account has stuck with me. I cannot remember all the details about the theorists, other than he knew a lot about the Temple, its lay-out, and customs. Definitely steeped in the history and the culture of that time. He does not see how the incident could have taken place at Passover in the Court of the Gentiles.

He said the place would have been packed--no room to push over tables or swing a whip. Next, he though it extremely doubtful that Jesus would do something to separate hard earned animals from the poor at any time--let alone Passover.

He noted that Jesus had angered Temple authorities--but apparently not the people--and if Jesus had ruined their Passover, more anger would have come from the general population.

He also took into account Jesus' words, "My Father's house is a house of prayer--but you have made it a den of thieves." Money changers were businessmen, and sure they wanted a profit--but thieves?

He noted an area of the Temple, further back near where the actual sacrifices were occurring that was also near to a place of prayer. The Court of the Gentiles extended back there, but it was not the main court.

He could see where this might be an area very convenient for the elite not to have to push through crowds in the main area. For a price, they could bring their lambs to this area and be in and out in much less time. He could imagine Jesus at prayer inside the Temple in this area, and being nudged by an escaped lamb, and being incensed by the desecration. So he went out to this much smaller area and began overturning tables and shooing the lambs away before they could enter a sanctified place in the Temple. He called them a den of thieves not only because the men there made a greater profit, but because they put making money at a higher level than the holiness of the Temple.

No way of knowing if this is how the incident unfolded, but I am fond of reading accounts where people note anomalies in the generally accepted story and offer a possible solution to the anomaly(s).

The pilgrims had to buy animals and birds for sacrifice with shekels. They couldn't use Roman coin.

 

[Meriweather]

So then you are saying that your god plays different games with different groups of people?

No. I am noting that Holy Books record accounts covering thousands of years. These accounts were about people from different times and cultures, written by people from different cultures over long periods of time. Even people watching the same event and the same time see it from different perspectives, catch things others miss; miss things others catch. On top of this we have accounts written in different languages and then translated into even more languages for different people in different cultures over yet another time span. People explain things differently.

People of faith know and accept this, holding firm to the belief that God is One. This is our belief and we hold firmly to this truth.

Then you, a person outside of this faith, wander in telling all of us how wrong we are and being insistent about it. So, what is your end game?

 

[Meriweather]

The pilgrims had to buy animals and birds for sacrifice with shekels. They couldn't use Roman coin.

Yes. That has always been clear.

 

[surada]

Yes. That has always been clear.

Thanks. I began to think we'd lost track of that amidst the raving.

 

[irosie91]

One non-Biblical account has stuck with me. I cannot remember all the details about the theorists, other than he knew a lot about the Temple, its lay-out, and customs. Definitely steeped in the history and the culture of that time. He does not see how the incident could have taken place at Passover in the Court of the Gentiles.

He said the place would have been packed--no room to push over tables or swing a whip. Next, he though it extremely doubtful that Jesus would do something to separate hard earned animals from the poor at any time--let alone Passover.

He noted that Jesus had angered Temple authorities--but apparently not the people--and if Jesus had ruined their Passover, more anger would have come from the general population.

He also took into account Jesus' words, "My Father's house is a house of prayer--but you have made it a den of thieves." Money changers were businessmen, and sure they wanted a profit--but thieves?

He noted an area of the Temple, further back near where the actual sacrifices were occurring that was also near to a place of prayer. The Court of the Gentiles extended back there, but it was not the main court.

He could see where this might be an area very convenient for the elite not to have to push through crowds in the main area. For a price, they could bring their lambs to this area and be in and out in much less time. He could imagine Jesus at prayer inside the Temple in this area, and being nudged by an escaped lamb, and being incensed by the desecration. So he went out to this much smaller area and began overturning tables and shooing the lambs away before they could enter a sanctified place in the Temple. He called them a den of thieves not only because the men there made a greater profit, but because they put making money at a higher level than the holiness of the Temple.

No way of knowing if this is how the incident unfolded, but I am fond of reading accounts where people note anomalies in the generally accepted story and offer a possible solution to the anomaly(s).

your account makes no sense. The event did not even happen during passover. It was about 5 days before passover. There is a very good book on the subject----PASSOVER PLOT ??? 1972 ?? The most important and REAL issue is the fact that an attack on the money changers situated in the Temple Courtyard was a PHARISEE THING-------

 

[irosie91]

Yes. That has always been clear.

not exactly----they could bring what they needed and buy it WHEREVER----what they needed were half shekels for the yearly temple tax---which they could get wherever they could

 

[Blues Man]

No. I am noting that Holy Books record accounts covering thousands of years. These accounts were about people from different times and cultures, written by people from different cultures over long periods of time. Even people watching the same event and the same time see it from different perspectives, catch things others miss; miss things others catch. On top of this we have accounts written in different languages and then translated into even more languages for different people in different cultures over yet another time span. People explain things differently.

People of faith know and accept this, holding firm to the belief that God is One. This is our belief and we hold firmly to this truth.

Then you, a person outside of this faith, wander in telling all of us how wrong we are and being insistent about it. So, what is your end game?

Religious beliefs have little to do with truth or even logic. Saying that Jews, Christians and Muslims all worship the same god is obviously not a reasonable position. There are obvious schisms that make it quite clear to anyone looking objectively.

 

[Meriweather]

The event did not even happen during passover. It was about 5 days before passover.

Yes, Rosie. It was not the day of Passover, just the time of Passover. I thought everyone here knew at least that much, but nitpicking is always an option.

 

[ding]

what you claim never happened.

24,000 written manuscripts prove otherwise.

 

[ding]

Every Jewish man who goes to war gives his wife a Bill of Divorce.
When Natan, the prophet casticized David, David admitted he committed a transgression of passion, called a Chate in Hebrew.
The prophet did not accuse David of adultery.

That sounds very much like a rationalization.

God: Adam did you eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil?​

​

Adam: The woman you made gave it to me.​

And man has been rationalizing he didn't do wrong ever since. The strength of the Bible is in it not sugar coating the truth. Once we start to sugar coat the truth, the truth begins to lose all meaning and value.

 

[Meriweather]

There are obvious schisms that make it quite clear to anyone looking objectively.

There are SCHISMS!!!??? Really!!!??? We don't all see things from the same perspective????!!!! That is amazing!!!! I NEVER knew that!!!! I now understand you believe all the rest of us worship many, many Gods. Or, is that gods? Educate me on that, please. And thanks for the insight and the "objective" look. Got it now.

Hope it doesn't upset you too much that I still see the only One and understand others see that as well. Just assume we are blind and you can happily move on now that we understand your objective insights.

 

[ding]

He was teaching the only right way to understand the figurative language and comply with the hidden subjects of the law which leads to the fulfillment of the promise of eternal life for doing so.

Jesus made it clear with every healing that it was that person's faith which healed them, their faith demonstrated by them acting on his teaching and their faith in reaching out to the mercy of God to wipe away the guilt of their sin and to heal them from its terrifying and deeply disturbing effects.

Those who did not act on his teaching were not forgiven because even after receiving knowledge of the truth they still made evil a deliberate choice.

That's not what the early Christians believed or taught. I'd say you have an active imagination but we both know your interpretations are intended to mock and subvert Christianity.

 

[Blues Man]

There are SCHISMS!!!??? Really!!!??? We don't all see things from the same perspective????!!!! That is amazing!!!! I NEVER knew that!!!! I now understand you believe all the rest of us worship many, many Gods. Or, is that gods? Educate me on that, please. And thanks for the insight and the "objective" look. Got it now.

Hope it doesn't upset you too much that I still see the only One and understand others see that as well. Just assume we are blind and you can happily move on now that we understand your objective insights.

Christians worship a god that is not the same god Jews worship.

If your old books and scriptures are actually the truth as you say then it is quite clear.

 

[Meriweather]

Christians worship a god that is not the same god Jews worship.

If your old books and scriptures are actually the truth as you say then it is quite clear.

I.said.I.got.it. Thank you.

 

[ding]

No, unlike you, they were guilty of waking up the hypnotized. Very inconvenient for those who feed on rubes and deceive the public. Losing control of their possessions pissed them off to no end.

No. They were guilty of spreading the good news. There is zero evidence any of them ever taught your secular version of Jesus.

 

[ding]

you got it wrong----a man can forgive a sin committed against HIM. As to sins not involving a
second party-----charity and repentance sorta stuff

24,000 written documents and the apostles being martyred says otherwise.