Pope trying to change DP doctrine

[Penelope]

At insistence of the jews.

The Romans were well known to do whatevah DA
JOOOOOS wanted----like crucify something like 20,000
Pharisee jews. Ask the easter bunny

Y'all must be drinking Everclear out there.

Dig. Rome was a frickin' EMPIRE, OK? A YUGE one. It didn't get yuge by taking orders from their own conquered subjects. Put that idea out to frickin' pasture because it makes no sense at all.

Rome didn't give a shit what its conquerees did religiously among themselves; they stayed out of the way and weren't interested. What it WAS interested in was insurrection. Any kind of challenge to its authority. Whelp -- enter Jesus, doing exactly that, the purported "King of the Jews". THAT was going to get Rome's attention right quick, and did. That's what he was crucified for. Jews -- the colonized, under Rome's thumb --- weren't about to "insist" their own rebel be offed, LET ALONE presume to tell Rome what to do. All that shit was written in later as Spin. Any Jewish accedance to what Rome wanted to do would have been to save their own asses, lest Rome crucify them too.

That's why all that biblical bullshit about "kingdom of heaven" was invented after the fact, to cover up the political revolution Jesus clearly tried to effect by riding into town in full royal-savior pose at Passover, which started a riot (the "moneychangers"). The 'savioring' he was intending was to save the Jews from the Romans, in other words one more revolutionary trying to throw off the yoke of colonialism. No more complex than that. That particular revolution failed, as many do, and it was punished by the power in control whose power had been challenged, and that would be --- Rome. Not "da Joos". That's absurd.

Are you aware that the Palestine area at the first century was under a civil war. Rome didn't want to destroy Herod's temple but it came to that to end the civil war.
The elitist Jews didn't like Jesus making trouble at the temple with the money changers, and they wanted rid of him, so they had Pilate give the mob jews a choice,
Jesus the Christ or Jesus bar Abbas (Barabbas) and the mob of Jews yelled Barabbas they wanted to be set free. (this is according to the scriptures).

Titus right hand man was a jew, Tiberius Alexander, a nephew of Philo who the created the concept of the Logos.

Pffft "the scriptures" and consider the real world. "Jesus bar abbas" = Jesus Junior -- his son. The father gave himself up in exchange for Junior so that even if his attempt had failed his son might have a shot. The whole Judas mythology is another spin and the scripture-spin lets that cat out of the bag as well -- "go now and do what thou hast to do" -- far from "betraying" anybody Judas is following Jesus' orders.

Always consider who's writing, when and why. This scripture-spin was only writ down decades after Jesus was gone, and then edited by committee at Nicea three centuries later in a "let's get our story straight" project. It's hardly to be considered anywhere near a reliable history. It's fake news.

John of Giscala - Wikipedia
Simon bar Giora - Wikipedia

Read all about John, Simon and Eleazar .

what for?

Because everyone should know what the Jews were like in the first century, burning their own warehouse of food, and fractional. Rome had to do something.

 

[irosie91]

the bible says "FISH ONLY ON FRIDAY"?? I missed that line

No, but it does clearly say the Jews killed Jesus.

Not even in dispute.

Italians killed Jesus

At insistence of the jews.

No, but it does clearly say the Jews killed Jesus.

Not even in dispute.

Italians killed Jesus

At insistence of the jews.

The Romans were well known to do whatevah DA
JOOOOOS wanted----like crucify something like 20,000
Pharisee jews. Ask the easter bunny

Y'all must be drinking Everclear out there.

Dig. Rome was a frickin' EMPIRE, OK? A YUGE one. It didn't get yuge by taking orders from their own conquered subjects. Put that idea out to frickin' pasture because it makes no sense at all.

Rome didn't give a shit what its conquerees did religiously among themselves; they stayed out of the way and weren't interested. What it WAS interested in was insurrection. Any kind of challenge to its authority. Whelp -- enter Jesus, doing exactly that, the purported "King of the Jews". THAT was going to get Rome's attention right quick, and did. That's what he was crucified for. Jews -- the colonized, under Rome's thumb --- weren't about to "insist" their own rebel be offed, LET ALONE presume to tell Rome what to do. All that shit was written in later as Spin. Any Jewish accedance to what Rome wanted to do would have been to save their own asses, lest Rome crucify them too.

That's why all that biblical bullshit about "kingdom of heaven" was invented after the fact, to cover up the political revolution Jesus clearly tried to effect by riding into town in full royal-savior pose at Passover, which started a riot (the "moneychangers"). The 'savioring' he was intending was to save the Jews from the Romans, in other words one more revolutionary trying to throw off the yoke of colonialism. No more complex than that. That particular revolution failed, as many do, and it was punished by the power in control whose power had been challenged, and that would be --- Rome. Not "da Joos". That's absurd.

According to the scriptures the Jews wanted Rome to kill Jesus the Christ. Have you read them?

I read the NT-----there is no history IN THE WORLD suggesting that DA JOOOS wanted anybody crucified nor any history in the world suggesting
that the romans struggled to make DA JOOOS happy-----there is very
credible history of DA JOOOOS getting rid of persons all by themselves.
It did not have to be done thru the Sanhedrin. In fact in the period of time cited -----IT NEVER WAS-------not the Sanhedrin and not "with the help of
rome" penny dear-----can you cite any execution ordered by the Sanhedrin in the first century CE? -----just one?-----or---for that matter in the first century BCE? feel free-----they did keep records

 

[irosie91]

what is WHY the death penalty was taken from the Sanhedrin in 30 AD---
to protect adulterers?

They abused it.The Sanhedrin

who told you that? the catechism whore or the easter bunny?. Your citation is completely unrelated to your idiot response.

Read their capital punishment in the OT, even for sassing a father, one got stoned to death.

I read it and know it-------you didn't-------and don't know it. You only
know what the catechism whore "taught" you

 

[irosie91]

Y'all must be drinking Everclear out there.

Dig. Rome was a frickin' EMPIRE, OK? A YUGE one. It didn't get yuge by taking orders from their own conquered subjects. Put that idea out to frickin' pasture because it makes no sense at all.

Rome didn't give a shit what its conquerees did religiously among themselves; they stayed out of the way and weren't interested. What it WAS interested in was insurrection. Any kind of challenge to its authority. Whelp -- enter Jesus, doing exactly that, the purported "King of the Jews". THAT was going to get Rome's attention right quick, and did. That's what he was crucified for. Jews -- the colonized, under Rome's thumb --- weren't about to "insist" their own rebel be offed, LET ALONE presume to tell Rome what to do. All that shit was written in later as Spin. Any Jewish accedance to what Rome wanted to do would have been to save their own asses, lest Rome crucify them too.

That's why all that biblical bullshit about "kingdom of heaven" was invented after the fact, to cover up the political revolution Jesus clearly tried to effect by riding into town in full royal-savior pose at Passover, which started a riot (the "moneychangers"). The 'savioring' he was intending was to save the Jews from the Romans, in other words one more revolutionary trying to throw off the yoke of colonialism. No more complex than that. That particular revolution failed, as many do, and it was punished by the power in control whose power had been challenged, and that would be --- Rome. Not "da Joos". That's absurd.

Are you aware that the Palestine area at the first century was under a civil war. Rome didn't want to destroy Herod's temple but it came to that to end the civil war.
The elitist Jews didn't like Jesus making trouble at the temple with the money changers, and they wanted rid of him, so they had Pilate give the mob jews a choice,
Jesus the Christ or Jesus bar Abbas (Barabbas) and the mob of Jews yelled Barabbas they wanted to be set free. (this is according to the scriptures).

Titus right hand man was a jew, Tiberius Alexander, a nephew of Philo who the created the concept of the Logos.

Pffft "the scriptures" and consider the real world. "Jesus bar abbas" = Jesus Junior -- his son. The father gave himself up in exchange for Junior so that even if his attempt had failed his son might have a shot. The whole Judas mythology is another spin and the scripture-spin lets that cat out of the bag as well -- "go now and do what thou hast to do" -- far from "betraying" anybody Judas is following Jesus' orders.

Always consider who's writing, when and why. This scripture-spin was only writ down decades after Jesus was gone, and then edited by committee at Nicea three centuries later in a "let's get our story straight" project. It's hardly to be considered anywhere near a reliable history. It's fake news.

John of Giscala - Wikipedia
Simon bar Giora - Wikipedia

Read all about John, Simon and Eleazar .

what for?

Because everyone should know what the Jews were like in the first century, burning their own warehouse of food, and fractional. Rome had to do something.

everyone knows that you are an idiot. Rome has always acted
in the SAME MANNER-----so concerned with its own ass that it was willing
to lick the ass of adolf Jews have always been fractional------VERBALLY.
There are records of REAL history--------not your jelly bean version.
The Magdalena girls scandal is a true reflection of rome thru the ages and
all the way back to the VESTAL VIRGINS

 

[irosie91]

How can a church built around a man who was wrongly executed support executions ?

actually-----according to church doctrine-----the execution of Jesus was
a DIVINE PLAN. sheeeeesh try to keep up

 

[rightwinger]

The death penalty is barbaric

The Pope is reflecting that

the death penalty is unpopular with the PEOPLE whose behinds the populist pope is presently kissing

Most of the free world has abandoned the death penalty
So has most of the US

 

[rightwinger]

How can a church built around a man who was wrongly executed support executions ?

actually-----according to church doctrine-----the execution of Jesus was
a DIVINE PLAN. sheeeeesh try to keep up

So they “liked” the crucifixion?

 

[irosie91]

The death penalty is barbaric

The Pope is reflecting that

the death penalty is unpopular with the PEOPLE whose behinds the populist pope is presently kissing

Most of the free world has abandoned the death penalty
So has most of the US

the Pharisees abandoned it more than 2000 years ago. For the past
1700 years-------THE POPES LOVED IT

 

[irosie91]

How can a church built around a man who was wrongly executed support executions ?

actually-----according to church doctrine-----the execution of Jesus was
a DIVINE PLAN. sheeeeesh try to keep up

So they “liked” the crucifixion?

check out church art over the past 1700 years----THEY WORSHIP IT.
Catholicism DEPENDS on it

 

[Penelope]

No, but it does clearly say the Jews killed Jesus.

Not even in dispute.

Italians killed Jesus

At insistence of the jews.

Italians killed Jesus

At insistence of the jews.

The Romans were well known to do whatevah DA
JOOOOOS wanted----like crucify something like 20,000
Pharisee jews. Ask the easter bunny

Y'all must be drinking Everclear out there.

Dig. Rome was a frickin' EMPIRE, OK? A YUGE one. It didn't get yuge by taking orders from their own conquered subjects. Put that idea out to frickin' pasture because it makes no sense at all.

Rome didn't give a shit what its conquerees did religiously among themselves; they stayed out of the way and weren't interested. What it WAS interested in was insurrection. Any kind of challenge to its authority. Whelp -- enter Jesus, doing exactly that, the purported "King of the Jews". THAT was going to get Rome's attention right quick, and did. That's what he was crucified for. Jews -- the colonized, under Rome's thumb --- weren't about to "insist" their own rebel be offed, LET ALONE presume to tell Rome what to do. All that shit was written in later as Spin. Any Jewish accedance to what Rome wanted to do would have been to save their own asses, lest Rome crucify them too.

That's why all that biblical bullshit about "kingdom of heaven" was invented after the fact, to cover up the political revolution Jesus clearly tried to effect by riding into town in full royal-savior pose at Passover, which started a riot (the "moneychangers"). The 'savioring' he was intending was to save the Jews from the Romans, in other words one more revolutionary trying to throw off the yoke of colonialism. No more complex than that. That particular revolution failed, as many do, and it was punished by the power in control whose power had been challenged, and that would be --- Rome. Not "da Joos". That's absurd.

According to the scriptures the Jews wanted Rome to kill Jesus the Christ. Have you read them?

I read the NT-----there is no history IN THE WORLD suggesting that DA JOOOS wanted anybody crucified nor any history in the world suggesting
that the romans struggled to make DA JOOOS happy-----there is very
credible history of DA JOOOOS getting rid of persons all by themselves.
It did not have to be done thru the Sanhedrin. In fact in the period of time cited -----IT NEVER WAS-------not the Sanhedrin and not "with the help of
rome" penny dear-----can you cite any execution ordered by the Sanhedrin in the first century CE? -----just one?-----or---for that matter in the first century BCE? feel free-----they did keep records

Then go back and read it again. Yep the men (jews) wanted to stone the whore, aka ? MM, but Jesus had to stop them.

The were not allowed to pronounce capital punishment on anyone from 30AD on.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

There's a double penetration doctrine?

 

[irosie91]

Italians killed Jesus

At insistence of the jews.

At insistence of the jews.

The Romans were well known to do whatevah DA
JOOOOOS wanted----like crucify something like 20,000
Pharisee jews. Ask the easter bunny

Y'all must be drinking Everclear out there.

Dig. Rome was a frickin' EMPIRE, OK? A YUGE one. It didn't get yuge by taking orders from their own conquered subjects. Put that idea out to frickin' pasture because it makes no sense at all.

Rome didn't give a shit what its conquerees did religiously among themselves; they stayed out of the way and weren't interested. What it WAS interested in was insurrection. Any kind of challenge to its authority. Whelp -- enter Jesus, doing exactly that, the purported "King of the Jews". THAT was going to get Rome's attention right quick, and did. That's what he was crucified for. Jews -- the colonized, under Rome's thumb --- weren't about to "insist" their own rebel be offed, LET ALONE presume to tell Rome what to do. All that shit was written in later as Spin. Any Jewish accedance to what Rome wanted to do would have been to save their own asses, lest Rome crucify them too.

That's why all that biblical bullshit about "kingdom of heaven" was invented after the fact, to cover up the political revolution Jesus clearly tried to effect by riding into town in full royal-savior pose at Passover, which started a riot (the "moneychangers"). The 'savioring' he was intending was to save the Jews from the Romans, in other words one more revolutionary trying to throw off the yoke of colonialism. No more complex than that. That particular revolution failed, as many do, and it was punished by the power in control whose power had been challenged, and that would be --- Rome. Not "da Joos". That's absurd.

According to the scriptures the Jews wanted Rome to kill Jesus the Christ. Have you read them?

I read the NT-----there is no history IN THE WORLD suggesting that DA JOOOS wanted anybody crucified nor any history in the world suggesting
that the romans struggled to make DA JOOOS happy-----there is very
credible history of DA JOOOOS getting rid of persons all by themselves.
It did not have to be done thru the Sanhedrin. In fact in the period of time cited -----IT NEVER WAS-------not the Sanhedrin and not "with the help of
rome" penny dear-----can you cite any execution ordered by the Sanhedrin in the first century CE? -----just one?-----or---for that matter in the first century BCE? feel free-----they did keep records

Then go back and read it again.

what for? I know it too well already. Did you find those "EXECUTION ORDERS BY THE SANHEDRIN YET" ?? according to the NT---Jesus
was not convicted of ANYTHING at all by the Sanhedrin. nothing---no crime at all. Try reading that book. He was held in the temple---(according to the NT) he could have been killed EASILY.
Herod did not need a SANHEDRIN to off John the Baptist. Did rome
object?

 

[Pogo]

the bible says "FISH ONLY ON FRIDAY"?? I missed that line

No, but it does clearly say the Jews killed Jesus.

Not even in dispute.

yes it does. Jews actually crucified tens of thousands of their own
during the reign of Pontius Pilate-------the SAINT. The roman army
was helpless to prevent the slaughter

Uhhmmmm..... don't think so. You're actually selling that Rome, the Empire with the iron fist, was "helpless" in iron-fisting its own colonies? And you've got crucifixion, the Roman penalty reserved for treason, proliferated internally by ... Jews?

This is a joke post, right? Were you on a gurney wearing a mask when you wrote this?

Don't know about 'tens of thousands', but Jewish priests and nobility were pretty militant and violent, and as a people in general, and death sentences and uprisings were common, especially in post-exilic centuries. Most of the pagan tribes around them were even more bloody and murderous, so they look tame in comparison to pagans, but that is a matter of degrees; they were very violent even compared to Romans, the 'pussycats' of the iron Age empires.

Primitive peoples employed primitive punishments, and there's no shortage of stonings and burnings and whatnot in the Old Testicles. That's a given. But there I challenged the poster's idea that the Jews, who were in the middle of three centuries of being a Roman colony at that time, were telling their own colonizers what to do. Rome wouldn't have put up with that for a moment. When you're a Roman colony, Rome is in charge.

 

[irosie91]

the bible says "FISH ONLY ON FRIDAY"?? I missed that line

No, but it does clearly say the Jews killed Jesus.

Not even in dispute.

yes it does. Jews actually crucified tens of thousands of their own
during the reign of Pontius Pilate-------the SAINT. The roman army
was helpless to prevent the slaughter

Uhhmmmm..... don't think so. You're actually selling that Rome, the Empire with the iron fist, was "helpless" in iron-fisting its own colonies? And you've got crucifixion, the Roman penalty reserved for treason, proliferated internally by ... Jews?

This is a joke post, right? Were you on a gurney wearing a mask when you wrote this?

Don't know about 'tens of thousands', but Jewish priests and nobility were pretty militant and violent, and as a people in general, and death sentences and uprisings were common, especially in post-exilic centuries. Most of the pagan tribes around them were even more bloody and murderous, so they look tame in comparison to pagans, but that is a matter of degrees; they were very violent even compared to Romans, the 'pussycats' of the iron Age empires.

Primitive peoples employed primitive punishments, and there's no shortage of stonings and burnings and whatnot in the Old Testicles. That's a given. But there I challenged the poster's idea that the Jews, who were in the middle of three centuries of being a Roman colony at that time, were telling their own colonizers what to do. Rome wouldn't have put up with that for a moment. When you're a Roman colony, Rome is in charge.

the old testicles covers a VERY LONG PERIOD OF TIME-----during which time------jewish jurisprudence EVOLVED. ------moses >>>
Samuel >>>> Jeremiah >>>> Ezra >>>>> Hillel were all evolutionaries. Jesus and his fellow Pharisees were all hillel men.
Hillel was a contemporary of Jesus-----sorta----he died at about the time
Jesus is said to have been born. He was the man of that century

 

[Picaro]

the bible says "FISH ONLY ON FRIDAY"?? I missed that line

No, but it does clearly say the Jews killed Jesus.

Not even in dispute.

yes it does. Jews actually crucified tens of thousands of their own
during the reign of Pontius Pilate-------the SAINT. The roman army
was helpless to prevent the slaughter

Uhhmmmm..... don't think so. You're actually selling that Rome, the Empire with the iron fist, was "helpless" in iron-fisting its own colonies? And you've got crucifixion, the Roman penalty reserved for treason, proliferated internally by ... Jews?

This is a joke post, right? Were you on a gurney wearing a mask when you wrote this?

Don't know about 'tens of thousands', but Jewish priests and nobility were pretty militant and violent, and as a people in general, and death sentences and uprisings were common, especially in post-exilic centuries. Most of the pagan tribes around them were even more bloody and murderous, so they look tame in comparison to pagans, but that is a matter of degrees; they were very violent even compared to Romans, the 'pussycats' of the iron Age empires.

Primitive peoples employed primitive punishments, and there's no shortage of stonings and burnings and whatnot in the Old Testicles. That's a given. But there I challenged the poster's idea that the Jews, who were in the middle of three centuries of being a Roman colony at that time, were telling their own colonizers what to do. Rome wouldn't have put up with that for a moment. When you're a Roman colony, Rome is in charge.

Rome only concerned itself with tribute, and law and order; they left the locals a lot of slack on how they came up with that. They regulated executions, too; retaining the 'right' of life and death to the state, since technically they were all 'citizens'.

 

[Picaro]

Y'all must be drinking Everclear out there.

Dig. Rome was a frickin' EMPIRE, OK? A YUGE one. It didn't get yuge by taking orders from their own conquered subjects. Put that idea out to frickin' pasture because it makes no sense at all.

Rome didn't give a shit what its conquerees did religiously among themselves; they stayed out of the way and weren't interested. What it WAS interested in was insurrection. Any kind of challenge to its authority. Whelp -- enter Jesus, doing exactly that, the purported "King of the Jews". THAT was going to get Rome's attention right quick, and did. That's what he was crucified for. Jews -- the colonized, under Rome's thumb --- weren't about to "insist" their own rebel be offed, LET ALONE presume to tell Rome what to do. All that shit was written in later as Spin. Any Jewish accedance to what Rome wanted to do would have been to save their own asses, lest Rome crucify them too.

That's why all that biblical bullshit about "kingdom of heaven" was invented after the fact, to cover up the political revolution Jesus clearly tried to effect by riding into town in full royal-savior pose at Passover, which started a riot (the "moneychangers"). The 'savioring' he was intending was to save the Jews from the Romans, in other words one more revolutionary trying to throw off the yoke of colonialism. No more complex than that. That particular revolution failed, as many do, and it was punished by the power in control whose power had been challenged, and that would be --- Rome. Not "da Joos". That's absurd.

Are you aware that the Palestine area at the first century was under a civil war. Rome didn't want to destroy Herod's temple but it came to that to end the civil war.
The elitist Jews didn't like Jesus making trouble at the temple with the money changers, and they wanted rid of him, so they had Pilate give the mob jews a choice,
Jesus the Christ or Jesus bar Abbas (Barabbas) and the mob of Jews yelled Barabbas they wanted to be set free. (this is according to the scriptures).

Titus right hand man was a jew, Tiberius Alexander, a nephew of Philo who the created the concept of the Logos.

Pffft "the scriptures" and consider the real world. "Jesus bar abbas" = Jesus Junior -- his son. The father gave himself up in exchange for Junior so that even if his attempt had failed his son might have a shot. The whole Judas mythology is another spin and the scripture-spin lets that cat out of the bag as well -- "go now and do what thou hast to do" -- far from "betraying" anybody Judas is following Jesus' orders.

Always consider who's writing, when and why. This scripture-spin was only writ down decades after Jesus was gone, and then edited by committee at Nicea three centuries later in a "let's get our story straight" project. It's hardly to be considered anywhere near a reliable history. It's fake news.

John of Giscala - Wikipedia
Simon bar Giora - Wikipedia

Read all about John, Simon and Eleazar .

what for?

Because everyone should know what the Jews were like in the first century, burning their own warehouse of food, and fractional. Rome had to do something.

The Zealots were a bunch of racists who had deluded themselves God was going to protect them while they kicked Roman ass.

Not the first time the less bright among them ended up getting their tribes and cities burned and dispersed. these are the same idiots who ended up becoming 'rabbis' later on, so naturally there is no 'there' there for that small cult, while the the Christian sect went on to grow and keep the best theology alive and prosperous. The racists just self-isolated themselves and annoyed everybody around them and sulked like morons for the next 2,000 years. See Rosie and her fellow crazies for modern examples of how that expresses itself.

A few of the more intelligent Orthodox sects and a big chunk of the Reformed are much better, and a lot of messianic Jews are making themselves visible now too. These latter make up the majority of religious Judaism, though most Jews are stil not religious, just culturally identify with their past.

 

[irosie91]

Are you aware that the Palestine area at the first century was under a civil war. Rome didn't want to destroy Herod's temple but it came to that to end the civil war.
The elitist Jews didn't like Jesus making trouble at the temple with the money changers, and they wanted rid of him, so they had Pilate give the mob jews a choice,
Jesus the Christ or Jesus bar Abbas (Barabbas) and the mob of Jews yelled Barabbas they wanted to be set free. (this is according to the scriptures).

Titus right hand man was a jew, Tiberius Alexander, a nephew of Philo who the created the concept of the Logos.

Pffft "the scriptures" and consider the real world. "Jesus bar abbas" = Jesus Junior -- his son. The father gave himself up in exchange for Junior so that even if his attempt had failed his son might have a shot. The whole Judas mythology is another spin and the scripture-spin lets that cat out of the bag as well -- "go now and do what thou hast to do" -- far from "betraying" anybody Judas is following Jesus' orders.

Always consider who's writing, when and why. This scripture-spin was only writ down decades after Jesus was gone, and then edited by committee at Nicea three centuries later in a "let's get our story straight" project. It's hardly to be considered anywhere near a reliable history. It's fake news.

John of Giscala - Wikipedia
Simon bar Giora - Wikipedia

Read all about John, Simon and Eleazar .

what for?

Because everyone should know what the Jews were like in the first century, burning their own warehouse of food, and fractional. Rome had to do something.

The Zealots were a bunch of racists who had deluded themselves God was going to protect them while they kicked Roman ass.

Not the first time the less bright among them ended up getting their tribes and cities burned and dispersed. these are the same idiots who ended up becoming 'rabbis' later on, so naturally there is no 'there' there for that small cult, while the the Christian sect went on to grow and keep the best theology alive and prosperous. The racists just self-isolated themselves and annoyed everybody around them and sulked like morons for the next 2,000 years. See Rosie and her fellow crazies for modern examples of how that expresses itself.

A few of the more intelligent Orthodox sects and a big chunk of the Reformed are much better, and a lot of messianic Jews are making themselves visible now too. These latter make up the majority of religious Judaism, though most Jews are stil not religious, just culturally identify with their past.

^^^^ from Racist Bitch Sister Mary Magda of the catechism shit

 

[rightwinger]

How can a church built around a man who was wrongly executed support executions ?

actually-----according to church doctrine-----the execution of Jesus was
a DIVINE PLAN. sheeeeesh try to keep up

So they “liked” the crucifixion?

check out church art over the past 1700 years----THEY WORSHIP IT.
Catholicism DEPENDS on it

So somehow, in your logic, this encourages MORE execution

Hey, if it was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for you

 

[irosie91]

No, but it does clearly say the Jews killed Jesus.

Not even in dispute.

yes it does. Jews actually crucified tens of thousands of their own
during the reign of Pontius Pilate-------the SAINT. The roman army
was helpless to prevent the slaughter

Uhhmmmm..... don't think so. You're actually selling that Rome, the Empire with the iron fist, was "helpless" in iron-fisting its own colonies? And you've got crucifixion, the Roman penalty reserved for treason, proliferated internally by ... Jews?

This is a joke post, right? Were you on a gurney wearing a mask when you wrote this?

Don't know about 'tens of thousands', but Jewish priests and nobility were pretty militant and violent, and as a people in general, and death sentences and uprisings were common, especially in post-exilic centuries. Most of the pagan tribes around them were even more bloody and murderous, so they look tame in comparison to pagans, but that is a matter of degrees; they were very violent even compared to Romans, the 'pussycats' of the iron Age empires.

Primitive peoples employed primitive punishments, and there's no shortage of stonings and burnings and whatnot in the Old Testicles. That's a given. But there I challenged the poster's idea that the Jews, who were in the middle of three centuries of being a Roman colony at that time, were telling their own colonizers what to do. Rome wouldn't have put up with that for a moment. When you're a Roman colony, Rome is in charge.

Rome only concerned itself with tribute, and law and order; they left the locals a lot of slack on how they came up with that


They regulated executions, too; retaining the 'right' of life and death to the state, since technically they were all 'citizens'.

<<< BULLSHIT

 

[irosie91]

How can a church built around a man who was wrongly executed support executions ?

actually-----according to church doctrine-----the execution of Jesus was
a DIVINE PLAN. sheeeeesh try to keep up

So they “liked” the crucifixion?

check out church art over the past 1700 years----THEY WORSHIP IT.
Catholicism DEPENDS on it

So somehow, in your logic, this encourages MORE execution

Hey, if it was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for you

ROFLMAO "MY LOGIC"???