Zone1 The Jews Put Jesus On The Cross! Jesus Was Palestinian!

[irosie91]

Source? I'm open to new information.

Source for what? You did not know that Judea was controlled
by Rome and in a state of rebellion for centuries? Did the
Jellybean lady tell you that one day Rome just decided to burn
the place to the ground on a WHIM?

 

[Woodznutz]

Source for what? You did not know that Judea was controlled
by Rome and in a state of rebellion for centuries? Did the
Jellybean lady tell you that one day Rome just decided to burn
the place to the ground on a WHIM?

We're talking about who the temple money changers were, unscrupulous merchants or Roman appointees.

Who is this "jellybean lady"?

 

[irosie91]

We're talking about who the temple money changers were, unscrupulous merchants or Roman appointees.

Roman appointees as were the tax collectors, the temple priests
and the king. Rome was there for one reason----extortion. Did
the jelly-bean lady tell you that they were there to bring
civilization to "palestine" just like they invaded the british Isles
to bring civilization to the DRUIDS?

 

[Woodznutz]

Roman appointees as were the tax collectors, the temple priests
and the king. Rome was there for one reason----extortion. Did
the jelly-bean lady tell you that they were there to bring
civilization to "palestine" just like they invaded the british Isles
to bring civilization to the DRUIDS?

Source?

 

[irosie91]

Source?

history-----the NT is a fair to middling source if read in the context of its purpose, to wit, glorification of Rome and denigration of Judea and its scholars---to wit, the pharisees. Josephus is better

 

[Woodznutz]

history-----the NT is a fair to middling source if read in the context of its purpose, to wit, glorification of Rome and denigration of Judea and its scholars---to wit, the pharisees. Josephus is better

Josephus opines on the matter, with no mention of Roman participation.

In his book The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah historian Alfred Edersheim reports Josephus and the Rabbinic writings of the time claim that Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, was in charge of the “Temple-market.” The Rabbinic efforts referred to this market as the “Bazaars of the sons of Annas.” Josephus claimed Annas was very rich and guilty of “despoiling by open violence the common priests of their official revenues.”

Atonement and the Money Changers in the Temple

Regarding doctrine, practice, history and wisdom of the scriptures.

pbstudy.org

 

[irosie91]

Josephus opines on the matter, with no mention of Roman participation.

In his book The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah historian Alfred Edersheim reports Josephus and the Rabbinic writings of the time claim that Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, was in charge of the “Temple-market.” The Rabbinic efforts referred to this market as the “Bazaars of the sons of Annas.” Josephus claimed Annas was very rich and guilty of “despoiling by open violence the common priests of their official revenues.”

Atonement and the Money Changers in the Temple

Regarding doctrine, practice, history and wisdom of the scriptures.

pbstudy.org

Annas and his son-in-law Caiaphas were Sadducees---a kind of sect in opened alliance with the Roman conquerors making them
part of a favored group POLITICALLY which facilitated their
"very rich" The Pharisees were on THE OTHER SIDE. Rabbinic
writings reflecting the history of the times were by Pharisees---
the term "BAZAARS OF THE SONS OF ANNAS" associated
with the Temple is about as derogatory as any description could
get and signifies ABOMINATION thereof. It is important to keep
in mind that Josephus was enslaved by Rome whilst taking part in
rebellion. His orientation of CONCILIATION with Rome----at least for the time being. He was a Pharisee and a "priest" by right of inheritance.

 

[Woodznutz]

Annas and his son-in-law Caiaphas were Sadducees---a kind of sect in opened alliance with the Roman conquerors making them
part of a favored group POLITICALLY which facilitated their
"very rich" The Pharisees were on THE OTHER SIDE. Rabbinic
writings reflecting the history of the times were by Pharisees---
the term "BAZAARS OF THE SONS OF ANNAS" associated
with the Temple is about as derogatory as any description could
get and signifies ABOMINATION thereof. It is important to keep
in mind that Josephus was enslaved by Rome whilst taking part in
rebellion. His orientation of CONCILIATION with Rome----at least for the time being. He was a Pharisee and a "priest" by right of inheritance.

I'm guessing the money changers were given license by the Romans without their participation. If there was collusion it likely wasn't authorized by the Roman government. The practice was extortion. Why would Rome officially dirty its hands with such.

 

[irosie91]

I'm guessing the money changers were given license by the Romans without their participation. If there was collusion it likely wasn't authorized by the Roman government. The practice was extortion. Why would Rome officially dirty its hands with such.

You are doing lots of guessing. To what "collusion" do you refer? You got the LICENSE part right----ROME decided who got
licensed and it was NOT anyone who OPPOSED ROMAN
RULE. It was people willing to engage in COLLUSION WITH
ROME. The extortion refers to the oppressive taxation and
tribute demanded by Rome which was handled by their
CHOSEN tax collectors, priests and money changers. Jesus
didn't get licensed, nor did his cousin, John

 

[Woodznutz]

You are doing lots of guessing. To what "collusion" do you refer? You got the LICENSE part right----ROME decided who got
licensed and it was NOT anyone who OPPOSED ROMAN
RULE. It was people willing to engage in COLLUSION WITH
ROME. The extortion refers to the oppressive taxation and
tribute demanded by Rome which was handled by their
CHOSEN tax collectors, priests and money changers. Jesus
didn't get licensed, nor did his cousin, John

I meant by license as a verb.

 

[irosie91]

Not what I meant by license.

whatever you meant----fact is that the land
and its people in power were controlled
DEFINITELY by Rome. Temples in Rome had
a definite ECONOMIC POWER, in fact much
greater than the traditional Temple in Jerusalem.
The Roman effect in Jerusalem was to model
the Temple after the function of the temples
in Rome which were market places. A fact not
taught in Jelly-bean school is that animal
"sacrifices" in the Jerusalem Temple COULD NOT
BE SOLD BY LAW---whereas in Rome---the animal
economy---food and livestock was controlled by the
temples. Donations to the roman temples and
"sacrifices" consisted of WHOLE HERDS of animals ---
ie---the Roman temples controlled all of the meat market
for tremendous profit.

 

[Woodznutz]

whatever you meant----fact is that the land
and its people in power were controlled
DEFINITELY by Rome. Temples in Rome had
a definite ECONOMIC POWER, in fact much
greater than the traditional Temple in Jerusalem.
The Roman effect in Jerusalem was to model
the Temple after the function of the temples
in Rome which were market places. A fact not
taught in Jelly-bean school is that animal
"sacrifices" in the Jerusalem Temple COULD NOT
BE SOLD BY LAW---whereas in Rome---the animal
economy---food and livestock was controlled by the
temples. Donations to the roman temples and
"sacrifices" consisted of WHOLE HERDS of animals ---
ie---the Roman temples controlled all of the meat market
for tremendous profit.

If true that would mean that Rome modelled its temple activities after ancient Israel. Israel's temple sacrifices predate Rome by centuries.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

very interesting----you have examples of British mandate Palestine
government papers naming arabs "palestinians"----feel free to
demonstrate.

I just did demonstrate, here it is again:

This is one of the earliest documentary records of the desire by Zionists, to ethnically cleanse "Arab Palestinian peasanty" (they used the much nicer sounding phrase "comprehensive emigration scheme") into Egypt and Syria - this was in 1919 thirty years before there was any defined "state" of Israel, the ethnic cleansing and Zionist "settlement" building has been underway for over a hundred years.

Same for christians living in British Mandate Palestine. Feel free. You could also find such designations in
various periodicals-----like Travel journals. Feel free to cite them.
try not to cite propaganda sites

I can't make sense of this rambling post, suffice to say, you said "the Brits did not refer to either Muslims or Christians as 'palestinians' ". Yet the evidence proves you wrong.

 

[irosie91]

If true that would mean that Rome modelled its temple activities after ancient Israel. Israel's temple sacrifices predate Rome by centuries.

wrong again----you are confusing the development of the
ROMAN REPUBLIC with the people and their culture that
preexisted the EMPIRE. For those people --animal sacrifice
goes back more than 6000 years. The ORGANIZATION of
meat market temples by Roman rulers probably is far more recent----like only 3000 years. The Temple in Jerusalem was never
a meat market or organized as a market of any kind prior
to Roman conquest. The complaint "they turned the temple into
a market" refers to Roman conquest

 

[irosie91]

I just did demonstrate, here it is again:

View attachment 1073707

This is one of the earliest documentary records of the desire by Zionists, to ethnically cleanse "Arab Palestinian peasanty" (they used the much nicer sounding phrase "comprehensive emigration scheme") into Egypt and Syria - this was in 1919 thirty years before there was any defined "state" of Israel, the ethnic cleansing and Zionist "settlement" building has been underway for over a hundred years.

I can't make sense of this rambling post, suffice to say, you said "the Brits did not refer to either Muslims or Christians as 'palestinians' ". Yet the evidence proves you wrong.

wrong---at no point have you furnished an example of the
term "PALESTINIAN" as applied to an arab. You have supplied
a document which discusses "peasantry in palestine" which were,
at that time landless, nomadic arabs living on the periphery
of Jewish farming projects on land purchased from the OTTOMANS. Back then a large portion of those arabs described themselves as
SYRIANS----to the extent that some historians have declared that the land which is Israel is actually a province of Syria. Christians
were not called "Palestinians" either----they were called 'arameans' which is also a reference to Syria. Arameans---as far as I know---were not landless and still are not

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

wrong---at no point have you furnished an example of the
term "PALESTINIAN" as applied to an arab.

You have supplied
a document which discusses "peasantry in palestine" which were,
at that time landless, nomadic arabs living on the periphery
of Jewish farming projects on land purchased from the OTTOMANS. Back then a large portion of those arabs described themselves as
SYRIANS----to the extent that some historians have declared that the land which is Israel is actually a province of Syria. Christians
were not called "Palestinians" either----they were called 'arameans' which is also a reference to Syria. Arameans---as far as I know---were not landless and still are not

Do you see the word "Palestinian" below? I'll repeat it to make it easier for you:

Read you crazy woman:

See? can you SEE? it says "move Arab peasantry from THEIR lands".

Why do you expect people to believe your ramblings when they can see concrete historic proof with their own eyes !!!

NATIONAL ARCHIVES REFERENCE

thomassuarez.com

 

[BreezeWood]

Rome appropriated Christianity and used it for their own selfish purposes. When the time was right God gave it to its rightful people through the Reformation. See Revelation 12.

as hopeful that may be - what changes are made to the christian bible to make it presentable as a religion, the removal of the false commandments their propensity to persecute and victimize the innocent.

 

[BreezeWood]

But according to New Testament scriptures that was indeed to pay the consequences of human sin for all of us.

show any contemporary 1st century events making such claims they desired to crucify jesus for their own sins nor was that the motivation of judaism for their crime against humanity.

 

[Woodznutz]

as hopeful that may be - what changes are made to the christian bible to make it presentable as a religion, the removal of the false commandments their propensity to persecute and victimize the innocent.

Your problem is with nominal Christianity, not the real thing. Persecuting and victimizing the innocent isn't religion or theology. The true Biblical religion is helping the helpless and "keeping oneself unspotted by the world".

 

[BreezeWood]

Your problem is with nominal Christianity, not the real thing. Persecuting and victimizing the innocent isn't religion or theology.

not to you ... the real thing [sic]

is to deny the recorded histories of all three desert religions reflective of the forgeries , lies and fallacies of their bibles and their claims of heavenly personification - is what truly is nominal, their bibles - as the reformation for christianity reflects if only a fleeting aberration than the true cause jesus represented and gave their life for - the refutation of judaism's false commandments, hereditary idolatry et al.