The Romans killed Jesus Christ not the Jews

[Carl in Michigan]

We're just stating a fact, that the Jews killed the Messiah.

Half truth.

Jews were in no position to kill Jesus. He was killed at the hands of the Romans.

The reason?

Jesus died for ALL Mankind -- Jew and Gentile. The blood is on ALL Mankind. YOU are responsible for killing Him with every sin you commit today and tomorrow. Blaming one person or one group means YOU don't understand His sacrifice for YOU as a person. YOU killed Jesus. Let that sink in.

 

[BreezeWood]

It was the Romans, and the followers are the Roman church. There are christians in the roman church but also some who are not.

According to the Bible, the Roman governor sought to release Jesus. He was pushed to allow them to have him crucified by the Jews. In fact, the Romans never messed with Jesus his entire 33 years. It was the Jews who even caught Jesus. The Jews tried Jesus in their courts. The Jews sentenced him to death. The Jews who chained him, and dragged him to Pilot to be executed.

So, not to sure about your claims Mort.

Kill ONE Jesus and they never let you forget it!

" Christians" believe that GOD sent his son down to die for our sins. In other words; it was " fate" That being the case even IF the Jewish people did kill " Jesus" why all the hate?

.

" Christians" believe that GOD sent his son down to die for our sins. In other words; it was " fate" That being the case even IF the Jewish people did kill " Jesus" why all the hate?

confusing christianity with the events of the 1st century does not mitigate the crime committed. by the jews and their benefactors. silencing a voice of liberation.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

It was the Romans, and the followers are the Roman church. There are christians in the roman church but also some who are not.

According to the Bible, the Roman governor sought to release Jesus. He was pushed to allow them to have him crucified by the Jews. In fact, the Romans never messed with Jesus his entire 33 years. It was the Jews who even caught Jesus. The Jews tried Jesus in their courts. The Jews sentenced him to death. The Jews who chained him, and dragged him to Pilot to be executed.

So, not to sure about your claims Mort.

Kill ONE Jesus and they never let you forget it!

" Christians" believe that GOD sent his son down to die for our sins. In other words; it was " fate" That being the case even IF the Jewish people did kill " Jesus" why all the hate?

They are inspired by the devil, the "prince of the power of the air," the "god of this world."

Jesus doesn't condemn them, nor does He condemn the ROMAN who pierced Him with a spear. He HAD to die, and He gave His life willingly.

 

[fncceo]

Good thing too ... imagine millions of xtians around the world wearing little rocks around their necks. Most uncomfortable.

Oh, they'd probably learn to live with it...

I like a religion with a lot of bling...

 

[Mortimer]

Good thing too ... imagine millions of xtians around the world wearing little rocks around their necks. Most uncomfortable.

Oh, they'd probably learn to live with it...

I like a religion with a lot of bling...

Me too

Classic Large Interlocking Star of David Necklace

Chain / Cord Length
Sterling Silver Chain 17.7" / 45 cm

 

[cnm]

Jesus died for ALL Mankind -- Jew and Gentile. The blood is on ALL Mankind. YOU are responsible for killing Him with every sin you commit today and tomorrow. Blaming one person or one group means YOU don't understand His sacrifice for YOU as a person. YOU killed Jesus. Let that sink in.

 

[irosie91]

I think that you also have to consider to political and social implications around Jesus' crucifixion and the atmosphere around that time. Pilate and the Roman government had the ultimate say in the matter and it was Roman soldiers that conducted the actual crucifixion, however, that would not have been possible had the Pharisees not brought it to Pilate's attention and create a situation that had potential challenges to Roman authority and potentially the emperor's authority if a "king" were to challenge Roman rule.

It's logical to believe that the Pharisees feared the potential power and rivalry that Jesus was creating and used that fear, some political motivations, and Roman law to their advantage to effectively censor and eliminate Jesus. They believed Jesus was being blasphemous and also challenged their power over the temple and their partnership with the Roman government and so they created a situation that made His death legal through Pilate. "If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone that claims to be a king opposes Caesar." I think the last thing Pilate would have wanted was to have Rome question his ability to rule over Judea. Even the high priests turned their backs to God in this trial by telling Pilate they "have no king but Caesar". Pilate could have said no and the Pharisees could have dismissed Jesus as crazy, but they both helped to create the crucifixion in my opinion.

Grace----I appreciate your earnest effort -----but you are beyond confused.
You actually start off with a gross misunderstanding of the life and times of
Jesus ------you seem to be to be a Sunday school victim. Your most telling
statement starts your argument>>>
" They believed Jesus was being blasphemous and also challenged their power over the temple and their partnership with the Roman government"
^^^^^^^^
NOPE!!!! there was no partnership between the Temple high priests
and the Pharisees at that time, Back then the Temple high priests---just like the king---HEROD----were Roman appointees. The Pharisees despised them and
MOST OF ALL---the Romans despised the Pharisees. You do have a kernel
of truth-----the high priests did some cooperating with the Romans which is
why Caiaphas handed (it seems) Jesus---over to the Romans. You done been hoodwinked. Jesus was a Pharisee (sorry---but it is virtually indisputable)
If 'DA PHARISEES" wanted to kill Jesus------they could have done it without
handing him over to the Romans. The incident that doomed Jesus was his
overturning of the tables of the money changers------THAT (regardless of what
your sunday school teacher said) was a 1000% PHARISEE ACT

 

[irosie91]

It was the Romans, and the followers are the Roman church. There are christians in the roman church but also some who are not.

According to the Bible, the Roman governor sought to release Jesus. He was pushed to allow them to have him crucified by the Jews. In fact, the Romans never messed with Jesus his entire 33 years. It was the Jews who even caught Jesus. The Jews tried Jesus in their courts. The Jews sentenced him to death. The Jews who chained him, and dragged him to Pilot to be executed.

So, not to sure about your claims Mort.

The NT is NOT a history book! It is a book of theology. The writers of the NT were more concerned with creating a religion about Jesus than they were with writing his biography. So far as I know, Jesus never wrote a single word and all the quotes of him in the NT might fill only a page or two.

Right. G-d decided to speak through his people. Regardless, we disagree on it being historical. It is historical. The fact Jesus did not directly write a single word is not relevant.

Jesus was literate-----the fact that he did not write anything----is relevant

 

[fncceo]

Jesus died for ALL Mankind

I'm not through sinning yet ... he might have to do it again.

 

[Lysistrata]

All of the people who continue to rehash whatever supposedly happened to Jesus and who is to blame for it miss one critical point: any person who was involved in it has been dead for approximately two thousand years. They are not available for interviews. They are still critically dead. And so should any controversy be.

 

[irosie91]

All of the people who continue to rehash whatever supposedly happened to Jesus and who is to blame for it miss one critical point: any person who was involved in it has been dead for approximately two thousand years. They are not available for interviews. They are still critically dead. And so should any controversy be.

aw shucks---that's no fun

 

[SSDD]

I am unsure why it matters who killed him. His death and resurrection were inevitable. It is why he came here. The people who killed him, whoever they were, were unable to do otherwise. They were also part of a plan.

 

[JoeB131]

nope-----read the book. Even in the perverted Constantine version----the Sanhedrin
acquitted jesus ------the edited version's attempt to claim that jews cheered "crucify him" so that poor innocent pilate ----who historically crucified some 20,000 jews in his ten year tenure as governor----SUDDENLY felt badly for the seditionist Jesus------actually makes no sense. Jews at that time had very little problem
ASSASSINATING traitors------and Jesus was a very soft target. Jesus was
crucified for the sedition that he actually had committed against Rome. Herod had
no problem killing his friend-----and according to some sources---relative---John
the Baptist. Herod worked for Rome. The crucifixtion was 100% Roman.
You got some other examples of jews crucifying people or FORCING Romans
to do it for them? I would not be surprised if some of you guys decide,
in the future, that DA MOSSAD murdered poor innocent SAINT Eva Braun

Okay, this kind of crazy rant ignores some key points....

I agree, the Gospels that were selected by the Romans did portray the Romans in a good light... but the text shows that the Jews were the ones instigating for Jesus death. Pilate even tried to give the mob a choice between Jesus and a murderer named Barabas, and they picked Jesus.

Herod executed John because he had control of him in Galilee. Jesus was in Jerusalem, which was under the rule of the Romans at that point.

Now, of course, the Gospels are kind of a mixed lot. The Gospel of Matthew was geared towards trying to convince Jews that Jesus fulfilled prophecy (Even though Matt either gets scripture wrong or outright makes shit up!) The Gospel of John was written at a point where the Christians had pretty much given up on winning over the Jews, and treats the Jews as a separate group from Jesus and his followers.

 

[JoeB131]

LOL.... Jesus never existed ^_^ .... pagans say the darnedest things.

Okay. Was Jesus born in 4 BCE like the Gospel of Matthew says, or in 6 AD, like the Gospel of Luke says.

Because they can't both be true if he was a real person.

Was his Grandfather named Jacob as Matthew says, or Heli like Luke says.

Was his family from Nazareth, like Luke says, and just came down to Bethlehem for a Census, or were they from Bethlehem and fled to Nazareth to escape the wrath of Herod the Great, like Matthew says.

And this is just in the first few chapters of the two gospels that actually discuss Jesus early life.

The funny thing is, as much as we use "Gospel Truth" as a phrase, the Gospels contradict themselves and each other..

Contradictions about Jesus

 

[JoeB131]

I am unsure why it matters who killed him. His death and resurrection were inevitable. It is why he came here. The people who killed him, whoever they were, were unable to do otherwise. They were also part of a plan.

That's kind of a messed up plan. God puts a meaningless curse on humanity because a woman listened to a talking snake and ate fruit from a magic tree, and then had to incarnate himself as a man to get himself killed?

 

[alang1216]

All the birth narratives are fine. All the books of the Bible, are complimentary to each other. So, not sure what you mean by this.

They're fine except they're not history. The story of the Roman census is a prime example:

• there is no record of such a census in the Roman archives?
• why would Rome care where your ancestors came from 1,000 years ago if they were interested in taxes today?
  
• how many would know their family history that well (I don't know where my ancestors lived even 250 years ago)?
• which lineage would you trace back?
• why would you have to travel to the place, why not just say what it was?

If you asked me, the story was created because Jesus, known to come from Nazareth, had to be born in the ancestral home of David so he could be claimed to fulfill a scriptural prophesy. There are other examples just like this one. I believe there is a prophesy of the messiah going to Egypt so one birth narrative has that while the other does not.

At the time the NT was being codified, Judaism was already an ancient religion and, as such, given respect. Connecting Jesus to the Jews was a plus. Trying to convince the Jews that Jesus was the messiah was also a positive so he had to be shown to fulfill OT prophesies. History was secondary to theology.

 

[alang1216]

It was the Romans, and the followers are the Roman church. There are christians in the roman church but also some who are not.

According to the Bible, the Roman governor sought to release Jesus. He was pushed to allow them to have him crucified by the Jews. In fact, the Romans never messed with Jesus his entire 33 years. It was the Jews who even caught Jesus. The Jews tried Jesus in their courts. The Jews sentenced him to death. The Jews who chained him, and dragged him to Pilot to be executed.

So, not to sure about your claims Mort.

The NT is NOT a history book! It is a book of theology. The writers of the NT were more concerned with creating a religion about Jesus than they were with writing his biography. So far as I know, Jesus never wrote a single word and all the quotes of him in the NT might fill only a page or two.

Right. G-d decided to speak through his people. Regardless, we disagree on it being historical. It is historical. The fact Jesus did not directly write a single word is not relevant.

Jesus was literate-----the fact that he did not write anything----is relevant

How do you know Jesus was literate? What language was he literate in?

 

[irosie91]

It was the Romans, and the followers are the Roman church. There are christians in the roman church but also some who are not.

According to the Bible, the Roman governor sought to release Jesus. He was pushed to allow them to have him crucified by the Jews. In fact, the Romans never messed with Jesus his entire 33 years. It was the Jews who even caught Jesus. The Jews tried Jesus in their courts. The Jews sentenced him to death. The Jews who chained him, and dragged him to Pilot to be executed.

So, not to sure about your claims Mort.

The NT is NOT a history book! It is a book of theology. The writers of the NT were more concerned with creating a religion about Jesus than they were with writing his biography. So far as I know, Jesus never wrote a single word and all the quotes of him in the NT might fill only a page or two.

Right. G-d decided to speak through his people. Regardless, we disagree on it being historical. It is historical. The fact Jesus did not directly write a single word is not relevant.

Jesus was literate-----the fact that he did not write anything----is relevant

How do you know Jesus was literate? What language was he literate in?

read the book-----in the NT it is clearly stated that when he visited a synagogue---he was asked to READ. ----that means he had to march himself up to the opened
torah scroll and READ ALOUD------it ain't easy. It means that the people there
knew him to be literate. ----the language being Hebrew. Back then people who were literate in Hebrew were CERTAINLY literate in the Hebraized form of Aramaic. -------nuthin' has changed in very traditional middle eastern jewish
communities. I know because I know-----hubby is from a traditional middle
eastern community. Fret not-----no one is going to ask you to READ

 

[alang1216]

According to the Bible, the Roman governor sought to release Jesus. He was pushed to allow them to have him crucified by the Jews. In fact, the Romans never messed with Jesus his entire 33 years. It was the Jews who even caught Jesus. The Jews tried Jesus in their courts. The Jews sentenced him to death. The Jews who chained him, and dragged him to Pilot to be executed.

So, not to sure about your claims Mort.

The NT is NOT a history book! It is a book of theology. The writers of the NT were more concerned with creating a religion about Jesus than they were with writing his biography. So far as I know, Jesus never wrote a single word and all the quotes of him in the NT might fill only a page or two.

Right. G-d decided to speak through his people. Regardless, we disagree on it being historical. It is historical. The fact Jesus did not directly write a single word is not relevant.

Jesus was literate-----the fact that he did not write anything----is relevant

How do you know Jesus was literate? What language was he literate in?

read the book-----in the NT it is clearly stated that when he visited a synagogue---he was asked to READ. ----that means he had to march himself up to the opened
torah scroll and READ ALOUD------it ain't easy. It means that the people there
knew him to be literate. ----the language being Hebrew. Back then people who were literate in Hebrew were CERTAINLY literate in the Hebraized form of Aramaic. -------nuthin' has changed in very traditional middle eastern jewish
communities. I know because I know-----hubby is from a traditional middle
eastern community. Fret not-----no one is going to ask you to READ

Right, Jesus was asked to read because he was already recognized as the messiah? I doubt it is history but it is good theology. Like John the Baptist saying that he was unfit to baptist Jesus.

 

[irosie91]

The NT is NOT a history book! It is a book of theology. The writers of the NT were more concerned with creating a religion about Jesus than they were with writing his biography. So far as I know, Jesus never wrote a single word and all the quotes of him in the NT might fill only a page or two.

Right. G-d decided to speak through his people. Regardless, we disagree on it being historical. It is historical. The fact Jesus did not directly write a single word is not relevant.

Jesus was literate-----the fact that he did not write anything----is relevant

How do you know Jesus was literate? What language was he literate in?

read the book-----in the NT it is clearly stated that when he visited a synagogue---he was asked to READ. ----that means he had to march himself up to the opened
torah scroll and READ ALOUD------it ain't easy. It means that the people there
knew him to be literate. ----the language being Hebrew. Back then people who were literate in Hebrew were CERTAINLY literate in the Hebraized form of Aramaic. -------nuthin' has changed in very traditional middle eastern jewish
communities. I know because I know-----hubby is from a traditional middle
eastern community. Fret not-----no one is going to ask you to READ

Right, Jesus was asked to read because he was already recognized as the messiah? I doubt it is history but it is good theology. Like John the Baptist saying that he was unfit to baptist Jesus.

try again. my hubby was born in a very traditional middle eastern
jewish family ------(not in Palestine----in a shariah shit hole---migrated
as a baby ) When
he returned to Israel for a visit-----he KNEW that when he made
the obligatory visit to his dad's old synagogue----he would be ASKED
TO READ -----he put a copy of the part of the torah scroll read the
week in question in his pocket so he could review before he left-------
I was told that he did a TERRIFIC JOB of it-------the old men
were delighted with him. It's the REAL CUSTOM. Of the NT----
the "asked to read...." lines have the gloss of reality. Visitors
asked to read are those who CAN DO IT