Political Crossfire Forums

[Timmytour]

I post this thread partly in response to what's been said about the "Judas gospel" about to be published (if it hasn't already been so)
I'll confess I'm not really up for believing in a new gospel coming along. But with Passion sunday still fresh in the mind, I'll also admit that some of the claims being made are not without logic.

Q. Who killed Jesus?

A. The Jews

Well, that's the answer you'll get 99 times out of 100 I suspect....but it isn't really true is it? It was the Romans who organised and carried out his crucifiction.

Now with Rome being the centre of the developing Christian church, the argument goes that Judas was made out to be a fallguy, to take the heat of the Romans themselves. And I must admit that it's possible to make sense of this.

Think about how Pontius Pilate is portrayed as a man puzzled as to why Jesus was being put up for death when "he has done no wrong". and how he tries his best to set him free only to get back demand saying that Barrabas ought to be released, not Jesus, and that Jesus should be crucified.

Rome is a colonial power, but the argument is that it was aceding to the wishes and desires of the local population.

Think about how the centurion is the one who can deliver the classic John Wayne line" :lol:

And then thinking a bit further afield..."render unto Caesar's what is Caesar's". That kind of lets the Romans off the hook as an occupying force.

This Judas gospel thing might be a forgery or hoax...but it does provide food for thought!

[psholtz]

Timmytour wrote: Well, that's the answer you'll get 99 times out of 100 I suspect....but it isn't really true is it? It was the Romans who organised and carried out his crucifiction.
My understanding is that in the Babylonian Talmud, the Jews take 100% credit for the condemnation, trial and execution of Christ.

I don't know enough about the Talmud to confirm or deny whether this is true..

[SilveryMinnow]

Quote: Pilate is a type of the worldly man, knowing the right and anxious to do it so far as it can be done without personal sacrifice of any kind, but yielding easily to pressure from those whose interest it is that he should act otherwise. He would gladly have acquitted Christ, and even made serious efforts in that direction, but gave way at once when his own position was threatened.

The other events of his rule are not of very great importance. Philo (Ad Gaium, 38) speaks of him as inflexible, merciless, and obstinate. The Jews hated him and his administration, for he was not only very severe, but showed little consideration for their susceptibilities. Some standards bearing the image of Tiberius, which had been set up by him in Jerusalem, caused an outbreak which would have ended in a massacre had not Pilate given way. At a later date Tiberius ordered him to remove certain gilt shields, which he had set up in Jerusalem in spite of the remonstrances of the people. The incident mentioned in St. Luke 13:1, of the Galilaeans whose blood Pilate mingled with the sacrifices, is not elsewhere referred to, but is quite in keeping with other authentic events of his rule. He was, therefore, anxious that no further hostile reports should be sent to the emperor concerning him.

The tendency, already discernible in the canonical Gospels, to lay stress on the efforts of Pilate to acquit Christ, and thus pass as lenient a judgment as possible upon his crime, goes further in the apocryphal Gospels and led in later years to the claim that he actually became a Christian. The Abyssinian Church reckons him as a saint, and assigns 25 June to him and to Claudia Procula, his wife. The belief that she became a Christian goes back to the second century, and may be found in Origen (Hom., in Mat., xxxv). The Greek Church assigns her a feast on 27 October. Tertullian and Justin Martyr both speak of a report on the Crucifixion (not extant) sent in by Pilate to Tiberius, from which idea a large amount of apocryphal literature originated. Some of these were Christian in origin (Gospel of Nicodemus), others came from the heathen, but these have all perished.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12083c.htm

[connermt]

Timmytour wrote: I post this thread partly in response to what's been said about the "Judas gospel" about to be published (if it hasn't already been so)
I'll confess I'm not really up for believing in a new gospel coming along. But with Passion sunday still fresh in the mind, I'll also admit that some of the claims being made are not without logic.

Q. Who killed Jesus?

A. The Jews

Well, that's the answer you'll get 99 times out of 100 I suspect....but it isn't really true is it? It was the Romans who organised and carried out his crucifiction.

Now with Rome being the centre of the developing Christian church, the argument goes that Judas was made out to be a fallguy, to take the heat of the Romans themselves. And I must admit that it's possible to make sense of this.

Think about how Pontius Pilate is portrayed as a man puzzled as to why Jesus was being put up for death when "he has done no wrong". and how he tries his best to set him free only to get back demand saying that Barrabas ought to be released, not Jesus, and that Jesus should be crucified.

Rome is a colonial power, but the argument is that it was aceding to the wishes and desires of the local population.

Think about how the centurion is the one who can deliver the classic John Wayne line" :lol:

And then thinking a bit further afield..."render unto Caesar's what is Caesar's". That kind of lets the Romans off the hook as an occupying force.

This Judas gospel thing might be a forgery or hoax...but it does provide food for thought!

Have you looked over the thread THE BOOK OF JUDAS on here? Interesting POVs & debate on there.
Many historians & theologians have said the Romans were responsible. It is a definate interesting idea to consider for sure. Some are quick to dismiss the idea that Rome was responsible. But we need to realize that there may have been more politics at play than people think.

[thefranzkafkafront]

Several things that make it look a bit sketcy to me.

1. Jesus throught the gospel gose head to head with the pharsisees, they held no power in jerusalem.

2. He apprenlty is in the s**t over the temple incident, while the sanhedrin held the keys there, that they had the ability to execute people is some what up for debate, and that they would care what a unknown to them precher was rabbaling on about in the temple in a single incident was enough to kill him is also questionable.

Even if they did kill him it would be a standard stoning.

3. the gospel accounts of his trial by the jewish authorities is some what confused.

4. It was festival time, the romans liked peace at festival time.

5. Pilot was an incredibily ruthless man, all the roman accounts of his life have him being removed from palestine becuase he put down a revolt too harshly.

[perdidochas]

Timmytour wrote: I post this thread partly in response to what's been said about the "Judas gospel" about to be published (if it hasn't already been so)
I'll confess I'm not really up for believing in a new gospel coming along. But with Passion sunday still fresh in the mind, I'll also admit that some of the claims being made are not without logic.

Q. Who killed Jesus?

A. The Jews

Well, that's the answer you'll get 99 times out of 100 I suspect....but it isn't really true is it? It was the Romans who organised and carried out his crucifiction.

Now with Rome being the centre of the developing Christian church, the argument goes that Judas was made out to be a fallguy, to take the heat of the Romans themselves. And I must admit that it's possible to make sense of this.

Think about how Pontius Pilate is portrayed as a man puzzled as to why Jesus was being put up for death when "he has done no wrong". and how he tries his best to set him free only to get back demand saying that Barrabas ought to be released, not Jesus, and that Jesus should be crucified.

Rome is a colonial power, but the argument is that it was aceding to the wishes and desires of the local population.

Think about how the centurion is the one who can deliver the classic John Wayne line" :lol:

And then thinking a bit further afield..."render unto Caesar's what is Caesar's". That kind of lets the Romans off the hook as an occupying force.

This Judas gospel thing might be a forgery or hoax...but it does provide food for thought!

Most Catholics would say the truth--we all killed Jesus. When on Palm Sunday (yesterday, BTW) we read the Passion, the congregation speaks for the crowds that asked for Jesus to be crucified. Jesus died for our sins, therefore, we killed him.

[connermt]

perdidochas wrote: Timmytour wrote: I post this thread partly in response to what's been said about the "Judas gospel" about to be published (if it hasn't already been so)
I'll confess I'm not really up for believing in a new gospel coming along. But with Passion sunday still fresh in the mind, I'll also admit that some of the claims being made are not without logic.

Q. Who killed Jesus?

A. The Jews

Well, that's the answer you'll get 99 times out of 100 I suspect....but it isn't really true is it? It was the Romans who organised and carried out his crucifiction.

Now with Rome being the centre of the developing Christian church, the argument goes that Judas was made out to be a fallguy, to take the heat of the Romans themselves. And I must admit that it's possible to make sense of this.

Think about how Pontius Pilate is portrayed as a man puzzled as to why Jesus was being put up for death when "he has done no wrong". and how he tries his best to set him free only to get back demand saying that Barrabas ought to be released, not Jesus, and that Jesus should be crucified.

Rome is a colonial power, but the argument is that it was aceding to the wishes and desires of the local population.

Think about how the centurion is the one who can deliver the classic John Wayne line" :lol:

And then thinking a bit further afield..."render unto Caesar's what is Caesar's". That kind of lets the Romans off the hook as an occupying force.

This Judas gospel thing might be a forgery or hoax...but it does provide food for thought!

Most Catholics would say the truth--we all killed Jesus. When on Palm Sunday (yesterday, BTW) we read the Passion, the congregation speaks for the crowds that asked for Jesus to be crucified. Jesus died for our sins, therefore, we killed him.

hm... I see what you mean, but I don't subscribe to the belief that "I" killed him. And I am not sure that I believe ANYONE killed Him, as I find it hard to believe that someone willing to die for a reason is actually killed. Meaning I don't think someone can kill someone or something that is a willing sacrifice. Not that it takes away from the end result though.

[garyd]

Not hardly. To be sure The Romans drove the nails and raised him upon the cross but it was at the behest of the Jews,. However that was the very reason for which God raised them up. And whose fault was it? Why ours my Christian friends, ours it was because of us that those indignities were permitted. Because of our own sin and rebellion. Because we couldn't get our act together. Someone had to pay the price to buy our ticket into heaven and we hadn't the proper coin.

[connermt]

garyd wrote: Not hardly. To be sure The Romans drove the nails and raised him upon the cross but it was at the behest of the Jews,. However that was the very reason for which God raised them up. And whose fault was it? Why ours my Christian friends, ours it was because of us that those indignities were permitted. Because of our own sin and rebellion. Because we couldn't get our act together. Someone had to pay the price to buy our ticket into heaven and we hadn't the proper coin.

It is not my fault that people 2000 years ago crucified Jesus. I had no say in it. I (nor anyone) could not have killed Him if he wasn't willing to die. No one took his life, he gave it up.
Again, rather he was killed or he died willingly, it still doesn't detract from the end result.
Just like I don't care if God made the world in 6 minutes, 6 days or 6 billion years. He made it - end of story.
Same with the Jesus story.

[Gilbert1908]

connermt wrote: perdidochas wrote: Timmytour wrote: I post this thread partly in response to what's been said about the "Judas gospel" about to be published (if it hasn't already been so)
I'll confess I'm not really up for believing in a new gospel coming along. But with Passion sunday still fresh in the mind, I'll also admit that some of the claims being made are not without logic.

Q. Who killed Jesus?

A. The Jews

Well, that's the answer you'll get 99 times out of 100 I suspect....but it isn't really true is it? It was the Romans who organised and carried out his crucifiction.

Now with Rome being the centre of the developing Christian church, the argument goes that Judas was made out to be a fallguy, to take the heat of the Romans themselves. And I must admit that it's possible to make sense of this.

Think about how Pontius Pilate is portrayed as a man puzzled as to why Jesus was being put up for death when "he has done no wrong". and how he tries his best to set him free only to get back demand saying that Barrabas ought to be released, not Jesus, and that Jesus should be crucified.

Rome is a colonial power, but the argument is that it was aceding to the wishes and desires of the local population.

Think about how the centurion is the one who can deliver the classic John Wayne line" :lol:

And then thinking a bit further afield..."render unto Caesar's what is Caesar's". That kind of lets the Romans off the hook as an occupying force.

This Judas gospel thing might be a forgery or hoax...but it does provide food for thought!

Most Catholics would say the truth--we all killed Jesus. When on Palm Sunday (yesterday, BTW) we read the Passion, the congregation speaks for the crowds that asked for Jesus to be crucified. Jesus died for our sins, therefore, we killed him.

hm... I see what you mean, but I don't subscribe to the belief that "I" killed him. And I am not sure that I believe ANYONE killed Him, as I find it hard to believe that someone willing to die for a reason is actually killed. Meaning I don't think someone can kill someone or something that is a willing sacrifice. Not that it takes away from the end result though.

You make an excellent distinction. The real question is who is responsible for the death of Jesus Christ? The Christian's answer to that question must be that all of humanity is responsible including me.

The least Christian thing that can be done is to assign "blame" on this matter, even though it has been done for thousands of years wrongly and unfairly.

Theologically there is only one answer to this question and you point out the distinction on which that answer rests, thank you for doing so.

[garyd]

Sir it is not your fault that people killed Jesus 2000 years ago it is your fault and my fault and indeed everyone's fault that Jesus found it necessary to lay down his life that some few might be saved from the justice due them.

Remember always that those who go to heaven received unmerited and wholly unearned mercy while those who go to hell got exactly what they deserved.

Remember that in hell the heat is a mercy for it distracts you from other far worse things. In fact I suspect wars in hell are fought over the warmest spots rather than the coolest.

[sLiPpY]

omg...we kilt kenny? :lol:

Sometimes, I wonder if Jesus weren't simply some poor John the Baptist schlept, that got turned into a cultural icon...to satisfy the needs and devices of a crumbling Roman state.

But I would guess, that the question of "who done it...should be absolutely irrelevant" in any devout individual's mind. Why?

1. Didn't God know it was going to happen anyway?

2. If so, why is God such a saddist?

3. Recycle those notions a few times, and let's make something kewl up to esplains away an irrational and contradictory explanation of this God thing.

btw...I've often thought that religion is evidence, God is in fact a vindictive female. :shock:

[garyd]

NO it wouldn't make him a saddist given that Christ was God incarnate.

[sLiPpY]

garyd wrote: NO it wouldn't make him a sadist given that Christ was God incarnate.

:think: I stand corrected! :-D

Masochist might be a more appropriate term? or what's the one for self-mutilation? :evil:

[Timmytour]

sLiPpY wrote: garyd wrote: NO it wouldn't make him a sadist given that Christ was God incarnate.

:think: I stand corrected! :-D

Masochist might be a more appropriate term? or what's the one for self-mutilation? :evil:

Slippy, you're so trapped within the human way of thinking. :-D

We're human in the same way dogs are dogs! What makes us different is our souls. And some of us believe that once our human carcas has been discarded, then the pain and suffering it endured is rendered irrelevant. Much in the same way you probably can't recall the slap the midwife gave you to get you crying when you were born. :wink:

It's worth pointing out as well that all the luxury and wealth enjoyed by that carcas is rendered irrelevant as well.

It comes down to one question...do you deserve to go through the Pearly Gates? If we're lucky the answer's "yes" and only then do we begin to comprehend what it's all about. Until then, like a baby told by its mother that it must drink its milk, we trust what we have been told is true because we have no capacity or desire at this stage to prove it otherwise.

So our lives are spent in hope for the Pearly Gates while in admiration of Bill Gates :lol:

[sLiPpY]

Timmytour wrote: sLiPpY wrote: garyd wrote: NO it wouldn't make him a sadist given that Christ was God incarnate.

:think: I stand corrected! :-D

Masochist might be a more appropriate term? or what's the one for self-mutilation? :evil:

Slippy, you're so trapped within the human way of thinking. :-D

We're human in the same way dogs are dogs! What makes us different is our souls. And some of us believe that once our human carcas has been discarded, then the pain and suffering it endured is rendered irrelevant. Much in the same way you probably can't recall the slap the midwife gave you to get you crying when you were born. :wink:

It's worth pointing out as well that all the luxury and wealth enjoyed by that carcas is rendered irrelevant as well.

It comes down to one question...do you deserve to go through the Pearly Gates? If we're lucky the answer's "yes" and only then do we begin to comprehend what it's all about. Until then, like a baby told by its mother that it must drink its milk, we trust what we have been told is true because we have no capacity or desire at this stage to prove it otherwise.

So our lives are spent in hope for the Pearly Gates while in admiration of Bill Gates :lol:

o_O, but u do have the gift of mendacity! I wruved that last line. ;)

[SilveryMinnow]

Timmytour wrote: I post this thread partly in response to what's been said about the "Judas gospel" about to be published (if it hasn't already been so)
I'll confess I'm not really up for believing in a new gospel coming along. But with Passion Sunday still fresh in the mind, I'll also admit that some of the claims being made are not without logic.

Q. Who killed Jesus?

A. The Jews

Well, that's the answer you'll get 99 times out of 100 I suspect....but it isn't really true is it? It was the Romans who organized and carried out his Crucifixion.

Now with Rome being the center of the developing Christian church, the argument goes that Judas was made out to be a fall guy, to take the heat of the Romans themselves. And I must admit that it's possible to make sense of this.

Think about how Pontius Pilate is portrayed as a man puzzled as to why Jesus was being put up for death when "he has done no wrong". and how he tries his best to set him free only to get back demand saying that Barrabas ought to be released, not Jesus, and that Jesus should be crucified.

Rome is a colonial power, but the argument is that it was acceding to the wishes and desires of the local population.

Think about how the centurion is the one who can deliver the classic John Wayne line" :lol:

And then thinking a bit further afield..."render unto Caesar's what is Caesar's". That kind of lets the Romans off the hook as an occupying force.

This Judas gospel thing might be a forgery or hoax...but it does provide food for thought!

It was Roman law that killed Jesus. The Romans had taken over Capital Punishment. When Pilate asked him if he was King of the Jews, Jesus replied "Yes."
The Pharisees jumped on this by citing that according to Empirical law, there is no King other than Caesar, (neglecting to mention Herod,) and no God other than Caesar.
It was the sins of men that crucified Jesus.
Quote: 19:12. And from henceforth Pilate sought to release him. But the Jews cried out, saying: If thou release this man, thou art not Caesar's friend. For whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.

The loyalty of the priests to the Earthly God Caesar.
Quote: 19:15. But they cried out: Away with him: Away with him: Crucify him. Pilate saith to them: shall I crucify your king? The chief priests answered: We have no king but Caesar.

[garyd]

Slippy dying to save another makes one a Massochist? I think not.

[garyd]

Silveryone no one I repeat no one deserves heaven in deed if any could deserve heaven there would have been no reason for the cross.

[mattwa33193]

It was Jewish politics that killed Jesus, who was in fact (since many seem to have forgotten) a Jew himself. The heriditary king of the Jews, in fact, a direct descendant of David.

I read an interesting book a while ago that made a very good case that Jesus himself was in fact a Pharisee, since the teachings and philosophy of the Pharisees were nearly identical to his own. The Sudicees(sp) were the political sect of Judaism, the ones which represented the Jews to the Roman government (since the Pharisees cared nothing for politics or government), and the ones consulted by Pilate. Interestingly enough, the Sudicees were the closest to Christianity in terms of the sheer breadth and weight of dogma that they attempted to impose on the Jews. They were largely ignored, and completely ignored by Jesus. This led to the Sudicees advising Pilate to kill Jesus, in hopes of gaining power when his less charismatic brother (James) became the heir.

The Romans, for the most part, simply didn't care.