Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2015 21:21:43 GMT -5
So... why did Jacob (ca 2000 BC) tell his sons that there would be a Jewish nation until the Messiah comes. And this Messiah would be believed upon by the Gentiles?
Why did Daniel (ca 650 BC) say the Temple will stand until the Messiah comes?
Lucky guess, maybe...
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 26, 2015 21:38:43 GMT -5
The Jews are still waiting for their Messiah Bert. Jesus is not their Messiah.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2015 21:47:26 GMT -5
The Jews are still waiting for their Messiah Bert. Jesus is not their Messiah. Yes, their own bible says they will not recognize their Messiah. As Isaiah put it "Who will believe our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?"
Religious Jews aren't into redemption - they don't see the need. They want an earthly king to conquer their enemies.
Ninety percent of the Messianic prophecies relate to the conquering king. But many are metaphoric kings. But some verses are interesting -
Zechariuh 9:10 "his dominion shall be from sea to sea… even to the ends of the earth." This is the Jewish king. But the verse before this reads, "behold thy king cometh unto thee: he is just and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass…" This is Jesus.
And then in Zec 12:9 "… I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem." That's the Jewish king again. But the next verse, "… and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced…" That's Jesus.
The Jews don't know who David refers to when he wrote, "they pierced my hands and my feet" but they know it can't be David. Even in the suffering messiah of Isaiah 53 we read at the end, "… I will divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong…" That's the Jewish king.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2015 21:53:05 GMT -5
The Jews are still waiting for their Messiah Bert. Jesus is not their Messiah. True. And that's WHY they would lose their nation and Temple, and return to captivity. As Jesus told them, "you don't know the time of your visitation."
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 26, 2015 23:40:15 GMT -5
The Jews are still waiting for their Messiah Bert. Jesus is not their Messiah. Yes, their own bible says they will not recognize their Messiah. As Isaiah put it "Who will believe our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?"
Religious Jews aren't into redemption - they don't see the need. They want an earthly king to conquer their enemies.
Ninety percent of the Messianic prophecies relate to the conquering king. But many are metaphoric kings. But some verses are interesting -
Zechariuh 9:10 "his dominion shall be from sea to sea… even to the ends of the earth." This is the Jewish king. But the verse before this reads, "behold thy king cometh unto thee: he is just and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass…" This is Jesus.
And then in Zec 12:9 "… I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem." That's the Jewish king again. But the next verse, "… and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced…" That's Jesus.
The Jews don't know who David refers to when he wrote, "they pierced my hands and my feet" but they know it can't be David. Even in the suffering messiah of Isaiah 53 we read at the end, "… I will divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong…" That's the Jewish king. Ah, but the gospel writers knew those verses! That is the way they used them to fit Jesus into the mold that they wanted!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2015 0:00:00 GMT -5
So the Gospel writers "knew these verses." Of course. But how did Jacob, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Zechariuh, David, Moses, Abraham and Malachi know them?
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Jul 27, 2015 2:50:49 GMT -5
Ah right, but Paul didn't spread his own belief that Jesus is Christ. God revealed this to Peter whilst Jesus was still alive, Paul didn't follow Jesus until after Jesus had died and risen. So Peter heard this from God way before Paul preached it. You are missing the point about Paul. It isn't even about to the timing of Peter or Paul.
It is that Paul was quite a learned man, a scholar. Peter was not. Had Christianity been dependent on being spread by Peter or the other apostles, -it would have looked different today & may NOT have even survived as the religion that it is.I don't believe it would, because Paul was guided by the spirit of God. You can see that when you read what says in the bible.
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Jul 27, 2015 3:14:26 GMT -5
Maryhig, the reason why I think Paul wasn't all that keen on women was some of the things he made as rules for them. One of them was saying they couldn't talk in church. But there were others too that have led me to believe he wasn't someone who held women in high esteem like Jesus did. Also, when Jesus sent his apostles out, he told them to not go to the gentiles. Paul is the one that vetoed that decision and did go to the gentiles and decided circumcision etc wasn't needed. We really only have Paul's word on all these changes coming to him from Jesus. I don't believe it myself. He was a Hellenistic Jew with a bundle of very different ideas from the Jerusalem Jews. That is why he was at odds with them and in the few times he did go visit them Peter and James were really the only ones that bothered to see him and on at least one occasion he had to undergo some of the purification rituals so the people didn't attack him. Even then his life was in danger because of his stance within the new religion. For me, Jesus and Paul were so far apart in beliefs and attitude there was really no comparison. I do believe the current brand of Christianity did come from Paul and not Jesus. The early Jewish Christians held very different beliefs from what Christians do today. Jesus welcomed women into the church and in fairness Paul did have some with him too, but it quickly changed when the Romans entered the Christianity equation. The Gnostics did believe in equality between men and women as far as church leaders went and they also didn't believe Jesus was God. However, the RCC did a pretty good number on getting rid of most of their writings and scripture. If they hadn't found what is referred to as the Nag Hammadi Library, we still wouldn't know a whole lot about what they believed. These are my thoughts on the issue from what I have read and the bible also. But Jesus had only male apostles, and that didn't mean he didn't care about women, Mary was the first one to see him after he was resurrected! And Paul is the same, he spoke of rules for women but he also spoke about rules for men. Also, Jesus only told his deciples that they were not to go the way of the gentiles at that time. But once they had the strength of the spirit and were stronger in God, then Jesus told them to to out to all nations, through the world and preach the gospel. You can see the difference in Peter and Paul, after they had received the holy spirit they were much stronger in God. Strong enough to preach to the gentiles. I have never read about the gnostics, I will have to read about them. I'm yet to read about the dead sea scrolls or Edward Cooney I'll have to get round to it, but I get so busy. That when I do get to read, I read the bible, and have a look on here!
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Jul 27, 2015 4:58:12 GMT -5
Maryhig, the reason why I think Paul wasn't all that keen on women was some of the things he made as rules for them. One of them was saying they couldn't talk in church. But there were others too that have led me to believe he wasn't someone who held women in high esteem like Jesus did. Also, when Jesus sent his apostles out, he told them to not go to the gentiles. Paul is the one that vetoed that decision and did go to the gentiles and decided circumcision etc wasn't needed. We really only have Paul's word on all these changes coming to him from Jesus. I don't believe it myself. He was a Hellenistic Jew with a bundle of very different ideas from the Jerusalem Jews. That is why he was at odds with them and in the few times he did go visit them Peter and James were really the only ones that bothered to see him and on at least one occasion he had to undergo some of the purification rituals so the people didn't attack him. Even then his life was in danger because of his stance within the new religion. For me, Jesus and Paul were so far apart in beliefs and attitude there was really no comparison. I do believe the current brand of Christianity did come from Paul and not Jesus. The early Jewish Christians held very different beliefs from what Christians do today. Jesus welcomed women into the church and in fairness Paul did have some with him too, but it quickly changed when the Romans entered the Christianity equation. The Gnostics did believe in equality between men and women as far as church leaders went and they also didn't believe Jesus was God. However, the RCC did a pretty good number on getting rid of most of their writings and scripture. If they hadn't found what is referred to as the Nag Hammadi Library, we still wouldn't know a whole lot about what they believed. These are my thoughts on the issue from what I have read and the bible also. I've just been reading Galatians 2, where I think the dispute you are talking about is. But it says that Paul was sent to the gentiles in the knowledge of James Peter and John, also, that Peter mixed and spoke to the gentiles but hid this from the Jews which Paul thought was wrong. Paul said to Peter, if you walk in the manner of the gentiles, why do you compel the gentiles to live as Jews. Who are Jews by nature and not sinners of the gentiles. I see this as once the gentiles received Christ into their hearts they became renewed within, with the circumcision of the heart and not by the circumcision of the flesh. Not circumcised by man but by God through Christ. Here's where in Galatians 2 you can see that Peter James and John know that Paul is preaching to the gentiles and are ok with this. Even giving him Barnabas to help him. Galatians 2 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. Paul spoke of this in Romans 2 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. Whose praise is not from man but from God. Moses also spoke of this Deuteronomy 30 And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live. And later in the same chapter Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked Also, the Jews killed Jesus because he didn't conform to their traditions, they were constantly having a go at him because he put the works of God before their rules, yet he was doing so much to help and heal the hearts of people and they couldn't see God in him. So it's no wonder that when Paul came along that they would be against him too and the other apostles and deciples! Just found that there's more in acts 15, I thought I had read more about this. I'm just going to read it
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Jul 27, 2015 5:14:07 GMT -5
Maryhig, the reason why I think Paul wasn't all that keen on women was some of the things he made as rules for them. One of them was saying they couldn't talk in church. But there were others too that have led me to believe he wasn't someone who held women in high esteem like Jesus did. Also, when Jesus sent his apostles out, he told them to not go to the gentiles. Paul is the one that vetoed that decision and did go to the gentiles and decided circumcision etc wasn't needed. We really only have Paul's word on all these changes coming to him from Jesus. I don't believe it myself. He was a Hellenistic Jew with a bundle of very different ideas from the Jerusalem Jews. That is why he was at odds with them and in the few times he did go visit them Peter and James were really the only ones that bothered to see him and on at least one occasion he had to undergo some of the purification rituals so the people didn't attack him. Even then his life was in danger because of his stance within the new religion. For me, Jesus and Paul were so far apart in beliefs and attitude there was really no comparison. I do believe the current brand of Christianity did come from Paul and not Jesus. The early Jewish Christians held very different beliefs from what Christians do today. Jesus welcomed women into the church and in fairness Paul did have some with him too, but it quickly changed when the Romans entered the Christianity equation. The Gnostics did believe in equality between men and women as far as church leaders went and they also didn't believe Jesus was God. However, the RCC did a pretty good number on getting rid of most of their writings and scripture. If they hadn't found what is referred to as the Nag Hammadi Library, we still wouldn't know a whole lot about what they believed. These are my thoughts on the issue from what I have read and the bible also. Peter agreed with Paul regarding preaching to the gentiles. Acts 15 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 27, 2015 10:57:15 GMT -5
Maryhig, the reason why I think Paul wasn't all that keen on women was some of the things he made as rules for them. One of them was saying they couldn't talk in church. But there were others too that have led me to believe he wasn't someone who held women in high esteem like Jesus did. Also, when Jesus sent his apostles out, he told them to not go to the gentiles. Paul is the one that vetoed that decision and did go to the gentiles and decided circumcision etc wasn't needed. We really only have Paul's word on all these changes coming to him from Jesus. I don't believe it myself. He was a Hellenistic Jew with a bundle of very different ideas from the Jerusalem Jews. That is why he was at odds with them and in the few times he did go visit them Peter and James were really the only ones that bothered to see him and on at least one occasion he had to undergo some of the purification rituals so the people didn't attack him. Even then his life was in danger because of his stance within the new religion. For me, Jesus and Paul were so far apart in beliefs and attitude there was really no comparison. I do believe the current brand of Christianity did come from Paul and not Jesus. The early Jewish Christians held very different beliefs from what Christians do today. Jesus welcomed women into the church and in fairness Paul did have some with him too, but it quickly changed when the Romans entered the Christianity equation. The Gnostics did believe in equality between men and women as far as church leaders went and they also didn't believe Jesus was God. However, the RCC did a pretty good number on getting rid of most of their writings and scripture. If they hadn't found what is referred to as the Nag Hammadi Library, we still wouldn't know a whole lot about what they believed. These are my thoughts on the issue from what I have read and the bible also. But Jesus had only male apostles, and that didn't mean he didn't care about women, Mary was the first one to see him after he was resurrected! And Paul is the same, he spoke of rules for women but he also spoke about rules for men. Also, Jesus only told his deciples that they were not to go the way of the gentiles at that time. But once they had the strength of the spirit and were stronger in God, then Jesus told them to to out to all nations, through the world and preach the gospel. You can see the difference in Peter and Paul, after they had received the holy spirit they were much stronger in God. Strong enough to preach to the gentiles. I have never read about the gnostics, I will have to read about them. I'm yet to read about the dead sea scrolls or Edward Cooney I'll have to get round to it, but I get so busy. That when I do get to read, I read the bible, and have a look on here! Jesus had a following of women. His 12 apostles were male, but he had female disciples. He also had support from females. Jesus was supportive of women. That's what I have been saying. He defended them and spoke out for their rights. Paul traveled with some also, but for the most part he felt they must be kept under the man's thumb and not granted the same rights as a man. Not talking in church and waiting till you get home to ask your husband if you had questions etc. The Nag Hammadi Library is a collection of other groups sacred scriptures. Groups that followed Jesus and got edged out by the Roman backed church. In some ways you might resonate more with their writings than the ones that made the bible that were chosen by the RCC. Mary Magdalene was a beloved disciple and it shows in some of the vetoed gospels. But the RCC made her out to be a fallen woman for centuries. It's only recently that they have changed their tune about who Mary Magdalene really was. Peter didn't like Mary and spoke out against her many times but it is shown that the other apostles did support her and said she was privy to more of what Jesus said than they were even. gnosis.org/naghamm/nhlalpha.htmlwww.parsontom.com/books/The%20Gospel%20of%20Mary.pdf
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 27, 2015 11:06:14 GMT -5
Maryhig, the reason why I think Paul wasn't all that keen on women was some of the things he made as rules for them. One of them was saying they couldn't talk in church. But there were others too that have led me to believe he wasn't someone who held women in high esteem like Jesus did. Also, when Jesus sent his apostles out, he told them to not go to the gentiles. Paul is the one that vetoed that decision and did go to the gentiles and decided circumcision etc wasn't needed. We really only have Paul's word on all these changes coming to him from Jesus. I don't believe it myself. He was a Hellenistic Jew with a bundle of very different ideas from the Jerusalem Jews. That is why he was at odds with them and in the few times he did go visit them Peter and James were really the only ones that bothered to see him and on at least one occasion he had to undergo some of the purification rituals so the people didn't attack him. Even then his life was in danger because of his stance within the new religion. For me, Jesus and Paul were so far apart in beliefs and attitude there was really no comparison. I do believe the current brand of Christianity did come from Paul and not Jesus. The early Jewish Christians held very different beliefs from what Christians do today. Jesus welcomed women into the church and in fairness Paul did have some with him too, but it quickly changed when the Romans entered the Christianity equation. The Gnostics did believe in equality between men and women as far as church leaders went and they also didn't believe Jesus was God. However, the RCC did a pretty good number on getting rid of most of their writings and scripture. If they hadn't found what is referred to as the Nag Hammadi Library, we still wouldn't know a whole lot about what they believed. These are my thoughts on the issue from what I have read and the bible also. I've just been reading Galatians 2, where I think the dispute you are talking about is. But it says that Paul was sent to the gentiles in the knowledge of James Peter and John, also, that Peter mixed and spoke to the gentiles but hid this from the Jews which Paul thought was wrong. Paul said to Peter, if you walk in the manner of the gentiles, why do you compel the gentiles to live as Jews. Who are Jews by nature and not sinners of the gentiles. I see this as once the gentiles received Christ into their hearts they became renewed within, with the circumcision of the heart and not by the circumcision of the flesh. Not circumcised by man but by God through Christ. Here's where in Galatians 2 you can see that Peter James and John know that Paul is preaching to the gentiles and are ok with this. Even giving him Barnabas to help him. Galatians 2 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. Paul spoke of this in Romans 2 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. Whose praise is not from man but from God. Moses also spoke of this Deuteronomy 30 And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live. And later in the same chapter Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked Also, the Jews killed Jesus because he didn't conform to their traditions, they were constantly having a go at him because he put the works of God before their rules, yet he was doing so much to help and heal the hearts of people and they couldn't see God in him. So it's no wonder that when Paul came along that they would be against him too and the other apostles and deciples! Just found that there's more in acts 15, I thought I had read more about this. I'm just going to read it Mary, one thing that I don't believe happened as it is outlined is that the Jews killed Jesus. The Romans killed Jesus and yes I imagine some high up in the Sanhedrin helped them do that but in the end Jesus was killed for treason against the Roman Empire. Crucifixion was the punishment for that type of thing. I am pretty sure also from other things I have read that the Jews didn't ask for Barabbas to be released instead of Jesus because the Romans didn't do that. The bible is not accurate in that regard. But this inaccuracy has brought a great deal of strife to the Jews over the years. It's one of the reasons why Hitler killed so many in the holocaust. He also believed that the Jews killed his savior. Pilote was noted for his cruelty, he would never take the part of Jesus, and it is far more likely he never even saw Jesus just signed the papers to have him crucified. He was removed at one point because there were so many complaints issued against his rulings!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 27, 2015 11:07:31 GMT -5
Maryhig, the reason why I think Paul wasn't all that keen on women was some of the things he made as rules for them. One of them was saying they couldn't talk in church. But there were others too that have led me to believe he wasn't someone who held women in high esteem like Jesus did. Also, when Jesus sent his apostles out, he told them to not go to the gentiles. Paul is the one that vetoed that decision and did go to the gentiles and decided circumcision etc wasn't needed. We really only have Paul's word on all these changes coming to him from Jesus. I don't believe it myself. He was a Hellenistic Jew with a bundle of very different ideas from the Jerusalem Jews. That is why he was at odds with them and in the few times he did go visit them Peter and James were really the only ones that bothered to see him and on at least one occasion he had to undergo some of the purification rituals so the people didn't attack him. Even then his life was in danger because of his stance within the new religion. For me, Jesus and Paul were so far apart in beliefs and attitude there was really no comparison. I do believe the current brand of Christianity did come from Paul and not Jesus. The early Jewish Christians held very different beliefs from what Christians do today. Jesus welcomed women into the church and in fairness Paul did have some with him too, but it quickly changed when the Romans entered the Christianity equation. The Gnostics did believe in equality between men and women as far as church leaders went and they also didn't believe Jesus was God. However, the RCC did a pretty good number on getting rid of most of their writings and scripture. If they hadn't found what is referred to as the Nag Hammadi Library, we still wouldn't know a whole lot about what they believed. These are my thoughts on the issue from what I have read and the bible also. Peter agreed with Paul regarding preaching to the gentiles. Acts 15 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. Maybe, and who does the Catholic church have as their first pope? Paul lived longer than Peter and he had a huge influence on what we now see as Christianity. There is no doubt about that.
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Jul 27, 2015 11:55:55 GMT -5
I've just been reading Galatians 2, where I think the dispute you are talking about is. But it says that Paul was sent to the gentiles in the knowledge of James Peter and John, also, that Peter mixed and spoke to the gentiles but hid this from the Jews which Paul thought was wrong. Paul said to Peter, if you walk in the manner of the gentiles, why do you compel the gentiles to live as Jews. Who are Jews by nature and not sinners of the gentiles. I see this as once the gentiles received Christ into their hearts they became renewed within, with the circumcision of the heart and not by the circumcision of the flesh. Not circumcised by man but by God through Christ. Here's where in Galatians 2 you can see that Peter James and John know that Paul is preaching to the gentiles and are ok with this. Even giving him Barnabas to help him. Galatians 2 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. Paul spoke of this in Romans 2 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. Whose praise is not from man but from God. Moses also spoke of this Deuteronomy 30 And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live. And later in the same chapter Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked Also, the Jews killed Jesus because he didn't conform to their traditions, they were constantly having a go at him because he put the works of God before their rules, yet he was doing so much to help and heal the hearts of people and they couldn't see God in him. So it's no wonder that when Paul came along that they would be against him too and the other apostles and deciples! Just found that there's more in acts 15, I thought I had read more about this. I'm just going to read it Mary, one thing that I don't believe happened as it is outlined is that the Jews killed Jesus. The Romans killed Jesus and yes I imagine some high up in the Sanhedrin helped them do that but in the end Jesus was killed for treason against the Roman Empire. Crucifixion was the punishment for that type of thing. I am pretty sure also from other things I have read that the Jews didn't ask for Barabbas to be released instead of Jesus because the Romans didn't do that. The bible is not accurate in that regard. But this inaccuracy has brought a great deal of strife to the Jews over the years. It's one of the reasons why Hitler killed so many in the holocaust. He also believed that the Jews killed his savior. Pilote was noted for his cruelty, he would never take the part of Jesus, and it is far more likely he never even saw Jesus just signed the papers to have him crucified. He was removed at one point because there were so many complaints issued against his rulings! Why would Jesus be killed by the Romans when Pilate said he can find no fault in him? I don't believe it was the entire Jewish people because many wanted to hear him, but I believe they feared the Jewish leaders. Jesus himself said in John 7 and 8 that they were trying to kill him. I definitely believe that it was the Jewish leaders of the time. Jesus didn't do anything against the Romans, he came in peace. They had no reason to kill him. He wouldn't have been an enemy to them. He didn't want anything of this world and certainly didn't want anything that the Romans had. This is what the Jewish leaders wanted, someone to take them or of Roman control. But he came to free the Jews hearts, and free them from sin. Not Roman rule. He said when asked about paying taxes, give what belongs to caesar to caesar and what behind to God to God. So he was saying to follow the laws of the land as long as you don't contradict Gods laws, but give your heart to God! The leaders of the Jews even said the of they didn't do anything then the whole whole world would follow him! As for Hitler, if he blamed Jesus' death, then that was just an excuse, because Hitler went against the Jews from what I've read, because he thought they lost Germany the first world war.
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Jul 27, 2015 12:01:23 GMT -5
Peter agreed with Paul regarding preaching to the gentiles. Acts 15 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. Maybe, and who does the Catholic church have as their first pope? Paul lived longer than Peter and he had a huge influence on what we now see as Christianity. There is no doubt about that. They have Peter as there first pope because Jesus said, upon this rock I will build my church, and they believe they are that church built in that rock. But that rock is revelation, that is the revelation Peter received from God that Jesus was the Christ and all that believe this and follow Jesus in the way he taught, belong to his church. Right in off to make tea, talk to you later
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2015 12:02:20 GMT -5
I agree with you on this Maryhig. However, on Hitler I believe he wanted to kill the Jews because he was acknowledging there was an evil in his time - it's just that he needed to blame someone for it. Thus he said the Jews wanted war, and the Jews were overrunning Europe - meaning himself.
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Jul 27, 2015 12:10:36 GMT -5
I agree with you on this Maryhig. However, on Hitler I believe he wanted to kill the Jews because he was acknowledging there was an evil in his time - it's just that he needed to blame someone for it. Thus he said the Jews wanted war, and the Jews were overrunning Europe - meaning himself. Ah right, I don't know much about the second world war that's just what I've heard. More that I need to read about one day.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 27, 2015 12:31:06 GMT -5
Mary, one thing that I don't believe happened as it is outlined is that the Jews killed Jesus. The Romans killed Jesus and yes I imagine some high up in the Sanhedrin helped them do that but in the end Jesus was killed for treason against the Roman Empire. Crucifixion was the punishment for that type of thing. I am pretty sure also from other things I have read that the Jews didn't ask for Barabbas to be released instead of Jesus because the Romans didn't do that. The bible is not accurate in that regard. But this inaccuracy has brought a great deal of strife to the Jews over the years. It's one of the reasons why Hitler killed so many in the holocaust. He also believed that the Jews killed his savior. Pilote was noted for his cruelty, he would never take the part of Jesus, and it is far more likely he never even saw Jesus just signed the papers to have him crucified. He was removed at one point because there were so many complaints issued against his rulings! Why would Jesus be killed by the Romans when Pilate said he can find no fault in him? I don't believe it was the entire Jewish people because many wanted to hear him, but I believe they feared the Jewish leaders. Jesus himself said in John 7 and 8 that they were trying to kill him. I definitely believe that it was the Jewish leaders of the time. Jesus didn't do anything against the Romans, he came in peace. They had no reason to kill him. He wouldn't have been an enemy to them. He didn't want anything of this world and certainly didn't want anything that the Romans had. This is what the Jewish leaders wanted, someone to take them or of Roman control. But he came to free the Jews hearts, and free them from sin. Not Roman rule. He said when asked about paying taxes, give what belongs to caesar to caesar and what behind to God to God. So he was saying to follow the laws of the land as long as you don't contradict Gods laws, but give your heart to God! The leaders of the Jews even said the of they didn't do anything then the whole whole world would follow him! As for Hitler, if he blamed Jesus' death, then that was just an excuse, because Hitler went against the Jews from what I've read, because he thought they lost Germany the first world war. Jesus was getting a pretty big following and when he entered Jerusalem and challenged the temple priests for what they were doing in the temple with the money changers, he violated something that was pretty important to the Romans and that was their take on the money brought in by the Sanhedrin in their temple. They were charging people for everything. You had to buy the animals that you gave to the priests to grant you forgiveness. Jesus felt that healing and forgiveness should be free because it came from God. So he challenged them. As soon as he did that he sealed his fate. He was brought to the notice of corrupt priests and those priests didn't like being challenged. It was a good scam they had going and the Romans being their captor definitely also benefited from it. So, Jesus had to go. The death by crucifixion was usually for those that stole or committed some kind of treason against the Romans. So it wasn't the Jews in general that killed Jesus, although the Sanhedrin definitely had a role in it, it was the Romans that killed him and Pilate would never have done what the bible says about advocating for Jesus. He was a cruel man even by Roman standards. Hitler hated the Jews and blamed them for everything that went wrong in Germany. He was in alliance with the Bishop of the RCC in Germany and he felt that the Jews killed his savior. The church initially did back Hitler's persecution of the Jews. It was only afterward when the world learned just how horrific and to what lengths Hitler went to annihilate an entire people, that they stepped back and joined the world in their condemnation of Hitler. Those few verses in the bible have made life for the Jews pretty miserable over time. They say that the Jews traded Jesus for Barabbas because you were allowed to do that at the Passover. That is wrong, it was never something the Romans did. There is no historical account of that ever happening. Knowing the Romans it makes no sense they would do that. It was thrown in as part of the stories to distance the new Christianity from the fellow Jews.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 27, 2015 12:37:20 GMT -5
Maybe, and who does the Catholic church have as their first pope? Paul lived longer than Peter and he had a huge influence on what we now see as Christianity. There is no doubt about that. They have Peter as there first pope because Jesus said, upon this rock I will build my church, and they believe they are that church built in that rock. But that rock is revelation, that is the revelation Peter received from God that Jesus was the Christ and all that believe this and follow Jesus in the way he taught, belong to his church. Right in off to make tea, talk to you later Out of all the apostles, Peter was the least smart imo. He had a temper and he seemed to not like women any better than Paul did. They made a good pair. The question is though, are they a good representation of who Jesus was and what he was? I don't believe they were but they are what Christianity is now based on. I think it's unfortunate because some of the Gnostic beliefs were far more equal between the sexes, didn't have a hierarchy like the RCC etc. They also didn't believe Jesus was God so they were not trinitarians, which is one reason why the RCC went after their writings so thoroughly and tried to erase all their beliefs from the world. We are fortunate to have found what is now called the Nag Hammadi Library because it gives us some insight into what other early Christian groups believed before the RCC became the powerful religion it is.
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Jul 27, 2015 16:12:01 GMT -5
They have Peter as there first pope because Jesus said, upon this rock I will build my church, and they believe they are that church built in that rock. But that rock is revelation, that is the revelation Peter received from God that Jesus was the Christ and all that believe this and follow Jesus in the way he taught, belong to his church. Right in off to make tea, talk to you later Out of all the apostles, Peter was the least smart imo. He had a temper and he seemed to not like women any better than Paul did. They made a good pair. The question is though, are they a good representation of who Jesus was and what he was? I don't believe they were but they are what Christianity is now based on. I think it's unfortunate because some of the Gnostic beliefs were far more equal between the sexes, didn't have a hierarchy like the RCC etc. They also didn't believe Jesus was God so they were not trinitarians, which is one reason why the RCC went after their writings so thoroughly and tried to erase all their beliefs from the world. We are fortunate to have found what is now called the Nag Hammadi Library because it gives us some insight into what other early Christian groups believed before the RCC became the powerful religion it is. I will have to have a look at the gnostic gospels when I get time. But because I have faith I believe what is in the bible is what God wants to be there and there is enough in the bible to show is how to live. And what God wants us to do. Regarding the Romans and Jesus, again I believe the bible, because I believe Pilate would have wanted to let Jesus go. He would have seen no wrong in Jesus no reason for the Romans to crucify him. Also his wife warned him not to have anything to do with Jesus Matthew 27 When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him. I think he would have crucified him to quieten the Jews and that they threatened him saying that he's no friend of caesar John 19 therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin. And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar. When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 27, 2015 16:29:22 GMT -5
Knowing how the gospels were written after the fact by unknown clerics and not the apostles that knew Jesus, I don't have any problem believing the early Christians would write things that would make them good in the eyes of the Romans and separate themselves from the Jews which were in the Romans bad books. The little blurb they added about prisoners being released on the Passover for example is untrue. There is no documentation that the Romans ever did this and it's highly unlikely. Again, Pilate was not a nice guy at all even by Roman standards. He actually was pulled from governing Jerusalem not long after the death of Jesus because there were so many complaints about his cruel nature. That is what I have learned in my reading anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2015 17:17:13 GMT -5
From my memory, which may not be as reliable as it once was, Pilate was ordered back to Rome, Tiberius died before he got there, and in disfavor with Caius or Caligula, he fled north. Reportedly he took his own life, however the Eastern orthodox Church believes both his wife and him became Christians. So much for my memory, though.
Interestingly, for me anyway, Pilate's own records leave witness to Yahu'shuah's existence and crucifixion.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 27, 2015 20:35:08 GMT -5
From my memory, which may not be as reliable as it once was, Pilate was ordered back to Rome, Tiberius died before he got there, and in disfavor with Caius or Caligula, he fled north. Reportedly he took his own life, however the Eastern orthodox Church believes both his wife and him became Christians. So much for my memory, though.
Interestingly, for me anyway, Pilate's own records leave witness to Yahu'shuah's existence and crucifixion. Dennis where did you find that information? About Pilates records? I have never been able to find anything and as you know the Romans documented everything. That is one of the reasons some don't believe Jesus was a historical figure because there is no records. What there were have since been exposed as frauds because they were different from the way that Josephus wrote and as far as I've been able to determine he is the only one they say mentioned Jesus outside of the bible. I would be interested in reading that please.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jul 27, 2015 20:42:55 GMT -5
From my memory, which may not be as reliable as it once was, Pilate was ordered back to Rome, Tiberius died before he got there, and in disfavor with Caius or Caligula, he fled north. Reportedly he took his own life, however the Eastern orthodox Church believes both his wife and him became Christians. So much for my memory, though.
Interestingly, for me anyway, Pilate's own records leave witness to Yahu'shuah's existence and crucifixion. Dennis where did you find that information? About Pilates records? I have never been able to find anything and as you know the Romans documented everything. That is one of the reasons some don't believe Jesus was a historical figure because there is no records. What there were have since been exposed as frauds because they were different from the way that Josephus wrote and as far as I've been able to determine he is the only one they say mentioned Jesus outside of the bible. I would be interested in reading that please. From Wiki "The only physical evidence that confirms the existence of Pilate, are the Latin inscriptions found on a limestone block relating Pilate's tribute to Tiberius. The artifact, sometimes known as the Pilate Stone, was discovered in 1961 by an archeological team led by Antonio Frova." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate#Historicity_of_Pilate
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 27, 2015 20:50:07 GMT -5
Xna, but where does it say that Pilate executed Jesus? I've never heard there were records of his execution and they did keep records of everyone they killed. I have read a lot about Pilate and that time period and never heard there was records of his death. That's why I'm so interested in where Dennis found this information. I have a friend that we have an ongoing discussion together. He believes Christ was not a historical being but rather a concept and not a new one. I tend to believe he was a historical being but not what Christians think he was. So if I could find somewhere that actually recorded his death, that would be a pretty good indication he existed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2015 21:33:00 GMT -5
When I researched this, it was in libraries and long ago. I have no explanation why now only the record of a stone indicates Pilate's existence. From my recollection, there was reportedly confirmation sent to Rome of the crucifixion,, and later confirmed somehow by Justin Martyr's reference. This was long before Internet days. I will see what I can dig up.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 27, 2015 21:44:49 GMT -5
When I researched this, it was in libraries and long ago. I have no explanation why now only the record of a stone indicates Pilate's existence. From my recollection, there was reportedly confirmation sent to Rome of the crucifixion,, and later confirmed somehow by Justin Martyr's reference. This was long before Internet days. I will see what I can dig up. Thanks Dennis. I know Pilate existed, that is well documented. I just hadn't heard of records of Jesus' crucifixion before. I know what you mean though about finding the book again. I have read so many over the years and I can't remember where I read what half the time anymore. Don't put yourself out too much on this, but if it comes to you, I'd be interested in knowing.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jul 28, 2015 5:52:10 GMT -5
Xna, but where does it say that Pilate executed Jesus? I've never heard there were records of his execution and they did keep records of everyone they killed. I have read a lot about Pilate and that time period and never heard there was records of his death. That's why I'm so interested in where Dennis found this information. I have a friend that we have an ongoing discussion together. He believes Christ was not a historical being but rather a concept and not a new one. I tend to believe he was a historical being but not what Christians think he was. So if I could find somewhere that actually recorded his death, that would be a pretty good indication he existed. This piece of rock evidence was what I found doing a quick internet search.
|
|