Who do you believe killed Jesus Christ? (Isaiah, Islam, Jerusalem)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Passion (I have no idea why it's called that) of Jesus is a classic scapegoat story.
The Romans had an authority problem, given that Barabbas and under rebels were causing trouble.
The Jews had a problem with Jesus. You know why many people leave the church, even if they aren't becoming secularized? Because the church is too welcoming, and not judgemental enough (totally serious). Well, we had this sort of thing, Jesus was preaching open defiance to the sacrificial system, to Sabbath laws, and especially had an unpopular peace and love Hippie outlook. We can't have that!
So, there was a custom of forgiving one criminal. In Rome's eyes Jesus was a harmless mystic who wouldn't even defend himself. The the eyes of the Pharisees, and the Sadducees, Jesus was a dangerous element to their tradition. So, when asked to forgive one person, nah we want our scapegoat. Especially, since they also want their rebel freed.
See? Classic scapegoat. Only there's a twist.
What if the scapegoat actually offered himself?
Well, then you get a story of a perfect sacrifice. And embellishments of course, about how he not only forgives the whole crowd (reasonable, since they were there at the time) but the whole world (which is a fish story).
The question then which is up to us, is whether to believe it that way or not. You want to believe Jesus forgave your sins, sure you seem like a nice guy, they're forgiven. You don't wanna believe that story, well, then you have to look at times you've made other people the scapegoat, and figure out how to answer for that.
As I understand that time in history, Palestine was a powder keg around 30 AD. Probably the reasonable people, like the Romans and the Jewish leaders, were trying their best to keep a lid on things.
When a charismatic figure like Jesus starts getting people all worked up, the Roman and Jewish leaders probably decided to rub him out.
It helped to keep the peace until about 70 AD, when all hell broke loose.
That's a very good summation of the times, and a very good reason why Jesus would have been killed by the Romans. The Romans did not take kindly to seditionists or rebels and were quick to make an example of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Yes it does. However, I am constantly trying to show that this story is not true and was an ongoing effort by the Christian Gospel -writers to shift the blame from Rome to Judaism.
I agree with you on this. From everything we know historically concerning Pontius Pilate (he was no friend of the Judeans) and his evolution from a callous ruler to a more sympathetic character conecerning Jesus when we finally reach the very anti-Semitic Gospel of John - it seems very clear that the culpability of the Romans was downplayed in order to allow the early Christians to spread their message with as little interference as possible. Politics!
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
Now, as I understood it, the common Christian narrative is that Jesus committed assisted suicide/immolation on the orders of his own 'spiritual/divine' father who was Jesus himself as well. Now, if Jesus was a god, how could anyone have killed him?
Though I do not believe that Jesus was God or even came back to life - the common theological teaching is that he became "flesh" in order that he might be able to experience what a god could not: suffering and death - the things a fleshly human can experience. Of course, this becomes kind of useless when he is raised from the dead, but that is the theological reasoning behind why a god could die.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nunnor
No it's a true fact.
It's highly likely that Jesus was crucified, but it's not possible to claim that it was a fact. The New Testament does not meet the historical criteria of being an independent witness that we can accept without critical evaluation. The very name "Gospel" means "Good News" and belies its biased approach. It never meant to be an objective historical account.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nunnor
There are enough scientific and historical evidence that the Bible is true
As others have pointed out - there is absolutely NO evidence that the Bible "is true" in the general sense that you have hinted at. Some historical elements of the Bible can be confirmed from extra-Biblical independent witnesses, but this in no way implies that the entirety of the Bible is an accuate historical account of events at all. As others have noted - the large bulk of evidence we have is actually against many of the Bible's historical claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
He is killed? Damn, I just started reading that book!!
Ha ha - someone needs to put a Spoiler Alert in their posts!
Don't worry, though - Jesus is kind of like a Marvel or DC comic character: death is never the end! Which reminds me of the hilarious attempt of Warner Bros. to try to convince the Christian Community that the new Superman movie has "Christian values". The irony is that many Christians are now saying that Superman does not really represent Jesus, but more accurately represents the Anti-Christ with his tendency to punch everything to solve problems ha ha!
"What does the S stand for, Jesus?"
"Well, in my heavenly world it means SMITE."
"Oh, well... we'll go with SUPER for now. Super Jesus."
"Whatever. I could SO smite you right now."
The Passion (I have no idea why it's called that) of Jesus is a classic scapegoat story.
The Romans had an authority problem, given that Barabbas and under rebels were causing trouble.
The Jews had a problem with Jesus. You know why many people leave the church, even if they aren't becoming secularized? Because the church is too welcoming, and not judgemental enough (totally serious). Well, we had this sort of thing, Jesus was preaching open defiance to the sacrificial system, to Sabbath laws, and especially had an unpopular peace and love Hippie outlook. We can't have that!
So, there was a custom of forgiving one criminal. In Rome's eyes Jesus was a harmless mystic who wouldn't even defend himself. The the eyes of the Pharisees, and the Sadducees, Jesus was a dangerous element to their tradition. So, when asked to forgive one person, nah we want our scapegoat. Especially, since they also want their rebel freed.
See? Classic scapegoat. Only there's a twist.
What if the scapegoat actually offered himself?
Well, then you get a story of a perfect sacrifice. And embellishments of course, about how he not only forgives the whole crowd (reasonable, since they were there at the time) but the whole world (which is a fish story).
The question then which is up to us, is whether to believe it that way or not. You want to believe Jesus forgave your sins, sure you seem like a nice guy, they're forgiven. You don't wanna believe that story, well, then you have to look at times you've made other people the scapegoat, and figure out how to answer for that.
The Bible, especially Mathew, is very contradictory on that. The sermon on the mount has a Jesus teaching pro-Moses laws, and anyone who teaches to not obey the laws are lesser in the kingdom of Heaven, and then in Matt 12 Jesus does just that. He teaches that David and the Priests broke the laws all the time, and they are still innocent in the eyes of God. To say Jesus preached open defiance is not lying, but it is also not telling the whole story, as Jesus ALSO taught to follow the laws of Moses.
No one killed "Jesus Christ" as no such person (especially as described in religion) ever existed.
There were many people call Jesus at the time, but the added title "Christ" was added years later in a continuing effort to control the actions and thoughts of people.
The fact that those who claim to follow such teachings have strayed to far from them and reinterpreted them to suit their own desires just goes to expose the fraud.
The Romans killed Jesus, they then saw the new Christian religion as a way to control the masses and stole it, adding to it beliefs from other faiths to add those people to the mix.
I would believe all of the first 3. There have been many religious leaders who have been willing to die (suicide cults, etc.), and his perception may well be that he was dying for his followers' sins. But both the Romans and Jews certainly had their reasons for wanting him gone. ("So like John before him, this Jesus must die.") ("Remember Caesar, you'll be demoted, you'll be deported, crucify him!")
(Yeah, so I think Tim Rice told the story as convincing as anyone; so sue me!)
If that's not how it actually went down...nobody will ever know.
The Romans controlled the political bodies...they controlled the economy- they controlled the army - they controlled law enforcement- they controlled the judiciary - The Romans were in total control and could have said no to the execution....The ROMANS - the state - the occupying forces killed Jesus the Christ - THE END
Christ got his revenge- He cursed Rome with "Christianity" going on 2000 years...You don't kill a good king and get away with it. Instead of the real teachings of Christ that would have brought heaven too earth..There is a perversion of the faith and mindset...Christianity brought about suffer...I actually believe Christ thought this through..."If I have to die to destroy these bastards and their empire I will"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
