Genuine Question Regarding Anti-Semitism

[CMike]

Why would the Romans want Jesus dead?

Why not?

It didn't take much for them to kill someone.

 

[CMike]

I thought jesus supposedly sacrificed himself for everyone's sins?

Therefore, wouldn't he solely be responsible for his own death.

If not, he wasn't sacrificing himself.

 

[outhouse]

If Jesus was found guilty only of the so called “cleansing of the Temple”

You did not need or get a trial a trial, if Jewish

I doubt that would have been sufficient grounds for execution

Something else must have warranted his execution

Nope

 

[outhouse]

Plus remember that Pilate was called back to Rome to account for why he had so many executed.

Exactly


That's why he would not even have to mention kingdom of god.


How easy a phrase could be perverted in time

 

[CMike]

The bigger question is why there is so much hatred of Jews in the Christian bible?

 

[roger1440]

Why not?

It didn't take much for them to kill someone.

The Romans weren’t dumb. They wouldn’t have executed a Jew during Passover week in Jerusalem without good reason. They would have wanted to keep the peace at any cost during that week, not risk jeopardizing it.

 

[outhouse]

The Romans weren’t dumb. They wouldn’t have executed a Jew during Passover week in Jerusalem without good reason.

So the NT is wrong where it says Galilean blood was spilled, and thieves were placed on a cross???????????

They would have wanted to keep the peace at any cost during that week, not risk jeopardizing it

And setting examples of what not to do! DID JUST THAT.


They were blood thirsty killers

 

[roger1440]

So the NT is wrong where it says Galilean blood was spilled, and thieves were placed on a cross???????????



And setting examples of what not to do! DID JUST THAT.


They were blood thirsty killers

I assume you are referring to (Luke 13:1) “Now on the same occasion there were some present who reported to Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices”. Luke doesn’t give any details about the incident. I can’t comment on that verse. It would appear thieving was a serious crime to the Romans. The Taliban in modern times would cut off the hand of one found guilty of theft. If a guy was found guilty of rape, the guy would have his, well, you know the rest. The Romans would have wanted to stop trouble before it starts, not start it themselves.

 

[outhouse]

The Romans would have wanted to stop trouble before it starts, not start it themselves.

And arresting a person trying to start a war by himself, by arresting him in the dark of night would not be considered stopping trouble before it started

 

[outhouse]

Dude, take a class on this. Your speaking blind here to all aspects.

 

[roger1440]

And arresting a person trying to start a war by himself, by arresting him in the dark of night would not be considered stopping trouble before it started

I would hardly see a lone man starting a war with the Roman Empire as a threat, maybe a nut case, but that’s another story.

 

[Shad]

A lone man can gain a following easily enough especially in a border province with many issues. Also consider Rome's track record of internal warfare was at an all time high only a few decades before.

 

[outhouse]

I would hardly see a lone man starting a war with the Roman Empire as a threat, maybe a nut case, but that’s another story.

so what your saying is

it is impossible for one man to incite a riot

 

[paarsurrey]

First used in La Vie de Mohammed, Prophète d’Allah. Coined by two Muslims. However the term these days is tossed around by many and used as false allegations against even moderate criticism of Islam. It shuts down a discussion as those that use it do so when no counter-argument is proposed.

Please quote the link.

Regards

 

[roger1440]

so what your saying is

it is impossible for one man to incite a riot

He could not have been alone. Someone must have been there to write the story. At the very least Jesus had four or five close followers or disciples, plus Mary Magdalene. Passover is a family event. A group of at the very least would be six that entered Jerusalem. This group of at least six would have wanted to see family and friends. Now this group is much larger.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The problem I often see is that groups like CAIR toss the word around precisely to quiet legitimate criticism. It's similar to the reprehensible debate tactic of declaring your opponent to be a "racist". It's like a psychological priming mechanism - it doesn't have to be true to be an effective debating technique.

So, if you don't want people to criticize Islam, call 'em "Islamophobes" when they start criticizing. Pretty soon you've got the media thoughtlessly backing you up.

I agree that the term is misused. Much like communist was misused a few decades ago. I can't think of any major religion that can be openly criticized without fox news or other media backing the religion. Though I think we are currently in the backlash from when it was "okay" to simply be Islamaphobic in the media (all forms) and we will oscillate back to a reasonable position I hope.

 

[paarsurrey]

Islam appears to be the fastest growing religion because many women "convert" to marry Muslim men and Muslims tend to have larger families; children are born Muslims according to Islam.

Is it wrong?

Regards

 

[Shad]

Please quote the link.

Regards

Go to a library, look up the book on the database, find the book, open the book, read the book. Not every book is available online for free as authors write books as a way to earn a living. I use my university's databases as a resource. If you do not have a similar source it is not my problem. Look for the book yourself online or buy it. I am certainly not going to break the law by finding a copy for you. I certainly am not going to do the work you can do yourself.

 

[paarsurrey]

Sorry I am way behind in this thread.

This is what I posted in the original thread I wanted to add to it.

Because people need some people (group) to shift blame to.

I had several employees.

One person I treated very well IMO. He got into a fight with his girlfriend who also worked for me. They were both on a road trip in a hotel room.

The man got arrested and jailed. They were both drinking before hand.

I bailed him out of the jail. I read the police report and believed he wasn't at fault, although they both acted stupidly. I paid $1,200 for his lawyer, which he was supposed to repay me as well as the bail. He never did.

At another point as a bonus I paid for him and his hotel to have a nice room in an expensive casino/hotel. He was convinced that I only gave it to him because I got it for free. I didn't. It was an expensive room.

I learned he called me a cheap jew.

I had two or three other employees whom I learned also called me a kike and a cheap jew. This is despite being very fair and generous to all of them.
__________________


I think it's this same jealousy that drives the hatred for Israel.

Before Israel declared it's independence in 1948 it bought worthless land from arab land owners at high prices.

Jews from all over the world came and worked the land and made it prosperous.

Arab villages could have worked with the Jews to share in this knowledge and make their own land properous. Instead they attacked.

There is a hatred when someone has something you don't. This is despite them getting it via their hard work.

When Israel left gaza it also left greenhouses that were doing very well. However, when Israel left the gazans destroyed the greenhouses simply because it came from the jews.

How rationale was that :slap:

It all comes from hatred to jealousy.

[

COLOR="Magenta"]Jews from all over the world came and worked the land and made it prosperous.

Arab villages could have worked with the Jews to share in this knowledge and make their own land properous. Instead they attacked.[/COLOR]

I agree with you. The Arabs should have worked.

When Israel left gaza it also left greenhouses that were doing very well. However, when Israel left the gazans destroyed the greenhouses simply because it came from the jews.

I agree with you. The Arabs should have not destroyed the greenhouses.

Regards

 

[roger1440]

Oh, I do believe that would have been more than enough, especially since the Romans also benefited heavily from the overcharge "tax" collected, along with the brutality of going after anyone that they thought were subversive, or going in that direction. Also, Jesus talking about his "kingdom" certainly would have raised some serious red-flags. Plus remember that Pilate was called back to Rome to account for why he had so many executed.

There is no mention of the “cleansing of the Temple” in any of the accounts of Jesus’s trial in the canonical Gospels or any other Gospel. It would have been very easy for the Gospel writers to construct a story in Jesus’s defense. Did they forget? I don’t think so. According to the Gospel accounts, Jesus was not found guilty of any crime. “Then Pilate announced to the chief priests and the crowd, "I find no basis for a charge against this man."” (Luke 23:4) In All likelihood Jesus was executed simply to avoid an uprising.

“49 Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, "You know nothing at all! 50 You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish."” (John 11:49-50)
​

Biblical scholar Elaine Pagels believes that may be true quote from Caiaphas. If we look closely at that verse Caiaphas appears to be justifying the execution of Jesus not because he is guilty of any crime, but because Caiaphas did want Israel to suffer the wrath of the Romans. It was feared by the Jewish authorities that Jesus was an instigator. They wanted to stop Jesus permanently so the situation would not escalate out of control.

The very thing the Jewish authorities feared actually happened a generation after the death of Jesus. A Roman soldier exposes his private parts in the Temple. A riot breaks out. In the end, 10,000 Jews are dead.

“NOW after the death of Herod, king of Chalcis, Claudius set Agrippa, the son of Agrippa, over his uncle's kingdom, while Cumanus took upon him the office of procurator of the rest, which was a Roman province, and therein he succeeded Alexander; under which Cureanus began the troubles, and the Jews' ruin came on; for when the multitude were come together to Jerusalem, to the feast of unleavened bread, and a Roman cohort stood over the cloisters of the temple, (for they always were armed, and kept guard at the festivals, to prevent any innovation which the multitude thus gathered together might make,) one of the soldiers pulled back his garment, and cowering down after an indecent manner, turned his breech to the Jews, and spake such words as you might expect upon such a posture. At this the whole multitude had indignation, and made a clamor to Cumanus, that he would punish the soldier; while the rasher part of the youth, and such as were naturally the most tumultuous, fell to fighting, and caught up stones and threw them at the soldiers. Upon which Cumanus was afraid lest all the people should make an assault upon him, and sent to call for more armed men, who, when they came in great numbers into the cloisters, the Jews were in a very great consternation; and being beaten out of the temple, they ran into the city; and the violence with which they crowded to get out was so great, that they trod upon each other, and squeezed one another, till ten thousand of them were killed, insomuch that this feast became the cause of mourning to the whole nation, and every family lamented their own relations.” (Josephus, The Wars Of The Jews, Book 2, Chapter 12, Paragraph 1) http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/war-2.htm
​