Judaism and Eden and Eve

[shunyadragon]

Yes , but it seems that you get them wrong


Ofc , but the Jews were the reason why Jesus was arrested in the first place.
If he claimed any territorial authority the Romans would have not bothered with the Jews in the first place.There was no such rebelion and there is no evidence that suggest that theory.
He claimed spiritual authority.
It seems that 'King of The Jews' is being misunderstood.


Yes , but not in the way you describe it.
He never claimed authority on any territory.That is why the Romans found him not to be guilty acording to the Gospels.


Rebellion against Rome?
From where do you get these ideas?
He was crucified for religious reasons , since he claimed 'divinity' before he was sentenced to death.
There is no evidence that suggest otherwise.Nothing from the NT , nothing from Roman sources,nothing from third sources.

You seem to ignore , at the 'suggestion of the Jews' in the account of Josephus.

The NT confirms what Josephus wrote.

Read Matthew 26 and 27
(Matthew 27:24,25 can help you a little bit to understand it)
Read Mark 15
Read Luke 23
Read John 18,19

It seems that the evidence suggest a different theory then what is stated in your answers.



Exactly , so why did Jews had anything to do with Jesus in the first place?

Jesus claimed to be the promised Messiah, and specifically and clearly the King of the Jews and the prophesies are clear and specific that the promised MEssiah would restore the Jewish Kingdom.

There is no question being tried and convicted in a Roman Court and crucified under Roman Law is that the death of JEsus on the Cross is the responsibility of Rome.

Citing the scripture without provenance does not change the facts, Blaming Jews for the death of Jesus unfortunately resulted in blaming Jews for Millennia and calling Jews "Christ killers,"

 

[shunyadragon]

Also the Jews were not allowed to execute capital punishment for anything but desecration of the temple.
So if we take into account what was done in the Tample , why was Jesus not punished by the Jews, but by the Romans?

Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, which was a direct threat to Roman authority over Palestine.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes , but he answered that when he was questioned by Roman Authority.

John 18:
Jesus said, 'My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.'

'You are a king, then!' said Pilate.

Jesus answered, 'You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.'

'What is truth?' retorted Pilate. With this he went out again to the Jews gathered there and said, 'I find no basis for a charge against him.'

This is contrived to blame the Jews. Since JEsus was convicted and crucified under Roman Law for rebellion against Rome the Jews had no say in the trial or the implementation of Roman Law.

The Romans saw that Jesus was not a problem, that is why Pilate probably considered Jesus not to be guilty.
Remember that he was charged for being the King of the Jews.
Who brought up these charges , Romans?

Romans yes, because to be before a Roms court for conviction of treason ad crucifixion the charges brought would only be by Rome.

 

[Dimi95]

Jesus claimed to be the promised Messiah, and specifically and clearly the King of the Jews and the prophesies are clear and specific that the promised MEssiah would restore the Jewish Kingdom.

Define 'King of the Jews'
Define 'Messiah'
Define 'Jewish Kingdom'

There is no question being tried and convicted in a Roman Court and crucified under Roman Law is that the death of JEsus on the Cross is the responsibility of Rome.

In which way do you say it is responsibility? In a way that they are responsible for performing Roman Law, or in a way that they are responsible for his Death?
It makes a difference since there is no account of Jesus' rebellion against Rome.In fact , there is no such thing as 'Jesus' rebellion against Rome'.
Neither Biblical , Neither Roman , Neither third sources testify to that claim.

Citing the scripture without provenance does not change the facts,

Which facts? Your 'academic' understanding ?

I have given references from earliest Historians and i backed that up with Scripture.That you don't agree with it , is not my problem.

You should read carefully

Blaming Jews for the death of Jesus unfortunately resulted in blaming Jews for Millennia and calling Jews "Christ killers,"

No - no - no!
You will not make this personal!

What we have as data in History tells that , no one is blaming Jews all around the world to have done that.

 

[Dimi95]

Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, which was a direct threat to Roman authority over Palestine.

Again you have no evidence to support this claim.

 

[Dimi95]

This is contrived to blame the Jews. Since JEsus was convicted and crucified under Roman Law for rebellion against Rome the Jews had no say in the trial or the implementation of Roman Law.

You have no evidence to support this.
I can cite Roman Law to prove you otherwise.This is well established fact among historians.
Jesus did not break the Roman Law.

Romans yes, because to be before a Roms court for conviction of treason ad crucifixion the charges brought would only be by Rome.

Where are the evidence for treason?

 

[shunyadragon]

You have no evidence to support this.
I can cite Roman Law to prove you otherwise.This is well established fact among historians.
Jesus did not break the Roman Law.

Please cite independent historians without an agenda.

Where are the evidence for treason?

Claiming to be the Messiah King of the Jews.

 

[Dimi95]

Please cite independent historians without an agenda.

I will suggest another thing first

You present your sources in another topic , and i will answer them.
Scripture will not be considered as primary source.

You need also to realize that the onus is on you to prove otherwise.
I have all the neccessary sources that indicate historical accuracy in my argument.I don't need any reference.

You should read my answers.
I cited the earliest Non-Christian historical writings,i made the claim and i supported that with reasonable theory as evidence based position.
You have not answered any of that, so why is that would be the question?
Your qualifications do not make any difference to me regarding this topic.
History is not Natural Science.
Rationality is also intuitive.

But i will still give you the benefit of the doubt and answer the neccessary if you are being honest and maintain manners in discussion.
I am here to grow , but not do bow.
I have still more to learn about Science , but pretty much read all about that part of History.

Proving that Jews contributed to Jesus' crucifixion does not make Jews more guilty then the Romans.

I said 'contributed' in other answers regarding this discussion, which you ignored.I note that again.

That only means that Jews were the accusers and Romans the executors.

It does not have to do with who is guilty.

We are talking about who is responsible , not who is the executor.

You say that Jews are not guilty , but i suggest that they are responsible since they contributed to his arrest and crucifixion.Anybody who is responcible should take part of the guilt.

If you are not able to understand that , i have no interest in discussing it further.

Claiming to be the Messiah King of the Jews.

We need to define these titles , since you are so consistent on that.

 

[shunyadragon]

I will suggest another thing first

You present your sources in another topic , and i will answer them.
Scripture will not be considered as primary source.

You need also to realize that the onus is on you to prove otherwise.
I have all the neccessary sources that indicate historical accuracy in my argument.I don't need any reference.

There is no onus involved. You need to respond and give sources for your claim. Of course there is no proof involved here.

You should read my answers.
I cited the earliest Non-Christian historical writings,i made the claim and i supported that with reasonable theory as evidence based position.
You have not answered any of that, so why is that would be the question?
Your qualifications do not make any difference to me regarding this topic.
History is not Natural Science.
Rationality is also intuitive.

But i will still give you the benefit of the doubt and answer the neccessary if you are being honest and maintain manners in discussion.
I am here to grow , but not do bow.
I have still more to learn about Science , but pretty much read all about that part of History.

Proving that Jews contributed to Jesus' crucifixion does not make Jews more guilty then the Romans.

I said 'contributed' in other answers regarding this discussion, which you ignored.I note that again.

That only means that Jews were the accusers and Romans the executors.

It does not have to do with who is guilty.

We are talking about who is responsible , not who is the executor.

You say that Jews are not guilty , but i suggest that they are responsible since they contributed to his arrest and crucifixion.Anybody who is responcible should take part of the guilt.

If you are not able to understand that , i have no interest in discussing it further.



We need to define these titles , since you are so consistent on that.

No need to define these terms. The claims of Jesus Christ are clear and specific.

 

[metis]

Jesus did not broke any Roman law.
The Roman law tesrifies to that.

If he hadn't broke what the Romans were continuously concerned about, then this position simply ignores Jesus' action at the Temple.

Yes , but Barabbas is a different topic.
Barabbas did brake the Roman law , don't forget that.

I haven't.

-In the Mishnah (Jewish oral tradition, written in around AD 300) it records that 'they may slaughter the passover lamb for one….whom they have promised to bring out of prison'.
Now its not exactly clear but this certainly records a prisoner being released specifically at Passover.

There's a difference between a lamb and a human being as far as halacha [Jewish Law] is concerned. IMO, Paul uses the concept as Jesus being an unblemished lamb as a parallel not to be taken literally.

Ofc , but the Jews contributed to the arresting of Jesus,not the Romans.
They made the religious reasons to be political , but it seems that Pilate did not found Jesus guilty.

If Pilate had found Jesus not guilty, he never would have been crucified.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Jesus did not broke any Roman law.

1. He became violent in the temple, committing both vandalism (overturning the tables) and assault (attacking with a whip).
2. He claimed to be the King of the Jews, which is treason.

 

[Dimi95]

There is no onus involved. You need to respond and give sources for your claim. Of course there is no proof involved here.

You don't dictate the rules of the discussion.

You made a claim , i answered.

This is what you said:

True, the reason he was judged and crucified under Roman Law for claiming to be the King of the Jews threatening the sovereignty of Rome over Palestine.

I don't care about sources(academic or other) , if the argument does not stand.

History provides sufficient reasons to reject what you stated in your claim.
I have given quotes from earliest Historical documents.
You seem to have a problem responding to what has been presented , and you just pass the ball on the other side

It doesn't go that way , well at least not with me..

I don't build up intellect around specific sources.
That means that my morality is dependent on what society has given to me which ofcourse requires me to adopt a certain set of beliefs.
I don't do that , if the argument does not stand - it doesn't and that's just it.

No need to define these terms.

You are avoiding the question with your answers.

The claims of Jesus Christ are clear and specific.

Yes they are , but it seems that goes beyond your understanding.

 

[Dimi95]

If Pilate had found Jesus not guilty, he never would have been crucified.

It seems that you understand what i am saying.

I get your point also.
I have questions however.

If Jesus offended the Tample , then why he was not punished by the Jews , since they have the authority to do so in that case?

How is 'King of the Jews' any threat to Roman Law , since that title was also given to Herod by the Romans.That title means one who leads the Jews.
Herod built many fortresses, aqueducts, theatres, and other public buildings and generally raised the prosperity of his land but he was the centre of political and family intrigues in his later years.
Romans were well aware of Jewish religious tradition.

Jesus did not have an army , he wasn't in any military sense a threat to Roman Authority.We know that by the writings of Josephus.

Do you think that Romans crucified people just for claiming titles?
If that is so , then i will have to call on 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'

The arguments that are builded up upon this case do not match with earliest History records.

 

[shunyadragon]

You don't dictate the rules of the discussion.

I never stated I dictate the discussion, but your extreme religious bias and selective justification of your one-sided view.
It is historical reality that Jesus was tried, convicted crucified under Roman Law for claiming to be the Messiah and the the King of the Jews.

The subjective the thread is the ancient mythology of Creation and Adam and Eve.

 

[Dimi95]

1. He became violent in the temple, committing both vandalism (overturning the tables) and assault (attacking with a whip).

So the Jews had the right to punish him
You know that they were able to do that under Roman Auhtority ?

2. He claimed to be the King of the Jews, which is treason.

Treason to who ?

 

[shunyadragon]

So the Jews had the right to punish him
You know that they were able to do that under Roman Auhtority ?

Under Jewish authority Jesus would have been stoned to death.
It is a fact Jesus was tried, convicted under Roman authority.

Treason to who ?

Rome.

 

[Dimi95]

I never stated I dictate the discussion, but your extreme religious bias and selective justification of your one-sided view.

Ad hominem

You are engaging with poor tactic and no evidence.

It is historical reality that JEsus was tried, convicted crucified under Roman Law for claiming to be the Messiah and the the King of the Jews.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Not just 3 sentences in a row.

You have not provided any record from History to support your claims , you just use 'sources' to justify your set of beliefs.

The subjective the thread is the ancient mythology of Creation and Adam and Eve.

New threat then.
But i doubt you will want to continue , it's not your area , to be honest.

 

[Dimi95]

Under Jewish authority Jesus would have been stoned to death.

They had the chance , under Roman Law , if one offended the Tample , Jews were able to implement justice.
They did not , the question is why?

It is a fact Jesus was tried, convicted under Roman authority.

True.
The question is how it became Roman problem , since military force around Jesus is no where to be found.

The Romans were brutal , but not stupid.

Rome.

How?
The Romans themselfs gave the title 'King of the Jews' to Herod.It just meens one who leads the Jews.

There are two possibilities here.
Military or religious.
If there was any Military movement then the crucifixion would be justified , since that means clear threat to Roman Authority.


Well you should read more about Roman Law and religion , and then come back here and we can have meaningfull discussion.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ad hominem

You are engaging with poor tactic and no evidence.

Evidence provided and ignored based on an ancient tribal agenda.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Not just 3 sentences in a row.

There are absolutely no records available for extraordinary evidence during the life of Jesus. Just your religious agenda against the known facts of history.

 

[Dimi95]

Evidence provided and ignored based on an ancient tribal agenda.

There are absolutely no records available for extraordinary evidence during the life of Jesus. Just your religious agenda against the known facts of history.

You have provided not one record of earliest writings.You just used someone's explenation based on interpretation.

So your 'proof' becomes 'poof'