The Contribution of "JW's" to RT

[Desert Snake]

I can't speak for JW's and their attempts to make that verse talk about themselves; but Christ as messiah was what God had in mind from the beginning of time, so on the topic of traditional replacement theology: there's actually no replacement taking place when one says that Christ is the fullfillment of God's promise to Abraham. That's just a continuation of what was originally promised would happen.

True. The New Testament and the gospels are not 'replacement theology'.

 

[Rise]

I
So what was the "founding of the world"?

It was not the creation of the planet as many assume. It was the foundation of the 'kosmos' or the world of mankind. This began with Abel. The original language has to do with the laying down of seed, as in conception for human procreation.

Kosmos is the sum total of everything, either of people or the universe as a whole, so it seems rather arbitrary and unsubstantiated to claim kosmos is a term that only applies to everything since Abel.

 

[savagewind]

Matthew 28:19 Young's Literal Translation
having gone, then, disciple all the nations, (baptizing them -- to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit),

If you check it out it will look like MAKE disciples is added at a later date to what was written.

Truth is like wheat. It is nourishment and good. It makes seeds which make more wheat and so on and so on.......

Truth belongs to God alone. I do not know if we can agree on that. Let's just say either truth exists or it exists with God.

The ancient Jews were commanded to "inculcate" God's law into their (own) children. I have read the Bible. I can see nowhere where it is commanded to inculcate anything into anyone else. Religion, the false ones and the true ones, have taken it upon themselves to inculcate each member of all nations with their version of the truth (the truth that belongs to God).

So what does Jesus mean saying at Matthew 28:19? Does it not mean to be and to find disciples everywhere? When the wheat gets stronger than the weeds then the nations can be "baptized" into truth. Truth is a good thing. The nations want it. Am I being overly optimistic? It would be a marvelous thing to see Earth at rest and at peace. It IS what most people want. But to have it the Jehovah's Witnesses in particular (not just them, I know) say each saved person will become just like them. Please tell me how that is good?

"You are my witnesses" are not people. They are words, are they not?

Matthew 28:20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away

Isaiah 55:11 so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.

Matthew 5:18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I do not care for replacement theology in any of its forms.
The JW's have an even greater problem because of their almost unreadable version of the Bible. (As are all versions based on word for word translations.)

The Old testament should be read and understood as a Jewish scripture; it is at its best when interpreted by a Rabbi. Its history and forecasts relate to Jewish events.
For a Christian it Gives context and some understanding of the religious environment extant in Jesus lifetime. It neither foretells nor confirms Christian theology or events.

The Jewish Covenant with God still stands unaltered. It is between the Jewish people and God.
The new Covenant describes a Christian relationship with God. It is between a Christian individual and God.

 

[Desert Snake]

I do not care for replacement theology in any of its forms.
The JW's have an even greater problem because of their almost unreadable version of the Bible. (As are all versions based on word for word translations.)

The Old testament should be read and understood as a Jewish scripture; it is at its best when interpreted by a Rabbi. Its history and forecasts relate to Jewish events.
For a Christian it Gives context and some understanding of the religious environment extant in Jesus lifetime. It neither foretells nor confirms Christian theology or events.

The Jewish Covenant with God still stands unaltered. It is between the Jewish people and God.
The new Covenant describes a Christian relationship with God. It is between a Christian individual and God.

your sentiment aside, it is standard practice for people to integrate the entire Bible into their religion. Whether you choose to or not should not influence the way others choose to worship.

cheers.

 

[Shibolet]

If taken in context of what you are referring RT to be, that would include just about every Christian church also.

You can say that again! I like to watch TV-Evangelistic shows and none can open his or her mouth without promoting the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology.

 

[Shibolet]

How amazing for a Jewish person to object to Replacement Theology.

You mean we have indeed been replaced; insn't that so? How about a quote for that?

It wasn't just Paul who indicated that Jehovah had abandoned Judaism. Jesus himself pronounced sentence upon a stiff-necked people who could not be corrected.

Has Jehovah abandoned Judaism? Take a look at Jer. 46:28. "Of the other nations, the Lord will eventually make an end of them; but of Israel, He will only chastise as we deserve. We have indeed been punished but the Lord has never abandoned Judaism. Unless you prove me otherwise with a legitimate quotation, and not from the Hellenists who wrote the books of the NT.

He said, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the killer of the prophets and stoner of those sent forth to her,—how often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks together under her wings! But you people did not want it. Look! your house is abandoned to you. For I say to you, you will by no means see me from henceforth until you say, ‘Blessed is he that comes in Jehovah’s name!’ (Matt 23:37-39)

Jerusalem and Zion are indeed references to the Jewish People. And the Jewish People never killed the prophets. If Ahab, a king or his pagan wife Jezebel killed a few of the prophets, it does not mean at all that the Jewish People killed the prophets. How about quoting the only Scriptures that Jesus considered the Word of God, aka the Tanach?

Jesus was pronouncing judgment against "Jerusalem", as representing his Father's people on earth. God fulfilled his promise to Abraham by producing a seed in his family line, to save mankind, but after he had kept his part of the bargain, the Jews, at the behest of their religious leaders, responded by having their Messiah executed. Jesus' words reflect his Father's anguish at having to abandon his incorrigible people.

Pilate was the one who had Jesus executed because of what his disciples did by acclaiming him king of the Jews at the entrance of Jerusalem. The Jewish authorities on the contrary, tried to protect Jesus from the cross by asking him to rebuke his disciples to stop acclaiming him king of the Jews. Read Luke 19:38-40. Besides, it was against the law for the Sanhedrin to gather in the middle of the night to decide on any kind of crime. Jesus had already condemned himself by allowing his disciples to do that. Hence, Pilate's own verdict on the top of Jesus' cross: INRI.

They not only rallied for Jesus' death but even cursed their children with his blood. They got their wish. (Matt 27:24, 25)

It makes no sense at all that a Jew who came to confirm God's Law, the most important thing in the life of a Jew, that the Jews would ask the occupier Romans to crucify him. (Mat. 5:17-19) Unless you are okay with contradictions in the NT.

Read your history in the Hebrew scriptures and tell me why God would want to keep forgiving a people who could never keep his commands? (Josh 24:19, 20; Isa 2:6-9) Who tried his patience again and again to the point that he wanted to exterminate them.

That's what you want God to have done, but He didn't. Again, Jer. 46:28. Punishments only to Israel, but never abandonment.

How often did they fall away to the worship of the Baals? How often were the prophets sent to correct them and instead of heeding the message, they killed the messenger.

Prove that the People killed the prophets. You can't. If a king used of his power to kill a prophet, it does not meant that the whole People did it. Regarding idolatry, I do not deny; but we have been punished with exiles and the Lord has taken us back.

Yet to keep his covenant in place, God forgave them.....until Messiah came. He then gave them first option to become disciples of his son...a remnant responded as it was foretold, but as a nation, they did the unthinkable.

Messiah has come already. First, learn who is the Messiah. Read Habakkuk 3:13. "The Lord comes forth to save His People; to save His anointed one. That's what Messiah is: The anointed one of the Lord. The Messiah is collective and not an individual. An individual is born, lives his span of life and eventually dies. Are we supposed to expect a new Messiah in every generation? Obviously not. The Messiah is supposed to remain as a People before the Lord forever. (Jer. 31:36)

To this day, the Jews are still waiting for their Messiah. They have never, as a nation, acknowledged Jesus as the one who "came in Jehovah's name".

According to whom, to Paul? But of course! Who else? He declared it himself to his disciple Timothy in 2 Tim. 2:8 that Jesus was the Messiah and resurrected according to his gospel which was not the same as the gospel of the Jesus' disciples.

God's promise to Abraham was, "...I shall surely bless you and I shall surely multiply your seed like the stars of the heavens and like the grains of sand that are on the seashore; and your seed will take possession of the gate of his enemies. And by means of your seed all nations of the earth will certainly bless themselves due to the fact that you have listened to my voice.’”

Did you understand this quote above? The Jewish People are that seed of Abraham. That's by means of Israel that the Lord manifests His glory in the sight of the Nations. Read Ezekiel 20:41.

The Abrahamic Covenant was always going to be for the blessing of faithful ones of ALL nations. This covenant was kept in force after Jesus pronounced God's abandonment of Israel by changing the definition of what it meant to BE Jewish.

The evelasting token for the Abrahamic Covenant is the circumcision. Do ALL the nations perform it? No, they don't. So, what are you tallking about?

Paul said, "For he is not a Jew who is one on the outside, nor is circumcision that which is on the outside upon the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one on the inside, and [his] circumcision is that of the heart by spirit, and not by a written code. The praise of that one comes, not from men, but from God."

That's Paul at his best in the promotion of his policy of Replacement Theology.

The "Israel of God" now included both Jews and gentiles; people of all nations who had accepted Jesus as Messiah....just as it was meant to be from the beginning.

(Gal 6:16)

Yes, the Gentiles are welcome to join in the Jewish Covenant with the Lord, but according to Halacha or Jewish law. Read Isaiah 56:1-8. They cannot vandalize Judaism with their own inventions. The Pauline policy of grafting in the Jewish tree is simply vandalism of a religion by another.

As q connor said.... Why single out JW's?

The "JW's" was only a case for illustration due to a personal experience with them. But Christians in general cannot open their lips from a pulpit without promoting the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology.

The Jews will never admit that they missed identifying their Messiah and Christians will continue to believe that the Jews were responsible for Jesus' death.

Yes, as a result of Antisemitism. But they can't prove it without getting involved and a web of contradictions.

Can't go back and rewrite history...it's there for all to read.

You are right; that's where the history of Antisemitism started: In the NT.

Time will tell who was right.

We don't have to wait for time. We can tell it today by reading the NT without Chrisstian preconceived notions.

 

[JayJayDee]

The JW's have an even greater problem because of their almost unreadable version of the Bible. (As are all versions based on word for word translations.)

Funny but it is the KJV that I find unreadable. A dead language benefits no one, especially those who might be embarking on a new venture into scripture.
The NWT does not translate with the same bias as other translations whose scholars were determined to promote their unscriptural doctrines.
The NWT is easy to read, easy to understand and carries no misleading capital letters into verses that do not warrant such. The "I AM" of John 8:58 springs to mind. "egò eimí'" in the Greek is an expression used in many statements made by Jesus, (Matt 18:20 e.g.) yet in no other use of 'egò eimí' is the claim made that Jesus is stating that he is the great "I AM" of Exodus 3:14. That is outright dishonesty.

Words are translated uniformly in each case, not as a product of the bias of men.
"Hell" for example is translated from the Hebrew she’ohl′ and its Greek equivalent hai′des, which refer to the common grave of mankind, or gravedom, and hence are always used in the singular. For this reason many modern translations have not followed the practice of the King James Version, in which she’ohl′ and hai′des are alternately rendered by the words “hell,” “grave,” and “pit”. Can you see the anomaly? "Hell" as understood in Christendom is not merely the grave or a pit. Who decides where to put the right word in the rendering?

Christendom’s doctrine of punishment in hell originated with the early Babylonians. The Catholic idea of remedial suffering in purgatory goes back to the early Egyptian and Oriental religions. Limbo was copied from Greek mythology. Prayers and offerings for the dead were practiced by the Etruscans.

The Old testament should be read and understood as a Jewish scripture; it is at its best when interpreted by a Rabbi. Its history and forecasts relate to Jewish events.
For a Christian it Gives context and some understanding of the religious environment extant in Jesus lifetime. It neither foretells nor confirms Christian theology or events.

You don't have to be Jewish to understand the Jewish religion at the time of Christ. It had clearly deviated into meaningless and burdensome tradition as Jesus stated. It's history is there for all to read in the Hebrew writings. They were incorrigible and abandoned by God once he had fulfilled his promise to produce the Messiah. Jesus said so. (Matt 23:37-39) A new nation of spiritual Israel was brought forth to keep the Abrahamic covenant in place.

"Sym′e·on has related thoroughly how God for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name." (Acts 15:14)

James is quoting Peter's words here, not Paul's.

The Jewish Covenant with God still stands unaltered. It is between the Jewish people and God.

Yes, but with a change in the definition of what it means to BE Jewish.
"For he is not a Jew who is one on the outside, nor is circumcision that which is on the outside upon the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one on the inside, and [his] circumcision is that of the heart by spirit, and not by a written code. The praise of that one comes, not from men, but from God." (Rom 2:28, 29)

Why would we be surprised that many Jews and even some Christians will excuse Israel even today because they do not understand that God has made them one of the nations. How are they behaving any differently to all the other warring nations on this planet? Have they ever accepted Jesus as Messiah? Individuals have, but as a nation they did not live up to the terms of their covenant. God did not break it...they did.

When Jesus was being impaled and he said "forgive them Father for they know not what they do"....he wasn't talking about the Jews. They knew exactly what they were doing and had cursed themselves and their children with Jesus' blood. (Matt 27:24-26)
You think God took that lightly?

The new Covenant describes a Christian relationship with God. It is between a Christian individual and God.

This is true. The "Israel of God" (Gal 6:16) is made up of both Jews and gentiles of all nations who have come to accept Christ as the anointed of Jehovah. (Acts 10:34, 35) They must choose to become Christians, whereas those in Israel were born into a life of dedication. They had no choice or excuse but to serve God and obey him. Their living example shows us how God deals with his own people, what he expects of them, and what happens when they veer off course. God's covenant was based on their obedience. They never lived up to their part of the bargain. Even now, they want their cake and eat it too.

 

[Shermana]

Jayjaydee

Christendom’s doctrine of punishment in hell originated with the early Babylonians

By all means please prove that the concept of purgatorical hell originated with the Babylonians, I'd love to see the source for that.

When Jesus was being impaled and he said "forgive them Father for they know not what they do"....he wasn't talking about the Jews. They knew exactly what they were doing and had cursed themselves and their children with Jesus' blood. (Matt 27:24-26)
You think God took that lightly?

Oh, so you think he was talking about Pontius Pilate? Not like he could have possibly been talking about the crowds who weren't clued in that he really was the Messiah or anything.

 

[JayJayDee]

By all means please prove that the concept of purgatorical hell originated with the Babylonians, I'd love to see the source for that.

From Wiki, which seems to be a fairly innocuous source.....

"The cultures of Mesopotamia (including Sumeria, the Akkadian Empire, Babylonia and Assyria), the Hittites and the Canaanites/Ugarits reveal some of the earliest evidence for the notion of a Netherworld or Underworld. From among the few texts that survive from these civilizations, this evidence appears in the Epic of Gilgamesh, the “Descent of Inanna to the Netherworld,” “Baal and the Underworld,” the “Descent of Ishtar” and the “Vision of Kummâ.”

Concerning Judaism....

Early Judaism had no concept of Hell, though the concept of an afterlife was introduced during the Hellenic period, apparently from neighboring Hellenistic religions. It occurs for example in Book of Daniel. Daniel 12:2 proclaims "And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some to everlasting life, Some to shame and everlasting contempt." Judaism does not have a specific doctrine about the afterlife, but it does have a mystical/Orthodox tradition of describing Gehenna. Gehenna is not Hell, but originally a grave and in later times a sort of Purgatory where one is judged based on one's life's deeds, or rather, where one becomes fully aware of one's own shortcomings and negative actions during one's life.

The notion of Hell is from Greek influence, not Biblical teaching. "The early Jews had no concept of hell" but read into Daniel's words something that could be construed as such. There was no teaching of an afterlife either....these came later under Hellenic influence.

Hell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh, so you think he was talking about Pontius Pilate? Not like he could have possibly been talking about the crowds who weren't clued in that he really was the Messiah or anything.

It was already prophesied that only a remnant of the Jewish people would find salvation.

Paul quoted Isa 10:22 to demonstrate that...."Moreover, Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Although the number of the sons of Israel may be as the sand of the sea, it is the remnant that will be saved." (Rom 9:27)

It was not the Jewish nation who rejected Jesus that he asked to be forgiven, it was not Pontius Pilate either, as he symbolically washed his hands of the blood of Jesus and declared him innocent, giving him into the hands of the Jews to "see to it themselves". (Matt 27:24, 25)

I believe it was the Roman soldiers who actually carried out the command to have Jesus impaled that Jesus was asking forgiveness for. They did not know that they were putting God's own son to death, they were just following orders.
They had heard about this Jesus and the problems he was creating among the Jews. They had no doubt read the sign that was nailed to the stake to humiliate him. (Matt 27:54)

After Jesus expired and an earthquake shook the land and bodies came out of their graves, "the army officer and those with him watching over Jesus, when they saw the earthquake and the things happening, grew very much afraid, saying: “Certainly this was God’s Son.”

Have you done no research on these things Shermana?
You must search outside the box for confirmation that what you believe is true.

 

[Shermana]

Have you done no research on these things Shermana?

Research for what things? Total speculation that you have nothing but your own personal opinion on the matter?

Do you have any links on this issue that Jesus was referring to the Roman soldiers? Or is this entirely your own original research that is not backed by anyone else?

Also, the "Salvation" that Jesus spoke of also seems to come in the variety of "Saved from the impending Earthly destruction".

You must search outside the box for confirmation that what you believe is true.

So does everyone. The question is, what is the box? I like to think I look outside the box but I try to keep things in line to what fits at the same time. If anything I can pray and wait for an answer in a dream, it's better than baseless speculation.

 

[JayJayDee]

Research for what things? Total speculation that you have nothing but your own personal opinion on the matter?

No, but the surrounding text gives you some idea. Look at the context.

Do you have any links on this issue that Jesus was referring to the Roman soldiers? Or is this entirely your own original research that is not backed by anyone else?

As to those to whom Jesus was referring when he asked his Father to forgive them, the preceding verse says: “And when they got to the place called Skull, there they impaled him and the evildoers, one on his right and one on his left.” Then Jesus’ words asking forgiveness, after which the record goes on to say: “Furthermore, to distribute his garments, they cast lots.” Obviously Jesus was not asking God to forgive the evildoers who were impaled with him, for the two of them were not doing anything to Jesus. Nor could Jesus have had in mind the chief priests who were responsible for his death, for they did know what they were doing, having handed Jesus over out of malice and envy. (Mark 15:10)

Jesus’ words therefore could only refer to the Roman soldiers to whom had the task of impaling Jesus after stripping him of his garments; it was they who were doing something to Jesus at the time and who did not know or realize what they were doing.

As I mentioned, they did not know that they were impaling the Son of God. They were just obeying the orders of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate, who had yielded to the insistence of the Jewish mob by handing Jesus over to his executional forces to be impaled. Consequently, it could only have been the Roman soldiers about whom Jesus spoke.

Also, the "Salvation" that Jesus spoke of also seems to come in the variety of "Saved from the impending Earthly destruction".

What do you think "salvation" actually means for Christ's followers? What are we getting saved from in our time? Do you see an 'impending earthly destruction' looming now?

The question is, what is the box? I like to think I look outside the box but I try to keep things in line to what fits at the same time.

I know that you are already 'outside the box' as a Nazarene Jew, (outside of the mainstream, I mean) but in order to know what fits in the "box", it's always beneficial to examine all things to see if they belong in the box in the first place.

If anything I can pray and wait for an answer in a dream, it's better than baseless speculation.

It's not baseless speculation, but prayer is always a good idea when in doubt.

 

[Shermana]

So your argument that Jesus is necessarily talking about the Roman soldiers alone is because the next verse says that they want on to cast lots for this clothes?

No thanks, I'll pass.

I notice that you limit the choices to the evildoers besides him and the Romans. Are you forgetting the Jews who ordered him to the crucified?

 

[JayJayDee]

So your argument that Jesus is necessarily talking about the Roman soldiers alone is because the next verse says that they want on to cast lots for this clothes?

No thanks, I'll pass.

That is entirely up to you. He was speaking about the ones who were casting lots for his garments. We know that was the Roman soldiers.

I notice that you limit the choices to the evildoers besides him and the Romans. Are you forgetting the Jews who ordered him to the crucified?

Are you forgetting that Jesus said that those who warranted forgiveness 'did not know what they were doing'? The Jews knew exactly what they were doing. Even when they were offered a way to redeem themselves by releasing a prisoner, they asked for a convicted criminal to be released whilst they still called for Jesus' execution...even though he had not been found guilty of anything deserving of death.

They knew who Jesus was...they just didn't want to believe it. They chose to believe the ones who told lies about him. That was their choice back then....as it is today.

 

[Shermana]

They knew who Jesus was...they just didn't want to believe it. They chose to believe the ones who told lies about him. That was their choice back then....as it is today.

As much as I believe the idea that the Jews believe those who tell lies about Jesus, you have no way of proving that the crowd KNEW he was who he claimed to be and weren't honestly thinking he was as the Pharisee leaders accused him of doing.

That is entirely up to you. He was speaking about the ones who were casting lots for his garments. We know that was the Roman soldiers.

Please consider saying "I believe and it's my opinion" unless you'd like to provide some links that agree with you that back your position. Otherwise, please recognize that you have in no way proven necessarily defacto that this is the case. Thanks.

 

[JayJayDee]

As much as I believe the idea that the Jews believe those who tell lies about Jesus, you have no way of proving that the crowd KNEW he was who he claimed to be and weren't honestly thinking he was as the Pharisee leaders accused him of doing.

It is not as cut and dried as that Shermana.

Peter's speech to the Jews after Jesus' death tell us something about that.

"Therefore let all the house of Israel know for a certainty that God made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom YOU impaled.”
Now when they heard this they were stabbed to the heart, and they said to Peter and the rest of the apostles: “Men, brothers, what shall we do?” Peter [said] to them: “Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the free gift of the holy spirit."

"Therefore those who embraced his word heartily were baptized, and on that day about three thousand souls were added" (Acts 2:36-41)

As a nation, along with their wicked leaders, Judaism failed to acknowledge their Christ, but individuals still responded and repented of the deed of crying out in ignorance for Christ's death. Undividually, they could do this, but the nation who were dedicated to God by birth, never did.

Please consider saying "I believe and it's my opinion" unless you'd like to provide some links that agree with you that back your position. Otherwise, please recognize that you have in no way proven necessarily defacto that this is the case. Thanks.

Would my rewording of something make it more or less truthful? :sad:

What I state is not just my opinion. I have an entire brotherhood in the world who believe exactly as I do. (1 Cor 1:10)

I have used scripture to back up everything I have told you. You are under no obligation to accept it. But neither can you say you didn't know. Once a person is made aware of something, he can never declare ignorance on the matter afterwards.

Like the Jews who were under the influence of their religious leaders and were part of the mob that called for Christ's execution...there is only one way to take the condemnation for ANY sin from off our shoulders.....that is to humbly accept the truth and repent. Those individuals who did back in the first century had a huge load of guilt removed from their shoulders by a God who forgives in a large way. (Isa 55:7)

Their "being stabbed to the heart" over what they had done was what saved them....and this is also what saves us.

 

[Shibolet]

It is not as cut and dried as that Shermana.

Peter's speech to the Jews after Jesus' death tell us something about that.

"Therefore let all the house of Israel know for a certainty that God made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom YOU impaled.”
Now when they heard this they were stabbed to the heart, and they said to Peter and the rest of the apostles: “Men, brothers, what shall we do?” Peter [said] to them: “Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the free gift of the holy spirit."

Hi JJD, I would like to remind you that Peter could not have been the speaker to deliver that speech in Acts 2:14-36 for two reasons: First, he was a Jewish man who was around when Jesus was crucified and he knew very well that the Romans had crucified Jesus and not the Jews. Therefore, he would not slander his People so despicably. And second, if you read the introductory statements of the speaker in verse 14, he addresses the Jewish assembly in the followings words: "You who are Jews here in Jerusalem, hear what I have to say." Being a Jew himself, Peter would never address the Jews as if he was a stranger. Therefore, I don't even believe that such a speech was ever delivered. Written yes, but not delivered. Luke himself was the writer of it and attributed to Peter many years after Jesus had been gone.

 

[JayJayDee]

Hi JJD, I would like to remind you that Peter could not have been the speaker to deliver that speech in Acts 2:14-36 for two reasons: First, he was a Jewish man who was around when Jesus was crucified and he knew very well that the Romans had crucified Jesus and not the Jews. Therefore, he would not slander his People so despicably.

Shibolet, do you believe that Jesus blamed the Jews for his death, or the Romans?

"The greatest travesty of justice ever committed was the trial and sentencing of Jesus Christ. Prior to his trial the chief priests and older men of the people took counsel together with a view to putting Jesus to death. So the judges were prejudiced and had their minds made up on the verdict before ever the trial took place. (Matt 26:3, 4) They bribed Judas to betray Jesus to them. (Luke 22:2-6) Because of the wrongness of their actions, they did not arrest him in the temple in the daytime, but they waited until they could act under cover of darkness and then sent a crowd armed with clubs and swords to arrest him in an isolated place outside the city. (Luke 22:52, 53)

Jesus was then taken first to the house of Annas, the ex-high priest, who still wielded great authority, his son-in-law Caiaphas being the high priest at the time. (Joh 18:13) There Jesus was questioned and was slapped in the face. (John 18:22) Next he was led bound to Caiaphas the high priest. False witnesses were sought by the chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin. Many such witnesses came forward but could not agree on their testimony, except two who twisted Jesus’ words recorded at John 2:19. (Mt 26:59-61; Mr 14:56-59) Finally Jesus was put under oath by the high priest and questioned as to whether he was the Christ the Son of God. When Jesus answered in the affirmative and alluded to the prophecy at Daniel 7:13, the high priest ripped his garments and called upon the court to find Jesus guilty of blasphemy. This verdict was rendered, and he was sentenced to death. After this they spit in his face and hit him with their fists, taunting him, contrary to the Law. (Matt 26:57-68; Luke 22:66-71; compare Deut 25:1, 2 with John 7:51 and Acts 23:3)

After this illegal night trial the Sanhedrin met early in the morning to confirm their judgment and for a consultation. (Mark 15:1) Jesus was now led, again bound, to the governor’s palace, to Pilate, since they said: “It is not lawful for us to kill anyone.” (John 18:31) Here Jesus was charged with forbidding the paying of taxes to Caesar and with saying that he himself was Christ a king. Blasphemy against the God of the Jews would not have been so serious a charge in the eyes of the Romans, but sedition would. Pilate, after making futile attempts to get Jesus to testify against himself, told the Jews that he found no crime in him. Discovering, however, that Jesus was a Galilean, Pilate was happy to send him to Herod, who had jurisdiction over Galilee. Herod questioned Jesus, hoping to see a sign performed by him, but Jesus refused. Herod then discredited Jesus, making fun of him, and sent him back to Pilate. (Luke 23:1-11)

Pilate now tried to release Jesus in harmony with a custom of that time, but the Jews refused, calling for the release of a seditionist and murderer instead. (John 18:38-40) Pilate therefore had Jesus scourged, and the soldiers again mistreated him. After this, Pilate brought Jesus outside and tried to get his release, but the Jews insisted: “Impale him! Impale him!”

Finally he issued the order to have Jesus impaled. (Matt 27:15-26; Luke 23:13-25; John 19:1-16)" (Excerpts Insight Volumes WTBTS)

So who was it that wanted Jesus dead? The Jews or the Romans?

And second, if you read the introductory statements of the speaker in verse 14, he addresses the Jewish assembly in the followings words: "You who are Jews here in Jerusalem, hear what I have to say." Being a Jew himself, Peter would never address the Jews as if he was a stranger.

The Jews under the leadership of the Pharisees, had alienated themselves from their God by adhering to their oral traditions instead of God's written word.
Did it ever occur to you that Jesus viewed his own people as 'strangers'? He knew the Father intimately but the religious leaders in Jerusalem had caused the 'sheep of the house of Israel' to become "lost". (Matt 10:5, 6)

Therefore, I don't even believe that such a speech was ever delivered. Written yes, but not delivered. Luke himself was the writer of it and attributed to Peter many years after Jesus had been gone.

I understand that Jews are uncomfortable about the issues surrounding Jesus' death, and that they have been taught something completely different to what Christians believe happened, but the scriptures make it clear.

Acts 2:14, "But Peter, taking his stand with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them, “Men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words."

2:22, “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know"

2:29, "My brothers, I can speak to you confidently about the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried and his tomb is with us to this day."

2:36, "So let the entire house of Israel know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” (Mounce Reverse-Interlinear New Testament)

I think Peter knew exactly who he was speaking to and why.

Jesus' words also make it clear....he gave an illustration in Matthew 21:33-41 and then he said, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: ‘A stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this was the Lord’s doing, and it is amazing in our eyes’? Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.” and the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and upon whomever it falls, it will crush him When the ruling priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he was speaking about them. And although they wanted to arrest him, they were afraid of the crowds because they held him to be a prophet." (Matt 21:42-46)

This is when Jesus spoke about a new nation of God's people who would "produce the fruits" that Israel failed to produce. It would be be made up of both Jews and gentiles; "The Israel of God". (Gal 6:15, 16) It follows through on the promise God made to Abraham that "ALL the nations will bless themselves" due to Abraham's obedience. (Gen 22:18)

I know you do not wish to believe this, as it is a bitter pill to swallow. But this is what I believe is true.

 

[Flankerl]

The Jews will never admit that they missed identifying their Messiah and Christians will continue to believe that the Jews were responsible for Jesus' death.

So how is that world peace working out? Oh that will happen at his second coming(which is entirely a christian invention to explain why he's kinda late)? How convenient.

Time will tell who was right.

- Days after Jesus' death: "He'll return soon"
- Years after Jesus' death: "He'll return soon"
- Hundreds of Years after Jesus' death: "He'll return soon"
- Almost two thousand years after Jesus' death: "He'll return soon"

It's almost like he's dead.

 

[Desert Snake]

So how is that world peace working out? Oh that will happen at his second coming(which is entirely a christian invention to explain why he's kinda late)? How convenient.

Religion bashing. Now that's pleasant