Who was Jesus Christ?

[YoursTrue]

No. That is anti-semetic.
@metis is right. Jesus was a Jew, and so were the disciples.
it was the SANHEDRIN that despised him. He threatened their power and status,
by claiming that he had direct authority from "the Father" i.e. G-d

So are you saying that he was not held up for blasphemy by the Jewish religious leaders? How is that, by the way, anti-semitic?

 

[YoursTrue]

..or MOST amongst the Sanhedrin..

They were Jewish, weren't they? And I asked the question, if a woman decides to have an abortion and goes to an abortionist, is she guilty of arranging for an abortion?

 

[YoursTrue]

No. That is anti-semetic.
@metis is right. Jesus was a Jew, and so were the disciples.
it was the SANHEDRIN that despised him. He threatened their power and status,
by claiming that he had direct authority from "the Father" i.e. G-d

So again -- it was the Jewish religious leaders (MOST of them) that decided to bring Jesus to the Roman authority to be -- what? Given a castle? or to be put to death? Did Pilate think Jesus was guilty and worthy of being put to death? What do you think? Since having faith in Jesus and his Father can give life even to those who have died, including many Jews and others, how is that antiSemitic? True the Sanhedrin did not pound the nails into Jesus' flesh. But Jews and non-Jews can be saved because of Jesus' sacrifice.

 

[YoursTrue]

..or MOST amongst the Sanhedrin..

"And the chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false testimony against Jesus so that they might put him to death;" Matthew 26:59. So what were they trying to do??

 

[YoursTrue]

..or MOST amongst the Sanhedrin..

Is that anti-semitic?

 

[muhammad_isa]

So are you saying that he was not held up for blasphemy by the Jewish religious leaders?

Not exactly..
Jesus was NOT guilty of blasphemy, but as far as some of his Jewish brothers were concerned,
he was. They did not recognise his authority.

..but you just want to make it all about Jesus claiming to be G-d .. which he didn't.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Jews and non-Jews can be saved because of Jesus' sacrifice.

..and that makes no sense.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

But Jews and non-Jews can be saved because of Jesus' sacrifice.

His death was not a sacrifice. He was killed by the Romans because they thought he was a troublemaker. It was a senseless death that accomplished nothing.

Being "saved" is a Christian notion. It doesn't exist in Judaism, and is certainly not taught in the Tanakh.

 

[Stonetree]

For those that are prepared to do a bit of reading, you might like this.

Westar Institute | The Jesus Seminar

he Jesus Seminar was organized in 1985 to renew the quest of the historical Jesus and to report the results of its research to the general public, rather than to a limited audience of specialists.

www.westarinstitute.org

The Jesus Seminar was set up in 1985 to review the writings about Jesus and attempt to find the "historical Jesus". There were initially 30 "scholars", later to be joined by over 200 others. "... the Scholars of the Jesus Seminar represent a wide array of Western religious traditions and academic institutions. They have been trained in the best universities in North America and Europe".

The following is a quote from the site.

• Jesus of Nazareth did not refer to himself as the Messiah, nor did he claim to be a divine being who descended to earth from heaven in order to die as a sacrifice for the sins of the world. These are claims that some people in the early church made about Jesus, not claims he made about himself.
• At the heart of Jesus’ teaching and actions was a vision of a life under the reign of God (or, in the empire of God) in which God’s generosity and goodness is regarded as the model and measure of human life; everyone is accepted as a child of God and thus liberated both from the ethnocentric confines of traditional Judaism and from the secularizing servitude and meagerness of their lives under the rule of the empire of Rome.
• Jesus did not hold an apocalyptic view of the reign (or kingdom) of God—that by direct intervention God was about to bring history to an end and bring a new, perfect order of life into being. Rather, in Jesus’ teaching the reign of God is a vision of what life in this world could be, not a vision of life in a future world that would soon be brought into being by a miraculous act of god.

How they went about it and more details about their findings can be found on the site.

Thank You for the reference....

 

[YoursTrue]

His death was not a sacrifice. He was killed by the Romans because they thought he was a troublemaker. It was a senseless death that accomplished nothing.

Being "saved" is a Christian notion. It doesn't exist in Judaism, and is certainly not taught in the Tanakh.

IF you believe there was a man thought by some to be the Messiah in the first century, then according to the scripture, Judas Iscariot turned him in to the Sanhedrin. Judas Iscariot was not a Roman, was he? That is, if you believe the account at all.
As far as being saved, that's another discussion for another time.

 

[YoursTrue]

His death was not a sacrifice. He was killed by the Romans because they thought he was a troublemaker. It was a senseless death that accomplished nothing.

Being "saved" is a Christian notion. It doesn't exist in Judaism, and is certainly not taught in the Tanakh.

IF you believe there was a man thought by some to be the Messiah in the first century, then according to the scripture, Judas Iscariot turned him in to the Sanhedrin. Judas Iscariot was not a Roman, was he? That is, if you believe the account at all.
Further, I was reading about animal sacrifices at the Temple by the Jews. What were some of the reasons animal sacrifices were made at the Temple prior to its destruction?

 

[YoursTrue]

His death was not a sacrifice. He was killed by the Romans because they thought he was a troublemaker. It was a senseless death that accomplished nothing.

Being "saved" is a Christian notion. It doesn't exist in Judaism, and is certainly not taught in the Tanakh.

You know this for a fact that the Romans thought he was a troublemaker? (Remember the trial at the Sanhedrin and Judas Iscariot please. Also what Pontius Pilate thought.)

 

[YoursTrue]

His death was not a sacrifice. He was killed by the Romans because they thought he was a troublemaker. It was a senseless death that accomplished nothing.

Being "saved" is a Christian notion. It doesn't exist in Judaism, and is certainly not taught in the Tanakh.

Perhaps you can offer an explanation for the following command if God did not require sin offerings for ATONEMENT, in this case a bull:
"and every day you shall offer a bull as a sin offering for atonement. Also you shall purify the altar, when you make atonement for it, and shall anoint it to consecrate it." (Exodus 29:36)

 

[IndigoChild5559]

IF you believe there was a man thought by some to be the Messiah in the first century, then according to the scripture, Judas Iscariot turned him in to the Sanhedrin. Judas Iscariot was not a Roman, was he? That is, if you believe the account at all.
As far as being saved, that's another discussion for another time.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

I think a historical Jesus existed, but that we cannot trust the collections of legends that are the gospels to know what he did and said. I think it is fair to say that he was a Jew who practiced second temple Judaism, went around teaching Torah, and n all likelihood, he was executed by the Romans for being a trouble maker. IOW he tried to be the messiah and failed. I think anything beyond that is pretty speculative.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You know this for a fact that the Romans thought he was a troublemaker? (Remember the trial at the Sanhedrin and Judas Iscariot please. Also what Pontius Pilate thought.)

Yes. Romans routinely crucified troublemakers for very little.

I do not know that there was ever a Sanhedrin trial. Even the gospel accounts depict an invalid Sanhedrin trial (meeting at night, Jesus not being allowed to call witnesses, etc), not the real thing. So I don't know that this trial even occurred, but if it did, it was invalid.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Perhaps you can offer an explanation for the following command if God did not require sin offerings for ATONEMENT, in this case a bull:
"and every day you shall offer a bull as a sin offering for atonement. Also you shall purify the altar, when you make atonement for it, and shall anoint it to consecrate it." (Exodus 29:36)

Exodus 29:36 describes a sin offering. Sin offerings atone for unconditional sins.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

I think a historical Jesus existed, but that we cannot trust the collections of legends that are the gospels to know what he did and said. I think it is fair to say that he was a Jew who practiced second temple Judaism, went around teaching Torah, and n all likelihood, he was executed by the Romans for being a trouble maker. IOW he tried to be the messiah and failed. I think anything beyond that is pretty speculative.

Hmm I was just reading about Passover and wonder if you think that's a bunch of myths and legends too about how the Jews were released from Egyptian bondage.

 

[YoursTrue]

Exodus 29:36 describes a sin offering. Sin offerings atone for unconditional sins.

So do you think God accepted all types of sin offerings? I had a relative who went to the ocean (she was Jewish) and watched as the rabbi threw a chilcken in it to suffice as a sin offering since I don't think bulls are offered now, are they? Have you ever heard of that type of offering, I mean throwing a dead chicken in the ocean?

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

I think a historical Jesus existed, but that we cannot trust the collections of legends that are the gospels to know what he did and said. I think it is fair to say that he was a Jew who practiced second temple Judaism, went around teaching Torah, and n all likelihood, he was executed by the Romans for being a trouble maker. IOW he tried to be the messiah and failed. I think anything beyond that is pretty speculative.

Please let's go back to Moses and figure if you think that the account in the Tanach is also a collection of legends, and Moses was never put in a basket and Pharaoh's daughter didn't get him?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Hmm I was just reading about Passover and wonder if you think that's a bunch of myths and legends too about how the Jews were released from Egyptian bondage.

I don't know how much of the story is historical and how much is legend. I do think it is based on history. But honestly, this is the wrong question. It doesn't really matter if it is history or legend. It only matters what it teaches.