why did they want to crucify jesus

[fantome profane]

That may be the case but it is not the point. The point is that people are speculating about Jesus based on this story that is not considered to be reliable history. Where is the cred in that?

I don't understand why this is so hard? Some parts of the story make sense given what we know about that time. And some parts don't. Why is this so hard?

 

[Desert Snake]

Thoughts please on that and especially on why do you believe they wanted to crucify Jesus.

Good question, and if you are saying what I think you are, from your comments, it does have a religious context. This is backed by the 'crown of thorns' (religious context) and the public manner of crucifixion. Part of this may have been an affirmation of 'working together' with the Pharisees, and also sending a message to other Jews & Israelites that ultimately, regardless of the Pharissetic participation in persecuting Jews and Israelites unwilling to bow to a foreign power, that the empire was still in charge.

 

[outhouse]

Well I think Jesus' Occupy the Temple protest did exactly that. That was the straw that broke the camels back for the establishment and showed them that this guy was serious business and not just some fly-by-night preacher. That he was going to mix action with his words.

one could occupy all one wanted, there were multiple versions of Judaism floating around.

He did not die due to religion, or how he taught. There would have been thousands of other teaches and wise men.


A Zealot causing a disturbance is another. And the thing is we even have his probably cause. The official temple coin required was a tyrian shekel, it had a pagan deity on it "Melqart" that would have been an insult to anyone worshipping in what was viewed as "gods house" but in my opinon, the corruption alone would have been enough. The whole pay to worship would have been a terrible burden on the peasant class, like Galilean Zealots.

 

[Skwim]

this thing makes no sense, why God needs Crucifixion of his son for forgiving human beings?

Who knows why god would need such a thing, but he did as explained in John 3:16

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

​

I would think god could have just waved his hand and declare everyone saved.

 

[steeltoes]

Most likely. At least this fits with what we know historically about that period.

Exactly, but totally meaningless speculation about the gospel Jesus. Why do we engage in this meaningless speculation, because the gospel Jesus is a myth, that is why we change it all up, to make him real, to make a place in history for him, a place that was never intended of him.

 

[Thana]

It is not a different translation.

Here is a link to my source Was Jesus crucified on a tree (according to Peter), cross (according to others), or never got crucified (according to Islam)?

Again. They are not contradictions, What do you think a cross is made of?

It does not matter, To believe that Jesus did not die as the bible claims, is just wishful thinking.

The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.[1]
The context of the passage is the six-day Great Fire of Rome that burned much of the city in AD 64 during the reign of Roman Emperor Nero.[2] The passage is one of the earliest non-Christian references to the origins of Christianity, the execution of Christ described in the Canonical gospels, and the presence and persecution of Christians in 1st-century Rome.[3][4]
Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source.[5][6][7] Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[8]

 

[fantome profane]

Exactly, but totally meaningless speculation about the gospel Jesus. Why do we engage in this meaningless speculation, because the gospel Jesus is a myth, that is why we change it all up, to make him real, to make a place in history for him, a place that was never intended of him.

It is not "meaningless speculation". It is speculation based on good historical information. That is what historians do.

 

[steeltoes]

Again. They are not contradictions, What do you think a cross is made of?

It does not matter, To believe that Jesus did not die as the bible claims, is just wishful thinking.

Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source.

[5][6][7] Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.

The problem is that it is too late to be of any merit, almost 100 years after the fact. Tacitus was merely passing on what was commonly believed by Christians of his time.

 

[steeltoes]

It is not "meaningless speculation". It is speculation based on good historical information. That is what historians do.

It is based on good historical information perhaps, but meaningless to apply it to biblical Jesus.

We don't apply good historical information to Superman aka Clark Kent, so why are we applying it to a godman that worked miracles?

 

[outhouse]

because the gospel Jesus is a myth,

Funny how you accuse others of meaningless speculation, then throw out buckets full youtself

that is why we change it all up, to make him real, to make a place in history for him, a place that was never intended of him.

Nothing is changed up at all.

No one is trying to make the temple real, or the oppression and corruption, or that Galilean were viewed as Zealots who opposed the tyranny.

 

[fantome profane]

It is based on good historical information perhaps, but meaningless to apply it to biblical Jesus.

We don't apply good historical information to Superman aka Clark Kent, so why are we applying it to a godman that worked miracles?

Why do you think that the "mythical Jesus" is not also speculation? Either way you are engaged in speculation. The only question is that which speculation is based on the better evidence.

 

[outhouse]

so why are we applying it to a godman that worked miracles?

Because he existed as a travlening teacher who took over Johns movement when he was murdered.

God men, were common REAL people who lived. The living Emperor was the "son of god" long beofre Jesus took on that tag.


Again, Jesus has historicity, and you have not shown differently

 

[Thana]

The problem is that it is too late to be of any merit, almost 100 years after the fact. Tacitus was merely passing on what was commonly believed by Christians of his time.

Mmm,
I think I'm going to trust the Historians over you though.

 

[Desert Snake]

Mmm,
I think I'm going to trust the Historians over you though.

Which historians ,the ones who say Jesus was some largely anonymous fake messiah with may be a couple of illiterate followers?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

one could occupy all one wanted, there were multiple versions of Judaism floating around.

He did not die due to religion, or how he taught. There would have been thousands of other teaches and wise men.


A Zealot causing a disturbance is another. And the thing is we even have his probably cause. The official temple coin required was a tyrian shekel, it had a pagan deity on it "Melqart" that would have been an insult to anyone worshipping in what was viewed as "gods house" but in my opinon, the corruption alone would have been enough. The whole pay to worship would have been a terrible burden on the peasant class, like Galilean Zealots.

One did not just occupy the Temple, he was staging a protest and during that protest he and his followers were preventing anyone from entering or leaving the Temple. He disrupted the commerce of the Temple during Passover. He was costing them money.

 

[Thana]

Which historians ,the ones who say Jesus was some largely anonymous fake messiah with may be a couple of illiterate followers?

How would a historian determine whether or not a messiah was real or fake?
I don't think they make those claims, At least none that I have seen.

 

[outhouse]

his followers were preventing anyone from entering or leaving the Temple.

Where did you pull this from????


He didnt have enough followers to do that. Nor could they have stopped anything at all. Were talking about hundreds of thousands of people

 

[Sabour]

Again. They are not contradictions, What do you think a cross is made of?

It does not matter, To believe that Jesus did not die as the bible claims, is just wishful thinking.

So, you say Jesus peace be upon him was crucified and he did not come to fulfill the law as he said? This is what my OP is addressing

 

[Desert Snake]

How would a historian determine whether or not a messiah was real or fake?

Lol it's assumed He's not.

Only Christians think Jesus is the Messiah.

Wow.

 

[Sleeppy]

I don't know what exactly you meant by martyrs, but if they died doing Allah's will, than I hope I will be one of them.

This world is not a way to measure things. Our reward is paradise. This life is a short test.

6:32 And in no way is the present life (Literally: the lowly life, i.e., the life of this world) (anything) except a plaything and a diversion, and the Last Residence is indeed most charitable for the ones who are pious. Do you then not consider?

I know a person who is doing Allah's will dies happy and in peace with himself. Do all people having millions of dollars and everything they wanted in their life die happy?

All of Allah's creation are subservient to Him-- not only the angels and jinn, but all of His creation. There is no free will; not even Allah is free, because He is constrained in Himself, having one unchangeable, indivisible will. God introduced Himself first, as "I AM". Mankind is in the image of the Most High, saying "we are". And this is why the messengers remind us again, and again saying, "The LORD, your God is One." As mere ignorant men, we perceive ourselves as the gods of the earth, doing our individual wills. God is God, and His creations are His will being done.


Happiness is God's to give and take. He gives what He wills, and everyone and everything will continue in His will.