Preaching Christianity

[classical_hero]

You know what would be really good? If people stopped quoting the Old Testament as a guide for a Christian life. There's nothing remotely Christian in the entire Old Testament.

In the Old Testament we see what happens to those who disobey God, and the results are not very pleasant to those involved. Even the Israelites, God's chosen people, were many times punished by God for disobeying him. Ezekiel 18:20-24 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
21 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.
22 All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.
23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?
24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.
There has to be a penalty when people sin, but if a sinner turns away from the sin that he had sinned, then God will reward him, and in reverse, if someone is righteous and they sin, then God will punish him. It is a constant theme of the Old Testament. We have plenty of examples of what God does to disobedience, but there is an example of what God does when people turn from their sin. God had placed a judgement on the city of Nineveh, and when the judgement was preached to them, they repented of their sins and God spared the city from the Judgement. Pretty simple, if you ask me.

What the New Testament is about that Jesus has fulfilled the Law and as a result we can trust in him to save us from the penalty of sin, thus we are no longer subject to God's wrath, if we have trusted in him.

 

[DroopyTofu]

Along with "free will", all that "God works in mysterious ways" is a load of hooey! God works in mysterious ways = I don't care what you say because I know God exists, I don't understand it but I just know. Don't ask me to explain it because I can't, I don't know enough about the world or universe to counter your point. BUT I know he exists!

So basically during a debate you have no answers, stick your fingers in your ears and go LALALALALALALALA!

That goes with the people who say; "God said it, I believe it, That settles it!". If you don't have an answer, just say "I don't know." Otherwise you sound stupid.

I'm saying that I don't really know. Would you rather I try and talk in circles even though I don't even know what I'm talking about? Instead of trying to make up a reason, I just gave the best answer I know.

edit: Fr8, that's not very nice. I ask some rather personal questions I'd rather not see the answers ridiculed.

Besides, I feel his answer "I don't know" is refreshingly honest. Many Christians pretend to understand God's intentions, desires and personal secrets as if they've got a personal hotline with God and we just have to take their word for it.

Thank you, Ziggy.

Well, if that whole trusting things you don't understand and have no prospect of understanding until you die works for you, good luck. I'll pass

I think that there are alot of things that are above human comprehension. Even outside of theology, there are things that humans cannot hope to understand. There are stars in the universe that are so massive that humans simply cannot think in a scale that large. I have trouble even thinking of the Sun in its real scale. I just trust that the scientists know what they are talking about and that the sun really is actually huge and not just a little bright spot small enough to cover up with my thumb. You have to do the same thing with God sometimes and just trust that he knows what he is doing and that there is a reason behind everything. "No man can know the mind of God."

I'm not anti-Semitic in the slightest. I'm just tired of Christian fundamentalists insisting that the only way to live a Christian life is by selectively following some ancient Jewish priestly behavioural texts in a very small part of the Bible.

It says clearly in the New Testement that Christians are not expected to fulfill Mosaic Law. In the Temple in Jerusalem, there was a curtian seperating the inner most room from the rest of the temple. It was a heavy, black curtian that had hung there for years and years and years. It was said that God lived behind that curtian. Only the High Priest was allowed into that room,once a year, and he had to be tied to a rope in case he died. If anyone else entered the room, they died immediatly.When Christ died on the Cross, the curtian was ripped in two, signifing that the gap between God and Man had been crossed and that anyone could have contact with God. It also showed that their was a New Covenenant between God and His People and that they no longer needed a priest to act as a go between for them. They could have a personal relationship with God and no longer needed to make animal sacrifices for their sins.

 

[Fr8monkey]

Sorry I was sounding a bit tough. I appreciate you saying "I don't know." But you don't have to toss in the mysterious ways stuff. Say one or the other. Is like coming up to an accident and hearing the driver say; "I don't know what happened; but I know for a fact I hit the brakes..." It's one or the other.

Still friends...?

 

[MagisterCultuum]

It says clearly that gentiles who become Christians are not obliged to follow the Law of Moses. Whether Jewish converts still are is less clear, but it appears that the early christian leaders chose to remain faithful Jews personally. Orthodox Judaism would agree that gentile should not be made to follow the law of Moses, only the Seven Noahide Laws.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

To show some support to our oppressed Christians, I'll be preaching Christianity again in my own signature inadequate way.

Be nice to someone. You'd want someone to be nice to you don't you?

(To the tavern please!)

Moderator Action: And to the Tavern it goes.

 

[Agent327]

There's nothing remotely Christian in the entire Old Testament.

In the Old Testament we see what happens to those who disobey God, and the results are not very pleasant to those involved. Even the Israelites, God's chosen people, were many times punished by God for disobeying him. Ezekiel 18:20-24 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
21 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.
22 All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.
23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?
24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.
There has to be a penalty when people sin, but if a sinner turns away from the sin that he had sinned, then God will reward him, and in reverse, if someone is righteous and they sin, then God will punish him. It is a constant theme of the Old Testament. We have plenty of examples of what God does to disobedience, but there is an example of what God does when people turn from their sin. God had placed a judgement on the city of Nineveh, and when the judgement was preached to them, they repented of their sins and God spared the city from the Judgement. Pretty simple, if you ask me.

What the New Testament is about that Jesus has fulfilled the Law and as a result we can trust in him to save us from the penalty of sin, thus we are no longer subject to God's wrath, if we have trusted in him.

I see. But still there´s nothing Christian about the OT. It´s basically a version of the Torah adopted by Christianity, taking up the biggest part of the Bible. It shouldn´t be surprising there´s nothing Christian in the OT, since Christianity bases itself on Jesus - who wasn´t a Christian, but rather a devout Jew.

 

[timtofly]

To show some support to our oppressed Christians, I'll be preaching Christianity again in my own signature inadequate way.

Be nice to someone. You'd want someone to be nice to you don't you?

(To the tavern please!)

Moderator Action: And to the Tavern it goes.

I thought Christianity was the deragative name given to a believer? Seems you are just heaping more coal onto the fire?

Following Jesus would be living the golden rule. To follow Christ would be recognizing that Jesus was the Christ and all that entails.

@ Jeelen

He may have been a devout Jew, but that is not why Christians follow Him. He was crucified for blasphemy. The disciples scattered like sheep without a shephard. His resurrection was what brought them back together as a group. Any one can follow Jesus and the Golden Rule. Not many follow Him through death. He was either the Christ or not.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I thought Christianity was the derogative name given to a believer? Seems you are just heaping more coal onto the fire?

Uhm .... I ...

Following Jesus would be living the golden rule. To follow Christ would be recognizing that Jesus was the Christ and all that entails.

Just because I happen to agree with the lad about something he said doesn't mean I have to be following him.

Still a bit miffed about the fig you see. (Sounds like a euphemism doesn't it?)

He may have been a devout Jew, but that is not why Christians follow Him. He was crucified for blasphemy. The disciples scattered like sheep without a shephard. His resurrection was what brought them back together as a group. Any one can follow Jesus and the Golden Rule. Not many follow Him through death. He was either the Christ or not.

Stories of his resurrection have been greatly exaggerated.

Yeah I know it's the wrong thread, but flesh. It's weak.

 

[Agent327]

He may have been a devout Jew, but that is not why Christians follow Him. He was crucified for blasphemy. The disciples scattered like sheep without a shephard. His resurrection was what brought them back together as a group. Any one can follow Jesus and the Golden Rule. Not many follow Him through death. He was either the Christ or not.

Jesus wasn´t crucified for blasphemy, for two reasons: Jesus didn´t blaspheme against Roman law, and theactual reason for his execution was that he was causing trouble for the Romans. (The Jewish priesthood was merely the one pointing him out to the authorities.) If you remember from the Gospel, the question Pilatus ostensibly asked, was: ´Is it true that you are the King of the Jews?´ Since Palestine was ruled by a Roman governor, that would imply being the leader of an (intended) rebellion - like the one that was crushed in 70 AD. The story doesn´t show the Romans having any inkling about Jesus´ religious ideas.°

°Even when the first mention of ´Christians´ appears in Roman historiography, ideas of what Christianity entailed weren´t very clear. This isn´t surprising, since Christianity was a) still developing theologically (meaning there wasn´t a uniform idea of Christianity or a uniform Christian theology), and b) it was by this time a minor cult and largely unknown to the general population, let alone the elite.

 

[timtofly]

Uhm .... I ...
Just because I happen to agree with the lad about something he said doesn't mean I have to be following him.

Still a bit miffed about the fig you see. (Sounds like a euphemism doesn't it?)

Stories of his resurrection have been greatly exaggerated.

Yeah I know it's the wrong thread, but flesh. It's weak.

I thought you aleady nailed the fig tree, I am sorry. He actually saved the owner time in waiting another season to make sure that it would not produce. Now Jesus may have assumed and killed an innocent tree, but there is a strong likely hood that prolonging it's death, may have kept another entity from enjoying the fruit of the tree that replaced that one. Time is relative and all.

Stories of his resurrection have been greatly exaggerated.

Jesus wasn´t crucified for blasphemy, for two reasons: Jesus didn´t blaspheme against Roman law, and theactual reason for his execution was that he was causing trouble for the Romans. (The Jewish priesthood was merely the one pointing him out to the authorities.) If you remember from the Gospel, the question Pilatus ostensibly asked, was: ´Is it true that you are the King of the Jews?´ Since Palestine was ruled by a Roman governor, that would imply being the leader of an (intended) rebellion - like the one that was crushed in 70 AD. The story doesn´t show the Romans having any inkling about Jesus´ religious ideas.°

°Even when the first mention of ´Christians´ appears in Roman historiography, ideas of what Christianity entailed weren´t very clear. This isn´t surprising, since Christianity was a) still developing theologically (meaning there wasn´t a uniform idea of Christianity or a uniform Christian theology), and b) it was by this time a minor cult and largely unknown to the general population, let alone the elite.

I am pretty sure that those who brought Him to Pilate, did so on the bases of blasphemy. They seemed to be disturbed at His claim on being God and all that. Either Pilate translated this blasphemy into Jesus claiming to be King. Or the Jews afraid of Pilate misunderstanding their concept of God, translated it for him. It even ticked them off since they asked Pilate not to post that. It was posted as King of the Jews. They wanted it to read with quotes. It is true that they were looking for a Messiah, and a revolution, but can you really say that they decided this one time not to go with it and turn Him over to the authorities? He had done a lot of miracles, but yet they refused to allow Him to overthrow the Romans? Rebellions had been stomped out before and after as you have pointed out. Why did the Jews themselves try to stamp this one out?

Not to mention that the Jews could not take matters into their own hands, lest they be held in "not keeping the peace" themselves. Only Pilate could approve of such matters. Jesus was not causing trouble, or is the fact that Pilate found no fault with Him a lie? If he was casuing trouble, would not the Romans have done a better job of corralling Him, instead of waiting for the Jews to do so? Can you give an instance where He disturbed the peace? Besides killing a dying fig tree?

Are you saying that there was no distinction between Jesus and the Christ within the first 50 years or so?

Christ is the Messiah. Jesus was the man. Why would they be called the followers of the "Messiah"?

 

[Agent327]

I am pretty sure that those who brought Him to Pilate, did so on the bases of blasphemy. They seemed to be disturbed at His claim on being God and all that. Either Pilate translated this blasphemy into Jesus claiming to be King. Or the Jews afraid of Pilate misunderstanding their concept of God, translated it for him. It even ticked them off since they asked Pilate not to post that. It was posted as King of the Jews. They wanted it to read with quotes. It is true that they were looking for a Messiah, and a revolution, but can you really say that they decided this one time not to go with it and turn Him over to the authorities? He had done a lot of miracles, but yet they refused to allow Him to overthrow the Romans? Rebellions had been stomped out before and after as you have pointed out. Why did the Jews themselves try to stamp this one out?

Not to mention that the Jews could not take matters into their own hands, lest they be held in "not keeping the peace" themselves. Only Pilate could approve of such matters. Jesus was not causing trouble, or is the fact that Pilate found no fault with Him a lie? If he was casuing trouble, would not the Romans have done a better job of corralling Him, instead of waiting for the Jews to do so? Can you give an instance where He disturbed the peace? Besides killing a dying fig tree?

Christ is the Messiah. Jesus was the man. Why would they be called the followers of the "Messiah"?

Christ is the English version of christos, which was used to translate the purely Judaic idea of a Messiah. It is interesting to note that in Judaism Jesus is not the Messiah, but this is irrelevant as to why the Jewish priests (not the Jewish people) gave Jesus up to the authorities. I´m not sure how you can be sure on what grounds Jesus was given up to the authorities, since we simply do not know these things. But ´blasphemy´ would hardly qualify Jesus´ execution (I´m sure you remember Jesus´ words when asked about God and the emperor, and not recognizing the emperor would be the only case of blasphemy not tolerated by the Romans). Again, what the Jewish priests thought of Jesus and his preachings would be completely irrelevant to the Romans. Their idea of blasphemy would be meaningless in Roman law and practice. However, claiming to be the Messiah - in the sense of liberating the Jews from Roman oppression - obviously would be very relevant indeed.

And yes, he disturbed the peace. You seem to have forgotten Jesus´ outburst at the Temple´s shopkeepers. But again, that would not justify having him crucified. The claim of being king of the Jews would, however. As to the whole story of Pilate in the gospels, that´s highly unlikely to ahve happened in reality, as Pilate was a very strict governor. (For instance, where Pilate washes his hands ´in innocence´, ´finding no fault with Him,´ and the option to let the people choose who to release into freedom are very uncharacteristic for Roman behaviour towards a generally rebellious people such as the inhabitants of Palestine. (The people had no influence on Roman law execution, let alone Jewish people. It´s a common myth that ´the Jews crucified Christ´: ´the Jews´ had no say in the matter, as it was a matter of Roman jurisdiction; if the governor says he dies, he dies. And the governor did, as was his custom. Romans had very few qualms about executing potential rebels.)

The only reason the Romans did not arrest him sooner, was that they didn´t know about him. As I mentioned, Roman sources are still very vague about Jesus and Christianity at that time if they are mentioned at all. Historically speaking, the only source for Jesus´ existence is the gospels. There are no other records of him.

Are you saying that there was no distinction between Jesus and the Christ within the first 50 years or so?

I´m not quite following what you are asking here, since you just said that Jesus is the man and Christ is the Messiah. All I said was that Roman sources at that time if they mention Jesus or Christians are very vague about either the man or his followers; that is to say that the Romans simply were unfamiliar with either. In other words, they did not know them. It was only when Christianity grew in numbers (and social level) that Christianity actually became to mean anything. Also, early Christianity had many different views on itself: the first offical church council date from 325 AD. And even after Christian theological ideas never have been uniform; the Catholic church today for instance is simply the largest of many denominations worldwide. But in antiquity things were hardly different in thsi respect.

 

[timtofly]

Christ is the English version of christos, which was used to translate the purely Judaic idea of a Messiah. It is interesting to note that in Judaism Jesus is not the Messiah, but this is irrelevant as to why the Jewish priests (not the Jewish people) gave Jesus up to the authorities.

Since the gospels are the only record closest to the events, it is the "purist" perspective. How many Roman records do we have of Pilate?

Jews are still today looking for their OT Messiah. I am pretty sure that Judaism of Jesus day would also not see Him as Messiah. Especially if they saw Him as a threat and did turn Him over to Pilate. If the Sanhedrin did not call counsel and bring the accused before them, why was it put in the record? That is giving a lot of credit to a "struggling" cult, even if they recruited a well known "student" of the law; Saul. It seems to me their "faith" was built on a ressurection. Would an elaborate reason for the crucifiction other than it proved He died, be needed? Jesus kept hinting that He was going to die and that His kingdom was not going to be esablished then, but no one got the point.

I´m not sure how you can be sure on what grounds Jesus was given up to the authorities, since we simply do not know these things. But ´blasphemy´ would hardly qualify Jesus´ execution (I´m sure you remember Jesus´ words when asked about God and the emperor, and not recognizing the emperor would be the only case of blasphemy not tolerated by the Romans). Again, what the Jewish priests thought of Jesus and his preachings would be completely irrelevant to the Romans. Their idea of blasphemy would be meaningless in Roman law and practice. However, claiming to be the Messiah - in the sense of liberating the Jews from Roman oppression - obviously would be very relevant indeed.

The point is convenient. Having a "Messiah" was the fullest proof the Sanhedrin needed for Rome to dispose of this imposter. Why is it hard for one to accept Pilate did not find any fault in the accused?

And yes, he disturbed the peace. You seem to have forgotten Jesus´ outburst at the Temple´s shopkeepers. But again, that would not justify having him crucified. The claim of being king of the Jews would, however. As to the whole story of Pilate in the gospels, that´s highly unlikely to ahve happened in reality, as Pilate was a very strict governor. (For instance, where Pilate washes his hands ´in innocence´, ´finding no fault with Him,´ and the option to let the people choose who to release into freedom are very uncharacteristic for Roman behaviour towards a generally rebellious people such as the inhabitants of Palestine. (The people had no influence on Roman law execution, let alone Jewish people. It´s a common myth that ´the Jews crucified Christ´: ´the Jews´ had no say in the matter, as it was a matter of Roman jurisdiction; if the governor says he dies, he dies. And the governor did, as was his custom. Romans had very few qualms about executing potential rebels.)

I left that out on purpose. It is irrelevent to the Romans, but it was not irrelevant to the Sanhedrin. He was a threat to them. Are we saying that Pilate would just kill any potential rebel, or would he double check the facts? Did Pilate know the truth or did he not? Now destroying the Sanhedrin, may destabilize the peace, but it would hardly destroy Roman authority. Claiming to be a King would not destroy the Roman peace; Pilate was tolerant of King Herod. I suppose Jesus threatened to destroy the temple Herod built and that would be a threat, but would not deserve the title King over the crucifixion. As seen, the cult following Jesus never tried to overthrow the government, why would they have attempted when Jesus walked among them?

The only reason the Romans did not arrest him sooner, was that they didn´t know about him. As I mentioned, Roman sources are still very vague about Jesus and Christianity at that time if they are mentioned at all. Historically speaking, the only source for Jesus´ existence is the gospels. There are no other records of him.

They did not know Jesus, because He was never a threat period. "Render unto Ceaser" seems that He was not a threat. There was no secret rebellion before, nor after Jesus was crucified.

I´m not quite following what you are asking here, since you just said that Jesus is the man and Christ is the Messiah. All I said was that Roman sources at that time if they mention Jesus or Christians are very vague about either the man or his followers; that is to say that the Romans simply were unfamiliar with either. In other words, they did not know them. It was only when Christianity grew in numbers (and social level) that Christianity actually became to mean anything. Also, early Christianity had many different views on itself: the first offical church council date from 325 AD. And even after Christian theological ideas never have been uniform; the Catholic church today for instance is simply the largest of many denominations worldwide. But in antiquity things were hardly different in thsi respect.

Not to purposely burst any bubbles, but Christianity never gained influence until it was made the "governing" authority. My claim is that it should have been as noticible as Judaism. Local and thriving. Not centralized and governing.

 

[Agent327]

Since the gospels are the only record closest to the events, it is the "purist" perspective. How many Roman records do we have of Pilate?

Being a Roman governor he was rather well known:

• Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews
• Josephus, The Wars of the Jews
• Philo, Legatio ad Gaium (Embassy to Gaius)
• Tacitus, Annals

Jews are still today looking for their OT Messiah. I am pretty sure that Judaism of Jesus day would also not see Him as Messiah.

Well, at least twelve of them did. Don´t forget, Jesus´ disciples were recruited from the Jewish population. And Jews of today aren´t ´still today looking for their OT Messiah´: that ´OT Messiah´ is were Christianity got the idea in the first place, and the OT is an adopted version of the Judaic Torah.

Especially if they saw Him as a threat and did turn Him over to Pilate. If the Sanhedrin did not call counsel and bring the accused before them, why was it put in the record? That is giving a lot of credit to a "struggling" cult, even if they recruited a well known "student" of the law; Saul. It seems to me their "faith" was built on a ressurection. Would an elaborate reason for the crucifiction other than it proved He died, be needed? Jesus kept hinting that He was going to die and that His kingdom was not going to be esablished then, but no one got the point.

You seem to equalize Jewish priesthood with ´the Jews´. The priesthood wouldn´t care if the cult was struggling or not, if in their eyes it was ´blasphemic´, as you say. Saul wasn´t ´recruited´, he had a vision on the road from or to Damascus. And Jesus expected His Kingdom to arrive within his generation: ´This generation shall not pass, before these things come to be.´

The point is convenient. Having a "Messiah" was the fullest proof the Sanhedrin needed for Rome to dispose of this imposter. Why is it hard for one to accept Pilate did not find any fault in the accused?

He simply wouldn´t care either way. But the reality is he did find fault and had Him killed. So the words ´I find no fault with this one´ can´t be true to reality. By the way, which Christian would have been allowed to witness Pilate´s interrogation? A) it was a strictly Roman affair, and B) the same gospels tell us that all the disciples fled from Him (Peter apparently renounced him three times). So it was already clear to his disciples what was going to happen once He had fallen into Roman hands.

I left that out on purpose. It is irrelevent to the Romans, but it was not irrelevant to the Sanhedrin. He was a threat to them. Are we saying that Pilate would just kill any potential rebel, or would he double check the facts? Did Pilate know the truth or did he not? Now destroying the Sanhedrin, may destabilize the peace, but it would hardly destroy Roman authority. Claiming to be a King would not destroy the Roman peace; Pilate was tolerant of King Herod. I suppose Jesus threatened to destroy the temple Herod built and that would be a threat, but would not deserve the title King over the crucifixion. As seen, the cult following Jesus never tried to overthrow the government, why would they have attempted when Jesus walked among them?

Whether Jesus was a threat to the Jewish priesthood is neither here nor there: his claims wee ´blasphemic´, remember? Why would the Romans destroy the Sanhedrin? They had done nothing to upset law and order. And claiming to be the King of the Jews would most certainly upset it; Palestine was a Roman province, meaning no king would be allowed, and even the suggestion of a Jewish king would justify execution. But, as you may recall, Jesus did not deny the accusation at all: he willingly accepted his fate.

They did not know Jesus, because He was never a threat period. "Render unto Ceaser" seems that He was not a threat. There was no secret rebellion before, nor after Jesus was crucified.

You may recall that the words ´render unto Caesar´ were uttered when questioned by priests, not by the Romans. These words differ very much from what is reported when Jesus was interrogated by Pilate.

Not to purposely burst any bubbles, but Christianity never gained influence until it was made the "governing" authority. My claim is that it should have been as noticible as Judaism. Local and thriving. Not centralized and governing.

Well, that´s a philosophical question. At the time of Jesus, there was more than one sect that preached a variety of Judaism (there´s John the Baptist, and the Essenes, to name but two that we know of). You have to realize Christianity did not instantly came into being with the crucifixion; it took time to develop, and originally it would have been very difficult indeed to tell a Jew apart from a follower of Christ. Similarly, as I hinted before, Christianity did not develop into one single church: there are many different churches, some of them quite old (such as the Syrian and the Koptic church).

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Those who pushed for the crucifixion of Jesus were Sadducees. It should be noticed that the Rabbinical Judaism of today is descended from the Pharisees, and tends to favor the house of Hillel over the house of Shammai. Jesus agreed with Beth Hillel on most things. Most of his criticisms of the Pharisees were directed at the more legalistic, less principle based, and often more hypocritical members of Beth Shammai. He actually commanded his followers to do as the Pharisees teach, but not as they do. Most of the early Christians were Pharisees, and many of the non-christian Pharisees opposed the efforts to have Jesus killed and latter efforts to persecute the church.

 

[Agent327]

Apart from the odd idea of Jews ´pushing for crucifixion´ in a Roman province, thanks for the elaboration. Crucifixion was just a general punishment for capital crimes, executed on non-Romans (those who weren´t Roman citizens). Common people - or indeed anyone not in authority - would have had no say in the matter, since the governor of a province held absolute power during his term there. That a man generally known as brutish in his attitude towards the population would have listened to what urban rabble had to say on the matter is quite absurd, considering that a possiblity of rebellion was to be considered.

 

[timtofly]

Being a Roman governor he was rather well known:

• Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews
• Josephus, The Wars of the Jews
• Philo, Legatio ad Gaium (Embassy to Gaius)
• Tacitus, Annals

Well, at least twelve of them did. Don�t forget, Jesus� disciples were recruited from the Jewish population. And Jews of today aren�t �still today looking for their OT Messiah�: that �OT Messiah� is were Christianity got the idea in the first place, and the OT is an adopted version of the Judaic Torah.



You seem to equalize Jewish priesthood with �the Jews�. The priesthood wouldn�t care if the cult was struggling or not, if in their eyes it was �blasphemic�, as you say. Saul wasn�t �recruited�, he had a vision on the road from or to Damascus. And Jesus expected His Kingdom to arrive within his generation: �This generation shall not pass, before these things come to be.�



He simply wouldn�t care either way. But the reality is he did find fault and had Him killed. So the words �I find no fault with this one� can�t be true to reality. By the way, which Christian would have been allowed to witness Pilate�s interrogation? A) it was a strictly Roman affair, and B) the same gospels tell us that all the disciples fled from Him (Peter apparently renounced him three times). So it was already clear to his disciples what was going to happen once He had fallen into Roman hands.



Whether Jesus was a threat to the Jewish priesthood is neither here nor there: his claims wee �blasphemic�, remember? Why would the Romans destroy the Sanhedrin? They had done nothing to upset law and order. And claiming to be the King of the Jews would most certainly upset it; Palestine was a Roman province, meaning no king would be allowed, and even the suggestion of a Jewish king would justify execution. But, as you may recall, Jesus did not deny the accusation at all: he willingly accepted his fate.



You may recall that the words �render unto Caesar� were uttered when questioned by priests, not by the Romans. These words differ very much from what is reported when Jesus was interrogated by Pilate.



Well, that�s a philosophical question. At the time of Jesus, there was more than one sect that preached a variety of Judaism (there�s John the Baptist, and the Essenes, to name but two that we know of). You have to realize Christianity did not instantly came into being with the crucifixion; it took time to develop, and originally it would have been very difficult indeed to tell a Jew apart from a follower of Christ. Similarly, as I hinted before, Christianity did not develop into one single church: there are many different churches, some of them quite old (such as the Syrian and the Koptic church).

I suppose you are agreeing with me on most of this. One thing, if you can convince a Jew that Jesus is the OT Messiah, let me know.