Posted on 11/06/2001 10:13:10 AM PST by JMJ333
Not quite accurate. First of all, the Jews did execute....'stoning' and beheading. The Jews had control over 'religious' problems... the Romans had control over 'state' problems. This would indicate that Jesus was seen as more of a STATE problem (declaring himself 'King'). This would be seen as TREASON and its punishment was the most harsh...crucifixion (a gentile death), reserved for offenses against the STATE. The Romans were not concerned if Jews blasphemed as in the alledged case of Jesus declaring himself God.... the Romans called themselves Gods all the time.... nope, the crucifixion wasn't about Jesus declaring himself God, it was because of the 'King' of the Jews statement. He was seen as a threat to the government.
FWIW
See post #120. JMJ333 explained it better than I could, that the "assignment" doesn't belong to me or to you. So using human "weapons" such as logic and reason isn't going to convert the infidel (Moslems, in this case). If you're so worried about Moslems taking over the world, they won't be as successful against strong Christians, only the spiritually weak.
Did you know they have the skull of Magdalene in France?
Who is the "they" that supposedly have a human skull that is attributed to Mary Magdalene? The Syrians supposedly have the head of John the Baptist in a mosque that used to be a church. What good is a skull going to do you, as far as your salvation is concerned? John the Baptist's head isn't what is important, it is the example of his life that's important. The Gospel is more important than human body parts. The Spirit is more important.
What does any of this have to do with what I said? If this is your response, you either didn't read what I wrote or just don't get it.
Which is precisely what I accuse you of. You reject or figurize what you don't like, and take literally what is meant to be a symbol.
Nothing new about it, Hal Lindsey has been doing it for years, but I guess he is just a newcomer to the practice.
It's in a church near Marseille. "They" trot it out every year in a public parade.
Just a quick read of Genesis confirms what you are saying. It is truly one of the lost messages of contemporary theology, and as a result, of contemporary politics.
Your choice of words is very telling. C'mon, say it with me, I'll help you--Ch-ch-ch-chris-christ-christians! There, that wasn't so hard was it?
Yes, that is why Yeshua taught from it.
Since there are quite a few verses from the OT that speak of God's enemies, and these same verses matched up with Jesus, is this why so many Jews were opposed to Jesus as the messiah?
Your post deserves a more careful read than the one I can give it at work. I have read all of these scriptures before and have never noticed that G-d's enemies resemble Yeshua in any way. It is possible that I missed the connection. It is also possible (probable?) that you have missed some important points that distinguish Yeshua from the enemies of G-d.
Because he fit so many of the verses speaking of God's enemies?
I will let you know. From what I have seen so far, though, it is more because the Pharisees did.
Shalom.
I have, and it is my contention that the Jewish understanding of the messiah is the correct one. As one example, there is nowhere in the Hebrew scriptures any suggestion that the messiah will come more than once.
The old covenant was broken by the Jews, and fulfilled in Jesus. All you have to do is search your own scriptures.
You look at the Hebrew scriptures, and see Jesus fulfilling them, because that is what you expect to find there. In Deuteronomy 28 and 29, God tells the Israelites all that will happen to them if they violate the Covenant. But then in Chapter 30 He says:
[1] "And when all these things come upon you, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before you, and you call them to mind among all the nations where the LORD your God has driven you,
[2] and return to the LORD your God, you and your children, and obey his voice in all that I command you this day, with all your heart and with all your soul;
[3] then the LORD your God will restore your fortunes, and have compassion upon you, and he will gather you again from all the peoples where the LORD your God has scattered you.
[4] If your outcasts are in the uttermost parts of heaven, from there the LORD your God will gather you, and from there he will fetch you;
[5] and the LORD your God will bring you into the land which your fathers possessed, that you may possess it; and he will make you more prosperous and numerous than your fathers.
[6] And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.
[7] And the LORD your God will put all these curses upon your foes and enemies who persecuted you.
[8] And you shall again obey the voice of the LORD, and keep all his commandments which I command you this day.
[9] The LORD your God will make you abundantly prosperous in all the work of your hand, in the fruit of your body, and in the fruit of your cattle, and in the fruit of your ground; for the LORD will again take delight in prospering you, as he took delight in your fathers (Deuteronomy 30:1-9)
Even after Israel violates the Covenant, even after God punishes them for their violation, when we turn back to God and His Law, He will forgive us, bless us and restore us. The Covenant was not and can never be broken.
Jesus said that if you were faithful to the Law, you would know and believe Him. It isn't just Jesus you reject.
Yes it is. It is precisely Jesus as divine messiah that I reject.
It is your own Law and your own prophets you reject.
You may think so, but you would be wrong.
I am sure it does. And others need to know that the so-called "friends" are nothing else but useful idiots to the Israelis, because the sole basis of the "friendship" are the beliefs that Jews don't share with them.
Jews are not any less guilty of selective interpretation of scripture than anybody else. This is a 2000 year old argument. Of course, the Jews of Jesus' day wouldn't have had a problem with Jesus if they believed He was the Messiah! None of us are experts here. If one side can quote Scripture to support his own belief, there's nothing stopping the other side from doing the very same thing. As I said, this is a 2000 year old argument and it's going to get none of us anywhere.
If Jesus is not the Messiah, then Jews shouldn't be treating him with any respect at all, because a gifted, learned and respected man like him who went around calling himself the son of God would have been a complete loony, not to mention a heretic, and it would be wrong to say he was a great teacher, if he was in fact a heretic. (This is the C.S. Lewis argument, from Mere Christianity) If Jesus is the Messiah, then all the Scripture-quoting and debunking in the world can't make him NOT the Messiah. Either He is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God, Lamb of God, etc. or He isn't. That was the argument then, just like it is now. Christians accept Jesus as the Messiah, most Jews don't. I believe Jesus is the Messiah as foretold in the Scriptures. I don't know why I believe while others don't. I don't even know why I butted in, except maybe to point out that "proving" it one way or the other is futile, but I felt the need to get it off my chest.
(.....Butting out)
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The Hebrew scriptures contain numerous examples of atonement by means other than blood sacrifice. The passage which the epistle to the Hebrews takes out of context actually has nothing to do with atonement! It is about dietary laws.
So I ask you once again, produce ONE verse that shows how the OT sacrificial system has been changed, or been done away with ? Rabbi's have tried, but to no avail.
Rabbis have tried and failed, huh? Yeah, right.
This is really not that difficult. God commanded that sacrifices be offered only at the place(s) He commanded. The last place so designated was the Temple in Jerusalem. In the absence of the Temple, there is no place for sacrifices to licitly be offered. It would be an act of disobedience for Jews to try to offer sacrifice at a place other than where God commanded they be done.
You think Jesus was the 'perfect sacrifice'? Sacrifices were supposed to be physically unblemished; Jesus had been scourged. Sacrifices were only allowed to be performed in the Temple. Jesus was crucified outside the gates of Jerusalem. Human sacrifice was forbidden by the Torah. Furthermore, no one can atone for the sins of another:
The person who sins, he alone shall die. A child shall not share
the burden of a parent’s guilt, nor shall a parent share the
burden of a child’s guilt; the righteousness of the righteous
shall be accounted to him alone, and the wickedness of the wicked
shall be accounted to him alone.
Moreover, if the wicked one repents of all the sins that he
committed and keeps all My laws and does what is just and right,
he shall not die. None of the transgressions he committed shall
be remembered against him; because of the righteousness he has
practiced, he shall live. Is it my desire that a wicked person
shall die?--says the Lord God. It is rather that he shall turn
back from his ways and live. (Ezekiel 18:20-23)
Explain to me how Jesus was of the line of David.
I guess I cloud go through life hating everyone, but I don't see the point.
The article didn't mention...There were two types of Pharisaism in the days of Jesus...
Actually, it said there was a variety of differing viewpoints within Pharisaism, but it focused on the one most similar to Jesus' teaching, and where he may have drawn upon those teachings and incorporated them into his own style.
to: TwoHouse, I don't understand your point at all. It doesn't seem logical or correct.
Israel was the name given to Jacob. Israel's (Jacob's) 12 sons each became one of the 12 tribes of Israel. One of Israel's sons was Judah. From Judah came the Jews. Hence, The House of Israel includes the House of Judah, so obviously the House of Israel includes the Jews. They are not "seperate entities" at all. The House of Judah is a subset of the House of Israel, whom The Lord called "The Children of Israel" in Exodus, for example.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.