steve_bnk

That sounds very plausible. For the Jews as a theocracy politicfs and religion wrere the same.

Outside of Judea the Jews were accepted in rge greater Roman empire. It was the Jewish nationalists that had a problem with Rome.

IamJoseph

No. It was all Jews who had a problem after Nero resurrected the Heresy decree. No Jew would ever bow to the image of a divine man - European christians is proof of this. Before this time, the Jews abided by the Roman taxes and other humiliations.

IamJoseph

Not true. They had the right to manage their own peoples under their own laws - granted by Rome as not a violation because these laws predated Rome.

Capital punishment was abolished by Israel 2700 years ago - making it the first nation which did so.

Nero resurrected Caligula's old decree in 66 CE, which Herod disregarded. Nero got this decree back via Greek implorings, and as a deflection of his own domestic problems. This was the last straw for the jews - who then rebelled and challenged Rome - where all groups joined together.

The idea that Rome would harken to anyone not observing the Heresy decree is laughable and typically Gospelspeak - it is specially ubsurd to point to any Jewish preists here - who never accepted that decree and who were all slaughtered for it by Titus in 70 CE.

Jesus would have met the same faith as all other Jews - unless he bowed and worshipped a Roman image, as did all Europeans who later became christian.

Christians would like to believe what the Gospels tells them - but they will be hard pressed to show any proof of that document outside of that document. :notworthy:

IamJoseph

Yes, quoting one part of a falsified document - is absolute proof - even greater than asking that of Abraham or factual history.

Islam states Moses was a Muslim - they qualify this 'by belief'. But the pre-islamic Arabs never followed the Mosaic belief - so how can it be by belief?! Same with the pre-christian Europeans - they never followed the Abraham belief - yet they claim to transcend what they never followed. But this is just a historical fact - not near as powerful as a BELIEF in the Gospels or the Quran. Nor does it matter that both those documents are mutually exclusive in their contradicting charges! :wave:

steve_bnk

We're talking the time of JC. In the empoire of the day the Jews were well regraded and admired for strong patriarchal families.

There was a point ar which the Christians divorced from Judaism, cliimed the bible as its own, and then began the Christian persecutions.

Julio

Quoting the gospel of John to defend the godhead of Jesus is dishonest, because it is a document without historical accuracy. Thomas exclamation, and all the rest of it, is “evidence” arriving TOO LATE in the exegetical effort to put Jesus on the Godhead throne! And since HC has definitely established that gospel as from another author, whatever Thomas might have said is untrustworthy to support a major dogma. Jesus was not God by the year 90 CE, no sir. One John so establishes!

IamJoseph

If they were well regarded, why would they go to Rome for jurisdiction of their own laws? The blasphemy laws would not apply only to one JC, but any other Jew. One can see even today, if you go desecrating the religious laws of Islam in Mecca - guess what - they would not go ask Rome for guidance!

The Gospels is saying one Jew DID blaspheme - then it deflects about Rome and conspirators. Why use the term conspirators, when the blasphemy was real? How many innocent folk did the church murder on the charge of blasphemy via the rake and burning - and who can come close to it? Its called absolute chutzpah!

Where is your proof of this from outside the Gospels? Can you provide anything in Rome's archives of a Jesus trial? No! Why? Because its a fiction. There was absolutely no trial, nor is the Barabus story true. Not a single European asked for proof - and they never got it.

Do you have any historical proof of beedy eyed Jews revelling of the death of another jew? - choose anywhere you ike from 4000 years of Jewish history! Mad [2000 lashes per frame] Mel is still getting back to me too.

steve_bnk

Judea was a hotbed of Jewish nationalism, the Jews living outside of Judea had no general problems. The Romans were cosmolpolitan and supported any group that worked to increase the wealth of the empire.

The Jews in Judea had a prophesy of a redeemer which they were hoping would return them to polical power as a nation. Goggle Masada

JC would have been one of many agitators, there were many who claimed to be the redeemer. To the Romans he did not get an honrable mention.

The Jewish elite in Judea were in bed with Romans. JC was railing against this situation and acuratly predicted the ultimate dowmnfall of the Jewish state.

It was not unlike today. Isreal is not where all Jews live and not all Jews outiside of Isreael are orthodox or nationalistic. Accoring to my history of Chritianity the Jewish faith actualy became a fad religion among the Romans who took on some o the trappings.

At one point Paul invokes his Roman citizenship to get protection from Jews out to kill him.

The Jewsish folks I have known have said JC is considerd a prophet.



Putz, what are you so angry about?.

jon-eli

Sanhedrin trials were very fair, and hardly ever issued death sentences. The mere fact that the Sanhedrin had issued a guilty verdict would be enough to convince most Jews that the defendant was guilty. I'm not actually sure if the council could have participated in the stoning, but I imagine it would have been expected of them.

What authority? The Sadducees controlled the temple, not the Pharisees. Caiaphas, the high priest, was a Sadducee. And in any case, the Sadducean aristocracy was far too entrenched to be threatened by a lone radical, upstart preacher.

Caiaphas had enough clout to determine the method of execution, even if he required approval from the governor. He was high priest when Pilate began his tenure, and not once did Pilate see fit to remove him from office. Pilate clearly trusted Caiaphas plenty enough, that if the latter had wanted stoning, Jesus would have been stoned. The high priest may very well have made a habit of turning seditionists over to the Romans, but this doesn't apply to the case of Jesus because if turning him over was the purpose, the high priest would not have bothered convening the Sanhedrin, since sedition is not a violation of Jewish law, but of Roman law.

But more to the point, execution was avoided like the plague in Judaism, and even if it wasn't, criminal cases required 23 judges; and even if there were in fact 23 judges, criminal cases were supposed to begin with the defense, not the accusations; and even if that weren't true, criminal cases were not allowed to be concluded at night; and even if that weren't true, convictions were not to be rendered on the same day as the trial began; and even if that weren't true, trials were not to be conducted on the eve of the Sabbath; and even if they were, a criminal sentenced to death was to be asked for a confession whilst being led to execution; and even if nothing I have said so far is true in the slightest, the whole point of Jesus being convicted was for him to be unjustly convicted, since this would have atoned for all his sins! It's a literary construction on the part of Mark. It is not a historical account of anything, but rather, it is a dramatic poem.

He wasn't telling them anything, because they simply weren't listening. They wouldn't have cared.

Julio

Just please be careful with this false information, attempting to make a point.
Jesus did not declare himself God with that “weird” “I AM”.
I am WHAT?!…
What would be Jesus’ hesitation to put the sentence in irrefutable terms
“I Am God, my friends! And I want to tell you that in the clearest possible terms, so that NOBODY spends TWENTY CENTURIES debating whether I am God or not!!
Did you get that once and for all?!!!
I am God, the third Element or Person of the Trinity, and I don’t want no trouble with anybody about my divine position!
I repeat: DID YOU GET THAT?!!!”

Do always remember that John’s gospel came in the scene TOO LATE for genuine credentials.
Nothing, in other words, is of unassailable value in that “Gnostic gospel” of the middle of the second century or later!
“John” came here a century later after Pentecost to try to promote the bishops of Rome with their Godhead of that unknown man of Galilee who lived 40 years before Jerusalem was demolished!
Therefore: there is NOTHING in the so-called “canonical gospels” of really irrefutable proof about the topic in question.
Nothing.