NationStates Jolt Archive

I think it's a valid question, so tell us who you think killed Jesus.

Frankly, I do not give a f*ck.

He died and is still dead. Get over it.

Scurvy

Frankly, I do not give a f*ck.

He died and is still dead. Get over it.That's a little harsh. If you don't belive in a Risen-Christ then why post at all? You are doing nothing but being an unessacary annoyance.

You are doing nothing but being an unessacary annoyance.

And?

Am I not allowed to speak my opinion?

The Romans.

You are doing nothing but being an unessacary annoyance.

And?

Am I not allowed to speak my opinion?

You really could have done it in a less assy way.

You are doing nothing but being an unessacary annoyance.

And?

Am I not allowed to speak my opinion?
We dont allow racial intolerance. Why should we allow religious intolerance?

You really could have done it in a less assy way.

But where is the fun in that? 8)

Agreed with "The Romans". I voted "Man". Some of the local Jews raised a fuss due to the incitement of the temple leaders, but they didn't nail him to a couple of slabs of wood.

Why should we allow religious intolerance?

Did I say anything about Christianity? My comments were directed towards Jesus, not a religion.

Matthew 27: 15-26


Now it was the governor's custom at the Feast to release a prisoner chosen by the crowd. At that time they had a notorious prisoner, called Barabbas. So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, "Which one do you want me to release to you: Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?" For he knew it was out of envy that they had handed Jesus over to him.

While Pilate was sitting on the judge's seat, his wife sent him this message: "Don't have anything to do with that innocent man, for I have suffered a great deal today in a dream because of him."

But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed.

"Which of the two do you want me to release to you?" asked the governor.

"Barabbas," they answered.

"What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called Christ?" Pilate asked.
They all answered, "Crucify him!"

Why? What crime has he committed?" asked Pilate.
But they shouted all the louder, "Crucify him!"

When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. "It is your responsibility!"

All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!"

Then he released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.

You are doing nothing but being an unessacary annoyance.

And?

Am I not allowed to speak my opinion?If you don't care about the subject matter you really shoudn't.

Please take your Jew-hating elsewhere, Rotovia.

If you don't care about the subject matter you really shoudn't.

That is your opinion. I can still voice what I think of the subject matter even if I do not care who killed him. How about you speak to others and say what you believe instead of concentrating on what I have to say (or lack of what to say on the subject, I guess).

Why should we allow religious intolerance?

Did I say anything about Christianity? My comments were directed towards Jesus, not a religion.

You talk about JC, you're instantly refering to our religion. I respect that you don't believe it but seriously, less of a knobheaded way of putting it would be less offensive.

Please take your Jew-hating elsewhere, Rotovia.I don't hate Jews. If I hated Jews I would have made a topic entitled "The Jews Killed Jesus", I'm just curious what people thought and included the most likely responses.

You talk about JC, you're instantly refering to our religion. I respect that you don't believe it but seriously, less of a knobheaded way of putting it would be less offensive.

I do not care if I am offensive or not. I will say that I do not like a lot of Christians, but I judge them from person to person and not all Christians at once. I like a lot also, just like I dislike a lot.

Now just because I spoke of Jesus does not mean I am speaking of Christianity. I never said Jesus was a bad guy, I simply said he was dead. Christianity I do not like as a religion. Jesus I thought was pretty cool as a person (but is still dead). I really do not care if it is offensive to you if I say he died.

So until I do not have to read about God on bills and hear about God in the pledge, I will make my anti-religious views known. :D

If you don't care about the subject matter you really shoudn't.

That is your opinion. I can still voice what I think of the subject matter even if I do not care who killed him. How about you speak to others and say what you believe instead of concentrating on what I have to say (or lack of what to say on the subject, I guess).I really do not care what you believe, I only care that you entered and thread and were intentionally rude. Not only that but on a subject you have no emotional investment in, leaning perhaps to a hope that complete strangers would think you were funyn which in itself is quite sad, or hoping to insult and group that is not likely to strike back.

Please take your Jew-hating elsewhere, Rotovia.I don't hate Jews. If I hated Jews I would have made a topic entitled "The Jews Killed Jesus", I'm just curious what people thought and included the most likely responses.

I agree with you here, Rotovia.

Stirner, he does not seem to be bashing Jews here. If they killed Jesus, that is fine. That is no reason to hate Jews now since they are not the ones who killed a man 2000 years ago. Just like I did not enslave African Americans. White people of the past did, but I surely did not.

Please take your Jew-hating elsewhere, Rotovia.

Well, if you'd look at the poll, you'd see there are other options.

If this was an anti-semitic poll, it would have only the Jews for choices.

Many people believe the Jews were responsible, and there's evidence that they were, facts do not constitute racism.

You talk about JC, you're instantly refering to our religion. I respect that you don't believe it but seriously, less of a knobheaded way of putting it would be less offensive.

I do not care if I am offensive or not. I will say that I do not like a lot of Christians, but I judge them from person to person and not all Christians at once. I like a lot also, just like I dislike a lot.

Now just because I spoke of Jesus does not mean I am speaking of Christianity. I never said Jesus was a bad guy, I simply said he was dead. Christianity I do not like as a religion. Jesus I thought was pretty cool as a person (but is still dead). I really do not care if it is offensive to you if I say he died.

So until I do not have to read about God on bills and hear about God in the pledge, I will make my anti-religious views known. :D

Those mentions of god are discreet and polite, there's a huge difference.

If you don't care about the subject matter you really shoudn't.

That is your opinion. I can still voice what I think of the subject matter even if I do not care who killed him. How about you speak to others and say what you believe instead of concentrating on what I have to say (or lack of what to say on the subject, I guess).I really do not care what you believe, I only care that you entered and thread and were intentionally rude. Not only that but on a subject you have no emotional investment in, leaning perhaps to a hope that complete strangers would think you were funyn which in itself is quite sad, or hoping to insult and group that is not likely to strike back.

You have not read enough of my posts to understand what I am about on NationStates.

I challenge all people, left and right, religious and non-religious. I admit I have a strong bias against religion, but I try to keep as unbias when it comes to politics and look at what the person is actually saying, not their political affiliation. I simply came in and made my comment. Sure I said it in a rude way. But all I have to say to that is, get use to it. You are not going to be met with welcoming arms, so why should you expect the same in here?

Those mentions of god are discreet and polite, there's a huge difference.

And?

It is still "offensive" to people like me. What is the difference? I will not apologize for my statement. All that can be done is you moving on and actually discussing the subject at hand instead of straying from what this thread was intended. At least my first post was relevant to the topic, unlike all of these.

Those mentions of god are discreet and polite, there's a huge difference.

And?

It is still "offensive" to people like me. What is the difference? I will not apologize for my statement. All that can be done is you moving on and actually discussing the subject at hand instead of straying from what this thread was intended. At least my first post was relevant to the topic, unlike all of these.

How is that offensive.

They're not saying "We don't care what you think, we f*cking love God".

You, however, are saying the equivalent.

You talk about JC, you're instantly refering to our religion. I respect that you don't believe it but seriously, less of a knobheaded way of putting it would be less offensive.

I do not care if I am offensive or not. I will say that I do not like a lot of Christians, but I judge them from person to person and not all Christians at once. I like a lot also, just like I dislike a lot.

Now just because I spoke of Jesus does not mean I am speaking of Christianity. I never said Jesus was a bad guy, I simply said he was dead. Christianity I do not like as a religion. Jesus I thought was pretty cool as a person (but is still dead). I really do not care if it is offensive to you if I say he died.

So until I do not have to read about God on bills and hear about God in the pledge, I will make my anti-religious views known. :D

Actually Im all for that. The only reason they added "under god" to the pledge was for propaganda purposes in the cold war.

The only thing is I just would like it if you respected my right to religion as much as i respect your right to a lack of it.

Plus it does sound like you judge christians all at once. I cant remember who said it but "the biggest inhibitor of christianity is christians" very right. Most people at my church are complete w***ers

If you don't care about the subject matter you really shoudn't.

That is your opinion. I can still voice what I think of the subject matter even if I do not care who killed him. How about you speak to others and say what you believe instead of concentrating on what I have to say (or lack of what to say on the subject, I guess).I really do not care what you believe, I only care that you entered and thread and were intentionally rude. Not only that but on a subject you have no emotional investment in, leaning perhaps to a hope that complete strangers would think you were funyn which in itself is quite sad, or hoping to insult and group that is not likely to strike back.

You have not read enough of my posts to understand what I am about on NationStates.

I challenge all people, left and right, religious and non-religious. I admit I have a strong bias against religion, but I try to keep as unbias when it comes to politics and look at what the person is actually saying, not their political affiliation. I simply came in and made my comment. Sure I said it in a rude way. But all I have to say to that is, get use to it. You are not going to be met with welcoming arms, so why should you expect the same in here?I expect that as a sign of respect to fellow human beings that in this thread where it is more important than ever that people be respectful, that you would carry yourself with a certain degree of tact.

Those mentions of god are discreet and polite, there's a huge difference.

And?

It is still "offensive" to people like me. What is the difference? I will not apologize for my statement. All that can be done is you moving on and actually discussing the subject at hand instead of straying from what this thread was intended. At least my first post was relevant to the topic, unlike all of these.

have you ever thought that its offensive to people like me that gays are disobeying the law and getting married despite the fact, and that nothign is being done about it because the government is too afraid of the ACLU and other despicable institutions whose only purpose is to undermine the very moral fiber of america?

They're not saying "We don't care what you think, we f*cking love God".

Actually, to me, that is kind of what it is saying.

Just a personal opinion.

They're not saying "We don't care what you think, we f*cking love God".

Actually, to me, that is kind of what it is saying.

Just a personal opinion.

Fine, whatever, you're obviously not going to listen to reason about being polite to other people, keep on being an asshole, I don't care.

have you ever thought that its offensive to people like me that gays are disobeying the law and getting married despite the fact, and that nothign is being done about it because the government is too afraid of the ACLU and other despicable institutions whose only purpose is to undermine the very moral fiber of america?

Bingo!

I really do not care if something is offensive to me. I will do what I can to change it, but I will try not to intrude on other people's rights. We are free to do what we want and that includes offending others. Where is the line drawn? Eh, I do not know, but I surely did not cross it.

Crucifixion was a uniquely Roman manner of execution.

The Jews much preferred stoning.

The Romans were given the "benefit of the doubt" in an attempt to make Christianity a religion with greater appeal in the Roman empire.

Crucifixion was a uniquely Roman manner of execution.

The Jews much preferred stoning.

The Romans were given the "benefit of the doubt" in an attempt to make Christianity a religion with greater appeal in the Roman empire.

actually, it was also prcticed to an extent in feudal japan

Please take your Jew-hating elsewhere, Rotovia.

Well, if you'd look at the poll, you'd see there are other options.

If this was an anti-semitic poll, it would have only the Jews for choices.

Many people believe the Jews were responsible, and there's evidence that they were, facts do not constitute racism.
Responsibility is an individual trait. Saying "the Jews" killed Jesus Christ is like saying "the Arabs" murder Nick Berg. Did "the Sikhs" kill Indira Gandhi? Did "the Quebecois" murder Daniel Laporte? Did "the Blacks" kill Malcolm X?

If it isn't right to attribute those murders to those groups, why is it okay to perpetuate that "the Jews" killed Jesus Christ?

Actually Im all for that. The only reason they added "under god" to the pledge was for propaganda purposes in the cold war.

*nods head* Yep.

The only thing is I just would like it if you respected my right to religion as much as i respect your right to a lack of it.

I do respect that you have your own views that differ from mine. I can still be as insensitive as I want towards them (especially when I am tired). You are allowed to believe as you want and I encourage you to believe what you want. I probably should not of said what I said in that way, but I will not take it back nor apologize. What is done is done. So what I say is...get over it.

Plus it does sound like you judge christians all at once. I cant remember who said it but "the biggest inhibitor of christianity is christians" very right. Most people at my church are complete w***ers

It might sound like that, but I do not. I do not like the religion, but there are Christians that I cannot stand just like Christians that I get along great with. I do judge them on an individual basis, just like I judge all people on an individual basis.

Crucifixion was a uniquely Roman manner of execution.

The Jews much preferred stoning.

The Romans were given the "benefit of the doubt" in an attempt to make Christianity a religion with greater appeal in the Roman empire.

actually, it was also prcticed to an extent in feudal japan

Are you suggesting that the Japanese crucified Jesus?

have you ever thought that its offensive to people like me that gays are disobeying the law and getting married despite the fact, and that nothign is being done about it because the government is too afraid of the ACLU and other despicable institutions whose only purpose is to undermine the very moral fiber of america?

Bingo!

I really do not care if something is offensive to me. I will do what I can to change it, but I will try not to intrude on other people's rights. We are free to do what we want and that includes offending others. Where is the line drawn? Eh, I do not know, but I surely did not cross it.I believe there is one line in human society we should not cross, respect. When we loose respect there can be no intellgent debate to ensight useful change.

have you ever thought that its offensive to people like me that gays are disobeying the law and getting married despite the fact, and that nothign is being done about it because the government is too afraid of the ACLU and other despicable institutions whose only purpose is to undermine the very moral fiber of america?

Bingo!

I really do not care if something is offensive to me. I will do what I can to change it, but I will try not to intrude on other people's rights. We are free to do what we want and that includes offending others. Where is the line drawn? Eh, I do not know, but I surely did not cross it.

actually, you did cross the line. you crossed it when you hit the submit button with the malicious purpose of offending others in thread who wanted to talk about who killed jesus. but instead of saying who you thought killed jesus, you took it upon yourself to post a hateful message that had little to do with the topic at hand. next time, dont be an asshole. if you dont have something nice to say, dont say jack shit

Fine, whatever, you're obviously not going to listen to reason about being polite to other people, keep on being an asshole, I don't care.

Thank you.

Part of the reason why I am so harsh at times is to see how people react to it. From this I can tell that I would get along with DHomme in real life rather well, due to his response. I believe I could get along with you fairly well. Valia I probably would not. Rotvia, doubt it, but maybe.

Crucifixion was a uniquely Roman manner of execution.

The Jews much preferred stoning.

The Romans were given the "benefit of the doubt" in an attempt to make Christianity a religion with greater appeal in the Roman empire.

actually, it was also prcticed to an extent in feudal japan

Are you suggesting that the Japanese crucified Jesus?

nah, im just a history freak.

actually, you did cross the line. you crossed it when you hit the submit button with the malicious purpose of offending others in thread who wanted to talk about who killed jesus. but instead of saying who you thought killed jesus, you took it upon yourself to post a hateful message that had little to do with the topic at hand. next time, dont be an asshole. if you dont have something nice to say, dont say jack shit

Don't say jack shit? I can still state my opinion on the topic. So basically, go f*ck yourself and your "if you do not have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all" shit. I do not care. I will be harsh with what I say and how I say it. I will be offensive in what I say. And if others are offensive to me I will strike back. But I know that they have every right to do that.

And someone said something about respect. Christianity I do not respect. Christians I respect (depending on the Christian).

Crucifixion was a uniquely Roman manner of execution.

The Jews much preferred stoning.

The Romans were given the "benefit of the doubt" in an attempt to make Christianity a religion with greater appeal in the Roman empire.

actually, it was also prcticed to an extent in feudal japan

Are you suggesting that the Japanese crucified Jesus?

nah, im just a history freak.

Me too, and yes you are correct.

Sometimes though I just can't resist a comeback line.

:lol:

It was all an elaborate suicide scheme.
Jebus went over to the pharicees and said: "You know, guys, I'm sick and tired of my followers! Sick and tired!. I say "peacemakers", they hear "cheesemakers". I say "turn the other cheek", but I bet you my last 30 silver pieces that 2000 years from now they'd still be demanding to know who killed me. Like, whatever. No, siree, I'd rather be crucified: open air, the bright side of life. Put in a word with Pilate for me, will ya?"

Jewish people did ultimately kill Yeshua, the Messiah (commonly referred to as Jesus Christ around these parts). A mob of Jewish people basically threatened to tear down the city of Jerusalem if Pilate did not crucify Yeshua. That said, there are many things to note here. Judas was a Jew who betrayed another Jew, Yeshua, to a group of Jews, the Pharisees. Yes, Yeshua was a Jew, as were all of his apostles. On a side note, Rabbi Shaul (the apostle Paul), the writer of much of the New Testament, was also a Jew. Anyway the point is that almost everyone involved was Jewish, so saying "the Jews killed Jesus" isn't quite saying enough, as both "the good guys" and "the bad guys" were Jewish. Also of note, Yeshua was and is God in the flesh, and on a whim He could have called down a host of angels to pull Him down from the tree of atonement (the cross, if you will). However, He made a choice that day, and He died so that all who believe in Him may have eternal life. And, just like he said he would, he rose again three days later. So did the Jews kill Jesus? I suppose they did. However, leaving it at that doesn't quite do the situation justice, if you ask me.

GV, I've really developed an intrest in Ancient History int he last two years. So I have a question, is it true crusifixtion was practiced by the Persians?

GV, I've really developed an intrest in Ancient History int he last two years. So I have a question, is it true crusifixtion was practiced by the Persians?

im not sure, ask SG

Don't say jack shit? I can still state my opinion on the topic. So basically, go f*ck yourself and your "if you do not have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all" shit. I do not care. I will be harsh with what I say and how I say it. I will be offensive in what I say. And if others are offensive to me I will strike back. But I know that they have every right to do that.

And someone said something about respect. Christianity I do not respect. Christians I respect (depending on the Christian).

yeah, thanks for stating the obvious and flamming me

yeah, thanks for stating the obvious and flamming me

Anytime.

everybody knows jesus had ALS, the whole cross thang makin him tired is just a metaphor of his slow demise....

yeah, thanks for stating the obvious and flamming me

Anytime.

cute

yeah, thanks for stating the obvious and flamming me

Anytime.

cute

Thanks.

And might I add, have a joyous evening and a wonderful day tomorrow (well, later today).

everybody knows jesus had ALS, the whole cross thang makin him tired is just a metaphor of his slow demise....




:roll:

YEA, AND THE HOLOCAUST WAS REAL.



jeeeez man i h8 nazi bums who are all like "jewz suck" i'm like shut up yo, you just needs some brooohahah

Posting this topic was offensive to me since I have no desire to hear anything about religion. Someone didn't care about the fact that I would be offended.

You asked this question then get offended when someone tells you what they think about the topic and then YOU state THEY were out of line! You say if they don't believe what you believe then they shouldn't post.

That is the problem it's seems somehow okay for you to talk about your beliefs and to openly discuss them but not okay for those that disagree...

Sorry, but you brought it up and though the reply could have been less rude and more diplomatically put, your poll is offensive and argumentative, so suck it up.

This poll proves that most of those of call themselves religious and Christians missed what Jesus was saying anyway. The guy wouldn't have cared about pointing fingers.

So, will I now be burned as a witch?

Fine, whatever, you're obviously not going to listen to reason about being polite to other people, keep on being an asshole, I don't care.

Thank you.

Part of the reason why I am so harsh at times is to see how people react to it. From this I can tell that I would get along with DHomme in real life rather well, due to his response. I believe I could get along with you fairly well. Valia I probably would not. Rotvia, doubt it, but maybe.

I have to admit, I do the same thing.

Do you really tink you can know who killed a poor man in the year 33?
How? Reading a book manipulated in over 2000 years for the advantage of the church?

I try to be a Little more diplomatic than Soviet Democracy.
Anyway just like him I don't respect Christianity. I respect some Christians.

I chose Man. He died for our sins and people that actually put him on the cross were High Jewish Priests and Romans (representing the world, I suppose).

Jewish people did ultimately kill Yeshua, the Messiah (commonly referred to as Jesus Christ around these parts). A mob of Jewish people basically threatened to tear down the city of Jerusalem if Pilate did not crucify Yeshua. That said, there are many things to note here. Judas was a Jew who betrayed another Jew, Yeshua, to a group of Jews, the Pharisees. Yes, Yeshua was a Jew, as were all of his apostles. On a side note, Rabbi Shaul (the apostle Paul), the writer of much of the New Testament, was also a Jew. Anyway the point is that almost everyone involved was Jewish, so saying "the Jews killed Jesus" isn't quite saying enough, as both "the good guys" and "the bad guys" were Jewish. Also of note, Yeshua was and is God in the flesh, and on a whim He could have called down a host of angels to pull Him down from the tree of atonement (the cross, if you will). However, He made a choice that day, and He died so that all who believe in Him may have eternal life. And, just like he said he would, he rose again three days later. So did the Jews kill Jesus? I suppose they did. However, leaving it at that doesn't quite do the situation justice, if you ask me.

(My emphasis)
If Jesus could have easily prevented his death, but instead chose to die, doesn't that make it suicide? And doesn't knowing that you'll come back to life in 3 days make it a bit, well, phoney?

(For the record, I'm an atheist.)

He had to die "for our sins" and be resurrected, that is the whole point (out on a limb here) of Christianity. Who did the actual betraying, sentencing, and crucifying is irrelevant. I've even heard the intriguing idea that Judas is the real savior since there would be no Christianity without that betrayal -- he was just doing his duty for mankind as God had asked him to and it was probably the hardest thing he ever had to do.

Crucifixion was a uniquely Roman manner of execution.

The Jews much preferred stoning.
Specifically stoning was the accepted punishment for blasphemy.

The fact that he was crucified suggests strongly that he was actually executed by the Romans for political reasons, possibly being part of the Zealot faction.

Anyone who believes the Jews killed Jesus needs to explain why they broke so heavily from their legal system. That's why no mainstream denominations support the idea, only loony fundies.

Please take your Jew-hating elsewhere, Rotovia.

Well, if you'd look at the poll, you'd see there are other options.

If this was an anti-semitic poll, it would have only the Jews for choices.

Many people believe the Jews were responsible, and there's evidence that they were, facts do not constitute racism.

what evidence? im a protestasnt christian, but i still know that the only evidence that you will most likely pull out is from the bible. and i believe that verses from the bible are not sufficient evidence.

Crucifixion was a uniquely Roman manner of execution.

The Jews much preferred stoning.

The Romans were given the "benefit of the doubt" in an attempt to make Christianity a religion with greater appeal in the Roman empire.

actually, it was also prcticed to an extent in feudal japan

you are mistaken. i happen to have studied feudal japan and the samurai, so let this be known. the japanese samurai never practised cruxification. samurai who were defeated in battle commited seppuko {better known as hara kiri} and non-samurai were beheaded. it was not untill after the cruel portuguese jesuits came to japan and violated the bushido way. they gave samurai lords whowere not loyal to the bushido ways, guns, in exchange that they are able to spread christianity. and these portuguese christians punished criminals and 'non-believers' by cruxification. i dont know why they would do that, but i know that it was practised by christians who were in the lands of lords who were greedy for guns, such as Oda Nobunaga.

you are mistaken. i happen to have studied feudal japan and the samurai, so let this be known. the japanese samurai never practised cruxification. samurai who were defeated in battle commited seppuko {better known as hara kiri} and non-samurai were beheaded. it was not untill after the cruel portuguese jesuits came to japan and violated the bushido way. they gave samurai lords whowere not loyal to the bushido ways, guns, in exchange that they are able to spread christianity. and these portuguese christians punished criminals and 'non-believers' by cruxification. i dont know why they would do that, but i know that it was practised by christians who were in the lands of lords who were greedy for guns, such as Oda Nobunaga.

It's been many years since I studied Japanese history, but I believe that crucifixion, and variants thereof (including crucifying people upside-down over a sulphur fire), was used in Japan in the 17th century in the largely successful campaign by undertaken by some Daimyo to stamp out nascent Christianity amongst some peasant communities -- although of course they got the idea from the Jesuits (and then improved on it: always a Japanese strength).

I doesn't matter who killed him. He was supposed to die. He knew this, He accepted it, He handed Himself over to the authorities knowing what the consequences were.

It is common knowledge to everybody that it was the Jew's, with the help of that Macabe, Judas was crucified. The jews, for thousands of years have denied the existance of Jesus, due to thier pure ignorance to the fact that they killed him.
Jews don't go to heaven, they go to hell. Adolf Hitler saw this and that is, in my opinion why he didnt murder the jews, but sought redemtion for thier blasphamous crimes.
As the bible says 'An Eye for an Eye'
Or in other words 'Pay back's a bitch'.

It is common knowledge to everybody that it was the Jew's, with the help of that Macabe, Judas was crucified. The jews, for thousands of years have denied the existance of Jesus, due to thier pure ignorance to the fact that they killed him.
Jews don't go to heaven, they go to hell. Adolf Hitler saw this and that is, in my opinion why he didnt murder the jews, but sought redemtion for thier blasphamous crimes.
As the bible says 'An Eye for an Eye'
Or in other words 'Pay back's a bitch'.

"An eye for an eye makes the world blind"

Pray tell why Hitler killed Jews who had converted to Christianity then?

Crucifixion was a uniquely Roman manner of execution.

The Jews much preferred stoning.

The Romans were given the "benefit of the doubt" in an attempt to make Christianity a religion with greater appeal in the Roman empire.

actually, it was also prcticed to an extent in feudal japan

you are mistaken. i happen to have studied feudal japan and the samurai, so let this be known. the japanese samurai never practised cruxification. samurai who were defeated in battle commited seppuko {better known as hara kiri} and non-samurai were beheaded. it was not untill after the cruel portuguese jesuits came to japan and violated the bushido way. they gave samurai lords whowere not loyal to the bushido ways, guns, in exchange that they are able to spread christianity. and these portuguese christians punished criminals and 'non-believers' by cruxification. i dont know why they would do that, but i know that it was practised by christians who were in the lands of lords who were greedy for guns, such as Oda Nobunaga.

ah, im sorry but im right. you see, after the xenophobic japanese shogunate outlawed christianity they mercilessly slaughtered any christians that would not revert to their old beliefs. and another thing, the whole concept of seppeky didnt start until after (please excuse my poor rememberance of names) some warlord was exciled to and island, and his enemy's sent a massive force to slay him. instead of falling in battle he commited seppeku. and another thing, the whole concept of samurai honor and never retreating in battle and so on actually didnt come around untill during the peaceful time after the tokugawa shogunate united japan and put an end to the warring feudal lords.

one last point, did i ever say samurai? no, i didnt, i said the japanese.

Crucifixion was a uniquely Roman manner of execution.

The Jews much preferred stoning.

The Romans were given the "benefit of the doubt" in an attempt to make Christianity a religion with greater appeal in the Roman empire.



It wasn't uniquely Roman.

As GV said, the Japanese practised a variant of it.

But to shift the focus westwards. The Babylonians also practiced it. As well as a few other cultures.

Christianity I do not respect. Christians I respect (depending on the Christian).

Why do you not respect christianity?

Christianity I do not respect. Christians I respect (depending on the Christian).

Why do you not respect christianity?How about it's history of pandering to anti-semitism, by the refusal to accept that Jesus was Jewish and followed Jewish law?

Everyone knows that the Romans killed Jesus. Why are we talking about religion, anyway?

To be honest, all of us killed JC. It don't matter if it was the Jews, the Romans, etc. We all did; he has no intention of killin us. He died for us! He'll do whatever it takes to have each and everyone of us, Whether or not you're a Christian, Jew, Muslim or even an atheist or agnostic, etc., go back to him and be spared from HELL.
No offenSe or anything, all have a say to this post, but it'd be nice if all would have at least some respect for those who believe; for to us, it offends what we believe as a whole wehn someone makes a cruel and/or blasphemic comment to our beliefs.

Jesus' death and resurrection are crucial to the Christian faith, so shouldn't they be thanking the Jews for helping that process along?

I didn't look through every response to this thread so maybe somebody has already said this for me but I'm going to go ahead and say it myself.

It was a combination of man and God that killed Jesus Christ. Sin entered into the human race through the man Adam and since that time sin and evil have distorted and twisted the beautiful creation of this wonderful planet as it was originally designed by God.

God knew that we could not save ourselves from our own sin so he sent his only begotten son. Begotten means offspring not creation. A creation is not like the maker, a human statue may look exactly like a human but it is not human. The question arises, where is the female partner for God to have a son? God is perfect, He does not need another entity to complete Him because that would imply that He is less than perfect.

Therefore God sent his only son to die in our place, to take our punishment for our sins. We are all responsible as members of the human race for Christ's death but God also willed it to happen.

Unashamed Christians
<><

man's sin

Crucifixion was a uniquely Roman manner of execution.

The Jews much preferred stoning.

The Romans were given the "benefit of the doubt" in an attempt to make Christianity a religion with greater appeal in the Roman empire.

actually, it was also prcticed to an extent in feudal japan

you are mistaken. i happen to have studied feudal japan and the samurai, so let this be known. the japanese samurai never practised cruxification. samurai who were defeated in battle commited seppuko {better known as hara kiri} and non-samurai were beheaded. it was not untill after the cruel portuguese jesuits came to japan and violated the bushido way. they gave samurai lords whowere not loyal to the bushido ways, guns, in exchange that they are able to spread christianity. and these portuguese christians punished criminals and 'non-believers' by cruxification. i dont know why they would do that, but i know that it was practised by christians who were in the lands of lords who were greedy for guns, such as Oda Nobunaga.

Actually seppuku, not seppuko....is differnt from hara kiri...in that one is done by oneself..seppuku...hara kiri ceremony uses a kaishaku...a stand in.

It is common knowledge to everybody that it was the Jew's, with the help of that Macabe, Judas was crucified. The jews, for thousands of years have denied the existance of Jesus, due to thier pure ignorance to the fact that they killed him.
Jews don't go to heaven, they go to hell. Adolf Hitler saw this and that is, in my opinion why he didnt murder the jews, but sought redemtion for thier blasphamous crimes.
As the bible says 'An Eye for an Eye'
Or in other words 'Pay back's a bitch'.

*shakes with rage* Yes, the Jews and the Romans cruxified Jesus. However, you can't allow that sort of hate because of it. To them, and to pretty much everyone else except the Apostles and a few others, Jesus was this crazy Jew saying things that contradicted the church. As we all know, even in the early Christian reign, contradicting the church was a damn fool thing to do. It can lead to death, under the reign of the Jews and the Christians. So, in effect, the Jews just killed a guy who was breaking the common law. They didn't kill him because he was 'Christian'. Christianity didn't even exist.

I don't know what constitutes going to hell. I don't even believe in hell. But if it does exist, I don't think Jews go there for being Jewish. The Jews didn't believe Jesus was the Massiah. They still await him. That's not a hell-worthy sin. It's not a sin, period.

Just out of question...if Hitler was trying to cure their blasphemy, then why did he kill Gypsies and Gays, too? Did they kill Christ?

Go back to your neanderthal hovel, idiot.

Ughh...my taking on someone else's sin?...sounds discomforting. As a a pagan..I of no particular mind who killed Jesus..if one merely goes by historial fact..Jesus was a Jew in a Roman-controlled province of their far-flung Empire..they were allowed to have their own king and run their country as they saw fit as long as they didn't give the Romans a hissy fit over anything.

In comes Jesus, a poor carpenter from Galilee proclaiming himself "King"...Kingdom of Heaven..etc..etc, disrupting the normal course of events...the Pharisees see a reduction in power..they see a political agitator...they arrest him for Treason but can't get enough evidence to go by..so they go to the Romans and tell them he's guilty of sedition as a citizen of Rome...the Romans wanna wash their hands of the man and say he's your problem..the situation jumps back and forth..finally the Jews arrest him...hand him over to the Romans..Pilate makes a decision and the rest is history.

Where I live there is a saying, "Helping old cows out of the dyke."

It is common knowledge to everybody that it was the Jew's, with the help of that Macabe, Judas was crucified. The jews, for thousands of years have denied the existance of Jesus, due to thier pure ignorance to the fact that they killed him.
Jews don't go to heaven, they go to hell. Adolf Hitler saw this and that is, in my opinion why he didnt murder the jews, but sought redemtion for thier blasphamous crimes.
As the bible says 'An Eye for an Eye'
Or in other words 'Pay back's a bitch'.

well if we were standing face to face, iwoulkd beat the crap out of you with my christian and jewish {im a protestant} friends. then i'd burn your anti-american, anti-god nazi @$$. i hope you were killed in a concentration camp for your sins.
but since we do not know eachother, and i am a good protestant.i can only say this. "god please save this lost soul. Amen"

I think it was the Israli hiercky and the Romans. I think that the Isriali hiercky were afraid the peasents would uprise against them and in my opinon Pilat was a coward and did not want a rebellion so he willingly knew he was going to put a innocent man to death to save his own kister. So in my opnon it was not just one man but a bunch of rich people afraid to make small sacrifices to help out the masses.

I think it was the Israli hiercky and the Romans. I think that the Isriali hiercky were afraid the peasents would uprise against them and in my opinon Pilat was a coward and did not want a rebellion so he willingly knew he was going to put a innocent man to death to save his own kister. So in my opnon it was not just one man but a bunch of rich people afraid to make small sacrifices to help out the masses.

I think it was the Israli hiercky and the Romans. I think that the Isriali hiercky were afraid the peasents would uprise against them and in my opinon Pilat was a coward and did not want a rebellion so he willingly knew he was going to put a innocent man to death to save his own kister. So in my opnon it was not just one man but a bunch of rich people afraid to make small sacrifices to help out the masses.

Crucifixion was a uniquely Roman manner of execution.

The Jews much preferred stoning.

The Romans were given the "benefit of the doubt" in an attempt to make Christianity a religion with greater appeal in the Roman empire.

actually, it was also prcticed to an extent in feudal japan

you are mistaken. i happen to have studied feudal japan and the samurai, so let this be known. the japanese samurai never practised cruxification. samurai who were defeated in battle commited seppuko {better known as hara kiri} and non-samurai were beheaded. it was not untill after the cruel portuguese jesuits came to japan and violated the bushido way. they gave samurai lords whowere not loyal to the bushido ways, guns, in exchange that they are able to spread christianity. and these portuguese christians punished criminals and 'non-believers' by cruxification. i dont know why they would do that, but i know that it was practised by christians who were in the lands of lords who were greedy for guns, such as Oda Nobunaga.

Actually seppuku, not seppuko....is differnt from hara kiri...in that one is done by oneself..seppuku...hara kiri ceremony uses a kaishaku...a stand in.

Usually the terms are interchangeable. Even the Japanese use them interchangeably.

Crucifixion was a uniquely Roman manner of execution.

The Jews much preferred stoning.

The Romans were given the "benefit of the doubt" in an attempt to make Christianity a religion with greater appeal in the Roman empire.

actually, it was also prcticed to an extent in feudal japan

you are mistaken. i happen to have studied feudal japan and the samurai, so let this be known. the japanese samurai never practised cruxification. samurai who were defeated in battle commited seppuko {better known as hara kiri} and non-samurai were beheaded. it was not untill after the cruel portuguese jesuits came to japan and violated the bushido way. they gave samurai lords whowere not loyal to the bushido ways, guns, in exchange that they are able to spread christianity. and these portuguese christians punished criminals and 'non-believers' by cruxification. i dont know why they would do that, but i know that it was practised by christians who were in the lands of lords who were greedy for guns, such as Oda Nobunaga.

Actually seppuku, not seppuko....is differnt from hara kiri...in that one is done by oneself..seppuku...hara kiri ceremony uses a kaishaku...a stand in.

Usually the terms are interchangeable. Even the Japanese use them interchangeably.

Ahmmm..I beg to differ...I spent 3 yrs in Japan, one of those on Okinawa, have several friendships that I developed with members of the Japanese Defense Forces...my sensei while stationed at Camp Schwab, Okinawa was a former Japanese Imperial Marine officer, descended 15 generations of Samurai..I know the terms are not interchangeable.

It was me :( Sorry.

Man.

The jews are a proxy for mankind. We all killed Jesus, that is the point. If Jesus was a jew. If someone is executed in America who is really innocent (which unfortunately happens on occassion) we don't go "oh, the americans killed him." If Jesus had been Greek, the Greeks would have killed him, if he had been Chinese, the Chinese would have killed him. Someone getting executed by their own people is hardly irregular.

^^Exactly.

Why did you even post the subject in a forum if you are one eyed? No matter what people's opinions are they have the right to express themselves. Nobody is wrong or right, as none of us witnessed this particular event. Of course it is a controversial topic, but everyone has the right to voice their opinions without interferrence. Of course you dont have to accept what they are saying but what gives you the right to slander someones elses opinion. If you wanted other peoples point of view fair enough, but if you were just going to slander them as you know best, you are worthless and pathetic. People have the right to express themselves but not in a rude and crude manner. Next time just think, if your going to post a controversial question like this, you have to accept that there is going to be a wide range of views due to peoples different backgrounds, religions and the views and values they believe in and what they have been brought up to believe in. For the last time, Who made you god? Nobody did so dont think that you have the answers to everything and that what you know is correct!!!!

Romans?

Well, I'm Christian, so, I should say the Jews, but I know better, I killed Jesus, just like all my fellow men did, because we all Sin, and Sin killed Jesus.

I think it was the Israli hiercky and the Romans. I think that the Isriali hiercky were afraid the peasents would uprise against them and in my opinon Pilat was a coward and did not want a rebellion so he willingly knew he was going to put a innocent man to death to save his own kister. So in my opnon it was not just one man but a bunch of rich people afraid to make small sacrifices to help out the masses.

....................................

Let me clarify my statement. It was the Roman government.

I'm sorry, but saying Jesus never rose from the dead is not religious intolerance. It's saying you don't believe in science fiction and fairy tales, but rather scientific fact, which says when people die they stay dead.

It's the same thing as a Catholic priest saying Muhammed never recieved any actual visions from God, and was wrong about Jesus being only a prophet. It's not religious intolerance, it's differing beliefs.

If you don't like the beliefs other people state and try to censor them by chasing them out of a discussion, that's fascism. You nazi.

Fair enough. However, I think it was the harsh way in which he said it that caused the fuss. I know that this explanation falls on un-caring ears, Mortis Land.

A lot of the stuff in the Bible can't be depended on. There's so much contradiction that I really feel for the Fundamentalists.

I think it was the Israli hiercky and the Romans. I think that the Isriali hiercky were afraid the peasents would uprise against them and in my opinon Pilat was a coward and did not want a rebellion so he willingly knew he was going to put a innocent man to death to save his own kister. So in my opnon it was not just one man but a bunch of rich people afraid to make small sacrifices to help out the masses.

i hate to say this, but you are by far the most ignorant and foolish man i have ever met. FIrst of all, i dont know what the hell Israli is. You mean Israeli, because if you do, you shame every christian. {especially me} israel wasnt founded until 1948 {1949?} smartey. During the time that Jesus was alive, Israel/Palestine was part of the Roman empire. many jews, including jesus, were killed for not treating the roman emperor like a god. Jesus was jewish, just LIKE MANY other jews whow were cruxified. the Israeli Hierchy? WHat the hell??? the jews didnt have any power at all, genius. i really hope you repeat grammer school before you come onto an intelligent website.

NOTE FROM ME: I am sorry if i have been too harsh to some people like Stacey Hitler, and Mkutra{?}. i have been in a bad mood lately, and instead of calmly attempting to share my views with you, i have resorted to name calling and anger. i am sorry. and i apologize for anyone i have offended.

I would like to make a few points:
A) sorry about the spelling. My mistake
B) gee real mature instead of debating me in a civilized matter you get angry and rant and rave like a phycotic lunitc, a moron and/or a demented 5 year old
C) Wow you reallyyyyyyyyyy opened m eyes sudenly i relise I am a moron by being scremed at by someone sounding like a moron
D) I am not a anti-semite
E) It shows your maturity by going phyco on me and calling me a racsist
F) Jesus was Jewish
G) you don't even knowe me but you call me the most idotic person you have ever heared but you did not hear my vioce or even see me.
H) I will admite that my people (catholics) did have a hand in his death because before christantity my ancistors were Jewish
I) And if Hitler were to kill all of the "Christ Killers" he would have to kill himself because he is a cristan and before we belived he was the son of god we did kill him.

I think it was the Israli hiercky and the Romans. I think that the Isriali hiercky were afraid the peasents would uprise against them and in my opinon Pilat was a coward and did not want a rebellion so he willingly knew he was going to put a innocent man to death to save his own kister. So in my opnon it was not just one man but a bunch of rich people afraid to make small sacrifices to help out the masses.

i hate to say this, but you are by far the most ignorant and foolish man i have ever met. FIrst of all, i dont know what the hell Israli is. You mean Israeli, because if you do, you shame every christian. {especially me} israel wasnt founded until 1948 {1949?} smartey. During the time that Jesus was alive, Israel/Palestine was part of the Roman empire. many jews, including jesus, were killed for not treating the roman emperor like a god. Jesus was jewish, just LIKE MANY other jews whow were cruxified. the Israeli Hierchy? WHat the hell??? the jews didnt have any power at all, genius. i really hope you repeat grammer school before you come onto an intelligent website.

NOTE FROM ME: I am sorry if i have been too harsh to some people like Stacey Hitler, and Mkutra{?}. i have been in a bad mood lately, and instead of calmly attempting to share my views with you, i have resorted to name calling and anger. i am sorry. and i apologize for anyone i have offended.

I would like to make a few points:
A) sorry about the spelling. My mistake
B) gee real mature instead of debating me in a civilized matter you get angry and rant and rave like a phycotic lunitc, a moron and/or a demented 5 year old
C) Wow you reallyyyyyyyyyy opened m eyes sudenly i relise I am a moron by being scremed at by someone sounding like a moron
D) I am not a anti-semite
E) It shows your maturity by going phyco on me and calling me a racsist
F) Jesus was Jewish
G) you don't even knowe me but you call me the most idotic person you have ever heared but you did not hear my vioce or even see me.
H) I will admite that my people (catholics) did have a hand in his death because before christantity my ancistors were Jewish
I) And if Hitler were to kill all of the "Christ Killers" he would have to kill himself because he is a cristan and before we belived he was the son of god we did kill him.

I think it was the Israli hiercky and the Romans. I think that the Isriali hiercky were afraid the peasents would uprise against them and in my opinon Pilat was a coward and did not want a rebellion so he willingly knew he was going to put a innocent man to death to save his own kister. So in my opnon it was not just one man but a bunch of rich people afraid to make small sacrifices to help out the masses.

i hate to say this, but you are by far the most ignorant and foolish man i have ever met. FIrst of all, i dont know what the hell Israli is. You mean Israeli, because if you do, you shame every christian. {especially me} israel wasnt founded until 1948 {1949?} smartey. During the time that Jesus was alive, Israel/Palestine was part of the Roman empire. many jews, including jesus, were killed for not treating the roman emperor like a god. Jesus was jewish, just LIKE MANY other jews whow were cruxified. the Israeli Hierchy? WHat the hell??? the jews didnt have any power at all, genius. i really hope you repeat grammer school before you come onto an intelligent website.

NOTE FROM ME: I am sorry if i have been too harsh to some people like Stacey Hitler, and Mkutra{?}. i have been in a bad mood lately, and instead of calmly attempting to share my views with you, i have resorted to name calling and anger. i am sorry. and i apologize for anyone i have offended.

I would like to make a few points:
A) sorry about the spelling. My mistake
B) gee real mature instead of debating me in a civilized matter you get angry and rant and rave like a phycotic lunitc, a moron and/or a demented 5 year old
C) Wow you reallyyyyyyyyyy opened m eyes sudenly i relise I am a moron by being scremed at by someone sounding like a moron
D) I am not a anti-semite
E) It shows your maturity by going phyco on me and calling me a racsist
F) Jesus was Jewish
G) you don't even knowe me but you call me the most idotic person you have ever heared but you did not hear my vioce or even see me.
H) I will admite that my people (catholics) did have a hand in his death because before christantity my ancistors were Jewish
I) And if Hitler were to kill all of the "Christ Killers" he would have to kill himself because he is a cristan and before we belived he was the son of god we did kill him.

I think it was the Israli hiercky and the Romans. I think that the Isriali hiercky were afraid the peasents would uprise against them and in my opinon Pilat was a coward and did not want a rebellion so he willingly knew he was going to put a innocent man to death to save his own kister. So in my opnon it was not just one man but a bunch of rich people afraid to make small sacrifices to help out the masses.

i hate to say this, but you are by far the most ignorant and foolish man i have ever met. FIrst of all, i dont know what the hell Israli is. You mean Israeli, because if you do, you shame every christian. {especially me} israel wasnt founded until 1948 {1949?} smartey. During the time that Jesus was alive, Israel/Palestine was part of the Roman empire. many jews, including jesus, were killed for not treating the roman emperor like a god. Jesus was jewish, just LIKE MANY other jews whow were cruxified. the Israeli Hierchy? WHat the hell??? the jews didnt have any power at all, genius. i really hope you repeat grammer school before you come onto an intelligent website.

NOTE FROM ME: I am sorry if i have been too harsh to some people like Stacey Hitler, and Mkutra{?}. i have been in a bad mood lately, and instead of calmly attempting to share my views with you, i have resorted to name calling and anger. i am sorry. and i apologize for anyone i have offended.

I would like to make a few points:
A) sorry about the spelling. My mistake
B) gee real mature instead of debating me in a civilized matter you get angry and rant and rave like a phycotic lunitc, a moron and/or a demented 5 year old
C) Wow you reallyyyyyyyyyy opened m eyes sudenly i relise I am a moron by being scremed at by someone sounding like a moron
D) I am not a anti-semite
E) It shows your maturity by going phyco on me and calling me a racsist
F) Jesus was Jewish
G) you don't even knowe me but you call me the most idotic person you have ever heared but you did not hear my vioce or even see me.
H) I will admite that my people (catholics) did have a hand in his death because before christantity my ancistors were Jewish
I) And if Hitler were to kill all of the "Christ Killers" he would have to kill himself because he is a cristan and before we belived he was the son of god we did kill him.

For whoever says the jews did it:

If the jewish people crucyfied one jew, the 'christian' people crucyfied the entire jewish people for 2000 years. End of story.

The romans did it. That's history, not just a story.

He chose his path knowing its outcome. Destiny did him in, we need to stop blaming groups for their role in the event. They were merely pawns in a celestial chess match.

The Pink Pony struck him down in righteous anger for his blasphemy.

"Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted." Isaiah 53:4\

I killed Christ.
You killed Christ.
We all had a part to put Christ on the cross.

Don't think you haven't sinned. Pre-marital sex? Angered to this extent you began to spread rumours about your adversary? Telling lies? Abandoning your parents or your siblings or your spouse?

All sins to kill Christ.

We dont allow racial intolerance. Why should we allow religious intolerance?

Actually, on this site racial intolerance is allowed, provided that it is carried out in a manner which doesn't breach any of the other rules of the site (flaming, trolling, direct insults, etc.)

Fine, whatever, you're obviously not going to listen to reason about being polite to other people, keep on being an asshole, I don't care.

Am I the only one that is struck by the irony of this post - an encouragement to be polite, and then calling someone an 'asshole'...

Christianity I do not respect. Christians I respect (depending on the Christian).

Why do you not respect christianity?How about it's history of pandering to anti-semitism, by the refusal to accept that Jesus was Jewish and followed Jewish law?

Was Jesus Jewish? Certainly had Jewish blood in his veins from his mother, but was he accepted as a Jew by his contemporary community towards the end of his life? No, therefore, the debate is still open as to whether he can be counted as Jewish.

Who killed Jesus?

The Jews or Man


Are we to infer from this that the Jews are not part of the set of mankind?

"Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted." Isaiah 53:4\

I killed Christ.
You killed Christ.
We all had a part to put Christ on the cross.

Don't think you haven't sinned. Pre-marital sex? Angered to this extent you began to spread rumours about your adversary? Telling lies? Abandoning your parents or your siblings or your spouse?

All sins to kill Christ.

That is your opinion. Now let me state mine:

"Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine,
My sins, my own, they belong to me."

Why even bother commenting in this disscussion when nobody's opinions are valid due to the creator of this disscussion has to be always correct. We are getting nowhere we are just going around in circles which is just pathetic. Maybe next time the author of this disscussion group will decide to listen to other not just what you think is right. The purpose of the forums is to voice your opinion but not to slander other's peoples opinions. Show some respect and courtesy that you would want off others. If you want people to respect you and your religion, it has to go both ways!!!!!!

In Christian terms: if you sinned, you helped kill him.

Non-Christian terms: Peopled killed him. It was 2000 years ago. Whee.

I still like the idea that it was the Japanese.... :lol:

Well, I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, as many people have pointed out, Man would be the appropriate choice in the poll. I'm sure the concept behind this important topic can be phrased by people much more eloquent than I.

In a more literal sense, I would favour a write-in vote for THE Man. Consider this: Everything is going rather smoothly in this Roman province, when quite suddenly there appears a liberal pinko hippie talking about how the laws are wrong and unjust. That guy over there, he says, who is praying loudly on the corner? Pillar of the community, you say? Mister Pinko Hippie points out, rightly, that that man in fact has no great love for the big ol' Tetragrammaton, but really just wants people to say 'Oh, look how pious he is!'

So this rabble-rouser is decrying the Sacred Institutions that have Made This Province Great, and people are starting to listen. All manner of heresy springs from his lips: Poor people deserve help from those who have plenty! Good and evil are not determined by nationality! Love above all! Worse still, people listen to him; even worse than that, he seems to have some serious Ain Sof Aum behind him.

(Now, before people come up to me blathering and puling about Science!, let me point out that, while Science is truly a wonderful thing, it unfortunately gets dragged through the mud quite a bit, by the same sort of people that use Christianity as a justification for hatred. If you can design an experiment to support A, then A is Scientific. If your experiment disproves B, then B is Unscientific. If no experiment may be performed regarding C, then C is Ascientific, and beyond the reach of the Scientific Community. And don't come at me talking about Common Sense - Common Sense is what tells you the Earth is flat.) [/digression]

So now the rich people who don't want to help out the poor - ancestors of modern Conservatives, perhaps? - and religious folks who rather enjoy the whole hypocracy thing they have going figure they had better get rid of this Commie before his rabble gets too roused, and so begin to conspire against our poor Buddha. And the rest is, as they say, history.

EDIT: Okay, the Conservative comment was a low blow. I like low blows. However, I do hope it doesn't derail the thread.

And don't come at me talking about Common Sense - Common Sense is what tells you the Earth is flat.

How does Common Sense tell us that the Earth is flat?

I am referring to Aristotlean 'science,' the silly little idea that you can determine the physical nature of things by just sitting and thinking. This works quite adequately for such tasks as conquering Death, but is rather insufficient for the more down-to-earth truth-seeker. When people come out with arguments of 'That is absurd,' without offering any other experimental evidence, they are channeling the spirit of Aristotle.

'Common Sense is what tells you the world is flat' is a quote from the Principia Discordia - a holy tome, actually. For centuries, people laboured under the certainty that the world is flat - because, well, just look at it. It's obvious! The idea that clearly flat land is in fact a big ball of rock floating in a howling void is _absurd!_

Ignorance killed Jesus.

There's a movie that might interest some who are slightly more open-minded. It's in french with subtitles, but it's very good. It's called Jesus of Montreal.

I think the end of it explains what did Jesus in more than anything.

All of us, man kind killed him with our sins. This is the most popular choice among christians and I agree with it though many jew haters will say otherwise.

I did.

He knew too much, and The Boss was afraid he was gonna start talking to the Feds.

Sorry.

this question is irrelevant because Jesus didn't die on cross. After he was taken of the cross he was cured. Do you really think he was resurrected? But people like stories. More unbelievable better. After that he went to India.

'Common Sense is what tells you the world is flat' is a quote from the Principia Discordia - a holy tome, actually. For centuries, people laboured under the certainty that the world is flat - because, well, just look at it. It's obvious! The idea that clearly flat land is in fact a big ball of rock floating in a howling void is _absurd!_

Nonsense.

It was proven that the world was not flat back in circa 200BC, and this fact was widely known in the Western World. True, there were other cultures separate from Europe that described the Earth in forms other than as a globe, but I have yet to encounter one which described it as flat: as bowls, as sloping planes, as hemispheres, yes, but flat, no. Such descriptions of the world lead us to believe that even before Eratosthenes proved the spherical nature of the Earth and calaculated its diameter there was no widespread belief in a flat Earth.

Christianity I do not respect. Christians I respect (depending on the Christian).

Why do you not respect christianity?

when the roman Empire has fallen the Archbishop of Rome presented to the king of France a false letter were Costantino declares that the roman empire is propriety of the Christian Church.

In the middleages the church said that men must live with the tools that god sent to him. The scientific progress was stopped in every part of the Europe. in those years the church gained a monopoly in the education.

The church commanded the Crusades and inquisitions. Crusades and inquisitions caused more victims than every genocide ever.

Someone can say "this is the past. now the church has changed"

1) the church changed the Christian dogma through the centuries for his own good. The bible that you read now has been wrote for the profit of some bishops of the past.

2) In Italy the church was involved in some strange affairs with the "banco ambrosiano". The pope was about to reveal the traffic of the ones who really rules in the vatican. He got shot.... He survived as you know ..anyway he was persuaded to not reveal the church traffics.

3) There is a town near rome were Many people dies for tumors. in the proximity there is the relay station of "Radio Maria" a radio owned by the vatican. This is the only radio that can be heard in all italy, in all conditions. There is not a single condition where this radio cannot be heard. Probably spreading the Church word is worth some hundreds deaths. This news was comunicated for 2 or 3 days, everyone expected a reply. suddely no one ever taked about this anymore.

It was a combination of man and God that killed Jesus Christ. Sin entered into the human race through the man Adam and since that time sin and evil have distorted and twisted the beautiful creation of this wonderful planet as it was originally designed by God.

This best sums up alot of people's views on this topic, but it makes me wonder something. Why do christians insist on degrading humanity? In the Bible it was man that killed Jesus and it was man that sinned and ruined everything. Forgive me for quoting a play (bonus points for anyone that can guess it) but:

"There is more sanctity in a child's ability to master the multiplication tables than all of your shouted amens, holy holies, and hossanahs. An idea is a greater monument than a cathedral and the advance of man's knowledge a greater miracle than any sticks turned to snakes, or the parting of waters"

This is not to mention that we are getting our concept of "sin" from a book written when people were still mainly concerned with survival. Humanity has changed considerably since then and we have grown alot.

God knew that we could not save ourselves from our own sin so he sent his only begotten son. Begotten means offspring not creation. A creation is not like the maker, a human statue may look exactly like a human but it is not human. The question arises, where is the female partner for God to have a son? God is perfect, He does not need another entity to complete Him because that would imply that He is less than perfect.

By insisting on referring to "he" as "perfect" you make this a sexist comment, albeit thinly vieled sexism. I would even go as far as to say that the Bible is sexist. Women are responsible for original sin and a number of other terrible things according to the book. I am surprised that the Bible doesn't say that women killed Jesus.

Regardless, I think the fact is that many people on this topic are ignoring the very words of Jesus Christ when they post. Wasn't Jesus the one who said to "turn the other cheek". Seems to me he would not want us to care who killed him. Then again what would I know I'm just a Buddhist.

Therefore God sent his only son to die in our place, to take our punishment for our sins. We are all responsible as members of the human race for Christ's death but God also willed it to happen.

I don't know about you but I didn't kill anyone.

Was Jesus Jewish? Certainly had Jewish blood in his veins from his mother, but was he accepted as a Jew by his contemporary community towards the end of his life? No, therefore, the debate is still open as to whether he can be counted as Jewish.

The man was Jewish. There weren't very many choices, were there? In fact, for a while there was a big debate about whether you had to be Jewish before becoming Christian.

The guy was accepted as a Jew, until the Church said "BLASPHEMY!" and cruxified His holy ass.

One of the reasons the Jewish community didn't believe He was the Messiah was because the Messiah was supposed to be the guy who was going to come and save them.

Let's compare: Image = big bulky guy, wielding the local weapons + omnisience, and saves them.

What Christians believe to be the reality = Some scrawny little fella saying that you should "turn the other cheek", doing some crazy shiznat.

Response = Hey, innat Joe's kid? Yeah, what a shrimp. Half-cracked too. He's saying we can only be saved by peace. F*ck that. I've been peaceful to those damn Romans, and does that make me free? Hell no.

Oh, and Johanesburg?

Forgive me for quoting a play (bonus points for anyone that can guess it) but:

"There is more sanctity in a child's ability to master the multiplication tables than all of your shouted amens, holy holies, and hossanahs. An idea is a greater monument than a cathedral and the advance of man's knowledge a greater miracle than any sticks turned to snakes, or the parting of waters"


That quote is from Inherit the Wind. Thank you, Humanities.

Why did you even post the subject in a forum if you are one eyed? No matter what people's opinions are they have the right to express themselves. Nobody is wrong or right, as none of us witnessed this particular event. Of course it is a controversial topic, but everyone has the right to voice their opinions without interferrence. Of course you dont have to accept what they are saying but what gives you the right to slander someones elses opinion. If you wanted other peoples point of view fair enough, but if you were just going to slander them as you know best, you are worthless and pathetic. People have the right to express themselves but not in a rude and crude manner. Next time just think, if your going to post a controversial question like this, you have to accept that there is going to be a wide range of views due to peoples different backgrounds, religions and the views and values they believe in and what they have been brought up to believe in. For the last time, Who made you god? Nobody did so dont think that you have the answers to everything and that what you know is correct!!!!

I beg to differ.

Yes, you most certainly have the right to freedom of expression, but that does not in any way make you somehow non-culpable for justifying your statements. If you, for example, wanted to say that the Pharaoh's favorite dish was Kraft Macaroni and Cheese, you would be perfectly in your right to say so. That right, however, does not extend to the point of having someone else a) take your ideas seriously without evidence, b) fail to point out the empirical fact that Kraft Macaroni and Cheese came along long after the last of the Pharoahs, and c) dismissing your claim if you cannot back it up.

Similarly, if you were to go about saying that Hitler fulfilled Christian ideals, you are within your rights to do so. But if you are serious about making claims like this, then you had better be prepared to defend them, and not simply dismiss them out of hand as "being rude"--in point of fact, you should have expected that kind of vehemence, because what you said was one of the most insulting things I've ever read about my faith. The purpose of any intellectual discussion is not simply to validate your feelings--it's to develop ideas and a better understanding of the world, and those ideas and understandings are subject to empirical validation or invalidation. I'm sorry if this offends you, but for me few things are worse than a) racism, and then you compounded it by b) offering post-modern baloney for defense.

As for the main question, the technical answer is that the Romans killed Jesus. Jesus was executed via crucifiction, a punishment for treason against Rome, not for blasphemy against the church (a crime which Jesus did not even commit, as it was not specifically against the rules of the Jewish faith to proclaim yourself the Messiah). While the Bible points out the actions of certain Jewish elders in the targeting of Jesus, people should remember that the Gospels came out at a time when both the newly emerging Christian faith and the Jewish one were fighting for converts in the Roman empire--and that the Christian religion certaintly didn't want to antagonize authorities by making Rome seem culpable.

No trial or execution in history has had such a momentous outcome as that of Jesus in Roman occupied Jerusalem, 2000 years ago.

But was it an execution or a judicial murder; and who was responsible?

There are three suspects, Caiaphas, the Jewish High Priest; Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor; and, most surprisingly of all, Jesus himself.

Summarising the cases

Caiaphas: GUILTY
Caiaphas personally sent an innocent man to his death.
Caiaphas wanted Jesus dead
Jesus threatened his religious power
Jesus threatened his privileged lifestyle
Caiaphas held a sham trial and convicted Jesus of blasphemy
Jesus told Pilate that Jesus had committed sedition

Pilate: GUILTY
Pilate ordered Jesus to be killed
Pilate ordered the execution of Jesus
Pilate knew Jesus was innocent

Jesus: NOT GUILTY
Jesus fulfilled his mission from God, he did his duty, and so is a major figure in world history and in religious faith.
Jesus knew what his actions would lead to
Jesus acted out the Messiah prophecy
Jesus deliberately provoked Caiaphas
Jesus made no attempt to escape
Jesus refused to defend himself at his trial

The story of the Crucifixion

The story begins when the Galilean rebel Jesus rides into Jerusalem on a donkey, deliberately fulfilling a prophecy in the Hebrew Bible about the coming of the Messiah. He's mobbed by an adoring crowd.

The next day Jesus raids the Temple, the heart of the Jewish religion, and attacks money-changers for defiling a holy place.

The leaders of the Jewish establishment realise that he threatens their power, and so do the Romans, who fear that Jesus has the charisma to lead a guerrilla uprising against Imperial Rome.

Jesus is arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane, tried by Caiaphas and then by the Roman Governor. He's sentenced to death and executed.

Caiaphas - the evidence

Who was Caiaphas?
Caiaphas was a supreme political operator and one of the most influential men in Jerusalem. He'd already survived 18 years as High Priest of the Temple (most High Priests only lasted 4), and had built a strong alliance with the occupying Roman power.

Caiaphas knew everybody who mattered. He was the de-facto ruler of the worldwide Jewish community at that time, and he planned to keep it that way.

The case against Caiaphas
The case against Caiaphas is that he arrests Jesus, tries him in a kangaroo court and convicts him on a religious charge that carries the death penalty.

What were Caiaphas' motives?
Jesus threatened Caiaphas's authority. Caiaphas could not afford to allow any upstart preacher to get away with challenging his authority; especially not at Passover time. This was the biggest Jewish festival and scholars estimate that around two and half million Jews would have been in Jerusalem to take part. Caiaphas did not want to lose face.

Jesus threatened Caiaphas' relationship with Rome
His power base was the Sanhedrin, the supreme council of Jews which controlled civil and religious law. It had 71 members, mostly chief priests, and Caiaphas presided over its deliberations.

It was hard work but it had big rewards - modern archaeologists have discovered that Caiaphas and his associates lived lives of luxury with large and lavishly decorated houses.

But, of course, the Sanhedrin only ruled because the Romans allowed them to and the way to keep the Romans happy was to maintain order in society. Caiaphas himself was a Roman appointment, so he needed to keep cosy with the governor, Pilate, if he wanted to stay in power and preserve his luxurious way of life.

So if Jesus was making trouble, he was making trouble for both Caiaphas and Pilate - and trouble for Pilate was still trouble for Caiaphas.

Jesus was undoubtedly a threat; the public liked him, indeed they may have been paying more attention to Jesus than to the priests, and the public were listening to his condemnation of what he saw as wrong in the religious establishment.

Jesus threatened the Temple's income
Jesus was also threatening a useful source of income for the Temple priests.

The Temple apparatus brought in huge revenues for simple matters like purification and the forgiveness of sins. Archaeologists have discovered 150 mikvehs around the Temple. Mikvehs are ritual baths which Jews use in order to purify themselves before any act of worship.

Jewish people could only enter the Temple if they were ritually pure and almost everyone arriving in Jerusalem for Passover was deemed ritually unclean. They had to use a mikveh before they could fulfil their religious obligations. The priests controlled the mikvehs and charged people to use them.

There were so many regulations requiring ritual purification that control of the mikvehs was a way of making money.

Jesus thought the whole thing was rubbish. He taught that the elaborate purity rituals were unnecessary - the Kingdom of God was available to everyone and they didn't have to go through these rituals or pay the money in order to get there.

Bad news for the Temple apparatchiks. A quick way to raise a revolt was to tell people that they were being ripped-off. This could cause a riot in the Temple if it got out of hand.

But there was worse. Jesus stormed into the Temple and accused the moneychangers and sacrificial dove sellers of extortion and of turning the Temple into a den of thieves.

The ultimate challenge to any religious leaders: What you are doing is against God and God will destroy you and cleanse the whole religious apparatus. And God, as every Jew knew, had the power to do it - he'd demonstrated that many times before.

Jesus was doing this in the Temple, in front of the crowds and without any fear or respect for Caiaphas and his staff.

Caiaphas had to do something to show that he was still boss, and he had to do it quickly; Jesus was on a roll, and who knew what he was going to do next.

What Caiaphas did
You don't get to stay High Priest without being able to take the tough decisions and follow them through.

Caiaphas decided Jesus had to be stopped and he called a meeting of the chief priests. Matthew's Gospel tells us that Caiaphas told them that Jesus had to be killed.

The priests weren't at all sure about this. If Jesus was killed, there might be riots. But Caiaphas got his decision and put it into effect at once.

The Temple guards arrested Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane that night and he was put on trial before the High Court.

The evidence so far
We might disapprove of some of the self-interested motives behind Caiaphas' actions: protecting his income and his power-base; but it doesn't amount to a crime of any sort.

Jesus was causing trouble in Jerusalem. He was a known rebel and he was endangering public peace at a time when large and volatile crowds were thronging the city. It was entirely reasonable to arrest him.

The rigged trial
At this point Caiaphas crossed to the wrong side of the law. He rigged the trial.

Caiaphas took on the usually incompatible roles of chief judge and prosecuting lawyer.

Scholars know the rules that applied to Jewish trials at that period and the trial of Jesus broke many of those rules:
It was at night - Jewish trials had to take place during the day
It took place on a feast day - this was not allowed
It took place in Caiaphas's house - it should have been conducted in the council chamber
The trial went wrong for Caiaphas - he needed to prove that Jesus had threatened to destroy the Temple, which would have been both treason and an offence against God. But the witnesses couldn't agree on what Jesus had said. So that charge failed.

Caiaphas decided to see if he could induce Jesus to utter blasphemy.

He asked Jesus, point blank, "Are you the Son of God, the Son of the Blessed? Are you The Messiah?"

The Gospels vary a little, and only in Mark's account does Jesus answer that he is.

It's enough. Caiaphas announces that Jesus has spoken blasphemy. The rest of the Court agree. Jesus deserves the death sentence.

Just one problem; the court didn't have the power to execute people. And that's where the Romans come into the story.

Actually, there are two problems, blasphemy against the God of Jews was not a crime under Roman Law, and unless Caiaphas could think of something better, it might not be enough to persuade the Romans to execute Jesus.

Caiaphas's fate
Caiaphas was removed from office soon after the death of Jesus and lived quietly on his farm near Galilee.

The case against Pilate

Who was Pilate?
Pilate was the Governor of Judea, a province of the Roman Empire. He had 6,000 crack troops with him and 30,000 more on call in nearby Syria.

Pilate was effectively a dictator; so long as he kept Rome happy, he had absolute power, including power of life and death.

The case against Pilate
The case against Pilate is that he found Jesus not guilty, but had him executed in order to keep the peace.

What were Pilate's motives?
Pilate was desperate to keep the peace. His career in the Roman Empire depended on his running the province smoothly and efficiently.

He had 6,000 soldiers on hand to keep the peace in a city bulging with 2.5 million Jews. The religious authorities, whose cooperation he needed for a quiet life, wanted him to execute Jesus and there was an angry mob baying for Jesus' blood.

To release Jesus would have been likely to cause a riot; Pilate could have lost control of the city, and possibly the province.

Pilate sacrificed Jesus to preserve Roman rule and his own career.

The two Pilates
We don't know what Pilate was like. The Bible story paints him as a weak but innocent man who didn't want to execute a man he believed innocent, but who gave in to political pressure.

Some historians disagree. Philo, writing at the time, said that Pilate was calculating, cruel and brutal. He probably had a typical Roman's disdain for any other culture, thinking the Jews not nearly as civilised as the Romans.

Pilate was well known for having executed prisoners even without trial, so it would not be out of character for him to be responsible for killing Jesus.

The motives of Pilate
No matter how little he thought of the people of Judea, Pilate could not get out of attending the major festival of Passover.

T he message of Passover was one that was certain to unsettle anyone who was trying to keep the Jewish people under their thumb, for it celebrated the time when God brought the Israelites out of Egypt into the Holy Land, shaking off foreign oppression.

So it's no accident that nearly all of the riots that we hear about in the first Century took place at Passover.

Pilate would have been anxious about any possibility of trouble breaking out, particularly trouble near the Temple, the heart of the Jewish community.

And because trouble in that sort of situation is contagious, Pilate knew that he would have to be ruthless in stamping out any sort of disorder.

Pilate senses trouble
The Romans wouldn't have been able to rule without an extensive network of spies, so it's certain that Pilate knew all about Jesus' arrival in Jerusalem, his preaching and the havoc he'd caused in the Temple.

But Pilate was probably unprepared for the problem that Caiaphas presented him with when he brought Jesus before him.

A trial for treason
Instead of leading with the conviction for blasphemy, Caiaphas claimed that Jesus was guilty of sedition.

Jesus, Caiaphas said, thought himself, or his followers thought, or people said that he was the King of the Jews. This was a capital crime against Rome and Pilate had to deal with it whether he wanted to or not.

The rumour raced round Jerusalem: Jesus of Nazareth was on trial for his life.

Crowds began to gather, some of them probably a mob organised by the Temple authorities; just what a Roman governor hoping for a peaceful Passover did not want.

Pilate asked Jesus if he was calling himself King of the Jews. Jesus made little or no reply.

Pilate read the reports that he had from his officials and saw that it was quite clear that Jesus wasn't leading a military revolution. There was simply no evidence against Jesus.

Pilate said, 'this man is innocent'.

The crowd was angered by the verdict and began to shout for Jesus to be crucified.

Pragmatism wins the day
Pilate faced a dilemma: If he released Jesus there might be serious riots. But the alternative was to execute an innocent man.

Pilate wanted a way out (he didn't need one - it was well within his authority to execute people on flimsy evidence) and he tried a masterstroke of lateral thinking.

There is a Passover amnesty, which allows the Roman governor to release a prisoner on the festival. Pilate offered the crowd a choice between Jesus and Barabbas, a convicted murderer.

The crowd shouted for Barabbas to be released.

There's no way out for Pilate, but he made a last attempt at saving his own reputation.

Pilate declared that Jesus was innocent and condemned him to death by crucifixion. Then he symbolically washed his hands in front of the crowd, telling them he was innocent of Jesus' blood.

Pilate's fate
Pilate was recalled to Rome to be tried for his brutal treatment of Jews, but the Emperor Tiberius died, and Pilate was never brought to trial. He is thought to have committed suicide in 37 CE - not long after the crucifixion.

The case against Jesus
Many experts believe that, more than anyone else, the person responsible for the death of Jesus was Jesus himself.

There is a considerable body of evidence to suggest that everything he did was planned and that he knew what the consequences would be.

Jesus' motive
Jesus believed profoundly that he was on a mission from God and everything he did was to fulfil that mission.

Acting out the prophecy of the Messiah
In the events of Holy Week, Jesus seems to be deliberately acting out the prophecy in Hebrew scripture about Israel's true king, the anointed one, the Messiah, coming at last to be God's agent to redeem Israel.

His arrival in Jerusalem on a donkey was a fulfilment of prophecy but it would not have been enough on its own to get Jesus killed.

Attacking the religious establishment
Jesus went to the Temple and launched not only an attack on the commercial activity of the moneychangers but a symbolic attack on the Temple itself.

Jesus was steeped in the religious culture of his time; he knew the potential consequences of his actions. He knew what it meant to proclaim the Temple's destruction and to claim that a new kingdom was forming, the Kingdom of God.

Refusing to escape
Jesus knew that it would not be long before the authorities took action against him, and he knew that the sentence was likely to be death. The obvious thing for Jesus to do was to leave Jerusalem and hide, and he had plenty of time to run.

But Jesus continued to put himself directly in the path of danger; he stayed in Jerusalem and celebrated the Passover with his disciples.

Predicting his death
During that Last Supper Jesus seemed to be predicting his own death. As he and the disciples sat together, Jesus called the bread they were eating his broken body and referred to the red wine they drank as his spilled blood.

Later, Jesus identified Judas Iscariot as his betrayer. In one of the Gospels Jesus says to Judas, "Do what you have to do, but do it quickly."

Sweating blood
The story of the night in Gethsemane contains powerful medical evidence to support the theory that Jesus knew what he was doing.

It was there that Jesus was touched by dreadful doubt - was death really what God wanted for him? He begged God to release him from his fate.

A at that moment, St. Luke - himself a doctor - records that Jesus sweated drops of blood onto the path before him.

Doctors know that the sweat glands all over our body are supplied by small blood vessels. Under extreme stress these vessels can break and blood can leak into the sweat itself. The medical term is haematohydrosis - blood sweat.

If Jesus knew the torture and agonising death that lay ahead, the stress would have been unbearable, quite enough to cause him to sweat blood.

So was Jesus guilty of his own death?
Not in any sense of guilt that most people would understand. A soldier who goes on a mission that is certain to lead to death is a brave man, not a guilty one.

Jesus was faithful to his vocation, even though it led to his death; but he was not guilty in the same sense that Caiaphas and Pilate are guilty.

Who killed Jesus?
...
...
...
THE ELVES! KILL THE ELVES!

HEIL NEIN MELKOR! :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

How anti-climactic. Can we get rid of all of these idiots?

SH, where did you learn all this? Because I have never even heard of Caiaphas. Then again, I belong to the Roman Catholic church. Not exactly known for given the full story/ies.