who do you think that really killed Jesus?

[Liebling:-)))]

But it will only confused the public when you say its the "Roman" Relgious Leaders when they are really the "Jewish" Relgious Leaders, I don't see how it would offended the jewish because it's the truth. You can't avoid the truth, nobody can.

I realized that I should say: "Roman's religious leaders" Relgious leaders in my previous post instead of Roman Relgious leaders because they work for Roman authorities, no matter which race they have.

Not that I aviod the truth but I respect different beliefs. Jewish would disagree with you if they read your posts here... ??? See 2 links yourself why I can't say anything to name which races relgious leaders have... but work for Roman authorities = Roman's Relgious leaders.

Did Jews Kill Jesus?
Jews Killed Christ?

Assuming that he really was crucified at all, the gospels show that he was crucified (not a Jewish, but a Roman punishment reserved exclusively for those guilty of crimes against the empire), in accordance with Roman (not Jewish) laws, by Romans (not Jews), for breaking a Roman (not Jewish) law forbidding sedition against the Roman Empire.

Did Jews Kill Jesus?
Did the Jews Kill Jesus?

 

[Secretblend]

Yes, that's right.



Due with respect, I prefer to not name which race religious leaders have but Roman's religious leaders or Religious leaders who work for Roman authorities. (I should say in my early post "Roman's relgious leaders").




for confirmed my point about Jesus who was being accused for commit blasphemy by Relgious leaders in my previous posts.



Really?

Jewish laws on capital trials are found in texts almost two centuries
after the death of Jesus (M. Sanh. 4-11), so it is not known whether
they reflect first-century practice. By these norms the trial in Mark
is not legal, since according to the Mishnah capital trials could not
be held at night or on the eve of a Sabbath or feast day (M. Sanh.
4:1). The sentence of death could not be pronounced on the same day as
the trial (M. Sanh. 4:1); prior examination of witnesses, as well as
independent agreement of their testimony, was required (M. Sanh. 4:5;
cf. Deut. 19:15-18); the charge of blasphemy required the explicit
pronouncing of the divine name (M. Sanh. 7:5); and trials were to be
held in the official chamber, not in the house of the high priest (M.
Sanh. 11:2; cf. Mark 14:54). Also uncertain is whether the Sanhedrin
had the power to execute for capital offenses during Roman occupation
(see John 18:31). If so, Jesus should have been stoned, which was the
Jewish penalty for blasphemy.

Question 16.5: Did the Jews kill Jesus?

That's why I call "Roman's relgious leaders" instead of name which race they have because they work for Roman authorities. I still would say that Roman's relgious leaders were responsiblity for Jesus's innoncent death.

It could be not possible that jewish are responsiblilty for Jesus's death because there're no Jewish law at Roman time.

The Jewish religion leaders did not work for Romans. They hated the fact that the Romans were over them. They wanted them out but since they were under the rule of Romans, they had to follow their laws. The Jews that did work for the Romans (Tax collectors) were hated cause they were working for Romans collecting taxes from their fellow jews.

Even tho they were under Roman's law. They were still allowed to do their live under their own rules and religion laws as long as it didn't conflict with Romans Law.

Therefore it was Jews that was responsible for having Jesus crucified. The only thing the Romans did was allow it to proceed.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

That's right. We shouldn't tamper with the facts just to fit today's political correctness.

Is race do with political correctness?

Is it discrimination if we have to say or fill the information out which race we have?

Is it important for everyone to know which race we have?

 

[Liebling:-)))]

The Jewish religion leaders did not work for Romans. They hated the fact that the Romans were over them. They wanted them out but since they were under the rule of Romans, they had to follow their laws. The Jews that did work for the Romans (Tax collectors) were hated cause they were working for Romans collecting taxes from their fellow jews.

Even tho they were under Roman's law. They were still allowed to do their live under their own rules and religion laws as long as it didn't conflict with Romans Law.

Therefore it was Jews that was responsible for having Jesus crucified. The only thing the Romans did was allow it to proceed.

No matter how much they hate Romans but they were STILL work under Roman authorities. It's them who urged Pilate to sentence Jesus to death for commit blasphemy in first place. If they really hate Roman then leave Roman authorities then, why can't they?

I don't agree that Jews was the responsibilty for Jesus crucified but Roman authorities including relgious leaders because there're no Jew's law during Roman's time.

 

[Reba]

Is race do with political correctness?

Sometimes, yes.

Is it discrimination if we have to say or fill the information out which race we have?

Are you talking about this topic or about a job application?

Is it important for everyone to know which race we have?

I'm lost. What does this have to do with the topic? Why are you so obsessed with race?

 

[jazzy]

It has nothing to do with beliefs, It had something to do with how you were mockery Jesus, If you believe in Jesus like you say you do then you would never mocked at the fact that he should have done what you think he should have done.

U dont get it. How do I mocked Him? I mocked at your question maybe but not Him. For instance u keep saying he instead of He? then u used Passion of Christ which is odd to me because this movie was made by CAtholic belief espeically after what u told us not too long ago Catholics are not saved. That is how I feel when u slapped my face when u said I am not being saved because my family and I came from strong catholic.

 

[Cheri]

U dont get it. How do I mocked Him? I mocked at your question maybe but not Him. For instance u keep saying he instead of He? then u used Passion of Christ which is odd to me because this movie was made by CAtholic belief espeically after what u told us not too long ago Catholics are not saved. That is how I feel when u slapped my face when u said I am not being saved because my family and I came from strong catholic.

What's wrong with the fact that I watched the movie "Passion of Christ" Anyone is allow to watch that movie if they wishes to. Beside the bible I read stated everything that Passion of Christ had stated.

Beside I never stated that you were not saved for being a Catholic. If you are here to cause trouble, I would be greatly appreciated if you kindly refrain from posting on this thread.

 

[jillio]

Passion of Christ was created by Mel Gibson who is supposed to be Catholic and I do not think many conservative Christians do follow this movie as Catholic people do.

It is a story Mel Gibson to make a movie trying to be exactly alike what he believes. I had a vision of HIm dying on the cross and saw him being beaten by Roman soldiers alike I was there to witness His death. Mel Gibson's movie and my own are not exactly same.

Exactly. This is a movie, and it is meant to be entertainment, not a documentary on doctrine. And it was made from a Catholic perspective.

 

[jillio]

U dont get it. How do I mocked Him? I mocked at your question maybe but not Him. For instance u keep saying he instead of He? then u used Passion of Christ which is odd to me because this movie was made by CAtholic belief espeically after what u told us not too long ago Catholics are not saved. That is how I feel when u slapped my face when u said I am not being saved because my family and I came from strong catholic.

Catholics are not saved? How so?

 

[Cheri]

Exactly. This is a movie, and it is meant to be entertainment, not a documentary on doctrine. And it was made from a Catholic perspective.

I disagree, This film is not intended to be entertainment. It is specifically about the twelve hours preceding Jesus's death, It's the Historical truth.

 

[jillio]

I disagree, This film is not intended to be entertainment. It is specifically about the twelve hours preceding Jesus's death, It's the Historical truth.

Yes. I agree that is exactly what it is about. But I disagree that it is historical "truth". It is history as interpreted by a screen writer and a director, not to mention actors. It can be thought to be based on historical accounts, but it can't be taken as an historical documentary, any more than Shindler's List can be taken as an historical documentary. Both are movies based on history, but they are still movies.

 

[christlovedeaf]

The movie Passion of Christ key point is the purpose of Jesus' death and what has happened. Also, true, religious leaders hated the Roman power, but God has a plan of the timing for New Covenant for all people. Roman leader asked people who they choose to be free. Barabas. Who is Barabas? The one who killed one of the roman soldier. Religious leaders are very manipulative groups, they are nothing but ego and "Holy Than Thou" attitude. Nothing but judgemental on people sins. Yes, there are still jewish law the time of Jesus. His death is point for salvation for ALL mankind. Right, religious vs Jesus. Religious is short coming to God, Jesus is the only Door to enter Heaven. Not denominations, creed, any other religion but Christ Himself. Roman authorities did not see any fault in and of Jesus, but jewish religious leaders falsely accused Him. Roman authorities fear of the people. Fear of what? Riots. This is the reason why, Caesar wiped his hand to have himself be clean from the guilt, he left it to the people.

 

[GarnetTigerMom]

Look like everybody becoming a "Religious Frantics" tsk!

 

[GarnetTigerMom]

U dont get it. How do I mocked Him? I mocked at your question maybe but not Him. For instance u keep saying he instead of He? then u used Passion of Christ which is odd to me because this movie was made by CAtholic belief espeically after what u told us not too long ago Catholics are not saved. That is how I feel when u slapped my face when u said I am not being saved because my family and I came from strong catholic.

Oh boy, okay We all know Mel Gibson does his research about historical events that used lot of bloody violance in the movie called the "Passion of Christ" The movie, of course, is The Passion of the Christ, Mel Gibson's version of Jesus' final hours on earth seen by more than 30 million people. It was a good movie but very graphic details that scared me out of my wit. When the Roman Catholics among them hear the priest recite the verse from Isaiah—"He was wounded for our transgressions ... by his stripes we are healed"—they may remember that it was with those words that Gibson commenced his reimagining of the scourging of Jesus. When many Lutherans engage in the meditative adoration of the Cross and when congregants at even the least liturgical Protestant churches sing, "Let the water and the blood/ From Thy wounded side which flowed/ Be of sin the double cure," they too may more vividly imagine the Cross and the blood. And they all may be more inclined to ponder a question whose answer at first seems as though it should be as simple as "Jesus loves me, this I know" but in fact has divided theologians and clergy for centuries, with no end in sight: Why did Christ die?

That is, not who (on earth) killed him or even exactly how much he suffered. But what was the cosmic reason for his agony? What is its purpose, its divine calculus? How precisely does his death, usually referred to in this context as the atonement, lead to the salvation of humanity? Those are the questions that makes it more interesting to me when I watched his movie made me think more about the movie.

So in my view is atonement "is the centerpiece of Christianity, and it's what distinguishes it from all other religions, a religious historian who has written a book about one of the topic's great medieval interpreters. Without at least an intuitive comprehension of atonement, a believer stands little chance of making sense of the faith's promises of redemption and eternal life.

 

[Cheri]

Look like everybody becoming a "Religious Frantics" tsk!

I think we are.

 

[Cheri]

Yes. I agree that is exactly what it is about. But I disagree that it is historical "truth". It is history as interpreted by a screen writer and a director, not to mention actors. It can be thought to be based on historical accounts, but it can't be taken as an historical documentary, any more than Shindler's List can be taken as an historical documentary. Both are movies based on history, but they are still movies.

I could agree with that, I just never knew how bad Jesus was treated until I saw the movie--Passion of Christ for the first time.

 

[VamPyroX]

It's simply a blame game. No one knows who to blame.

Those religious leaders were simply doing what they believed. Every religion has their beliefs and there's no way to know which religion is right.

If a man appeared before you claiming to be God's son, would you believe him? That's how those religious leaders probably felt...

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Sometimes, yes.


Are you talking about this topic or about a job application?


I'm lost. What does this have to do with the topic? Why are you so obsessed with race?

Sadly

You are the one who obsessed with race, not me.

You are the one who mentioned We shouldn't tamper with the facts just to fit today's political correctness. in first place.

This is a harmless, general and simple question of me over that political correctness then?

 

[Liebling:-)))]

I disagree, This film is not intended to be entertainment. It is specifically about the twelve hours preceding Jesus's death, It's the Historical truth.

but Mel Gibson is a catholic. He and his wife Roblyn produced 7 children together and raise their children with their own belief. He made film what he know and beleive to. This is catholic historical movie.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Yes. I agree that is exactly what it is about. But I disagree that it is historical "truth". It is history as interpreted by a screen writer and a director, not to mention actors. It can be thought to be based on historical accounts, but it can't be taken as an historical documentary, any more than Shindler's List can be taken as an historical documentary. Both are movies based on history, but they are still movies.

Exactly