Did the Jews kill Jesus?

Was Mary Magdalene a prostitute?
Was mother Mary a virgin?
Scholars agree and disagree on a lot of many different sources - what about Q and L etc?


Abogado del Diablo said:
I know, that was my point. But if you look at the whole Psalm, it is more thoroughly historicized in the Gospel of Peter than it is in the synoptics. That was my other point.


Scholars agree that it was a source for Matthew Luke and John. It is itself borrowing from Peter as the vinegar story demonstrates.


How do you know this?
Click to expand...
 
Kalimiel said:
Mark knew Jesus, why would he copy from Peter's gospel?
Click to expand...
BTW, even Eusebius and Ireaneus disagree that Mark knew Jesus. The best they could come up with was that "Mark" was a disciple of Peter and there's no reliable evidence even of that.

As an aside, in book "Who Wrote the Gospels?" Randel Helms points out:

"Anyone approaching Jerusalem from Jericho would come first to Bethany and then Bethphage, not the reverse. This is one of several passages showing that Mark knew little about Palestine; we must assume, Dennis Nineham argues, that 'Mark did not know the relative positions of these two villages on the Jericho road' (1963, 294-295). Indeed, Mark knew so little about the area that he described Jesus going from Tyrian territory 'by way of Sidon to the Sea of Galilee through the territory of the Ten Towns' (Mark 7:31); this is similar to saying that one goes from London to Paris by way of Edinburgh and Rome. The simplist solution, says Nineham, is that 'the evangelist was not directly acquainted with Palestine' (40)."
 
Abogado del Diablo said:
BTW, even Eusebius and Ireaneus disagree that Mark knew Jesus. The best they could come up with was that "Mark" was a disciple of Peter and there's no reliable evidence even of that.

As an aside, in book "Who Wrote the Gospels?" Randel Helms points out:

"Anyone approaching Jerusalem from Jericho would come first to Bethany and then Bethphage, not the reverse. This is one of several passages showing that Mark knew little about Palestine; we must assume, Dennis Nineham argues, that 'Mark did not know the relative positions of these two villages on the Jericho road' (1963, 294-295). Indeed, Mark knew so little about the area that he described Jesus going from Tyrian territory 'by way of Sidon to the Sea of Galilee through the territory of the Ten Towns' (Mark 7:31); this is similar to saying that one goes from London to Paris by way of Edinburgh and Rome. The simplist solution, says Nineham, is that 'the evangelist was not directly acquainted with Palestine' (40)."
Click to expand...
Give you that, I've never read Helms. But I do feel very strongly, by way of interest, that both Eusebius and Iranius were unhinged misogynists.
 
Kalimiel said:
Give you that, I've never read Helms. But I do feel very strongly, by way of interest, that both Eusebius and Iranius were unhinged misogynists.
Click to expand...
That, I completely agree with. :p

Interesting though that almost the entire Christian tradition regarding the authorship of the Gospels is ulimately based on these two men. In the case of the Gospel of John (which doesn't identify it's author except as the "beloved disciple") the only evidence as to its authorship was Irenaeus's insistence that he heard from an intermediary (Polycarp) that it was authored by "John the Apostle". Which is itself fascinating because, of the Canonical gospels, "John" is most clearly a Gnostic text. Tellingly, the Gospel of John was prominent in the teaching of the Valentinians as well - which should tell you something.

I would add that, as the author of "Against Heresies," Ireneaus isn't exactly an unbiased or reliable source for anything.
 
And you gotta love Irenaeus' line of reasoning for the number of the gospels. Four winds? Four corners of the flat earth? Of course! No more reason for the various sects to fight now, since all their books are one, despite the contradiction between them. Nevermind the man behind the curtain. LOL The noble lies of the pious have been a millstone around the neck of religion since the beginning.
 
Mus Zibii said:
And you gotta love Irenaeus' line of reasoning for the number of the gospels. Four winds? Four corners of the flat earth? Of course! No more reason for the various sects to fight now, since all their books are one, despite the contradiction between them. Nevermind the man behind the curtain. LOL The noble lies of the pious have been a millstone around the neck of religion since the beginning.
Click to expand...
The noble lies of the pious have been a millstone around the neck of religion since the beginning.

I absolutely agree.
 




"Did the Jews kill Jesus?"



Actually this is a trick question because the word 'Jew' can either mean Judahite or Judean. A Judahite is a descendant of Judah whereas a Judean is merely a resident of Judea, thus a Judean could be a Judahite or any number of other ethnic groups.



In the previous century John Hyrcanus had conquered the Idumeans and had permitted them to live in Judea providing that they convert to the religion of the House of Judah, thus the Idumeans (also known as Edomites) ‘became’ Judeans (or ‘became’ Jews).



We all know that these Idumeans worked out an arrangement with the Romans to rule Judea, and this began the reign of the Idumean kings, otherwise known as the Herodians. These Herodian kings were entitled to appoint the High Priest of the Sanhedrin and thus the Pharisees were largely comprised of the Idumeans. We also know that Jesus was hated mostly by these Pharisees and were eventually condemned by them and sent to Pilate for the actual details of execution.



And so we are left with the knowledge that the Idumeans were responsible for the death of Jesus. Although the Idumeans were not Judahites, they could be called Judeans, and in that geographical sense they could be called 'Jews', but they were not Jews in the same sense that Jesus was as they were not Judahites descended from the tribe of Judah. They remained Idumeans or Edomites who were descended from Esau, Jacob’s brother, who had lost his birthright and his father’s blessing in exchange for a bowl of beans.



We must remember that the word 'Jew' is a modern English word that obviously did not exist in biblical times but is only a modern translation of the Greek words ‘Iouda’, which can have two different definitions, Judahite or Judean. Since these definitions can have conflicting meanings, it may be preferable not to use this word when discussing ancient events of Judahites and Judeans. In the interest of pursuing clarity, it would be more useful to simply speak of the actual ethnic groups of Judea rather than lumping them all together under the modern term 'Jew'.



Then we can simply answer the question "Who killed Jesus?" by saying that the Idumeans (Edomites) killed Jesus the Judahite. Perhaps this was an act of vengeance arising from the feud that had begun between Jacob and Esau centuries previously.



We can also say that the administration of the House of Judah (dominated by the foreign rule of the Idumean/Edomite clan of the Herodians) rejected Jesus while many of the Judahites living in Judea and Galilee did not reject Him but followed Him fervently.



The Judahites and Benjamites of the House of Judah were His sheep and they largely accepted Him:

Jhn 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:



The Idumean Pharisees were not His sheep and thus they did not accept Him:

Jhn 10:26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.



Wolfgang von USA





 
Wolfgang,

Generally I've been satisfied to think of those who crucified Christ as simply the ecclesiastical and political authorities of the then Judaea.

But having read your post, I'd like to know your response:

You seem to pose some things about the Herodians I hadn't seen before... I think generally from what i've read:

"Herod was born in southern Palestine; his father, Antipater, was an Edomite (an Arab from the region between the Dead Sea and the Gulf of Aqaba). Antipater was a man of great influence and wealth, who increased both by marrying the daughter of a noble from Petra (in southwestern Jordan), at that time the capital of the rising Nabataean kingdom. Thus Herod was, although a practicing Jew, of Arab origin on both sides."

- 1994-2000 Encyclopædia Britannica

Source: http://ejournal.tripod.com/background.html

You wrote:

"...the Pharisees were largely comprised of the Idumeans..."

As to the Pharisees being Idumeans...that's a new one on me!

The Pharisees were the most vocal and influential of the then sects of Judaism. The others were the Essenes and the Sadducees as you know. As a sect of Judaism the Pharisees were from what i recall the most popular with the common people and so i find it strange that you would think they were "Idumeans". Didn't they look down on Herod because He was at least part Idumaean?

And what of Saul-Paul being a Pharisee? Was he also an Idumaean?

"Brothers, I am a Pharisee and the son of a Pharisee."

Acts 23:6


In friendship,

- Art
 
It's very late in my time zone so will not type a full reply right now, but just check out this link.

http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/eisenman.html

Paul claimed to be a Benjamite but it is more likely he was a Herodian Idumean (and an Idumean is the Greek word for Edomite).
And of course if Paul was anHerodian, he would therefore be an Edomite.

Paul as Herodian

Robert Eisenman

Institute for Jewish-Christian Origins
California State University at Long Beach

JHC 3/1 (Spring, 1996), 110-122.


​
THERE are materials in the New Testament, early Church literature, Rabbinic literature, and Josephus which point to some connection between Paul and so-called "Herodians." These materials provide valuable insight into problems related to Paul's origins, his Roman citizenship, the power he conspicuously wields in Jerusalem when still a young man, and the "Herodian" thrust of his doctrines (and as a consequence those of the New Testament) envisioning a community in which both Greeks and Jews would enjoy equal promises and privileges.

By "Herodian" we mean a religio-political orientation not inimical to the aims of the Herodian family, not only in Palestine, but also in Asia Minor and even Rome, and possibly implying a genealogical connection as well. Examples of the effect of such an orientation expressed with retrospective historical effect in the Gospels would be the curious thematic repetitions portraying a Jewish (Judahite) Messiah desiring fellowship with "Sinners" (for Paul in Gal 2:l, "Gentiles"), "publicans" (presumably Jewish dietary regulations were of little consequence to such persons), "prostitutes" (in our view a euphemism for "fornicators" as per Jamesian/Qumran definition, i.e., those who defined technical rules of sexual purity differently or less strictly), and "tax-collectors" (persons fitting comfortably into the political philosophy enunciated by Paul in Rom 13), and a whole genre of other allusions such as "the first shall be last," "these little ones"/"simple ones," the Messiah as "wine-bibber" (presumably therefore distinguished from such well-known life-long Nazirite types as his brother James, John the Baptist, the mysterious "Banus," and probably the Qumran Righteous Teacher).

In recent work, I not only argued for the precedence that must be given to literary and historical evidence over archaeological and palaeographic evidence of the kind which exists for Qumran, but also attempted to concretize the basic political (and by consequence religious) orientation of Qumran as anti-Herodian. The last allows us to arrive at a proper textual and historical dating of Qumran documents and has important ramifications for Gospel research. Underestimating it, I believe, is one of the most serious defects of Qumran research. I have also redefined "Pharisees" generically in terms of "seeking accommodation with foreigners" for two reasons: first, to take into account important self-professed "Pharisees" like Paul and Josephus, and second, to relate such persons and others to Qumran circumlocutions like "Seekers after Smooth Things." By this I mean that we should not simply call Pharisees those whom the Talmud or Josephus might so identify, but those so identifiable because of an accommodating attitude towards foreign rule and some of its important ramifications, e.g., acceptance of gifts or sacrifices on behalf of foreigners in the Temple, Herodian or foreign appointment of high priests, etc. (Note from Wolfgang - This accommodating attitude towards foreigners and foreign rulers would refer not only to Romans but to the newly assimilated Idumeans or Edomites, including King Herod.)

In several documents and contexts, Qumran presents a basic alliance or modus vivendi between groups it variously refers to as "the Traitors"/"Congregation of Traitors" (bogdim), "the Seekers after Smooth Things," "the Man of Lying"/"Pourer out of Lying," "Comedian," "Windbag," "Dauber upon the Wall," "the Violent Ones"/"Violent Ones of the Gentiles," "Men of War," "the Simple Ones of Ephraim"/"House of Ephraim," etc. This last allusion, which is found in the Nahum Pesher in the context of various problems relating to the period in which the Seekers after Smooth Things were in control in Jerusalem, is also linked to a "Lying Tongue" who leads many astray, problems with overseas messengers, allusion to "the city of blood" (which in the Habakkuk Pesher also relates to ideological problems with "the Liar"), and through the use of the expression nilvu (i.e., "joining"), to Gentiles. It also parallels another expression, "the Simple Ones of Judah"/"Torah-Doers in the House of Judah"/"the Poor"/"the Many" on behalf of whom the Teacher of Righteousness carries out proper justifying activities.

In Maccabees, Zadokites, Christians and Qumran (Brill, 1983), I identified at least those indicated under the circumlocution "Violent Ones of the Gentiles" with renegade Herodian Men-of-War (also probably partially identifiable with those Josephus calls "Idumeans") who first support the uprising and then desert it. Along with John the Essene, they are in the early days among the revolution's bravest military commanders and would appear to take their "war" policy even further than so-called "Zealots." Among these I would include Queen Helen's son Monobazus, who was killed in the attack on Cestius, Niger of Perea, a leader of Josephus' "Idumeans," Silas (also close to the Herodian family — possibly brought up with Agrippa I and in the final analysis a deserter from Agrippa II's army), and perhaps even Philip (the head of Agrippa's bodyguard in Caesarea). At the same time, they were probably on intimate terms with a person Josephus calls "Saulus," a "kinsman of Agrippa," the probable descendant of the Idumean convert Costobarus (the real "Idumaean" in Herodian genealogies), though he was a principal member of the opposing pro-Roman "peace" coalition and the go-between for Agrippa II and "all those desirous for peace" who actually invited the Romans to send their soldiers into the city to suppress the revolt.

PAUL'S basic attempts to found a community where both Greek and Hebrew — or as he puts it sometimes, "Jews first, but Greeks as well" (cf. Rom 3:22, 1 Cor 12:13, etc.) — enjoy equal promises and privileges, spiritual or otherwise, and consonant soteriological equity, are well documented. This cosmopolitanism is based on a more easy-going attitude towards the Law (as opposed to Qumran's and James' strict constructionist, "not one jot or tittle" approach); the ideal of justification by faith alone (as opposed, for instance, to the insistence in lQpHab 8 upon the Law as a prerequisite for justification); an open hostility to circumcision which undoubtedly found a sympathetic response from such "Asian" rulers as Antiochus of Commagene, Monobazus' mother Helen of the sistering state of Adiabene, Azizus of Emesa, who married Drusilla after he was circumcised only to have her divorce him, and Polemos of Cilicia whom Bernice divorced after he was circumcised (which Josephus tells us he did on account of her great "riches"); and an easy-going approach to dietary matters — as Paul puts it in 1 Cor 9:19ff. in his discussion of the terms of James' "Jerusalem Council" directives, despite his somewhat disingenuous protests about not wishing to be the cause of his brother's "stumbling": "do not be afraid to eat anything sold in the butcher-shops; there is no need to raise questions of conscience" ("conscience" in his view being a euphemism for the Law: cf., his allusion to vegetarianism like James' as "weak").

Sometimes in allusions such as being a "Jew to the Jews," "running the race to win," etc. (1 Cor 9:19ff.), Paul even appears to turn this around to "Greeks first, but Jews as well." When he turns the accusation against "the Rich" for killing "the Just One" as in 5:6 into an accusation against the Jews in 1 Thess 2:14, he virtually closes the doors against Jews. This accusation, which parallels the thrust of the inversion of imagery above where "fornicators" and "tax-collectors," etc. are pictured as being on intimate terms with the Messiah, was retrospectively assimilated into the New Testament, and thereby vitiated its historical fabric.

Paul's traveling companions and closest collaborators after his break with the Jewish apostles are usually Judeo-Greeks like Timothy (= Titus?), whose "mother was a Jewess" of the Herodian type and who like Paul carried Roman citizenship, the mysterious Silas (= Silvanus?), etc. This mix is typical of the second generation of "Herodians," or at least those descending from Mariamne. The Jewish blood of third generation Herodians like Agrippa I, his sister Herodias, and brother (or half-brother) Herod of Chalcis was even further diluted. The "Christian" community in Antioch, where Christians were first called Christians (Acts 11:26) — a suitable locale for the crystallization of this terminology — comprises, even according to Acts' dubious historical reckoning, various persons of this "Herodian" mix. Among these one should include the curious "Niger," "Lucius of Cyrene," who was very likely none other than Paul's other famous traveling companion Luke, and "Manaen who was a foster-brother of Herod the Tetrarch" (Acts 13:1).

To continue go to

http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/eisenman.html


 
To think that to say it was soley the Jews fault for killing Jesus is not true. The thought that Pontius Pilate didn''t want to kill Jesus because he couldn't find him guilty is also a liitle naive. Pontious Pilate executed hundreds if not thousands of people indiscrimantley. The writers of the gospels put the blame on the lap of the Jews because it was convenient for a couple of reasons. First the Romans were deadly opponents and they didn't want to cross them by writing material that blamed them for the killing of their savior. Secondly alot of gentiles were converting to Christianity and it was clearly becoming more of a gentile movement. The Jews didn't believe that Jesus was the messiah, and for good reason. he didn't fit their criteria. The Jews were in the way of the gospel spreading and were a convenient scapegoat.
 
Who Killed Jesus. Hmmm? That's an easy one. Jesus himself said no man has the power to take his life, and that he gave it willingly. Because Jesus died and rose, all you us have a chance of eternal life. This free gift from God comes when we admit to God and ourself that we are sinners in need of a Savior. With Jesus, our sins have been forgiven as our fine has already been paid. With Jesus we are freed from the Law. Just as Jesus died, we too who are in him, are also dead to the law. And, the Law cannot convict a dead man! All that said, I'll tell you the truth of who killed Jesus.

*Drum Roll*

YOU Killed Jesus! Your mother did. Your father did. I did! Jesus died because God didnt want us to die in sins. Because God didnt want us to pay the price of sin, he paid it himself. Now, he only ask that we recornize his Sacrifice.

Will you?
 
Wrong question to ask on these forums, Knowledge. :)

CR is a place for discussing and sharing ideas/thoughts/opinions according to individual positions of faiths - it is better to avoid any intention of using CR as a place to convert people to a specific faith/church/path. :)
 
I Brian,

I can lead a horse to a river, but I cant make it drink homie. What does that mean? Well, in short, I CANNOT convert anyone! I can just give the message.

Later,

Knowledge
 
Knowledge some advice from someone who understands that you are just trying to witness to people.. If you are too obvious people are going to recognize it and back away.. Woo the sheep gently and they will follow.. knock them upside the head and they are going to run away. :)
 
Thanks Faithfulservant! But, I dont think there is a nicer way to tell people the truth. If there was, I dont think Christians would be persecuted. But, because I say that Jesus only is the Truth, and ONLY way to God, plus the answer to every problem, I'll be looked upon as intolerant. Its almost oxmoranic, I say what I say in love. But, its always recieved as harsh. Well, at first, at least.

In Christ!
 
Knowledge said:
Thanks Faithfulservant! But, I dont think there is a nicer way to tell people the truth. If there was, I dont think Christians would be persecuted. But, because I say that Jesus only is the Truth, and ONLY way to God, plus the answer to every problem, I'll be looked upon as intolerant. Its almost oxmoranic, I say what I say in love. But, its always recieved as harsh. Well, at first, at least.

In Christ!
Click to expand...
For the ignorant, Jesus was always kind towards. Jesus never assumed anything. Jesus lead with grace, graciousness and kindness. He fed milk to the babes, not meat. Stuff meat down a child's throat and that child will choke.

v/r

Q
 
Jesus ALWAYS preached in love. And, he also ALWAYS spoke about the consequences of sin. The Biblical way to preach the gospel, is to bring the awarness of sin through the Law. This is the way Jesus, Paul, and the 1st century saints did it. Today though, the gospel has lost its fire. Its gone from preaching the Law to "Jesus will give you peace, and joy." This kind of teaching has produced many false converts who in time, fall away from the faith because they think they've tried Jesus, and he failed them.
 
Conscience said:
Jesus ALWAYS preached in love. And, he also ALWAYS spoke about the consequences of sin. The Biblical way to preach the gospel, is to bring the awarness of sin through the Law. This is the way Jesus, Paul, and the 1st century saints did it. Today though, the gospel has lost its fire. Its gone from preaching the Law to "Jesus will give you peace, and joy." This kind of teaching has produced many false converts who in time, fall away from the faith because they think they've tried Jesus, and he failed them.
Click to expand...
Interesting concept Conscience. ;) My dad and grandfather use to knock me from one room into the next, when I violated the "law". Obviously I "sinned" in their eyes, but what do you think it got me?...

Just plain angry. Can't be too soft, and can't be too harsh. Humans don't work well in either environment.

Oh, I just thought of something. For the faithful? If a "Carpenter" clamps His hand down on your shoulder, you will notice that, regardless of how big and strong ya might be...in other words, we know when we've done wrong. Doen't mean we are condemned.

v/r

Q
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top