Why did the Jews kill Jesus Christ? What were they planning?.

The jews killed Christ but so did the gentiles. Everyone who has ever lived or will ever live is in one of these two groups. So that includes me and you and everyone else. Our sins caused Christ's death.

That's one impotent, suicidal god that can't just wiggle his nose and make things happen.

I would be more than willing to expound on this a little, if anyone is interested. Any takers? Anyone even bother to read this far?

I read!!!!

But the fact is remains why the romans even were there it was because of the Jewish king who asked rome to send fresh troops to Pelesine/Isereal

Herod wasn't a Jew.

Everyone listen, The Jews do not have the New Testament in there teaching, I think that Malachi is the last book they have,

LMAO...our last book is Second Chronicles. The order of our books do not follow the reshuffling of the Christian Bible producers.

unless they have been adding more to there Book so to cover up the stance of the Sandedrin When Jesus was trying to teach to his own..

Our books are no secret. What was taken out during the Council of Jamnia is still available to be read.

The Jewish leaders were scard of Jesus because people were listening to him ( You have to remember at that time in there History, They were Praying everyday for God to send someone that would lead then to victory over the Romans and get them out of there land) and when the Sandedrin found out that Jesus wasn't the worror that they had been Praying for, They got Very scared of him and his teachings..

Jesus was not the first, nor the last to claim to be the "messiah." And why would they worry about his teachings? He told people to keep the law. Paul said the opposite.

The Sandedein were in charge of keeping the Jews in hand so that they could get along with the Romans,

You're a little misinformed on the purpose of the Sanhedrin. They were to promote unity but they were more like the Supreme Court and promoted the unity by being responsible for upholding the halakah.

And as time goes, The Sandedrin though that they had to get rid of him fast, but it had to be done were they looked as they had nothing with it, they had to get the Romans to do it....

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

The Sandedrin had the power to do away with him because he was a Jew, and that scarded them to, they had to make him something else so they would not be part of his Death....

They would have stoned him like many others. Problem is, Jesus claimed to be "king" which was a transgression against Caesar.

I would also caution that there were so many Jewish sects in the Common Era that you cannot really apply a term like "the Jews" with any accuracy.

So true! And AL!!!!!! You have gutte neshome! I saw it!

who are the Sanhedrin?
www.intratext.com...

Click on the far left to go to the verse in the Gospels.....

www.intratext.com...

IX
helen

My current theory based on my reading of the histories and my political background follows more along the lines of the famous quote by Deep Throat - "Follow the money".

Jesus was a threat to the power and wealth of the Temple leadership (note that I did NOT say the "Jewish leadership"). The Temple at that time had developed a rather cozy relationship with the occupying forces. The Roman occupiers were happy to have the Temple helping to keep the peace and they saw it as "mostly harmless" and probably (I have no sources on this) as revenue stream - I think the Romans were squeezing the Temple or the Temple was greasing Pilate. One way or another, the Temple was good business for Pilate. At the very least, it made him look good because the "natives" were placated and peaceful so there was no trouble for him and that made him look like a good leader to Rome. Yes, i am saying that I think there was a good bit of corruption in the Temple when it came to financial dealings with the Roman occupiers.

Along comes Jesus and he's plenty PO'd about what he sees as a relationship between the Temple and the Romans - he thinks the Temple has bent and compromised too much of their mission just to keep the Romans off their backs. He is spoiling for a fight! Jesus had committed enough heresies to qualify for execution by the Temple - which would have been stoning.

Now here's where it gets really fuzzy for me because it gets all tangled up in whether or not there really was a crucifixion (which I happen to believe is unlikely but, let's say that there was). It's Passover, according to the story, so there won't be any stonings scheduled. In fact, the Sanhedran, technically, cannot even convene until after Passover - they can't really act on their own at all. But, they've got Jesus in town and now would be a good time to get rid of him because he's just a damn nuisance and he might cause the other Jews to start looking too closely at what's going on between Pilate and the Temple "bag-men". So, going back to the cozy relationship between the Temple and the Roman authorities, they can get these Gentiles to take care of it for them (which was actually a pretty common way of dealing with any kind of physical or unclean work on Shabbat or religious holidays).

Now, how in the world they got Pilate to use that particular form of execution is beyond me! Other than, as Shonet stated, to portray Jesus an enemy of the state since he had been reported to say (or others said it of him) as a king. That's the best explaination I've heard for the crucifixion part since it seems more likely that the Romans would have just run a sword through him and that would be that.

All-in-all, the whole thing seems to have been very much contrived by Jesus and his followers to get himself martyred on Passover - it was like a suicide-by-cop sort of thing, IMO. And then, we kick in with the whole idea that this thing was faked and Joseph of Aramathea was in on it from the beginning.

I still say "follow the money"...not that Jesus was hoping to get rich. In fact, "true believerism" is quite often a more powerful motivator. It's just that getting the Romans to cooperate in all of this - which they clearly didn't actually care about one way or another - is deeply suspicious.

And that's my current POV...without having cited any sources (and probably without having correctly spelled a few things) so, if you disagree then you have the right. Surely my ideas here are no sillier than the way this thread started off, right?

This is a very simple question to answer! "If" you believe in the bible....it was all planned from the git go...everything that happened from beginning to end, was pre- determined....otherwise Jesus would not of been crucified and there would be no Christianity, by the way…. Jesus was not a Christian......Judas was not a trader, but a pawn in a pre- determined plan.

Originally posted by Shonet1430
Herod wasn't a Jew.

How so?

How so?

His mother wasn't Jewish.

[edit on 6/16/2005 by Shonet1430]

Originally posted by Shonet1430 - "Jesus ... told people to keep the law. Paul said the opposite."

Shonet, your statement about Paul is true given the "cursory read" that's afforded his writings by most. I agree that Christians lift him up as an antinomian champion; hence, all the talk of Pauline Christianity.

However, a critical examination of his writings will yield a different position entirely. I know that's a little hard to swallow, but the key to understanding Paul is that he was entrenched in a struggle against various proto-Gnostic forces, who appealed to and used Jewish Law; howbeit, for reasons other than a devotion to Torah observance. That was just part of the religious syncretism of the Common Era.

Walter Schmithals has written much about Paul and these proto-Gnostic opponents. Sadly, this German scholar has been largely ignored by Christian scholars in America -- as have those scholars from the Jerusalem school of thought, like Prof. David Flusser, Prof. Rabbi Shmuel Safrai, Dr. David Bivin, Prof. Brad Young, etc.

Paul remained a Torah-observant Jew throughout his life. Further, one must separate where he's attempting to counter proto-Gnostic opponents from his stance on Gerim Toshav (Repentant Strangers) in the Holy Land and Noachides (the Righteous of the Nations) in the Diaspora and Gerim Tzedek (Righteous Stranger). Paul wasn't antinomian. He just wasn't out to make full converts (Gerim Tzedek) of the Gentiles.

[edit on 16-6-2005 by smadewell]

To understand Paul and Yeshua ... doubtless the two most misunderstood men in history ... one has to go back to the wrangling between Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai over the "Gentile question." Please jog over to my Understanding the Historical Yeshua thread and read my latest, okay?

I don't really think it was one single group responsible for the death of Christ. Actually, it was preplanned by his father you know (smile). Technically the romans carried out the execution and the Jew's sorta made a case for his death. I don't think blame goes anywhere on this subject. It was an event necessary in the developement of Christianity and I just leave it at that.

Originally posted by Shonet1430

That's one impotent, suicidal god that can't just wiggle his nose and make things happen.

That's Samantha Stevens who does that.

God has patience and strength and love. When man turned against God He could have let us all receive our wages, to be forever seperated from Him in hell. But He showed how much He loves mankind by satisfying His own law when He went ot the cross. He showed/shows His patience for us by having mercy on us and not dealing with us as we deserve. You say He's impotent, I say He is stronger in every way than we could imagine. To go and let the creation you made nail you to a cross and then remain there while justice was satisfied, when you could have spoken a word and removed yourself, requires an awful lot of strength. One of the greatest shows of strength is to not retaliate, when wrongly abused.

Originally posted by Shonet1430

But the fact is remains why the romans even were there it was because of the Jewish king who asked rome to send fresh troops to Pelesine/Isereal

Herod wasn't a Jew.

but dude he was a king wasnt he Herod was a half jew non the less king at that time of the jews.

here is source about herod
www.virtualology.com...

dudes read this about crusifiction this what muslims beliefe about the crusifiction of christ
this small quoat read the whole source on this site

For almost two millennia it has been history’s unvarnished verdict that Jews were responsible for the alleged crucifixion of Jesus Christ. As universally accepted, it were the Jews who bribed Judas, a disciple of Christ to betray him to the Romans who, in turn, crucified him. Judas, the betrayer, double-crossed Jesus for 30 pieces of silver given to him as bribe by the Jews who hated Jesus and never accepted him as a messenger of God. Scores of historical accounts, chronicled through ages and centuries, vouched to the veracity of this.

Source
www.milligazette.com...

but dude he was a king wasnt he Herod was a half jew non the less king at that time of the jews.

I'm no dude. Herod was a king. Herod was not a Jew. When it comes to being a Jew it's different than say taking a Caucasian and African American and mixing the two. It falls more under the all or nothing category. Either your mother is Jewish or she isn't. If she is, then you're a Jew. If she isn't, then you aren't. The only option to become one at that point is to convert. Herod's father was a Jew but the father's side does nothing more than determine tribal heritage. Herod's Mother

Interseptor, that's one HUGE cut and paste. Please only quote the first paragraph of this. The link to the original is already given. Points indicate a new member, so not issuing a cut/paste warn if cleared up within 24 hrs.
(I'll also see if I can get a mod of this forum to do it)...

Thanks.

to Gazrok

thanks for telling me that yeah i have to get the rules right of giving info

[edit on 17-6-2005 by Interseptor]