? A Question For All Former Christians Who Fell Away ?

[YahDough]

This is a question addressed only to former Christians who have left the faith.

Why did you become a Christian?
[/b]

[YahDough]

[Replying to post 11 by Divine Insight]

I was taught by a New Testament professor that it was the Sadducees who were behind the plot to kill Jesus rather than the Pharisees.

I just did a quick study:
In Matthew it is reported the elders, chief priests and scribes were behind the plot.

Mt:16:21: From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

The other Gospels are similar but John mentions Pharisees coming with Judas to get Jesus.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 21 by YahDough]

The Chief Priests were the Sadducees.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 11 by Divine Insight]

I was taught by a New Testament professor that it was the Sadducees who were behind the plot to kill Jesus rather than the Pharisees.

I don't see where the Bible makes any significant detailed differences between scribes, pharisees, and Jewish priests.

But what it does make crystal clear is that the Jewish Priests were the ones who were calling for the crucifixion of Jesus not Pilate, nor the Romans.

Also, the 30 pieces of silver was also offered by the Jewish priests. In one place in the New Testament it claims that Judas returned the reward money to the Temple and cast it down before the priests. He didn't return it to the Romans. And then he supposedly when and hanged himself.

Of course there's a contradiction there too because in other places in the New Testament it says that Judas bought a field with the reward of iniquity and then fell headlong into a ravine and his bowels gushed out.

So there isn't any consistency in these rumors to really go by.

But clearly the reward money was being offered by the Jewish Priests of whatever sect. I always took that to mean the Pharisees. I don't see where the New Testament has Jesus arguing with different types of Jewish priests that represented different sects of Judaism. Usually it just talks about "The Temple" as if there is only one Jewish religious authority.

Some people have even claimed that Jesus was an official rabbi who was actually acknowledge to be a "Jewish Priest" himself. I never got that impression, nor do I recall anywhere where it actually states that Jesus was ever ordained by any orthodox Jewish temple.

Jesus was more of a rebel hippy. He was baptized by John the Bapist, not by officially ordained Jewish Priests. I don't think Jesus was ever recognized by the authoritarians to ever be anything more than a rogue troublemaker.

When he took his little temper tantrum in the Temple over turning the money tables of the money changers he was acting on his own, not as an officially ordained Jewish rabbi.

I don't see where anyone recognized any official authority in Jesus other than perhaps his own personal claim to be God. But we see fruitcakes like that today. Nobody believes them either.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 23 by Divine Insight]

The Jewish sects matter because modern Judaism is descended from the Pharisees and not the Sadducees. Accusing the Pharisees of being Christ killers when that goes against Bible scholarship could be perceived as being Anti-Semitic.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 23 by Divine Insight]

The Jewish sects matter because modern Judaism is descended from the Pharisees and not the Sadducees. Accusing the Pharisees of being Christ killers when that goes against Bible scholarship could be perceived as being Anti-Semitic.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything. My main point is that the Romans did not crucified Jesus, the Jewish Priests did. Which Jewish priests did it is irrelevant to me.

I don't see where the Bible makes a clear distinction between different the different sects of Judaism.

Moreover, most modern Jews that I've spoken with on Internet forums like this one do not even support strict orthodox interpretations of anything. They almost always pass that off as a "Christian Thing". Most Jews that I've spoken with claim that Judaism encourages individual interpretations and most of them do not see the Bible as being "The Word of God" like the Christians do but rather a history of the relationship between God and the Jews.

I've never met a Jew who goes around proclaiming that if someone doesn't believe in Judaism they are bound for condemnation. And they certainly don't preach specific denominations of Judaism that I'm aware of. Although I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if there do exist Jews who do indeed do that.

As far as "antisemitism" is concerned you'll never hang that one on me. Anyone who would even remotely presume that I would hold any modern day person responsible for the actions of people who lived over 2000 years ago clearly doesn't know anything about me at all.

Moreover, unlike the Christians who might condemn the ancient Pharisees for having crucified Jesus (if it was indeed the Pharisees) I don't. On the contrary, according to the Old Testament they were doing precisely what their God had instructed them to do. Jesus was a blasphemer of the Old Testament. The Gospels make that crystal clear. Jesus preached apostasy against the orthodox Judaism, and claim to be God himself.

If the Jews didn't crucify Jesus they wouldn't have been true to their biblical God.

So I wouldn't blame the Jews for doing what their God told them to do. If anyone is to blame it would be the God himself.

Any God who commands people to kill blasphemers and then sends his only begotten son into that same crowd to reject his "WORD" of the Old Testament and preach totally opposite things would need to be a fool himself.

If any God did this I certainly hope he wasn't surprised that people obeyed his commandments. After all he threatens to be extremely cruel and mean to them if they don't.

Any true Jew should have killed Jesus instantly without a second thought. That's what the God of the Old Testament commanded that they should do to heathen blasphemers.

And Jesus was certainly a heathen blasphemer against the Old Testament. In fact that's precisely why so many Christians are so much in love with him. Jesus rebuke a lot of nasty stuff from the Old Testament. I don't blame him. It's about time someone stood up against those immoral teachings. It's too bad it didn't to any good.

After the Jewish priest nailed Jesus physically to a pole (whichever priests were involved) then the Christians who wrote the New Testament metaphorically nailed Jesus to the Old Testament. A collection of immoral fables that Jesus himself clearly did not even condone.

I always say that Jesus was crucified twice. Once by the Jews and a second time by the Christians albeit the Christian crucifixion was metaphorical. I wonder which was worse though. The Christians just added insult to injury.

By the way, as you can see I don't care much what Christians think of me. So why should I care what the Jews think of me?

I'm not about to walk on eggshells for anyone.

[YahDough]

[Replying to post 23 by Divine Insight]

The Jewish sects matter because modern Judaism is descended from the Pharisees and not the Sadducees. Accusing the Pharisees of being Christ killers when that goes against Bible scholarship could be perceived as being Anti-Semitic.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything. My main point is that the Romans did not crucified Jesus, the Jewish Priests did. Which Jewish priests did it is irrelevant to me.

Both the Romans and the Jews crucified the LORD. You could say in was a Jewish/Gentile collaboration for different reasons. But Jesus gave the testimony that the Jews had the greater sin.

John 19:10-12

10: Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?
11: Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.
12: And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.

[Divine Insight]

Both the Romans and the Jews crucified the LORD. You could say in was a Jewish/Gentile collaboration for different reasons. But Jesus gave the testimony that the Jews had the greater sin.

Good. Let the Jews accuse Jesus of antisemitism then.

The only problem is that Jesus himself was a Jew so clearly there's a circular problem there.

In order to place Jesus against the Jews and Judaism a person would also need to acknowledge that Jesus was indeed committing the very blaspheme and apostasy that he himself was being accused of. And that would make Jesus himself guilty as sin.

So it's an oxymoronic situation. Which pretty much sums up the entire Biblical canon.

Don't forget too that the Biblical Gospels are only ONE SIDE of these rumors. If there really was some guy named Jesus who preached against the Old Testament and called the Jewish Scribes and Pharisees hypocrites, he was indeed committing blaspheme against the established "Word of God".

Someone once posted a supposed independent historical record that claims that some guy (supposedly Jesus) was indeed crucified for apostasy against Judaism. I don't know if there is any credibility to that report, but it sure seems to fit in with the Gospel rumors.

I don't see how any supposedly all-wise, all-powerful, omniscient God could send his son into a situation that would become so extremely controversial that it ends up becoming fodder for so many different facets of religion.

And then to top all that off he's going to demand that people believe in a particular version of it lest he condemn them to hell?

I can't imagine anything more absurd than that.

Why would any God create such an extremely controversial and confusing situation that ends up giving rise to so many different factions of the religion where each faction is screaming "Worship our version or be condemned"?

That would be an emotionally sadistic thing to do to people at the very least.

And lets not forget that all of this just came out of the Middle East. There's really no reason for people from, say Asia, to even give it the time of day.

In fact, I've heard many Hindus from India referring to the Abrahamic religions as nothing more than a "Family Feud" that's going on between the decedents of various Arab nations. Israel being considered an "Arab Nation" in this context.

They don't see this religion as having anything to do with any God. They just see it as people fighting over God.

And I do too.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 23 by Divine Insight]

The Jewish sects matter because modern Judaism is descended from the Pharisees and not the Sadducees. Accusing the Pharisees of being Christ killers when that goes against Bible scholarship could be perceived as being Anti-Semitic.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything. My main point is that the Romans did not crucified Jesus, the Jewish Priests did. Which Jewish priests did it is irrelevant to me.

There is just one big problem with that scenario.

Crucifixion is against the 'lawful' ways to execute people in Judaism.
If the Jewish priest executed Jesus, Pilate would not have to be involved.
[/quote]

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 23 by Divine Insight]

The Jewish sects matter because modern Judaism is descended from the Pharisees and not the Sadducees. Accusing the Pharisees of being Christ killers when that goes against Bible scholarship could be perceived as being Anti-Semitic.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything. My main point is that the Romans did not crucified Jesus, the Jewish Priests did. Which Jewish priests did it is irrelevant to me.

There is just one big problem with that scenario.

Crucifixion is against the 'lawful' ways to execute people in Judaism.
If the Jewish priest executed Jesus, Pilate would not have to be involved.

I agree. This leads to many possibilities.

One possibility is that these rumors don't even remotely resemble truth. I have no problem accepting that possibility. The whole claim that Roman soldiers were involved with the crucifixion of Jesus may be an entirely fabricated rumors.

The Christians also claim that Jesus was "nailed" to the pole whilst all other criminals were merely tied to their crosses. I personally think that's just for the sake of drama and to try to make out like the crucifixion of Jesus was extremely special in some unique way.

In short, I highly question the validity of these rumors in their details.

A second possibility was that the Jewish Priests were indeed trying to get the Romans to crucify Jesus because, as you say, there is nothing in their religion that would allow them to use that method of execution, about all they could do is get the crowd to stone Jesus to death.

So I have a theory of how this might have occurred, (just in an effort to entertain the idea that the Gospel rumors might have some truth).

The Jewish priests tried to get Pilate to officially crucify Jesus under Roman law. But Pilate would have none of it. The Jewish Priest were really desperate to have Pilate crucify Jesus that they incited the masses to call for his crucifixion.

When Pilate washed his hands of the whole affair he told the Jewish priests to do whatever they want with the man. Since the Romans were occupying the Jews it makes sense that the Romans were the ones who would carry out any official killings. So what may have happened is that Pilate merely left giving the Roman soldiers the ok to do whatever the Jewish priests wanted.

The Jewish priests continued to incite the mob to call for the crucifixion of Jesus and so the Roman soldiers carried out the crucifixion on behalf of the Jewish Priests would who have been the closest thing to a "Jewish Government" at the time. Since Israel was under Roman occupation.

In other words, the Roman soldiers would have still been involved but it the Jewish priest were still the ones who instigated the whole thing and egged on the crowd.

~~~~

The bottom line in all of this for me when it comes to this religion is that I can't see why any God would want (or need) to have his son beaten and nailed to a pole to pay for the sins of mankind. That whole scenario seems totally outrageous to me.

And why have it done in this manner?

Also, why then expect the rest of us to have to condone this crucifixion on our behalf?

Why should I need to condone having Jesus crucified to pay for my sins?

If that's the choice God should have just asked me before hand. I would tell him that I refuse to have Jesus crucified to pay for my sins, he can go ahead and send me to hell.

In fact, when you STOP and think about that for just a moment look at who would be eligible for Heaven? The only people who would be eligible for Heaven would be people who are willing to have Jesus crucified to pay for their sins.

A truly omniscient God should know from the beginning of time that I would never accepted this.

The only people who would accept it would be, IMHO, highly immoral people.

So it makes no sense to me at all.

I refuse to have Jesus crucified to pay for my sins. And for that I'm going to be cast into eternal damnation?

And the only way I can "save" myself is to condone what I consider to be the most immoral act I can imagine?

How does that even begin to make any sense?

The has to be something wrong with these superstitious rumors about Jesus. I can't see how any supposedly all-righteous God would become involved with such immoral concepts. And then even demand that everyone accept this on their own behalf lest he will cast them into eternal damnation.

Such a reality would be a nightmare for me.

A pure secular atheistic existence would be far more righteous, IMHO.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 28 by Goat]

The Romans were the secular rulers. The Jewish leaders were not allowed to administer their own capital punishment. They had to get the Romans to do it for them.