The Problem of Evil - Page 10

Right and thats why the Jews wanted Jesus dealt with so nicely.

What are you talking about? Romans killed Jesus. Not Jews. Besides, what does that have to do with Jesus being a Jew?

Apparently you haven't heard all sides to this story, did I say the Jews killed Jesus, no I did not, what I said was how they wanted him handled, yes by the romans, the romans saw no reason to kill him, the Jews demanded it, not the Jewish population, but the High Jewish Counsel or whatever they were called.

I think thats was even represented in Gibson's Passion which is claimed to be the most accurate film representation, but its not the only source and this isn't a big secret, its a major source of anti-semitism, Jews don't believe Jesus to be more than a prophet, so when he claims to be the awaited Messiah, instead of being accepted as such he was seen and dealt with as a problem, a false prophet, why do you think he was strung up?

If romans were worried about christ and christianity then they wouldn't be too fond of Jews either, they are both based off of the laws of abraham and moses.

quote:

---

If romans were worried about christ and christianity then they wouldn't be too fond of Jews either, they are both based off of the laws of abraham and moses.

---

Rome society (like the USA) held citizenship being
as a means of dealing with foreign cultures introducing change incorporated into their society? So I wonder how much of roman law is based on juedo-christian law?

quote:

---

http://www.captaincynic.com/thread.php3/thrdid=32405-u-frmid=17-u-page=8

It makes perfect sense why Jesus taught peace, justice, and kindness, cturtle.
He was a Jew.

---

Yes, Jesus was born a Jew, the choosen people of God? but what Jesus taught was that all men were God's (potentially) children. Common to an elitist view is arrogance such that they didn't treat others with the same respect & compasssion.
Note that in the tale of the good samaratian, a samaratian were nonjews who had who had accepted Jewish beliefs but were held in comtempt by most jews of the era.

quote:

---

http://www.captaincynic.com/thread.php3/thrdid=32405-u-frmid=17-u-page=7

It appears that there are three possible co-equal authors of evil: God, nature, and man. Beyond these there should be no argument. If one's argument says that man is the sole author of evil, then that argument is rather presumptuous and pessimistic. It not only presumes to know the dynamics of all of humanity but that that dynamic is evil.

---

Bring rather presumptuous and pessimistic, I would tend to disagree with the definition of evil & causes as they are presented? Does God deal with man in an evil manner? Does nature perform evil works? Look at the tale of Joseph & his rainbow (muticoloured) robe. being the youngest & therefore the last in line to assume his father role as head of the family,yet because of his brothers actions lead him to be captive through the years of drought upon the land not only is he reunited with his father & family but takes on the role of leadership. Was the drought evil?

quote:

---

How could he have been proving a point to Job?
Why the hell would I want my family killed only to have what...a better family? That seems rather pointless, not to mention cruel, unusual, and traumatic.

---

As stated the Jews were the choosen children, they were choosen to be set apart as an example of God's authority. A blessing & a curse, for just as they received blessing for making right decisions, they received just recompense for their wrong decisions. While Job was a paragon of righteousness these attributes were not in his children. Their fate was came upon them because of their own waywardness, not because of Job.
{except in his failure to bring up his children rightwously}
Granted the timing as significant element to the tale, compounding the woe upon Job & his health. But the tale of Job is a lesson upon which Jesus gave His life!

quote:

---

That rather pointless, cruel, unusual, and traumatic event, a wasted effort by today's standard.

---

Anyhow, Pharisaic Jews view Jesus as one among many rabbis, and would not have had a problem with him since Pharisaic Judaism is quite liberal in philosophy. Saddusaic Judaism, on the other hand, is quite conservative, and the Saddusaic Jews who comprised the Sanhedrin had a fierce problem with Jesus since (1) they perceived that he threatened Saddusaic Judaism (2) they were politically closer to the temple priests than the Phariaic Jews since the Saddusaic Jews comprised the Sanhedrin, and (3) the Sanhedrin was a puppet of the Roman authorities since the temple priests were puppets of the Roman authorities. Jesus was killed over politics, not over religion. The fact that he was killed at all is still beside the point. Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian. Furthermore, Saul of Tarsus, who never met Jesus, taught a spinoff version of Judaism for everyone, which everyone now knows as Judeo-Christianity, which has deep Greco-Roman roots.

But what are you saying was the political motivation, are you saying Romans had a reason to kill Jesus? Because a way I've heard it explained is that they found no reason to do so unpon interview of Jesus.

Total conquest requires total subservience and the total annhialation of anyone who is perceived to threaten that subservience. This was the reign of Caesar Octavian Augustan, who would insure that his Pax Romana, his Roman Peace, would last for 200 years. The Pax Romana was not kept with the philosophical point, but with the point of the sword. If the Jewish poltical machine under Roman auspices targeted Jesus, then Jesus had no chance with the Roman prefect who would readily kill any Jew as he would a dog. Jesus was do different.

This does not address the accountings of Pontius Pilate's claimed dispute of reasoning for killing Jesus, and even offering, as tradition on a holiday, to allow Jesus' life to be spared, but a representative, not public opinion, was the deciding voice on the matter, Barabbas.

So in looking into a little more I see the point you make of Roman power and practice, but where did the Roman's get the notion that Jesus was a threat, apparently this was brought up by that small faction with the story of the marketplace, a crime.

Taking it seriously, as your statement corroborates, he then interviews Jesus and then the ensuing explanation I gave occurs.

To think that a Roman prefect, whose only job was to keep trouble makers like Jesus out of Judea, was lenient in any way is slightly naive. The prefect did not like going to Jerusalem during Passover, and was already prepared to route out potential trouble makers before he arrived. The Sanhedrin bringing Jesus before the prefect was enough for Jesus to die.

We have to not forget Jesus Died By the Hands of Man To Save man

Or to save Humans

Romach, look, first off I'm citing a posistion made supposedly by the bible.

Secondly, thinking anything is as cut and dry as you make it sound is naive, and again, I could simply make the point that sure he was pissed, because some whining Sanhedrin, I'm sure seen as little more than a sniveling minion, is getting all bent out of shape and ruining Pilots golf tour or something. So by your own logic he may be far more of an annoyance than Jesus, especially after meeting him, for all I know Pilot might have prefered a reason to kill the Sanhedrin, but didn't for political purposes.

I don't know if its because this is so speculative, because your points are sound and logical, but just not conclusive or definitive, not that mine are, that's just more of my point.

Stavo, guess the message didn't stick well enough.

I have never read the bible and only heard rumours about it. God sounds so vengeful from what I've heard. YOU WILL BE JUDGED. YOU WILL PAY FOR YOUR SINS. Jeez that's intimidation. Is life all a test we have to pass? lets act on instinct? I know we're given a brain but its full of other peoples ideas most of the time, by this I mean religion and ethics I didn't make up what I was taught some other dude did. Shouldn't we act on what we think is right instinctively? I think a lot of questions can be answered without religion or education.

You've actually made the best point of all, Lefty: no one can possibly know what happened then since no one was there that is here now to talk about what actually happened. It's a non-argument. The initial reason I brought it up was because I sensed that some were makeing anti-semitic snipes with religious quotes. And the scriptures from which they were quoting were written between one and two centuries after Jesus died.

quote:

---

The initial reason I brought it up was because I sensed that some were makeing anti-semitic snipes with religious quotes.

---

You were?
WoW, I didn't see that, which scripture
My preception is that Jesus taught in general the lowest class, the poor and slaves. As His teachings didn't promote rebellion against authority but rather held God as the Supreme Authority, it held anti-Roman & anti-Sanhedren authority. At it's level of acceptance by Jews, it was seen as a grave threat to the Sanhedrin & less to Roman authority than the other, who was a known (felon) to Roman authorities. Neither of which is identified as Roman citizens as (Paul) Saul of Tarsus held forth, according to said scriptures.

quote:

---

The fact that he was killed at all is still beside the point. Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian.
Furthermore, Saul of Tarsus, who never met Jesus, taught a spinoff version of Judaism for everyone, which everyone now knows as Judeo-Christianity, which has deep Greco-Roman roots.

---

Saul was not present during Jesus time, but later was introduced to christanity at the (Stephen?) stoning of christian martyrs. Yes, the Roman Catholic Church does stem from the adherence to the teaching & leadership role established by Paul?