Jews and the death of Christ

[Bowman]

Shalom Bowman,

I see you don't read or listen very carefully but only that which you want to hear so any attempt I have to show your errors will totally be futile but I will persist only this one last time!
Only this!

Hi brother,

Your comment here sounds like it emanates from a defeatist.

Eze 1:26 And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it
No reference to the Son of man as you proclaim!



Dan 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
The Son of man came to whom? The Ancient of days (a.k.a. YHVH) not to Himself.

Again, your knowledge of scripture is absolutely abysmal, brother.

Revelation integrates both of these OT scriptures and informs us directly that Jesus, the Son of Man, has the very same descriptive as the Ancient of Days, same countenance, same Bow, same Throne, everything.

The deficiency that you proclaim I have seems to be your own as I even provided you with The Scripture so that you could read it for yourself and I will do so again...
Phil 2:6. Who was in the form of God, yet did not think that this equality with God was to be eagerly clung to or retained, 7. but emptied Himself of His own equality, taking the form of a servant, when He came in a likeness of men: and, when He was found in a manner of life as a man, 8. He humbled Himself, becoming obedient until death, even of a death of the cross. 9. On this account then God raised Him
YHVH did NOT raise HIMself, HE raise Y'SHUA for YHVH did not die Mr. Nietzsche!

You can’t even render the Greek correctly, brother.

According to scripture, this is who raised Jesus from the dead:

· God the Father…Romans 6.4; 10.9; Col 2.11-12; 1 Peter 1.20-21; 1 Cor 6.14; Acts 2.23-24; 3.14-15; 13.30-37; Hebrews 13.20-21; Eph 1.15-20; Gal 1.1; 1 Thes 1.9-10

· God the Son…John 2.19-22; 10.17-18

· God the Spirit…Romans 8.11; 1 Peter 3.18


This is what we call the Trinity.

Hence, your ignorance of the Trinity.[/QUOTE]
No ignorance on my part. The concept of Trinity was taken from a verse that was added by what would soon become the Catholic Church when its Priest met at the Council of Nicea and then added this verse to agree with their position. The verse they added, (which exist in no other manuscript or fragment of Scripture of which there exist over 5000 today has this verse in it), is found in Mat 28:19 where it speaks of The FATHER, The Son and The HOLY SPIRIT. This addition has tainted The Scriptures ever since.

No brother.

The concept of the Trinity begins in Genesis and culminates in the Book of Revelation.

It is not relegated to a single verse, and it is not open for cherry picking by Jews

Quote for me the verse that says this?

Col. 2.9…

First I am NOT Unitarian but from a very strict interpretation of what that means verses the denomination, I am not too far from the definition. I agree with The FATHER, The WORD and The SPIRIT but when do we ever see The WORD or The SPIRIT act without The FATHER or The FATHER having previously said? In other words I am asking when does The WORD or The HOLY SPIRIT ever initiate something totally on their own? If they did then that would make them totally separate persons.
Second show me the CarFax errr The Scripture to prove your point?
What the Jews missed was what they were supposed to do with what YHVH had chosen them for which was to take the message of HIS love for the world to the world.

Here is an example of the Trinity from your scriptures which should set the record straight…



We have the Son proclaimed in Ezekiel:

• The Word (1.3)
• Also called the Glory (1.28)
• The Glory has the appearance of a Man (1.26 – 28)
• Compare how the NT refers to the Son as the Glory & the Word (John 1.14; Heb 1.3)
• Ezekiel states that the Glory by the river (1.3, 28) is the same Glory as mentioned throughout the book (3.22 – 23; 10.18 – 20; 43.3)

We have the Spirit proclaimed in Ezekiel:

• The Man that is portrayed in (8.1 - 3) is also mentioned in (40.3)
• The Man is a representation of the Spirit (8.2 – 3; 43.5 – 6)
• The Hand of Yahweh is also the Spirit (3.14; 8.3; 37.1)
• The Man and the Glory are often associated with Yahweh
• We have the Man bringing Ezekiel back to the east gate (44.1)
• Prior to this, the Man was w/Ezekiel by the east gate (43.1)

We have the Trinity proclaimed in Ezekiel:

• The Spirit & the Glory are mentioned together – but at the same time, distinction is made between them (1.28 – 2.2; 3.12 – 14, 23 – 24; 8.3 – 4; 10.18 – 11.1, 22 – 23; 43.1 – 5)
• The Man quotes the Father (Yahweh) (44.6; 45.9, 18; 46.1, 16; 47.13)
• The Glory quotes the Father (Yahweh) (3.11 – 12; 11.5; 43.18, 19, 27)
• The Man (44.1) referred the Glory, and went through the east gate into the temple (43.2 – 5), as Yahweh the Father (44.2)
• Therefore, the Glory (the Word) is the Son
• The Man (The Hand of Yahweh) is the Spirit
• Yahweh is the Father

WRONG!
When YHVH take the form of man where there was no man this would make HIM temporarily a man...yes!

Then you should have absolutely no issue with Jesus being God.

But Adam was made fully of The SPIRIT of YHVH and yet no one contends that he was YHVH.

Careful of how you use the term ‘adam’…



Eze 1.26 And aboveH4480 H4605 the firmamentH7549 thatH834 was overH5921 their headsH7218 was the likenessH1823 of a throne,H3678 as the appearanceH4758 of a sapphireH5601 stone:H68 and uponH5921 the likenessH1823 of the throneH3678 was the likenessH1823 as the appearanceH4758 of a manH120 aboveH4480 H4605 uponH5921 it.



H120
אדם
'âdâm
BDB Definition:
1) man, mankind
1a) man, human being
1b) man, mankind (much more frequently intended sense in OT)
1c) Adam, first man
1d) city in Jordan valley
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from H119
Same Word by TWOT Number: 25a

Man being made by The WORD of YHVH being spoken does not make that man YHVH either. Proof that Y'SHUA was NOT YHVH in a human form comes from...
Mat 3:16. And after Jesus was baptized He immediately rose from the water: and behold the heavens opened up to Him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming upon Him: 17. and there was a voice from the heavens saying, “This is My beloved Son, with Whom I am well pleased.”
The HOLY SPIRIT was still to descend upon Y'SHUA and to fill Him for His ministry. If He were YHVH in a flesh suit this would have been an act of futility.

You have just shown us the Trinity, brother.

The voice from heaven is the Father; the Spirit took the form of the dove; and Jesus as the Son.

Later, in the same Gospel, Jesus proclaims that the Father, Son, and Spirit share one name….not three (Mat. 28.19).

Confirming that Jesus’ name is the same as God’s name, the NT tells us that baptism takes place only in Jesus’ name (Acts 8.12; 19.5, etc.).





Come on brother…..you can do better…

[shunyadragon]

Hi brother,

Your comment here sounds like it emanates from a defeatist.

How does this post address the topic of the thread?

[Bowman]

How does this post address the topic of the thread?

It shows yet another Jew in denial.

[shunyadragon]

It shows yet another Jew in denial.

It does not reveal anything new as to whether Jews were responsible for the crucifixion of Christ.

Christ was convicted under Roman Law as in rebellion against Rome for claiming to be the Messiah, and King of the Jews. Arguments for trinity and whether Jews should accept the traditional Christian claims of Christ are not an issue in this thread.

[Cybelle Hawke]

Are there any Jews, historically or today, who acknowledge that some Jews had some role in the death of Christ?
If there are none, then that's curious.

I have hesitated somewhat to answer because Jews are always put into the negative picture whenever something about the death of Christ comes up. Is it not the decadency of a Jewish King who killed all infants (!) of a region in order to prevent Jesus from being born, then it is the blindness of the Pharisees who in all their noble knowledge miss the Messiah for whom they themselves are so deperately waiting... and on top of all that, He was betrayed and denied by His very own disciples, who were Jewish by the way....

But anyway, I have decided to post, not on behalf of Jews or trying to pose as their spokesman, but as somebody who has the privilege of being close to some Jews. And it is my experience with them I would like to point out here:



Of course there are Jews who would acknowledge that some Jews had some role in the death of Christ (as you put it).... the question however is, to what christian it would be safe to say so and whatfor?

After all, have Jews not been bluntly blamed and punished for His crucifixion, and has that not been "theologically" supported by christians churches? Only very recently Ratzinger made an official statement on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church....

I have very close Jewish friends, who honour very strictly the Judaic religion, and it took years and years before we could exchange some words about the Jewish involvement in Jesus´ death. Not only is there the fact that the horrors of WOII (I am from Europe) has made many chairs empty on their Pesach table so there are not so many people to talk to.... also to engage in such conversation, it is - as I see it - extremely important to be aware one´s own paradigms as a christian.

Many Jews I know, have asked me, as these conversations went bit by bit deeper, if I, both as a human and a christian, - when reading the Gospel and picturing myself to be standing there, could EXCLUDE ANY OF MY OWN involvement in His death (for instance the most "innocent" like the partaking in mocking, the denial, or simply trying to convince Him NOT to go up to Jerusalem.... )

It is not only a legit question, it is exactly this, that makes my conversations with my Jewish friends so tremendously valuable as we enter this historically delicate issue as equally blind as to what Jesus of Nazareth tried to make clear.... [and it also brought up the question, whether christians have showed in their brilliant curriculum of christian correct behaviour - featuring all kinds of horrible crimes throughout history -, that they have found the truth about the teachings of this Messiah or could also be regarded as the ones who have utterly missed Him ....this just as a sidenote]

Only as equals we can discuss and share our points of view and sincerely, in the intimacy of friendship and deep mutual respect, create space to expose the differences in convictions and beliefs, without blaming or worse, claiming to be so 100% correctly right....

Oh of course...to Jews who regard Jesus as just one of the many insignificants who made idle claims about being the Messiah, the involvement - should they acknowledge His existance all together - in His death is regarded as a very just and good deed in honour of G-d. They are convinced that it is the right thing... and have no problems in stating so.

Yet again to Christians who regard Jews as the killers of Christ, there is nothing wrong in making them feel as such on all possible (and impossilbe) occasions and they also have no problems whatsoever in stating so.


Yet the real tragic is, that too many times, still today, those Jews, who, by reading the Gospel, feel sparks and flashes of light and go into further seeking and searching for what could be the truth.....are hindered by the behaviour of those christians who keep pointing fingers at Jews, not being able to get over the fact that some Jews had some role in the death of Christ....

[sylvius]

some Jews had some role in the death of Christ

Isn't it so that he is only (believed to be) Messiah thanks to his death on the stake?

So it seems that he rightly was condemned to (be guilty of) death, since he assented before the Sanhedrin to be the Messiah.

[Tanakh Keeper]

I have hesitated somewhat to answer because Jews are always put into the negative picture whenever something about the death of Christ comes up.

(snip)

[and it also brought up the question, whether christians have showed in their brilliant curriculum of christian correct behaviour - featuring all kinds of horrible crimes throughout history -, that they have found the truth about the teachings of this Messiah or could also be regarded as the ones who have utterly missed Him]

Sadly most Christians dismiss the atrocities committed in their past, as done by ‘not real Christians’. It is refreshing to see you acknowledge the role of Christianity in those crimes.

Only as equals we can discuss and share our points of view and sincerely, in the intimacy of friendship and deep mutual respect, create space to expose the differences in convictions and beliefs, without blaming or worse, claiming to be so 100% correctly right....

Such equality is hard to come by, as you aptly demonstrate below.

Oh of course...to Jews who regard Jesus as just one of the many insignificants who made idle claims about being the Messiah, the involvement - should they acknowledge His existance all together - in His death is regarded as a very just and good deed in honour of G-d. They are convinced that it is the right thing... and have no problems in stating so.

I don’t know the Jews you associate with, but I have never heard or read about a Jew saying that even once. In Judaism, the Messiah will be a political leader, not G-d. If someone wants to claim to be a leader, although they aren’t, that isn’t a capital crime deserving of death.

Yet again to Christians who regard Jews as the killers of Christ, there is nothing wrong in making them feel as such on all possible (and impossilbe) occasions and they also have no problems whatsoever in stating so.
Yet the real tragic is, that too many times, still today, those Jews, who, by reading the Gospel, feel sparks and flashes of light and go into further seeking and searching for what could be the truth.....are hindered by the behaviour of those christians who keep pointing fingers at Jews, not being able to get over the fact that some Jews had some role in the death of Christ....

So you have no problem with Christians eternally holding all Jews as responsible for your deity’s death. Your only angst with it, is that this hatred might prevent some Jews from converting to your religion. Is this what you consider being ‘equals with deep mutual respect’?

[Cybelle Hawke]

Isn't it so that he is only (believed to be) Messiah thanks to his death on the stake?

So it seems that he rightly was condemned to (be guilty of) death, since he assented before the Sanhedrin to be the Messiah.

I am not sure if I understand what you mean. I merely quoted these words from the OP.

However, It seems to me, that christians should never engage in a dialogue with Jews, claiming that Jesus IS the Messiah without priorly having defined the word Messiah.

[shunyadragon]

Yet the real tragic is, that too many times, still today, those Jews, who, by reading the Gospel, feel sparks and flashes of light and go into further seeking and searching for what could be the truth.....are hindered by the behaviour of those christians who keep pointing fingers at Jews, not being able to get over the fact that some Jews had some role in the death of Christ....

I question whether Jews had any role in the death of Christ, Christ's own message as claiming to be the Messiah. and the King of Jews was the reason he was arrested, tried and crucified under Roman Law for rebellion against Rome. Yes he may be betrayed by Judas, paid by some priests, but nonetheless he was making his claims public and the arrest was eventually almost certain. Then again the betrayal by Judas may have not been a betrayal, but in some way intentional that this take place..

[sylvius]

However, It seems to me, that christians should never engage in a dialogue with Jews, claiming that Jesus IS the Messiah without priorly having defined the word Messiah.

Yes that's right.

I wonder how you ever can confess "Jesus is the Christ" without knowing what it means...

[Cybelle Hawke]

You have rearraged my post and twisted the tone and meaning of it. I very much regret that. Below only a brief reaction to your words. Hope that on another occasion, we can exchange under fair circumstances.

Sadly most Christians dismiss the atrocities committed in their past, as done by ‘not real Christians’. It is refreshing to see you acknowledge the role of Christianity in those crimes.

I merely said that it brings up the question. I have not answered it nor given my opinion.




Such equality is hard to come by, as you aptly demonstrate below.

I described in the latter part of my post a different type of Jew and Christian, i.e. other than the Jews and Christians I am dialoguing with.
.
Indeed, equality is hard to come by with Jews who enter a dialogue with christians with the attitude that only and nothing but their own doctrinal convictions represent the sole truth. Yet the same goes for christians.... if christians enter a dialogue with Jews with the idea that only their doctrines represent the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, then the dialogue is doomed to fail.

What I described in my post was the attitude needed for being able to dialogue at all... A dialogue is not a debate where one sables down the other! The dialogue I was describing, and perhaps is fully unknown to you, is one where both are aware of their nakedness (blindness, ignorance, corruptness, hypocricy, rebellion etc etc etc etc) before G-d. Words are pronounced with the utmost care and the watch is set on listening. Also it is not about being a Jew or Christian.... it is about being a human, the one G-d had in mind when He created them.


I don’t know the Jews you associate with
No you definitely do not


but I have never heard or read about a Jew saying that even once. In Judaism, the Messiah will be a political leader, not G-d. If someone wants to claim to be a leader, although they aren’t, that isn’t a capital crime deserving of death.

The issue at hand is not whether Jesus is the Messiah. And my post does not refer to that topic. It refers to the OP which questions the role of Jews in the death of Christ.

Frankly, I have so far, only once been in the intimacy with Jews to exchange ideas about Jesus being the Messiah. It is an extremely loaded topic and it requires from both "parties" tremendous discipline in order to not start floating on your own religion, paradigms and what you have been traditionally taught. Yet to me, it is the only dialogue worth engaging in. Although I must confess that I experienced it extremely difficult to get rid of this idea that keeps popping up that one is to defend G-d.... Fortunately my interlocutors were hindered by those same shortcomings...

So you have no problem with Christians eternally holding all Jews as responsible for your deity’s death. Your only angst with it, is that this hatred might prevent some Jews from converting to your religion. Is this what you consider being ‘equals with deep mutual respect’?

Do not know how you come by that idea. And my statement which you use to come to such an conclusion most certainly does not say so.

Christians are not holding all Jews eternally responsible for the death of their deity, (I suppose you mean Jesus Who, as a deity, is not dead by the way)

and it is you who bring in the word hatred Tanakh!

My religion???? Come on!
I know you feel that Christians treat Jews like their blind brothers in need, whose eyes need to be opened towards the truth of Jesus....but it is this preset assumption of yours that makes you interpret my phrasing in such a way. Once again, a dialogue between Jews and Christians can only funciton if both enter this conversation in equality.... and equality starts with throwing off one´s own presumed superior knowledge.

[Tanakh Keeper]

Frankly, I have so far, only once been in the intimacy with Jews to exchange ideas about Jesus being the Messiah. It is an extremely loaded topic and it requires from both "parties" tremendous discipline in order to not start floating on your own religion, paradigms and what you have been traditionally taught. Yet to me, it is the only dialogue worth engaging in. Although I must confess that I experienced it extremely difficult to get rid of this idea that keeps popping up that one is to defend G-d.... Fortunately my interlocutors were hindered by those same shortcomings...

I agree that discussions about the Lord is difficult, especially since Christians and Jews have diametrically opposite beliefs. I disagree that it is the only dialogue worth engaging in. We can ally ourselves about improving our communities, fixing the environment, helping the poor, and showing compassion to those in need.

[sylvius]

If someone wants to claim to be a leader, although they aren’t, that isn’t a capital crime deserving of death.

Or was it because of: "And you will see the son of man sitting at the right hand of the power" ?

(Mark14: 61-64 KJV:
Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses? Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death. )

Power, Greek δύναμις (from which "dynamite") as indication of God's Name, after Palms 110:

Speech of Hashem to my master; "Sit at My right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool at your feet."

This was about the war of the four kings against the five, where Abraham gained victory in favor of the five, with help of his 318 initiated = Eliezer.

I bet it is because of that.

[Tanakh Keeper]

Or was it because of: "And you will see the son of man sitting at the right hand of the power" ?

(Mark14: 61-64 KJV:
Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses? Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death. )

{snip}

I bet it is because of that.

You'd lose that bet. I don't read the Christian bible nor attach any authority to it.

[sylvius]

You'd lose that bet. I don't read the Christian bible nor attach any authority to it.

I wasn't betting with you, but with scripture (Mark).