Religious people - why did you kill jesus? - Politics Discussion

[–] B1cKsurN (17826) 10 months ago

Christ is King.

reply

[–] AndyAce83 (131) 10 months ago

Christ is King x2

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17826) 10 months ago

Christ is King of Kings.

reply

[–] AndyAce83 (131) 10 months ago

Amen :-)

reply

[–] chilidoggg (14597) 10 months ago

The Shiva Destroyers have cooler jerseys.

reply

[–] AndyKing1967 (39849) 10 months ago

No, I am King.

reply

[–] BKB (11305) 10 months ago

I stopped reading where you said you didn't believe in Jesus

reply

[–] [deleted] 10 months ago

Yeah we know for a fact that Jesus was a historical figure. Now one could argue he wasn't God/son of God, but he did exist.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16326) 10 months ago

I think most people believe he existed . I do .
When i said it I was referring to believing he was the son of god , but apparently I wasnt clear enough .

tbf "Believe in jesus" could mean many things like
Believe he'll be able to sort dinner out using only the limited supply of fish.
Believe he'll turn up for the meal we arranged
Beleive he's the sort of guy that would come out to help in the middle of the night if your cart broke an axle.

reply

[–] RockAway (1657) 10 months ago

How do we know for a fact that Jesus was a historical figure? I believe he existed but I didn't know that it was a proven fact.

reply

[–] chilidoggg (14597) 10 months ago

"Evidence" is not always "proof" but we have this:

https://www.history.com/news/was-jesus-real-historical-evidence

The first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus twice mentions Jesus in Jewish Antiquities, his massive 20-volume history of the Jewish people that was written around 93 A.D.

Thought to have been born a few years after the crucifixion of Jesus around A.D. 37, Josephus was a well-connected aristocrat and military leader in Palestine who served as a commander in Galilee during the first Jewish Revolt against Rome between 66 and 70. Although Josephus was not a follower of Jesus, “he was around when the early church was getting started, so he knew people who had seen and heard Jesus"

reply

[–] chilidoggg (14597) 10 months ago

From the same History dot com link:

Another account of Jesus appears in Annals of Imperial Rome, a first-century history of the Roman Empire written around A.D. 116 by the Roman senator and historian Tacitus. In chronicling the burning of Rome in A.D. 64, Tacitus mentions that Emperor Nero falsely blamed “the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius.”

https://www.history.com/news/was-jesus-real-historical-evidence

As a Roman historian, Tacitus did not have any Christian biases in his discussion of the persecution of Christians by Nero. “Just about everything he says coincides—from a completely different point of view, by a Roman author disdainful of Christians and their superstition—with what the New Testament itself says: Jesus was executed by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, for crimes against the state, and a religious movement of his followers sprang up in his wake.”

“When Tacitus wrote history, if he considered the information not entirely reliable, he normally wrote some indication of that for his readers,” “There is no such indication of potential error in the passage that mentions Christus.”

reply

[–] moviebuff00 (908) 9 months ago

what's the proof he existed?

reply

[–] chilidoggg (14597) 10 months ago

"I stopped reading where you said you didn't believe in Jesus"

It's a good thing the apostles weren't as lazy as you...

reply

[–] Heretic (335) 10 months ago

I'm not really familiar with which faction did it

If there was only some sort of book that was freely available where you could learn this information...

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16326) 10 months ago

Yeah I was hoping someone might summarise and gimme the gist, especially as theres more than one book . Each group has its own book.
From memory , correct me if I'm wrong .
It was the Romans what dun it , and they were Catholics right ?
And this was before the Protestant splinter group .
Catholics are a part of Christianity ?
back then the main part i think - so we could say Christians crucified Jesus .
The same group mainly that believes he was the son of god - the last people you'd expect to be responsible.

Also jews were around , I'm not sure if they go with the "son of god" angle , but i think they have a "woah , nothing to do with us" atttude re the cricifixion.

Also Muslims believe jesus existed i think, but have a different background for him .
They have "scholars" still trying to make sense of their book so i dont think i could do it .

reply

[–] Heretic (335) 10 months ago

It was the Roman government based on Jews who wanted it.

We can't say it was Christians who did it. That makes no sense.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16326) 10 months ago

According to this Jews were barely tolerated , not running the empire.

https://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/empire/jews.html

There had been upsets: Jews had been banished from Rome in 139 BC, again in 19 AD and during the reign of Claudius. However, they were soon allowed to return and continue their independent existence under Roman law.

reply

[–] WandererFromYs (2406) 10 months ago

Pontius Pilate let the people decide who was going to be pardoned, and who was going to be crucified. The people chose Barabbas over Jesus.

reply

[–] Heretic (335) 10 months ago

Even his own source says that they were allowed to return and have a (somewhat) independent existence under Roman law.

Hence why Pontius Pilate offered to pardon one person before passover per Jewish tradition.

reply

[–] chilidoggg (14597) 10 months ago

"We can't say it was Christians who did it. That makes no sense."

I'll play the role of devil's advocate and argue that we could say "Christians did it."

Consider, Simon Peter and Judas Iscariot were following Jesus for 3+ years. Could we say they were "Christians" at the time they betrayed Jesus?

reply

[–] Heretic (335) 10 months ago

Certainly. Which the Christians indeed preach.

reply

[–] chilidoggg (14597) 10 months ago

It was the Romans what dun it , and they were Catholics right ?

Yes the Romans did it, but Romans were polytheists with gods like Mars, Jupiter, Neptune, et al. (which they stole from the Greeks Ares, Zeus, Poseidon)

Catholics call themselves members of "The Roman Catholic Church." IIRC this was to distinguish itself from the Greeks, there was something called "The Great Schism" (after the Council of Nicaea? AD400 +/-?) and continues today, something about the Trinity God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, the Catholics believe the three are equal in standing and the Greeks believe... "something else..." which I'd be lying if I said I understood what it was... but all of us are lying if we said we completely understand everything about all religions. We're not talking Euclidean Geometry...

The Apostle Peter was the first "Pope" and he was in Jerusalem, but at some point (probably after Constantine legalized Christianity) the popes moved to Rome, where they still are today. The Popes are sometimes called "The Bishop of Rome." There was also some schism between the "Catholics" and the "Greeks" about something like the Greeks felt their "Top Bishop" should have the same stature as "The Bishop of Rome" and the Catholics said "no dice." Might have been the same time as the Nicaea fracas...

That and $4 will get me a cup of coffee.

reply

[–] chilidoggg (14597) 10 months ago

"And this was before the Protestant splinter group"

Yes. Martin Luther started "The Reformation." The popes in Rome (and the Cardinals and many others down the line) had become hopelessly "unchristian" and were doing things like selling "indulgences" where you paid the (Catholic) Church some money and you got goodies like sins forgiven, less time in purgatory...

https://www.thecollector.com/terrible-catholic-popes/

The series "The Borgias" with Jeremy Irons is based on the Pope Alexander VI, who was pretty bad. I enjoyed it. I would have liked it much more if I didn't have to hear the name "Borgia" every 20 seconds... I had thought that this was the Pope who pissed off Martin Luther but it was actually Leo X.

reply

[–] chilidoggg (14597) 10 months ago

"Catholics are a part of Christianity?"

Many people would disagree...

There are literally millions of churches that claim to be "Christian."

Damn near everyone believes that his pastor has the roadmap to heaven and that the pastor of the church across the street will only get you to hell...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16326) 10 months ago

Good info!
👍

reply

[–] parkerbot (10724) 10 months ago

There's a movie, I can't remember the name, low budget but the gist was that Jesus comes back and the government tries to take him out.

Maybe someone with a better memory can give the title but I'm gonna guess anyone who causes trouble for the people at the top of the pyramid suddenly find themselves smeared or un-alived.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16326) 10 months ago

Some sort of Duke Nukem deal?
"He's back , and he's pissed off!"

reply

[–] parkerbot (10724) 10 months ago

No, more like he's back and he's preaching peace, so the FBI take him out.

I had it on VHS, so it's probably from the 1980s or 1990s.

reply

[–] chilidoggg (14597) 10 months ago

The first movie that popped into my head was "The Brother From Another Planet" (1984) but reading on IMdB it's probably not right... I know I watched it sometime recently after it was released but I don't remember anything about it...

reply

[–] parkerbot (10724) 10 months ago

It was one of the pre-Left Behind type movies.

I must not have loved it because I sold it in a garage sale - but the idea was interesting.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 10 months ago

Kind of stupid to lump all religious people into a group and hold them all responsible for something that occurred thousands of years ago.

You meet a italian woman today at a bar, you going to ask her about how mean the romans were to the celts? LOL.

.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16326) 10 months ago

Yeah true I just thought there'd be more groveling and admission that mankind as a whole , past and present , fucked up.
He's certainly not forgotten about - Jesus on the cross being tortured is an icon to this day in every church and hanging round the neck of all the devout.
and the message seems to be:
" died for our sins , thanks for that"
as opposed to
" oh lord thats the biggest mistake anybody could have made in any circumstance's ever , again , please please forgive us we knew not what we were doing "

I mean - imagine getting caught taking a shit in your boss's desk drawer.
Thats bad , but its absolutely insignificant compared to murdering the son of god.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 10 months ago

I'm not really a theologian, so, I'm not the one to really... dig into the big question there,

BUT, I do feel comfortable saying that, you're clearly missing teh point and you don't seem open to hearing the point either.

reply

[–] chilidoggg (14597) 10 months ago

"I'm not really a theologian"

It's pretty complicated - you have to be as smart as a retarded fisherman to understand it.

[EDIT]

I have to walk that back. The retarded fishermen didn't understand it, even the tax collector didn't understand it. Maybe it took Jesus napstering his brain with Saul's to get the apostles to get off their asses.

reply

[–] chilidoggg (14597) 10 months ago

"Jesus on the cross being tortured is an icon to this day in every church and hanging round the neck of all the devout."

Actually, Protestants/Reform Christians prefer "the empty cross" as it emphasizes the Resurrection. I only learned this in the past year or so. I just read somewhere today that it is called a "Resurrectix."

reply

[–] chilone (18320) 10 months ago

Let's start with this: Jesus came here specifically, so that He would be killed for the sins of the entire world. That was His plan and despite MANY occurrences, including the Romans breaking many of their own laws, He was fully in charge and would not be deterred. If you really want to know, look into it. MovieChat isn't the best source for the kind of information you say you're after.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16326) 10 months ago

Ok , thats a new angle I was unaware of .
Is that all covered in the bible?
( just so i know where to look )

and maybe I'm not seeing the full picture , but coming to earth with the plan of getting murdered "for our sins" sounds , at best , counter intuitive.

reply

[–] Heretic (335) 10 months ago

Why don't you try reading one of the Gospels? Mark only takes about 3 hours to read and has the whole story.

It explains pretty much everything.

reply

[–] chilidoggg (14597) 10 months ago

Fer sher, Adam, Eve, Abraham, Isaac, Johah, Nineveh, Soddom, Gomorrah, totally irrelevant to the rest of the story... Just fast-forward to the car chases...

reply

[–] chilone (18320) 10 months ago

Lol! If you want to sound informed, at least read up so you don't sound like a child. Jesus was foreshadowed throughout the old testament, so no, not irrelevant at all.At the dawn of man, God told Adam and Eve about the upcoming savior. They just thought He would be born of them.

reply

[–] chilidoggg (14597) 10 months ago

"Jesus came here specifically, so that He would be killed for the sins of the entire world. That was His plan"

I don't think someone can call himself a "Christian" if he believes that.

"MovieChat isn't the best source for the kind of information..." Indeed...

reply

[–] [deleted] 10 months ago

"I don't think someone can call himself a "Christian" if he believes that."

That's what the Church and the bible teaches.

reply

[–] chilidoggg (14597) 10 months ago

Run it by your pastor.

Google "Free Will" and report your findings back to me in 12,000 years (no Neil Peart lyrics.)

reply

[–] [deleted] 10 months ago

that Jesus willfully died for our sins is a basic tenet of Christianity.

reply

[–] chilidoggg (14597) 10 months ago

Yes. He could have decided not to go through with it.

reply

[–] [deleted] 10 months ago

Wait, so now you agree that Jesus did willfully die for our sins?

reply

[–] chilidoggg (14597) 10 months ago

I never said I didn't. The post by Chilone is a bunch of gobbledygook, if you believe the story.

But since you asked, I do question whether or not Jesus did actually willfully die (for our sins or any other reason.)

https://www.whitneywoollard.com/sitecontent/my-god-my-god-why-have-you-forsaken-me#:~:text=Matthew%2027%3A45%2D47%20(,why%20have%20you%20forsaken%20me%3F

I have some thoughts that are likely heretical... Perhaps Jesus had some thoughts in the back of his head that he would be spared, like Isaac...

reply

[–] [deleted] 10 months ago

"My God why have you forsaken me" was his human nature crying out.

reply

[–] chilone (18320) 10 months ago

He didn't think or even intend being spared. That's why he told Peter to put his sword down after he cut off the Roman soldier's ear.

Please explain what's "gobbledygook" about what I said. How are you such an expert? Have you read the Bible (like all of it)?

reply

[–] chilidoggg (14597) 10 months ago

How are you such an expert?

There were a lot of things that happened between the arrest and the crucifixion.

reply

[–] chilone (18320) 10 months ago

That doesn't answer my questions. I don't consider myself an expert, but I have read the entire Bible and done tons of research, reading and listening to many Bible expositors.

reply

[–] chilidoggg (14597) 10 months ago

This is what you posted:

"Jesus came here specifically, so that He would be killed for the sins of the entire world. That was His plan and despite MANY occurrences, including the Romans breaking many of their own laws, He was fully in charge and would not be deterred."

I said this was gobbledygook if you believe the story.

You're the only one who's challenged me.

Blade13 probably wouldn't sign off on what you posted.

reply

[–] chilone (18320) 10 months ago

Again, you didn't answer my questions. And yes, others did challenge you. You also didn't explain why it is "gobbledygook".

reply

[–] chilone (18320) 9 months ago

Gee, a leftist with nothing but baseless assertions and refusal to answer pertinent questions. What a surprise.

reply

[–] Keelai (36155) 10 months ago

The Romans occupied Palestine. A common form of punishment was crucifixion. Issa (Jesus' real name - not the Greek version) was one of thousands crucified by them.

He was a bit of a hothead who caused a stir and some locals became annoyed and filled a complaint against him. The rest you know.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16326) 10 months ago

Douglas Adams put it best

"A man was nailed to a tree for suggesting that people be nice to each other for a change"

reply

[–] Keelai (36155) 10 months ago

Cool saying!

There's Biblical vs Historical Jesus. Not the same thing.

His followers ran an exceptional PR campaign embellishing the man which snowballed into a new religion with growing popularity.

reply

[–] RockAway (1657) 10 months ago

Where can I read about the Historical Jesus? I didn't know that there was anything written about him in historical books

reply

[–] Keelai (36155) 10 months ago

Unfortunately, those books are written by theologians hoping to prove Jesus existed, therefore not reliable in factual information.

I had an excellent world history book in school which had religions' history, comparison and how they influenced each other which started my quest.

I focus on learning how Jews lived, looked, worshipped, etc. in Judea during that era which would include Jesus, and then learn about how his followers spread Christianity, embellished, changed and any influences.

99% of the problem is that Jewish history, including Jesus, is mixed with biblical text, most of which is unreliable or false.

reply

[–] chilidoggg (14597) 10 months ago

I've heard that "Jesus" was possibly called "Yeshua" but I've never heard of "Issa" or "Isa." Is that what the Muslims say?

reply

[–] Keelai (36155) 10 months ago

Yeshua is the Hebrew version of his name. Issa is the Aramaic version.

1AD Jews in Syria Palaestina, as the Romans referred to the region, spoke Aramaic as their common everyday language, not Hebrew. Spoken Hebrew was obsolete and relegated to sacred scripture.

reply

[–] CraigC (8811) 10 months ago

"I'm not really familiar with which faction did it , or even believes in jesus "

No shit. Five minutes of research would've answered your dumb questions. The Romans were Catholics??? Do you know what Catholicism is??? Typical ignorance of leftists.

reply

[–] RockAway (1657) 10 months ago

What a great addition to this discussion!

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16326) 10 months ago

The discussion is not about what labels the various flavours identify as , its :

Why do religious people celebrate killing the son of god who was sent to help them?

reply