Who killed jesus?

[Darkangelism]

Did the jews kill Jesus, my friend says they did, i think the romans did.

[UCFKevin]

Well, if I'm to believe what I've seen and read, yeah, it was the Jews who did it. Thousands of years ago. Technically. Yeah. Them.

 

And anyone who would fathom of blaming them nowadays, LIVING Jews, is a f*cking idiot who should be thrown in the slammer before he/she hurts himself or anyone else.

[dyermaker]

I explained the circumstances of Jesus' death in Tony's spiritual question thread. To be brief, Jews were granted the autonomy by Rome to freely worship their God over Caesar, and also the freedom to make laws and enforce them. However, the Jewish government did NOT have the authority to prosecute Capital crimes (i.e., crimes punishable by death)--therefore Jesus could not have been killed without Roman, nonreligious charges against him, which came at the hands of Pontius Pilate.

 

Nevertheless, It's a stupid question, in that any person who says "Hey the jews killed crhist, that makes me mad, so I'm going to hold jews responsible for something that happened 2000 years ago and that no one living today could possibly be at fault for" is just an idiot. The intrinsic religious truth of Christ's death was that he CHOSE to die as a gift to humanity--so anyone who killed him technically facilitated the greatest thing that ever happened to mankind.

 

We're all sinners, we're all responsible for the death of Christ. Especially those who use his death to promote personal agendas of hate.

[moimeme]

A couple of Romans sentenced Him to death. A small group of people who lived there carried out the crucifixion. Any idiot who goes around saying things like 'the Jews killed Jesus' should be made to sit through seventeen years' worth of ancient history classes to get their brains straight.

[UCFKevin]

--so anyone who killed him technically facilitated the greatest thing that ever happened to mankind.

 

RIGHT!!!!

 

So why the hell would people condemn the Jews for doing this? Don't they f*cking REALIZE this? Or are they just looking for a reason to hate?

 

Ugh. So frustrating this stuff can be sometimes.

[Darkangelism]

my evidence:

 

 

Matthew King James:

27 Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the common hall, and gathered unto him the whole band of soldiers.

28 And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe.

31 And after that they had mocked him, they took the robe off from him, and put his own raiment on him, and led him away to crucify him.

 

John 11

 

48"What are we accomplishing?" they asked. "Here is this man performing many miraculous signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our place[1] and our nation

[Darkangelism]

The perso who said it was a very religious cathoilic honors student.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by UCFKevin

RIGHT!!!!

 

So why the hell would people condemn the Jews for doing this? Don't they f*cking REALIZE this? Or are they just looking for a reason to hate?

Yup. They're just looking for a reason to hate. If jews weren't even there, they'd find either someone else to hate, or some other way to justify hatred of Jews.

 

Dark, Jewish officials, of which we have no equivalent today, wanted him dead, yet lacked the authority to do so.

[moimeme]

was a very religious cathoilic honors student.

 

Unfortunately, people in all religions can say stupid things. It is possible, I suppose, that they were only speaking historically, but if even one of them thinks that's an excuse to persecute Jews now, he's a moron.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by Darkangelism

The perso who said it was a very religious cathoilic honors student.

 

Not religious or studious enough to have come across the conclusions of the Fourth Period of the Second Vatican Council of his own religion (The Nostra Aetate). Nor the earlier findings of the Council of Trent (Catechism of the Council of Trent; Article IV):

 

True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ; still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ. Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.

[Fedup&givingup]

Et tu Brute? .........................

 

Oh, that was another story (just kidding!)

[capitald]

In response to dyermaker,

Hannah Arendt (who I know I mention alot) did alot of thinking about the holocaust and the question of german guilt and came up with an interesting idea: "where all are guilty, no one is." You have to be very careful about questions of guilt because if you don't really think things through to their conclusion you can inadvertantly promote the cause of evil (which is also one of Hannah Arendt's theory).

I hope my scholarly experience has helped you.

[dyermaker]

CapitalD, Please clarify what you're talking about--I don't get it.

[capitald]

Oh, you said that everyone is or was responsible for Jesus's death, which is an absurdity.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by capitald

Oh, you said that everyone is or was responsible for Jesus's death, which is an absurdity.

 

I hope someone as intelligent as yourself didn't just read the last line in my post and assume that's what the entirety contained. Besides the historical responsibility, which I've clearly outlined to no dispute, I posted the last line as an addendum of theological responsibility on all of us. Jesus died to free us from the bondage of sin, it is because ALL of us sin that Jesus' death was neccesary.

 

If it's a religious teaching that you disagree with, fine, different strokes, but to call the religious opinion of millions an 'absurdity' ("Ridiculously incongruous or unreasonable") is just plain ignorant, and using language like that is indicitive of the way you elevate your opinion only by pushing down the opinions of others.

[Arabess]

For me....no one killed Jesus. He gave up His life willingly. It was His destiny.

[capitald]

Dyermaker, have you ever assumed that there are different levels of both thought and awareness? I am really getting aggravated with you now. I do not think that I am "better" than anyone else. I am a very down to earth person, so stop it with that. I feel at this point you are using that as a weapon against me, and its unneccessary since I have a right to my opinion on a matter, i.e. the matter of collective guilt.

 

The idea that we are guilty for the death of Christ is a myth or to speak differently an ideology, which when thought through is frought with logical frailty or to speak differently, it is not the truth. If as Marx says, "religion is the opiate of the masses" then why is it not possible that millions of people could be wrong. Think about that.

[moimeme]

I hope my scholarly experience has helped you

 

I do not think that I am "better" than anyone else

 

[capitald]

Having "scholarly experience" does not mean I think I am better than you. It just means I have read deeply about these issues for many years. Why am I being attacked?

[dyermaker]

You clearly attempted to make your opinion superior by calling mine an absurdity, that's when it becomes ad hominem, and no longer within the realm of your free expression, at least not in terms of being called on it.

 

Now to dissect the fallacy of your other argument.

 

The idea that we are guilty for the death of Christ is a myth

Okay. This is your assertion. Fair enough, you're entitled to it.

If as Marx says, "religion is the opiate of the masses"

This is your sidetrack, an appeal to authority - Argumentum ad verecundiam

then why is it not possible that millions of people could be wrong[?]

Do you remember your assertion?

 

You stated that the idea that we are guilty for the death of Christ is a myth, that was YOUR assertion.

 

The burden of proof ALWAYS falls on the person asserting something. Shifting that burden, as you tried to do above, is a special case of argumentum ad ignorantiam, assuming that the collective responsibility is mythological only because I haven't offered evidence of 'millions of people' being right. It was your assertion, you prove it.

[capitald]

Rationality is purely "thinking from the head up" and all those latin terms that you just threw at me are mostly products of purely "head thinking". They are more like "thinking traps" that somebody tries to hang on one another so they cannot as Hannah Arendt would say, "think without a banister". I don't need your verbal banisters to get at what at least seems to me to be the "truth" of the matter. Anyway, the phenomenon of reality changes frequently and trying to think while holding on to the old banisters (i.e. ad hoc, ad absurdum, etc.. etc.) is not going to allow me to get a clear view of what is going on. It will either yield the same old results or it will find its conclusion in meaningless speech. There is a band, I can't remember the name of it, but they had a song that fits here, it was called "Nothing Still Stays Long" and thats evidence enough for the necessity I feel to think and speak the way I do.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by capitald

Rationality is purely "thinking from the head up"

I have rationally examined my entire body, and empirically examined the body of many of my earthling counterparts. From what I have examined, I have found that none of us carbon-based lifeforms have ANY cells whatsoever above the head, let alone entities capable of cognitive ability. Therefore, it's safe to assume that thinking with things above the head is equivilent to not thinking at all.

and all those latin terms that you just threw at me are mostly products of purely "head thinking".

They actually don't lend any support to my arguments, I felt mine, being an expression of personal belief, were not in need of support. Rather, the latin terms that I through at you, admittedly but not regrettably products of my 'head', were merely evidence that your arguments were fallacious.

They are more like "thinking traps" that somebody tries to hang on one another so they cannot as Hannah Arendt would say, "think without a banister".

Again, irrelevant. Hannah Arendt was a historian and political theorist. Using her, out of context, to promote arguments of flawed philosophy is relying on false authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam)

Anyway, the phenomenon of reality changes frequently and trying to think while holding on to the old banisters (i.e. ad hoc, ad absurdum, etc.. etc.) is not going to allow me to get a clear view of what is going on. It will either yield the same old results or it will find its conclusion in meaningless speech.

The fact that reality changes is totally irrelevant to the theological contention I made. Once again, the burden of proof lies with the asserter. Since you cannot support your statement, which is merely a discreditation of my statement, you are argument against mine is fallacious.

There is a band, I can't remember the name of it, but they had a song that fits here, it was called "Nothing Still Stays Long" and thats evidence enough for the necessity I feel to think and speak the way I do.

This isn't a matter of your thoughts, it's your attacks on my thoughts. You may feel that song lyrics (of which yielded no result on Google) are enough to support your thoughts--which is fine by me, but they're not enough to defeat mine, outside anything but your own head (or above your head, wherever you think).

[capitald]

Originally posted by dyermaker :

"Therefore, it's safe to assume that thinking with things above the head is equivilent to not thinking at all."

 

Thats just in fact it, in a loose sense, rationality is not thinking at all, its rationing, i.e. saving for the future.

 

"Again, irrelevant. Hannah Arendt was a historian and political theorist. Using her, out of context, to promote arguments of flawed philosophy is relying on false authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam)"

 

According to Nietzsche and later Jaspers, "truth begins with two". Just because God himself didn't say it doesn't mean it can't be used as evidence. I mean c'mon now.

 

"This isn't a matter of your thoughts, it's your attacks on my thoughts. You may feel that song lyrics (of which yielded no result on Google) are enough to support your thoughts--which is fine by me, but they're not enough to defeat mine, outside anything but your own head (or above your head, wherever you think)."

 

??????!!!!!! This is all very confusing and besides I am not attacking you, relax, its just a good old intellectual debate, I respect your intellect.

 

P.S. The song is called "Nothing Lies Still Long", sorry for the mix up, but the point remains the same. It is by a group called Pell Mell off of their album "Interstate". Apparently, they are still around and have done songs for "Sex and the City" and "Six Feet Under". Go figure!!!!

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by capitald

Originally posted by dyermaker :

"Therefore, it's safe to assume that thinking with things above the head is equivilent to not thinking at all."

 

Thats just in fact it, in a loose sense, rationality is not thinking at all, its rationing, i.e. saving for the future.

No, your analysis of etymology is false. The connection between rationing (saving for the future) and rational (my thinking) comes from the latin ratio ([color=green]calculation[/color]). Rational thinking is thinking that exercises [color=green]calculated [/color]consistencies of logic. Rations, as in the kind you distribute during wartime, is a [color=green]calculated [/color]portion of food. That's the connection. Your statement that rationality is not thinking at all is totally fallacious, it's an implied middle because the words aren't synonymous--therefore your argument is fallacious because it's derived from false dichotomy.

 

"Again, irrelevant. Hannah Arendt was a historian and political theorist. Using her, out of context, to promote arguments of flawed philosophy is relying on false authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam)"

 

According to Nietzsche and later Jaspers, "truth begins with two". Just because God himself didn't say it doesn't mean it can't be used as evidence. I mean c'mon now.

I didn't attribute my argument to the mouth of God. Irrelevant comparison, The straw man fallacy.

 

"This isn't a matter of your thoughts, it's your attacks on my thoughts. You may feel that song lyrics (of which yielded no result on Google) are enough to support your thoughts--which is fine by me, but they're not enough to defeat mine, outside anything but your own head (or above your head, wherever you think)."

 

??????!!!!!! This is all very confusing and besides I am not attacking you, relax, its just a good old intellectual debate, I respect your intellect.

 

Okay, let's not loose track. This is a response to an attack on my perception of theological communal guilt for the death of Christ (as an ADDENDUM to my historical analysis). You stated that my argument was an 'absurdity', as an American I respect your right to say that. However, you can only support it with fallacy, which is where intellectual debate ends and rhetoric begins.

[lostandblurred]

ad hominem

 

Excuse me for digressing from the battle at hand, but:

 

I think that this phrase would make a killer title for a new Steven Seagal film.

 

Think about it. Seagal is master diplomat and debate artist Corrman St. Fielding, a man so reasonable and so quick with words that even the most horrible of autocrats and the most fascist of dictators are forced to reason when confronted with his insistent, down-to-earth philosophy. Of course we never see him debate onscreen (because the hack screenwriter was unable to pen a coherent debate sequence), but we are to understand his prowess from several wide shots of people whispering, "Is that Dr. St. Fielding?", "Did you hear that he banged out that peace agreement between Pakistan and India? What genius!", and such.

 

Called upon to settle the reunification of east and west halves of a small and unnamed East European country, Corrman St. Fielding is set up in a government facility where leaders of both halves of the divided country are talking. St. Fielding moderates. Before the talks can reach a resolution, however, armed seperatists seize the facility and demand the immediate cease to the talks and the release of their leader, currently on death row for kidnapping babies and brainwashing them to adhere to his specific ideologies, and then releasing them back into the public as sleeper cells.

 

When his brains fail him for the first time and his wife and kids (who are present for an unexplained reason) are executed by the seperatists, St. Fielding resorts to his seven-year aikido training to liberate the facility and restore peace to the world. Co-stars Christopher Walken as the seperatist leader and Treat Williams as St. Fielding's gruff military colonel sidekick, Burns LaRocke.

 

The tagline: "Sometimes actions speak louder than words." (overlayed on top of picture of Steve in prop character glasses firing dual pistols)

 

 

I'm sorry, I thought this thread needed a break from the battling.