A Question about Jesus being God

[- Qatada -]

One thing i want to clear up is that some people may be confused what the 'Holy Spirit' is in Islaam, we as Muslims know that none of Allaah's angels disobey Him in anything, they obey Him in every commandment, and they will convey the message of Allaah if He wills.

We also know that Angel Gabriel came to many, if not all the Prophets/Messengers of Allaah. In the arabic language, he is known as 'Ruh Al Qudus' - which can also be translated as 'the Holy Spirit.'



This might clear up the concept, and maybe explain the issue of the 3

i.e. Allaah/God - the Lord of the Worlds, the Holy Spirit (Angel Gabriel) and the Messenger who recieves Allaah's Message, I.e. Jesus son of Mary, Moses, Muhammad and the many Prophets of Allaah (peace be upon them all.)



And Allaah knows best.

 

[Kashnowe]

i myself was raised in a strict catholic family and i ask the same questions. i have concluded that i am not catholic....maybe not even christian but at the moment i am organizing and rethinking my thought processes and researching \various religious texts and searching and praying to God. just God.

my mother explained to me that according to catholics jesus prayed as an example to others to teach them about prayer. he was sent as a human to be a teacher. i have read other people's ideas that Jesus never uttered the words ym God my Mod why have you forsaken me that it was jsut a mistransaltion. of course no one living now really knows the truth in that.

the vatican did away with praying to saints i believe....i think its just passed on through families now not allowed by the vatican tho. \

and ther hail mary is in fact not praying to mary it is asking mary to pray for you. "holy mary mother of God pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death"

i myself have HUGE prblems with the catholic church and HUGE resentments.

 

[- Qatada -]

Hey coolonka.


Praying to God to guide you to what is what is loved by Him is the best thing to do;


Allaah says (translation of the meaning):

“O My slaves, all of you are astray except those whom I guide, so ask Me for guidance, and I will guide you. O My slaves, all of you are hungry except those whom I feed, so ask me for food and I will feed you. O My slaves, all of you are naked except those whom I clothe, so ask Me for clothing and I will clothe you. … O My slaves, if the first of you and the last of you, your humans and your jinn, were to stand on a single plain and ask of Me and I were to give each one what he asked for, that would not cause any loss to Me greater than what is lost when a needle is dipped into the sea.”

Narrated by Muslim (2577).



​

The concept of Jesus praying to God makes sense since he was a servant and Messenger of Allaah/God, therefore an example to humanity. For him to be 'god' and then pray to God is illogical.

and ther hail mary is in fact not praying to mary it is asking mary to pray for you. "holy mary mother of God pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death"

Regarding the issue of praying to others to 'intercede' on their behalf to God, i'll tell you something amazing. The polytheists of old believed in God being our Creator and Sustainer.

Allaah says in the Qur'an (translation of the meaning):


And if you asked them, "Who created the heavens and the earth?" they would surely say, " Allah. [God]" Say, "Then have you considered what you invoke besides Allah ? If Allah intended me harm, are they removers of His harm; or if He intended me mercy, are they withholders of His mercy?" Say, "Sufficient for me is Allah ; upon Him [alone] rely the [wise] reliers." [Qur'an Zumar 39:38]


​

They believed it was God who created them and all that is in the heavens and the earth. However, what was their excuse?

“And those who take Awliyaa’ (protectors, helpers, lords, gods) besides Him (say): ‘We worship them only that they may bring us near to Allaah’”

[al-Zumar 39:3]


“And they worship besides Allaah things that harm them not, nor profit them, and they say: ‘These are our intercessors with Allaah’”

[Yoonus 10:18]



​

So you see, they would pray to others along with God, people who had passed away, or even stone idols. They claimed that these pious people were loved by Allaah/God, and therefore claimed that we should pray to these deities in order for Allaah to accept our prayers.


The reality is, this is the essence of shirk (associating partners with God in worship.) This is the greatest sin one can ever commit, because they are worshiping others along with God, the exact message which the Prophets of God have always called against. Why worship others along with God when it's Him alone who creates you, sustains you, causes you to die, and will ressurect you again to judge you on all that you did in this life?



This is the reality - if you really are thankful to God, then why not worship Him alone and be obedient to Him?

And (remember) when your Lord proclaimed: "If you give thanks (by accepting Faith and worshipping none but Allâh), I will give you more (of My Blessings), but if you are thankless (i.e. disbelievers), verily! My Punishment is indeed severe."

[Qur'an Abraham 14: 7]



​

Once, the Prophet (peace be upon him) was with his companion.

The Prophet said, "O Mu'adh! Do you know what Allah's Right upon His slaves is?" I said, "Allah and His Messenger know best."

The Prophet said, "To worship Him (Allah) Alone and to join none in worship with Him (Allah). Do you know what their right upon Him is?" I replied, "Allah and His Apostle know best." The Prophet said, "Not to punish them (if they do so)."

[Sahih Al Bukhari 93/471]




​

And Allaah says in the Qur'an (translation of the meaning):

Allah will admit those who believe and work righteous deeds, to Gardens beneath which rivers flow: they shall be adorned therein with bracelets of gold and pearls; and their garments there will be of silk.

And they had been guided [in worldly life] to good speech, and they were guided to the path of the Praiseworthy.


[Qur'an 22: 23-4]




​

Peace.

 

[Keltoi]

Well, not quite. I was wondering if Father, Son and Holy Spirit are 3 persona of One God, how can they exist separately and simultaneously. How can one aspect descend upon another with the third making a comment about the second? I understand that it is a mystery and that we can't comprehend God. The finite can't fathom the infinite. I guess we Muslims identify Jesus as being a finite human being and find it incomprehensible that the infinite (God) became finite.

Co-equal and co-eternal. Christ is of the nature of God, and of the substance of God, but He is not the Father. That is why the Trinity is often described as three persons. Persons, meaning intellect, emotion, and will.

Regarding the Holy Spirit, I think this passage is fairly clear...

"Then Peter said, ‘Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God.' " Acts 5:3, 4

The Holy Spirit is also of and from God.

"But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you." John 14:26

So the Father sent the Holy Spirit. Jesus refers many times to being sent by the Father. To a Christian, the evidence is quite clear from a textual basis. I'm not asking anyone to believe it. However, the assertion made by many non-Muslims that Christians believe in the Trinity "blindly" is far from the truth.

How did all three persons of the Trinity interact at the same time? I know a pastor who often says "When the three persons of the Trinity interact, God happens." The event in question was the "perfect storm", so to speak. The persons of the Trinity are separate and distinct, but exist by the Will of God.

 

[MustafaMc]

Co-equal and co-eternal. Christ is of the nature of God, and of the substance of God, but He is not the Father. That is why the Trinity is often described as three persons. Persons, meaning intellect, emotion, and will.

It seems strange to me for one essence/entity/substance to have 3 independent wills as exemplified by Jesus' prayer to the Father in the Garden of Gethsemane. If Jesus and the Father were different manifestations of the same thing it seems that they would have the same will; however, it seems that Jesus' will was different from the Father's yet he chose to submit his will to that of the Father. I assume that since Jesus submitted his will, then he also had the freedom to disobey and follow his own desires. What would have happened if Jesus said, "Sorry, but I don't want to die for the sins of the world." and then just skipped town to live out his life in India?

How did all three persons of the Trinity interact at the same time? I know a pastor who often says "When the three persons of the Trinity interact, God happens." The event in question was the "perfect storm", so to speak. The persons of the Trinity are separate and distinct, but exist by the Will of God.

What was Jesus' physical appearance before he was born to Mary? Was it the same or different from what it is now at the right hand of the Father?

There are examples of people being filled with the Holy Spirit before Pentecost. What did it mean when Jesus said that he would send the Comforter/Holy Spirit when it was already present?

 

[Keltoi]

It seems strange to me for one essence/entity/substance to have 3 independent wills as exemplified by Jesus' prayer to the Father in the Garden of Gethsemane. If Jesus and the Father were different manifestations of the same thing it seems that they would have the same will; however, it seems that Jesus' will was different from the Father's yet he chose to submit his will to that of the Father. I assume that since Jesus submitted his will, then he also had the freedom to disobey and follow his own desires. What would have happened if Jesus said, "Sorry, but I don't want to die for the sins of the world." and then just skipped town to live out his life in India?

What was Jesus' physical appearance before he was born to Mary? Was it the same or different from what it is now at the right hand of the Father?

There are examples of people being filled with the Holy Spirit before Pentecost. What did it mean when Jesus said that he would send the Comforter/Holy Spirit when it was already present?

Theologically it is thought that Christ exists in hypostasis. Meaning He was both fully human and fully divine. Christ's free will was exactly the point. Christ as human must freely choose His passion, must freely choose to act according to the will of His Father. Only then, when the process of Salvation is initiated as both a fully divine and fully human act (via the free choice of the will), can the true redemption of fallen humanity come to pass.

As for Christ's physical appearance...I'm afraid that isn't discussed by any of the Gospel writers, at least not in the context of comparing His physical appearance that they saw to how He appeared before.


As for Christ sending a Comforter/Holy Spirit, that was in the context of telling His disciples that He would return to the Father. Christ promises them that He will send to them and their new church the Holy Spirit, which will allow them to do "greater works." Yes, the Holy Spirit already existed, but Christ is telling them that the Holy Spirit will be with them even though Christ's fleshly body is not.

 

[MustafaMc]

Theologically it is thought that Christ exists in hypostasis. Meaning He was both fully human and fully divine. Christ's free will was exactly the point. Christ as human must freely choose His passion, must freely choose to act according to the will of His Father. Only then, when the process of Salvation is initiated as both a fully divine and fully human act (via the free choice of the will), can the true redemption of fallen humanity come to pass.

As for Christ's physical appearance...I'm afraid that isn't discussed by any of the Gospel writers, at least not in the context of comparing His physical appearance that they saw to how He appeared before.


As for Christ sending a Comforter/Holy Spirit, that was in the context of telling His disciples that He would return to the Father. Christ promises them that He will send to them and their new church the Holy Spirit, which will allow them to do "greater works." Yes, the Holy Spirit already existed, but Christ is telling them that the Holy Spirit will be with them even though Christ's fleshly body is not.

Thank you for the sincere reply. I hope that you were not offended by my questions.

 

[Grace Seeker]

I was born and raised a strict Catholic, the church always taught that Jesus (pbuh), God and the Holy Spirit were all one in the same. Later in life, for whatever reason, I often found myself contemplating whether or not I shared the views of Christians around the world. I have recently been reading into Islam and I find that the main difference between Islam and Christianity is that Islam believes you only have 1 God, you only pray to 1 God or in other words, you should practice true monotheism. Christianity also claims to practice monotheism, in that the holy trinity is only one being (God), but here is my question if Jesus (pbuh) were God, then why would he have said on the cross "My God, Why have you forsaken me?" and why would he have prayed, and why would the devil have tempted him during his forty days in the desert with no food or water? And if Jesus was in fact not God, but the Messiah, as the bible says he is, then why would people of the Christian faith say prayers to Jesus, to me that is worshipping more than one God. Furthermore, why, if Christianity is a monotheist religion, do Catholics have the prayer "Hail Mary", and why patronize saints, and say prayers to them for small things, like say Saint Anthony for a parking spot or safe travel? Hopefully I can get some answers here, I am also posting this on a Christian site as well to see what kind of answers I will get there.

You have enough good questions there to keep a seminarian busy doing research for a full year. But good question should prod people in just that way. However, I am a pastor (no longer in school only studying) and don't have quite the time to deal with each of them in equal depth. Let me first point you as Keltoi has already done to some of the other threads here which have dealt with much of this same territory. If you really feel that your specific questions aren't being addressed, please, PM me and I will be happy to return to one or two of your most important ones as needed. If you like jumping into the middle of a discussion, these posts in the "Who is the Trinity?" thread, #193 and post #244 and in the thread "Message In Christianity" post #68 and post #78 and "Who is the Trinity?, post #639 might be a good place to start.

I did note you made another interesting comment in this thread...

I am not speaking against the holy spirit or Jesus, I love and respect everything about God and his prophets and his kingdom, but I never read in the bible that Jesus or the holy spirit was actually God. Since that is basically what separates Christians, Jews, and Muslims, I am just trying to figure out what is right and wrong.

Though my Muslim friends here continually dispute this point with me, I believe that indeed Jesus not only once, but repeatedly made statements with the express purpose that we should understand him to be identifying himself as God. I can't imagine that if you were brought up a strict Catholic that you would have missed this. I'm going to have to write to Brother Benedict and let him know that some of his people are asleep at the wheel.

But to show that, at least from a Christian perspective (expect to hear differently from Muslims) that the Bible does indeed teach not only that Jesus was God, but that even Jesus himself saw it that way, let me refer you to a few of my old posts:
"Questions about Christians. Requesting answers from Christians." thread, post #607

"Message in Christianity" thread, post #124

"Who Is the Trinity?" thread, post #610







Cooloonka,


I can understand those "HUGE prblems with the catholic church and HUGE resentments". I guess I would just remind you that Jesus and the Catholic church are NOT one and the same. So, don't let some problems with fallen human beings stand between you and knowing Jesus on a personal level. If we can help you with that, I am sure there are many here who would be willing.

 

[Walter]

Hi Qatada:

The verse that you quoted is a contentious one. It can be interpreted in at least two ways. To interpret it one way would result in a major inconsistency with the Books that came before and with recorded history. To interpret it another way would allow it to be harmonious with the Books that came before and recorded history.

Let us examine the particular verse carefully.

4.157-158 - That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;-

Let us look at what is not in dispute.
1. They are referring to Jews who broke their covenant with God.
2. The verses are in response to a section of these Jews that boasted about killing the Messiah.
3. The response to the Jews is that they did not kill Jesus, neither did they crucify Him.
4. There is an acknowledgement that it appeared that they killed Jesus.
5. God raised Jesus to Himself.

Now the fact is that Jesus was crucified. Therefore if we interpreted the verse to assume that Jesus was crucified but did not actually die, then we could debate this for we are not denying a historical fact. However, the verse does not allow this to be debated because it insists that the Jews did not crucify Jesus.

If the Jews did not crucify Jesus, yet Jesus was crucified, then how can this be resolved? It can be resolved by not making the assumption that the verse implies that it was the Jews that actually crucified and killed Jesus.

Who crucified and killed Jesus according to recorded history and the Books that came before? The Romans, not the Jews. The Jews cannot therefore make the claim that they killed or crucified Jesus, therefore their boast is baseless as the Qu’ran has claimed.

Since the Jews delivered Jesus to the Romans, it could appear to them that they killed and crucified Jesus, just as the Qu’ran rightly states.

To further support this interpretation, the Qu’ran concludes that God raised Jesus which is exactly what the Books before state.

Regards,
Grenville

 

[Walter]

Albeit from an Islamic perspective, I have an understanding of both the Son and the Father aspects of the Trinity. Can you provide information to fill in my lack of understanding about the Holy Spirit?

The verses that I have read are a mystery to me:
Jesus' conception through Matthew 1:20 & Luke 1:35, to be baptized with Matthew 3:11 & Mark 1:8, John the Baptist filled with Luke 1:15, John the Baptist's parents filled with (Elizabeth Luke 1:41 & Zacharias Luke 1:67), upon Simeon Luke 2:25, descended upon Jesus Luke 3:22, Jesus full of Luke 4:1, to teach all things John 14:26, filled disciples in upper room & gave utterance to speak in tongues.

How is one "baptized with the Holy Spirit"? What does it mean to be filled with the Holy Spirit? What was the role in Jesus' conception?

Hi MustafaMc:

I would be happy to; however, I will need to write it carefully. As I previously wrote, this is a topic that should be presented with clear scriptural support AND with a reverential understanding that it is a subject that can ruin “old wineskins”.

Regards,
Grenville

 

[- Qatada -]

Looking at the central point which you're trying to focus on Grenville, using the Gospel of John. Let's see who tried to 'kill him.'

John
Chapter 19


5 So Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple cloak. And he said to them, "Behold, the man!" 6 When the chief priests and the guards saw him they cried out, "Crucify him, crucify him!" Pilate said to them, "Take him yourselves and crucify him. I find no guilt in him." 7 2 The Jews answered, "We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God."

[...]


14 It was preparation day for Passover, and it was about noon. 5 And he said to the Jews, "Behold, your king!" 15 They cried out, "Take him away, take him away! Crucify him!" Pilate said to them, "Shall I crucify your king?"


The chief priests answered, "We have no king but Caesar." 16 Then he handed him over to them to be crucified. 6 So they took Jesus, 17 and carrying the cross himself 7 he went out to what is called the Place of the Skull, in Hebrew, Golgotha. 18 There they crucified him, and with him two others, one on either side, with Jesus in the middle.


​

From the passages stated above, it clearly shows that the priests were the Jews. And it clearly shows that they encouraged were desperate in wanting to kill him.


Now i don't believe that Jesus was God, since God doesn't die. Yet i don't find it shocking if these Jews were to attempt to kill Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon him), since they also killed other Messengers of Allaah, which include Prophet Yahya [John, the Baptist.) And they even attempted to kill Allaah's final Messenger, Muhammad (peace be upon him.)



So to say that it was other than Jews who attempted to kill him doesn't make sense, since that goes against your own scripture. Yet to say that the Romans got involved in trying to crucify - who they thought was Jesus - can make sense.




And Allaah knows best.




Regards.

 

[rav]

Shalom (Peace), from Ben Soski's:

Most scholars agree that the Gospels were written some 40 to 70 years after the crucifixion (which occurred around 30 C.E.). At that time, the nascent Christian sect was trying to distinguish itself from its Jewish roots for two reasons. First, the Christians wanted to attract gentile converts. Second, because the Jews were rebelling against the Romans, a repudiation of Christian kinship with the Jews could be politically advantageous. It is for these reasons, the scholars argue, that the Gospels 1) assign primary blame to the Jews, not the Romans; and 2) sympathetically portray Pilate, who is described in other ancient texts as a cruel despot. Additionally, many scholars have stressed Jesus' identity as a political subversive, which would explain why the Romans chose a means of execution, crucifixion, usually reserved for insurrectionists.

The small clique of Jewish authorities who were in league with the Romans does share responsibility for killing Jesus. But these authorities were distinct from the majority of the Jewish people, who had rallied around the charismatic figure. Thus some scholars have advocated substituting the terms "the authorities" or "the Temple leaders" for the collective term "the Jews" in the Gospels. Some Christian theologians have also stressed the importance of passages that can be interpreted to suggest that God himself arranged for Jesus' death as atonement for humanity's sins. From this perspective, dwelling on which temporal agent was responsible for Jesus' death diverts attention from God's design.

Several Christian denominations have denounced the claim that the Jews killed Christ. In 1965, the Second Vatican Council issued the Nostra Autate statement, which declare that "what happened in His [Jesus'] passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today." In 1964, the General Convention of the Episcopal Church declared, "We reject the charge of deicide against the Jews and condemn antisemitism." Other denominations, including the Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church and the Alliance of Baptists, while not explicitly addressing the charge of deicide, have issued statements regretting "interpreting our sacred writings in such a way that we have created enemies of the Jewish people."

 

[Keltoi]

Shalom (Peace), from Ben Soski's:

Most scholars agree that the Gospels were written some 40 to 70 years after the crucifixion (which occurred around 30 C.E.). At that time, the nascent Christian sect was trying to distinguish itself from its Jewish roots for two reasons. First, the Christians wanted to attract gentile converts. Second, because the Jews were rebelling against the Romans, a repudiation of Christian kinship with the Jews could be politically advantageous. It is for these reasons, the scholars argue, that the Gospels 1) assign primary blame to the Jews, not the Romans; and 2) sympathetically portray Pilate, who is described in other ancient texts as a cruel despot. Additionally, many scholars have stressed Jesus' identity as a political subversive, which would explain why the Romans chose a means of execution, crucifixion, usually reserved for insurrectionists.

The small clique of Jewish authorities who were in league with the Romans does share responsibility for killing Jesus. But these authorities were distinct from the majority of the Jewish people, who had rallied around the charismatic figure. Thus some scholars have advocated substituting the terms "the authorities" or "the Temple leaders" for the collective term "the Jews" in the Gospels. Some Christian theologians have also stressed the importance of passages that can be interpreted to suggest that God himself arranged for Jesus' death as atonement for humanity's sins. From this perspective, dwelling on which temporal agent was responsible for Jesus' death diverts attention from God's design.

Several Christian denominations have denounced the claim that the Jews killed Christ. In 1965, the Second Vatican Council issued the Nostra Autate statement, which declare that "what happened in His [Jesus'] passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today." In 1964, the General Convention of the Episcopal Church declared, "We reject the charge of deicide against the Jews and condemn antisemitism." Other denominations, including the Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church and the Alliance of Baptists, while not explicitly addressing the charge of deicide, have issued statements regretting "interpreting our sacred writings in such a way that we have created enemies of the Jewish people."

Personally, I don't really consider "who" killed Christ. I'm aware there are extremists out there who use Christianity to justify their anti-semitism, but the Christians I know view the "who" in that equation as all of mankind. It was a destined event, not something the "Jews" are to be blamed for. It is sort of an irrelevant topic to my mind.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Adding to what Keltoi said.... Even when I was a young child in Sunday school, I understood that it wasn't the Jewish people who killed Jesus. Instead it was a small group of leaders in Jerusalem that wanted to get rid of Jesus and Romans that carried out for them what they couldn't do for themselves simply to appease them. I've never once in 50 years of life actually heard someone blame the Jews for killing Jesus, just the authorities both Jewish and Roman.

Now, I don't live in a cave, I've heard people report that others have said it, but I've never actually heard someone say it in my presence. So, it makes me wonder if the perception that Christians think that Jews as a whole should be held accountable for Jesus' crucifixion is perhaps bigger than the reality?

 

[don532]

Adding to what Keltoi said.... Even when I was a young child in Sunday school, I understood that it wasn't the Jewish people who killed Jesus. Instead it was a small group of leaders in Jerusalem that wanted to get rid of Jesus and Romans that carried out for them what they couldn't do for themselves simply to appease them. I've never once in 50 years of life actually heard someone blame the Jews for killing Jesus, just the authorities both Jewish and Roman.

Now, I don't live in a cave, I've heard people report that others have said it, but I've never actually heard someone say it in my presence. So, it makes me wonder if the perception that Christians think that Jews as a whole should be held accountable for Jesus' crucifixion is perhaps bigger than the reality?

I've been a lot of places, and have never been around Bible believing Christians that "blame", or think badly of Jews, for the crucifixion of Christ.

I have heard some people say such a thing, but certainly only a few in my lifetime, and certainly nobody I thought was a believing Christian.

Remember one thing about the US. The best word to describe it is "diverse". You can find most anything here if you look in the right place, and that probably even includes some people that would say they blamed Jews for Jesus' crucifixion.

My experience with any animosity in the Jewish/Christian relationship, has been Jews really don't have much use for us Christians because of some of the things that have happened to them over time, our belief in Jesus, and the fact that Christians will witness to Jews about Jesus.

Jewish people I have been in contact with however, at least realize that Hitler was not a Christian, so we don't get the blame for that.

 

[Walter]

Hi Qatada:

We seem to be in agreement. There is no disagreement on who tried to kill Jesus. The scriptures clearly show that the corrupt Jewish leaders tried to kill him many times. However, they could not carry out a death sentence so they delivered Him to the Romans.

The Romans found Him not deserving of death and sought to release Him, but the corrupt religious leaders incited the crowd (described as “multitudes”) to demand Jesus’ crucifixion. The Romans, apparently fearing uproar, complied. However, Pilate made it clear that he did not want the blood of an innocent man on himself and washed his hands of the matter. The deceived Jewish multitudes then accepted the consequences upon themselves and their children and the Roman soldiers crucified Jesus.

So who tried to kill Jesus? The corrupt Jewish leaders. Who actually crucified Jesus? The Romans.

Regards,
Grenville

 

[Walter]

Hi Rav:

The scriptures clearly state that it was not only a few corrupt religious leaders, but “all the chief priests and elders of the people plotted against Jesus to put Him to death.” (Matt 27:1) Further, these persons deceived not a few people “But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitudes that they should ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus.” (Matt 27:20).

Does this mean that the Jews are responsible for Jesus’ crucifixion? Of course not, for the religious leaders and multitudes, while many, could not have been all of the Jews in Palestine. Therefore the Jews as a people cannot be blamed for demanding that Jesus be crucified. However, those multitudes and their children were probably among those massacred by the Romans in 70AD.

Now nobody is making any statements that can be construed in this context as anti-Semitic, therefore posting the religious statements from 1964 and 1965 denouncing anti-Semitism is completely irrelevant.

Regards,
Grenville

 

[Grace Seeker]

The scriptures clearly state that it was not only a few corrupt religious leaders, but “all the chief priests and elders of the people plotted against Jesus to put Him to death.” (Matt 27:1) Further, these persons deceived not a few people “But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitudes that they should ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus.” (Matt 27:20).

Of course, we have to be careful in interpreting what Matthew said. Given that Nicodemus was a member of the ruling council (John 3:1) and that he accompanied Joseph of Arimathea, who was also a prominent member of the council (Mark 15:43 & Luke 23:50), in claiming the body of Jesus for burial (John 19:38-40), I find it unlikely that they actually plotted to put Jesus to death. So,we are left with either a contradiction between Matthew and other gospel writers, or understanding that Matthew might have been speaking in hyperbole.


Also, I hardly think that Pilate's washing of his hands actually clears him of anything. He gave the order, he had the power to ignore everyone had he so desired. He chose to be influenced by them. He can claim that those big bad Jews made him do it, but I don't buy it for a second. His hand washing just makes him look like the weak ineffectual governor that Rome considered him to be. It doesn't absolve him of anything.

 

[Kashnowe]

i too grew up in a christian house going to church every sunday and catholic school yadda yadda and i never heard anyone blaming Jesus' death on the Jews. it was quite the contrary. we were always taught to have love and respect for the Jews (and everyone else for that matter) and there was absolutely no ahrd feelings towards them ever uttered. not that i heard.

and yes i have heard other people say that also but not anyone with any credibility. i tend to turn a deaf ear when i hear ignorance.......so it doesn't make much of an impact on me.

so i think this whole argument is kind of moot..............

 

[MustafaMc]

Personally, I don't really consider "who" killed Christ. I'm aware there are extremists out there who use Christianity to justify their anti-semitism, but the Christians I know view the "who" in that equation as all of mankind. It was a destined event, not something the "Jews" are to be blamed for. It is sort of an irrelevant topic to my mind.

I agree with this view. If Jesus was crucified (remember I am a Muslim), then it was Jesus' choice to submit his will to that of the Father and actually consent to the act. BTW Without a crucifixion, where would Christianity be today?