An Open Letter to Mel

[nebula]

It seems to me like all this haggling over who is responsible diverts the eye off of the divine sacrifice and love of our SAVIOUR and CREATOR and places the eyeball right smack onto MAN, the creation.

I also suspect that the need to insist it was "the Jews fault" is because such a person has a need to find a scapegoat against confronting his own sin, and confronting it for what it really, really is.

[traveller]

Hey Suzanne....we're trying to have an arguement here...don't confuse us with the facts!

Yod i have never heard of a stoning that was not to the death? are you saying that the claim of stoning in the talmud was a limited stoning?

No..of course it's to the death. What I was saying is that stoning was at least a legal ruling that the Sanhedrin could make. Crucifixtion is not.

Well alright yod, if you must. But please, keep it down, it's entirely too loud, and I can't think!!!!

(Oh, and by the way, somebody PLEASE humor me.......tell me you went to read Isaiah 53! I'm so insecure!!!!)

In His Love,

Suzanne

I did I did!

[tsth]

Thanks Sister! I'm not feeling so invisible now.

:whistle:

In His Love,

Suzanne

[Adstar]

tsth I read your post

All praise The Ancient Of Days

[tsth]

:il:

Thank you Adstar.

In His Love,

Suzanne

[Guest idolsmasher]

Smasher's point is that the Talmud admits Jewish responsibility in Jesus'

death. At this point the method is not what he talking about. He is saying that the Talmud admits the Jewish leadership killed Jesus therefore it is wrong the Jews to gut upset when Christians say that the Jews killed Jesus.

DITTO!

The observation i believe idol is revealing is this:

When Christians say that Jews killed Jesus many Jews react by claiming Christians are anti semitic,

But within their own book the talmud it claims that the Jews rightfully killed Jesus by stoning.

And DITTO!

I will add one other note, the Jewish leaders also took the responsibility upon themselves, they were saying to Pilate, don't worry yourself, we'll take the responsibility, when they said "let His blood be upon us". They also wished for their ancestors to be held responsible by adding "and upon our children." In other words they were saying WE, present and future, will accept the responsibility. It almost seems they wanted to be held responsible, and their future generations.Those Jews willingly accepted the blame and responsibility, unless the Bible account is innacurrate. Same thing with some of the Talmud references, they wanted to show Christ as a heretic who was duly punished by death according to their law, as Yod so aptly pointed out. Then later, for some reason, they no longer wanted it to be common knowledge so they removed it from the Talmud, but not because they considered it to be in error as Yod subtly seemed to imply, but to cover their petite derriers.

I also suspect that the need to insist it was "the Jews fault" is because such a person has a need to find a scapegoat against confronting his own sin, and confronting it for what it really, really is.

I know that I am AS guilty AS IF I had been directly responsible, but I did not deliberately plan and scheme to have an innocent man put to death, ever. I am certainly not guilty of that particular crime, and yet in their unrighteousness, Christ died for them, and me. He let them do it, yes, but that does not exonerate them from the crime that was done, unless they have received Him as their Lord and Saviour. I'm not trying to say that I personally am without sin, I am arguing a historical act and who was responsible for that particular act. It's really quite simple, I'm not at all trying to justify myself or preach any kind of hatred towards anyone. Just the facts is what I'm interested in.

[JP1]

I am arguing a historical act and who was responsible for that particular act. It's really quite simple, I'm not at all trying to justify myself or preach any kind of hatred towards anyone. Just the facts is what I'm interested in.

What difference does it make who killed Jesus though? Does it change the plan of salvation? Does it change how you witness to people? Does it change how you feel towards a particular race of people?

If the answer to all three is "No", then I maintain that it makes no difference who killed Him. If the answer to one or more is yes, I'd be curious to know why.

[Guest yod]

Those are all good reasons for a christian (and I am in 100% agreement) but pagans don't usually speak christianese.

Not everyone who would ask "Who killed Jesus?" is a christian. A reply like that evades a sincere question. It wouldn't hurt us to be able to give a factual answer so we don't come across as weirdos speaking another language.

Which could then open the door for the REAL answer to be received and understood.

[Guest idolsmasher]

By the way, I just thought I should add that I'm not into playing the blame game and I would never use this type of thing as a line of witnessing towards Jewish people, that would be counter productive. I'm just having a discussion here amoungst bretheren, that's all.

[nebula]

I am arguing a historical act and who was responsible for that particular act. It's really quite simple, I'm not at all trying to justify myself or preach any kind of hatred towards anyone. Just the facts is what I'm interested in.

Do you really believe that Jesus is pleased with such arguing?

I would never use this type of thing as a line of witnessing towards Jewish people, that would be counter productive. I'm just having a discussion here amoungst bretheren, that's all.

And what of Shiloh? Did you not read his post about why this issue is so painful to him? Can you not tell that the anger he has expressed has come out of that pain? Does it matter not to you that your incistence on continuously arguing this point is breaking a bruised reed*?

(*Reference to quote from Isaiah: "A bruised reed he will not break.")

What if you did convince anyone here of your "facts"? What would you gain from it? What would the Gospel gain? What would the Kingdom of God gain?

Is being "right" more important to you than being reconciled?

Romans 11:15 - "For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?"

Romans 11:25 - "I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in."

Romans 11:32 - "For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all."