Why are Jews God chosen people?

• ben1xy

  11 May 07, 23:32

  Originally posted by Icemoon:

  Cannot!
  
  You heard before the lord, lunatic or liar argument?
  

  The first time i heard abt it was when i was 16 and i read it from Josh McDowell's book 'more than a carpenter'.
  
  When i was in my undergrad and talking to an apologetic, he actually told me that this was a very old argument. And it was made by one of the reformist. But i forgot who...
  
  anyone knows?
• Icemoon

  11 May 07, 23:34

  Originally posted by ben1xy:

  But icey, you should know by now from our exchanges that i always look at things from the viewpoint of power and politics; i admit that i lean towards a marxist view. Anyway, my argument is simple, Pilate found nothing wrong with him. And Jesus should never be persucuted. But the prevailing powers pushed for it in order to stay in power. In my eyes, it wasn't about the Law of Moses, but a contention for the retention of power.

  What retention of power? Who is trying to do that?
  
  Actually there is a simple reason why Jews want Jesus killed. Because the latter was potentially inciting a revolt! To prevent bloodshed from landing onto them, the Jews wanted to remove Jesus before Jesus yang1 ji2 chi2 yu2.
  
  I'm sure you read before this line of thought.
• ben1xy

  11 May 07, 23:40

  Originally posted by Icemoon:

  What retention of power? Who is trying to do that?
  
  Actually there is a simple reason why Jews want Jesus killed. Because the latter was potentially inciting a revolt! To prevent bloodshed from landing onto them, the Jews wanted to remove Jesus before Jesus yang1 ji2 chi2 yu2.
  
  I'm sure you read before this line of thought.

  I don't agree with it though.
  
  Haha, i go with the other view that sees the Temple High Priest trying to protect their own interest.
  
  hmm... is this line of thought not viable? am i missing something? maybe you can tell me why
• Icemoon

  11 May 07, 23:41

  Originally posted by ben1xy:

  I can't see the linkage. God doesn't owe salvation to anyone. So what if the whole Isreal was at sinai? And when Jesus and the Apostles performed miracles, the whole nation wasn't there. The were prophcies in the OT telling of the coming and the things that he would do.
  
  Finally, there was the resurrection and that to me would be the clearest indication.

  Look at the big picture.
  
  When the Old Covenant was given, the whole Israel was there.
  When the New Covenant was given, the whole Israel was not there.
  
  Is it any strange Jews did not acknowledge Jesus?
  
  There was the resurrection .. according to the NT. Not corroborated by secular source nor Jewish sources. The gospels and epistles remain our best source of history about Jesus and the apostles.
• Icemoon

  11 May 07, 23:42

  Originally posted by ben1xy:

  I don't agree with it though.
  
  Haha, i go with the other view that sees the Temple High Priest trying to protect their own interest.
  
  hmm... is this line of thought not viable? am i missing something? maybe you can tell me why

  Feel free to disagree.
  
  However, I'm not sure what you are saying. Protect their own interest? Can you elaborate?
• ben1xy

  11 May 07, 23:42

  i actually have another radical view, but i dun think i should type it out. i'll gt slammed
• Icemoon

  11 May 07, 23:43

  Originally posted by ben1xy:

  The first time i heard abt it was when i was 16 and i read it from Josh McDowell's book 'more than a carpenter'.
  
  When i was in my undergrad and talking to an apologetic, he actually told me that this was a very old argument. And it was made by one of the reformist. But i forgot who...
  
  anyone knows?

  Dunno which reformist.
  
  Anyway historian Bart Ehrman totally killed the argument. He said .. Jesus need not be either of the three .. he could be a legend.
• Icemoon

  11 May 07, 23:45

  Originally posted by ben1xy:

  i actually have another radical view, but i dun think i should type it out. i'll gt slammed

  Say lah .. no one will bao-toe you one.
  
• ben1xy

  11 May 07, 23:47

  Originally posted by Icemoon:

  Feel free to disagree.
  
  However, I'm not sure what you are saying. Protect their own interest? Can you elaborate?

  Wait ah. Let's see whether we can agree on certain things.
  
  1. King herod was a puppet
  2. temple priest were placed there to maintain order. an if revolts started, the roman army would come in. and we know what happens from then
  
  
• ben1xy

  11 May 07, 23:48

  Originally posted by Icemoon:

  Look at the big picture.
  
  When the Old Covenant was given, the whole Israel was there.
  When the New Covenant was given, the whole Israel was not there.
  
  Is it any strange Jews did not acknowledge Jesus?

  you might puke blood. But i find this totally alright
  
  

  Originally posted by Icemoon:

  There was the resurrection .. according to the NT. Not corroborated by secular source nor Jewish sources. The gospels and epistles remain our best source of history about Jesus and the apostles.

  This will lead us to the historicity debate. haha. leave this aside ok? as it is, it is getting more complicated
  
  i suck at multi tasking
• ben1xy

  11 May 07, 23:50

  Originally posted by Icemoon:

  Dunno which reformist.
  
  Anyway historian Bart Ehrman totally killed the argument. He said .. Jesus need not be either of the three .. he could be a legend.

  Tsk. now that's what i call a statement
• ben1xy

  11 May 07, 23:51

  Originally posted by Icemoon:

  Say lah .. no one will bao-toe you one.
  

  cannot. i will get slammed from both sides
  
  next time then we discuss lah
• Icemoon

  11 May 07, 23:55

  Originally posted by ben1xy:

  you might puke blood. But i find this totally alright

  Of course la, cos you are always looking it from your point of view.
  
  But try to see it from the eyes of a Jew at that time, ok?
• ben1xy

  11 May 07, 23:58

  Originally posted by Icemoon:

  Of course la, cos you are always looking it from your point of view.
  
  But try to see it from the eyes of a Jew at that time, ok?

  will try. no promses though
• Icemoon

  12 May 07, 00:00

  Originally posted by ben1xy:

  Wait ah. Let's see whether we can agree on certain things.
  
  1. King herod was a puppet
  2. temple priest were placed there to maintain order. an if revolts started, the roman army would come in. and we know what happens from then
  
  

  I can agree. In fact, 2 supports my argument.
  
  I suppose we can say the certain Jews like the High Priest were trying to save their own skin. 'cos if persecutions really happens, any Jew could potentially be involved.
  
  On the other hand, we can make the argument that the High Priest was trying to save the Jewish Temple.
  
  From hindsight, he did the right thing by de-associating with a potential troublemaker. Because the destruciton of the Temple in A.D. 70 was partly because of a Jewish revolt in A.D. 66.
• ben1xy

  12 May 07, 00:04

  Originally posted by Icemoon:

  I can agree. In fact, 2 supports my argument.
  
  I suppose we can say the certain Jews like the High Priest were trying to save their own skin. 'cos if persecutions really happens, any Jew could potentially be involved.

  + he would have to give up his position of power too. That's what i was saying. Saving his own skin and holding on to power
  
  

  Originally posted by Icemoon:

  On the other hand, we can make the argument that the High Priest was trying to save the Jewish Temple.
  
  From hindsight, he did the right thing by de-associating with a potential troublemaker. Because the destruciton of the Temple in A.D. 70 was partly because of a Jewish revolt in A.D. 66.

  For this, i have no comment
• Icemoon

  12 May 07, 00:11

  Originally posted by ben1xy:

  For this, i have no comment

  Of course .. sounds a bit heretical. Hur hur.
  
  

  + he would have to give up his position of power too. That's what i was saying. Saving his own skin and holding on to power

  I have no problem with this view.
• laoda99

  12 May 07, 00:19

  Originally posted by Icemoon:

  Are you done?
  
  Now my turn.
  
  Here's another difficult question for Christians - if Jews did not crucify Jesus, where is your salvation?
  
  Remember .. no calvary -> price for your sins not paid -> no salvation.

  hmmmm.....Jesus Tomb conspiracy?
• ben1xy

  12 May 07, 00:21

  Originally posted by Icemoon:

  Of course .. sounds a bit heretical. Hur hur.

  Understatement
  
  

  Originally posted by Icemoon:

  I have no problem with this view.

  we've reached agreement then. Actually reading back, there weren't many things we disagreed on anyway
• laoda99

  12 May 07, 00:23

  Originally posted by Icemoon:

  If you study patristics, you will not find the Apostolic Fathers any friendly to the Jews.
  
  If you arrange the gospels chronologically, you will find anti semite contents more rampant and the allegations more vile from Mark to John.
  
  I am saying this behind an objective pair of lens.

  If u have read the book Jesus Christ and Caeser, u would know that there is enemity between the Christians and the Jews, becoz the latter see the former as unwilling to help them fight against the Romans.
• laoda99

  12 May 07, 00:26

  IMHO, Jesus was executed mainly becoz of blasphemy (the chief priest tore his clothes when Christ never deny his divinity).
• ben1xy

  12 May 07, 00:32

  Originally posted by laoda99:

  IMHO, Jesus was executed mainly becoz of blasphemy (the chief priest tore his clothes when Christ never deny his divinity).

  It's almost impossible for me to take this view because throughout history, i cannot think of any religious movements where politics didn't come into the play. Religion is one of the best tools to forward political agendas.
• Skibi

  12 May 07, 00:44

  Originally posted by Icemoon:
  They did not crucify an innocent man. Jesus was indeed guilty of blasphemy according to the law of Moses.
  
  Jesus was clearly not innocent according to the law of Moses. So the Jews had every reason to punish him according to the law of Moses.
  

  Originally posted by davidche:
  perhaps if Jesus is a 'crazy' man, he would be justified by the law. IMO, pilate saw Jesus as a crazy man, thus, he could not find any wrong in him.
  
  But if the perspective is that Jesus was not crazy, then Jesus is indeed guilty of blasphemy.
  

  Sad.
• Icemoon

  12 May 07, 01:09

  Originally posted by laoda99:

  IMHO, Jesus was executed mainly becoz of blasphemy

  well .. I tend to take ben's balanced approach that other factors are in play too.
  
  Actually the dulan thing is Jesus was clearly blasphemising according to the law of Moses .. and He did not bother to clear up His name.
  
  In fact, I make the argument that what Jesus did before the resurrection did not indicate that He was God - 100% God. As we can see, His disciples were unsure of His identity. They thought He was the Messiah. The most Peter said was .. "You are Christ, Son of the Living God".
  
  I'm not sure Peter understood the Trinity. But his statement was ambiguous. He could very well meant Jesus was some kind of supernatural human being.
• ben1xy

  12 May 07, 01:38

  Since we're on this issue, i thought i should raise something. Some Christians whom i talk to, tend to think that the events in the bible were isolated. But they were many extravaneous forces prevailing too. And sometimes, i think we must take into considerations these events.
  
  Furthermore, it's like sometimes during dialogue, people throw around the crusades/ inquisition like it was a solely religious event. But imo, that cannot be further from the truth. And again, historical context and politics must be considered