Israel and World War III part four

[Homerun04]

The whole thing, or just this recent flare up?

The whole thing.....

[spence]

Originally Posted by Homerun04

The whole thing.....

Oh sure, so you can steal it and bring world peace all on your own?

Granted, many of the problems in the Middle East pre-date the USA by a few thousand years...but the current environment has been shaped and dramatically influenced by Western and Asian free markets and governments.

Additionally, it's precisely our dependence on energy that empowers Middle Eastern leaders to silence their people and use centuries old tensions to distract them from self empowered solutions.

Look at what happened in Dubai. They ran out of oil, opened up their markets and whamo, they are a comercial success.

The people feel they have been shafted the past 60 years, buy the West and by their own leaders...and to be honest, they do have a point.

The only option many have is to weigh a radical and progressive option being sold under the guise of Sharia Law.

So this may not be a comprehensive solution...but some quick thoughts.

Believe it or not, in principal I do agree with some neoconservative thinking.

American leadership would be a stabalizing force throughout the world, but to do so forcefully without the guiding reason of our founding fathers...which is exactly what we've been doing the past 6 years ...is proving and will continue to be a disaster.

We must confront our pending energy crisis to remove the crutch of brutal and oppressive regimes.

We must end containment based foreign policy to bring rouge nations and groups into the Global economy.

We must always lead by example as our moral high ground is perhaps our most valuable asset. It allows us to act with impunity when it is necessary...but like Austin Powers mojo, it's tragically lost...and we're nearly impotent.

As I said in my rant the other day, the solution to many of our problems lies in the magic that's America, but we're to terrified by our own leadership to see it.

-spence

[stormfish]

Thank you Dad fisherman for enlightning me with such useful knowledge. So after this whole ordeal, can you explain why the Jews deserve the land of Isreal? I mean you don't see Yamamano Indians getting much of Brazil back. And if I'm not wrong they took a big chunk of Palestine and left the Palestinians with a small strip of sand.
It seems as though Isreal was given the land without consideration towards the Arabs or their religion.

I wish to be enlightened some more... If the Jews didn't kill Jesus then who did? Was it the Romans or maybe the Muslims?

[spence]

Originally Posted by stormfish

It seems as though Isreal was given the land without consideration towards the Arabs or their religion.

To some degree that's true. The Palestinians did fight along side the Britts under the assumption they would be rewarded in the future.

Although the situation with the Nazis did change things quite a bit. I believe there were a few options for where to create a homeland, but the push to reclaim their old lands was marketed at the right levels.

I believe over anxious Zionisim made the matter worse, along with a refusal among the Arab League to sanction the process...leading to the war in 47-48.

I wish to be enlightened some more... If the Jews didn't kill Jesus then who did? Was it the Romans or maybe the Muslims?

Ask Mel Gibson

-spence

[Skitterpop]

Originally Posted by spence

Ask Mel Gibson

-spence

Since you broke the barrier do you think its time for that special planet post? Though who would have all the service contracts if not robots or cyborgs

[spence]

Originally Posted by Skitterpop

Since you broke the barrier do you think its time for that special planet post? Though who would have all the service contracts if not robots or cyborgs

I have no idea what you're talking about

-spence

[Skitterpop]

Originally Posted by spence

I have no idea what you're talking about

-spence

just pretend as usual

[Homerun04]

Actually, it was the Romans.

I'm curious where you get your alternate version of history?

-spence

I'm no biblical scholar or anything, but wasn't Pontius Pilat the Roman Dictate who washed his hands of Jesus since he said he could find no guilt with him....and then turned him over to the Jewish high priests to "do as you please with him"...?? Sure, it is written that the Roman soldiers carried out the crucifixtion, but wasn't that because by law only the state could carry out a death sentence? Wasn't it actually the Jewish religious leaders who fated Christ to death?

BTW - I am a Christian that has deep sympathies for the Jewish people.....so I am not Jew-hating here.....and do not blame the Jews for Christ's death....I actually thank them for their role in it, as accordingly to my beleifs, it means I can now enter into Heaven....just my thoghts when I saw you write that the Romans killed Jesus.

[Homerun04]

And BTW, don't we have the Brits to blame for most of this mess.....after all, it was all their Empire at one time....it was their broken promise to the Arabs (Palestinians) that they would get their homeland back if they fought with the Allies during WWII....and then they turn around and give it to the Israelies instead......anyone else remember Laurence of Arabia..??

[spence]

Originally Posted by Homerun04

I'm no biblical scholar or anything, but wasn't Pontius Pilat the Roman Dictate who washed his hands of Jesus since he said he could find no guilt with him....and then turned him over to the Jewish high priests to "do as you please with him"...?? Sure, it is written that the Roman soldiers carried out the crucifixtion, but wasn't that because by law only the state could carry out a death sentence? Wasn't it actually the Jewish religious leaders who fated Christ to death?

I'm more matter of fact...the Romans killed Jesus.

Certainly many will argue that the Jews were so afraid of this progressive troublemaker that they used their influence to silence him.

But if Jesus was sent to Earth specifically to die for our sins it would seem that the Jewish leaders were just playing a supporting role.

This is important as the notion that the "Jews killed Jesus" has been used by many anti-semetic groups to incite their followers.

-spence

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by stormfish

I wish to be enlightened some more... If the Jews didn't kill Jesus then who did? Was it the Romans or maybe the Muslims?

I'm Glad you were blessed with knowledge....No thanx are necessary.

And to help with your Enlightenment....this is from AmericanCatholic.org

Who Killed Jesus?


by Daniel J. Harrington, S.J.


Who killed Jesus? This simple question needs and deserves a careful answer. Throughout the centuries some have responded that the Jews killed Jesus, and therefore they are a "deicide" people. The word "deicide" means to kill God. Since Jesus is divine and since the Jews killed Jesus, therefore they must be a deicide people. This "logic" sometimes gave Christians a rationale and a motive for killing Jews. One result of this tradition was the Nazi Holocaust or Shoah. The hideous results of a careless answer to a simple question prove the need for taking the issue with utmost seriousness.

The Sources

The only ancient sources that we have for who killed Jesus are the passion narratives in the four Gospels: Mark 14—15, Matthew 26—27, Luke 22—23, and John 18—19. The four accounts agree on many basic points. They tell us that Jesus was arrested, underwent two hearings or trials, was sentenced to death by crucifixion, and died on the cross. Mark's account seems to have been the earliest; indeed, large blocks of it may have existed even before the Gospel's composition around a.d. 70. Matthew followed Mark closely, though he did add some (perhaps traditional) material. Luke too used Mark as a source but included more material. John represents a separate tradition, while agreeing with Mark on many matters.

None of the Evangelists set out to write a detailed chronicle of the day Jesus died. All of them provide some reliable historical details. But their real interest lay in the theological significance of Jesus' death for us and for our sins, and how his death took place according to the Scriptures.

A modern historian who sets out to determine who killed Jesus is like a detective. To solve a case, a good detective needs to assemble the evidence and look for details that may provide a window into what really happened. By sifting the evidence and noticing especially what does not fit, a historian/detective can arrive at a reasonable hypothesis on which to build a case.

Historical Responsibilities

The best clue toward determining who killed Jesus is the mode of Jesus' death—by crucifixion. In Jesus' time crucifixion was a Roman punishment inflicted mainly on slaves and revolutionaries. The usual Jewish mode of execution was stoning, as in the case of Stephen (see Acts 7:54-60). Crucifixion was a cruel and public way to die. As a public punishment, it was meant to shame the one being executed and to deter the onlookers from doing what he had done.

The official who had the power to execute Jesus by crucifixion was the Roman governor or prefect. In Jesus' time the prefect was Pontius Pilate, who held that position between a.d. 26 and 36. Jesus was put to death "under Pontius Pilate" around a.d. 30. Although the Gospels present Pilate as indecisive and somewhat concerned for justice in Jesus' case, the Alexandrian Jewish writer Philo (a contemporary of Jesus) described him as "inflexible, merciless, and obstinate."

All four Gospels recount a proceeding or hearing in which Jesus appeared before Pontius Pilate. According to Mark 15:1-15 (see also Matt 27:11-26; Luke 23:1-25), the Roman governor questioned Jesus and offered the crowd a choice between Barabbas and Jesus. The crowd at the urging of the chief priests called for Barabbas to be released and for Jesus to be crucified. Pilate bows to pressure, and "after he had Jesus scourged, handed him over to be crucified" (Mark 15:15). John's elaborate account of Jesus' trial before Pilate (John 18:28—19:16) ends in the same way, with Pilate handing Jesus over to be crucified (John 19:16).

The official charge against Jesus appears in the inscription placed on the cross: "The King of the Jews" (Mark 15:26; John 19:19). To Christian readers, this title ironically expresses the truth that Jesus really was the Messiah of Jewish expectations—the anointed one who is king, priest, and prophet. To Pilate and his Jewish collaborators, however, Jesus was one in a series of Jewish religious-political rebels bent on destroying the Roman empire and the status quo at Jerusalem in the name of the kingdom of God. These Jewish messiah-figures described by the Jewish historian Josephus in his Jewish Antiquities (especially in Books 17, 18 and 20) often used religious symbols and traditions to gain a popular following and to begin an uprising. The Roman governors dealt with them swiftly and brutally.

Jesus did not die alone. Rather, he was crucified along with two men described in various translations as "thieves," "bandits," "rebels," or "revolutionaries." The Greek term being translated in each case is lestes—the word applied to Barabbas who was "in prison along with the rebels who had committed murder in a rebellion" (Mark 15:7). It apparently referred not so much to petty thieves as to social bandits or revolutionaries of a "Robin Hood" type who resisted the Roman officials and their Jewish collaborators. While the Evangelists are careful to assert that Jesus was not a lestes ("Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs, to seize me?" Mark 14:48), the fact that Pilate offered a choice between Barabbas and Jesus, and then had Jesus crucified as "the King of the Jews" along with two lestai indicates that Pilate viewed Jesus as another Jewish religious-political troublemaker.

And so the mode of death (crucifixion), the legal system in force (with Pilate as having ultimate authority in capital cases), the official charge against Jesus ("the King of the Jews"), and the identity of those crucified with Jesus (lestai) all point in the same direction. The ultimate legal and moral responsibility for Jesus' death lay with Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect of Judea between a.d. 26 and 36. Pontius Pilate killed Jesus.

[Homerun04]

And so the mode of death (crucifixion), the legal system in force (with Pilate as having ultimate authority in capital cases), the official charge against Jesus ("the King of the Jews"), and the identity of those crucified with Jesus (lestai) all point in the same direction. The ultimate legal and moral responsibility for Jesus' death lay with Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect of Judea between a.d. 26 and 36. Pontius Pilate killed Jesus.

They both killed Jesus......

[Homerun04]

Didn't Jesus know he would be betrayed?

Exactly....betrayed by the Jews....so why do you hold fast to the idea that only the Romans killed Jesus..??

[spence]

Originally Posted by Homerun04

Exactly....betrayed by the Jews....so why do you hold fast to the idea that only the Romans killed Jesus..??

Ok, now you're really making a stretch...

So the moral of Judas is that the Jews were out to get Jesus? Don't think so...

I'm sure a Biblical scholar would argue that is was SATAN who killed Jesus anyway, for Satan is the cause of our sins which Jesus died for.

I know the Bible is a long book, but this is a pretty critical element to the story!

-spence

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Homerun04

They both killed Jesus......

Kinda like the Pamela Smart Syndrome...

I'll give ya that....The jews had their part in it as well.