Your donations are appreciated and help keep this site running. Even the smallest amount helps.
Thankyou

 
PROMOTE YOUR SITE
HERE
Only $3 USD/month
TRUTHSPOON.COM
The man they can't recruit!
Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me
  • Page:
  • 1
  • 2

TOPIC: The Sanhedrin Rabbis: The Killers of Jesus Christ and those who destroyed messianic Judaism with the Talmud

The Sanhedrin Rabbis: The Killers of Jesus Christ and those who destroyed messianic Judaism with the Talmud 23 Apr 2015 01:01 #1

  • Orangeaid
  • Orangeaid's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 11634
  • Likes received: 8018
Sanhedrin

The supreme council and court of justice among theJews. The name Sanhedrin is derived originally from the Greek word sunédrion, which, variously modified, passed at an unknown period into the Aramaic vocabulary. Among the Greek-speaking Jews, "the assembly of the Ancients" was apparently the common name of the Sanhedrin, at least in the beginning; in post-Biblical Hebrew theappellation Beth-Din, "house of judgment", seems to have been quite popular.

History

An institution as renowned as the Sanhedrin wasnaturally given by Jewish tradition a most venerable and hallowed antiquity. Some Doctors, indeed, did not hesitate to recognize the Sanhedrin in theCouncil of the seventy Elders founded by Moses(Numbers 11:16); others pretended to discover the first traces of the Sanhedrin in the tribunal created byJosaphat (2 Chronicles 19:8): but neither of these institutions bears, in its composition or in its attributions, any resemblance to the Sanhedrin as weknow it. Nor should the origin of the Sanhedrin be sought in the Great Synagogue, of which traditionattributed the foundation to Esdras, and which it considered as the connecting link between the last of the Prophets and the first Scribes: for aside from the obscurity hovering over the functions of this once much-famed body, its very existence is, among modern scholars, the subject of the most seriousdoubts. Yet it may be that from the council of the nobles and chiefs and ancients, on which the ruling of the restored community devolved at the time ofNehemias and Esdras (Nehemiah 2:16; 4:8, 13; 5:7;7:5; Ezra 5:5, 9; 6:7, 14; 10:8), gradually developed and organized, sprang up the Sanhedrin. At any rate, the first undisputed mention we possess touching the gerousía of Jerusalem is connected with the reign of Antiochus the Great (223-187 B.C.; Joseph. "Antiq.", XII, iii, 3). From that time on, we are able to follow thehistory of the Sanhedrin until its disappearance in the overthrow of the Jewish nation.

As under the Greek rulers the Jews were allowed a large measure of self-government, many points of civil and religious administration fell to the lot of thehigh priests and the gerousía to settle. But when, after the Machabean wars, both the royal and priestlypowers were invested in the person of theHasmonean kings, the authority of the Sanhedrin was naturally thrown in the background by that of the autocratic rulers. Still the Sanhedrin, where amajority of Pharisees held sway, continued to be "the house of justice of the Hasmoneans" ("Talm.", Abodazara, 36b; Sanh., 82a). A coup d'état of John Hyrcanus towards the end of his reign brought about a "Sadducean Sanhedrin" ("Antiq.", XVI, xi, 1; Sanh., 52b;Megillat Taanith, 10), which lasted until Jannæus; but owing to the conflicts between the new assembly and Alexander, it was soon restored, to be again overthrown by the Pharisaic reaction, underAlexandra. The intervention of Rome, occasioned by the strife between the sons of Alexandra, was momentarily fatal to the Sanhedrin in so far as theRoman proconsul Gabinius, by instituting similar assemblies at Gadara, Jericho, Amathonte, and Sapphora, limited the jurisdiction of the gerousía ofJerusalem to the city and the neighbouring district (57 B.C.). In 47, however, the appointment of Hyrcanus II as Ethnarch of the Jews resulted in the restoring of the Sanhedrin's authority all over the land. One of the first acts of the now all-powerful assembly was to pass judgment upon Herod, the son of Antipater, accused of cruelty in his government ("Antiq.", XI, ix, 4). The revengeful prince was not likely to forget this insult. No sooner, indeed, had he established his power at Jerusalem (37 B.C.), than forty-five of his former judges, more or less connected with the party of Antigonus, were put to death ("Antiq.", XV, i, 2). The Sanhedrin itself, however, Herod allowed to continue; but this new Sanhedrin, filled with his creatures, was henceforth utilized as a mere tool at his beck (as for instance in the case of the aged Hyrcanus). After the death of Herod, the territorial jurisdiction of the assembly was curtailed again and reduced to Judea,Samaria, and Idumea, the "ethnarchy" allotted to Archelaus. But this condition of affairs was not to last; for after the deposition of the Ethnarch and the annexation of Judea to the Roman province of SyriaA.D. 6), the Sanhedrin, under the control of theprocurators, became the supreme authority of theJewish people; only capital sentences pronounced by the assembly perhaps needed confirmation from the Roman officer before they could be carried intoexecution. Such was the state of things during the public life of the Saviour and the following thirty years (Matthew 26:57; Mark 14:55; 15:1; Luke 22:66;John 11:47; Acts 4:15; 5:21; 6:12; 22:30; 23:1 sq.;24:20; "Antiq.", XX, 9:1; x; "Bell. Jud.", II, 15:6; "Vita", 12, 13, 38, 49, 70). Finally when the misgovernment of Albinus and Gessius Florus goaded the nation into rebellion, it was the Sanhedrin that first organized the struggle against Rome; but soon the Zealots, seizing the power in Jerusalem, put the famous assembly out of the way. Despite a nominalresurrection first at Jamnia, immediately after the destruction of the Holy City, and later on at Tiberias, the great Beth-Din of Jerusalem did not really survive the ruin of the nation, and later Jewish authors areright when, speaking of the sad events connected with the fall of Jerusalem, they deplore the cessation of the Sanhedrin (Sota, ix, end; Echa Rabbathi onLam., v, 15).

Composition

According to the testimony of the Mishna (Sanh., i, 6;Shebuoth, ii, 2), confirmed by a remark of Josephus("Bell. Jud.", II, xx, 5), the Sanhedrin consisted of seventy-one members, president included. Jewishtradition appealed to Numbers 11:16, to justify this number; but whether the text of Num. had actually any influence on the determination of the composition of the Beth-Din, may be left undecided. The New-Testament writers seem to divide the members into three classes: the chief priests, thescribes, and the ancients; but it might be wrong to regard these three classes as forming a regularhierarchy, for in the New Testament itself the word "ancients", or the phrase "the ancients of the people", is quite frequently equivalent to "members of the Sanhedrin", just as is in Josephus the word bouleutaí"members of the council". They were styled "ancients" no doubt in memory of the seventy "ancients" forming the assembly set up by Moses(Numbers 11), but also because the popular mindattached to the word a connotation of maturity of age and respectability (See in "Talm.", Bab., Sanh.17b, 88a, also in Sifra, 92, the moral and intellectualqualifications required for membership. Since theBeth-Din had to deal frequently with legal matters, it was natural that many of its members should be chosen from among men specially given to the study of the Law; this is why we so often hear of thescribes in the Sanhedrin. Most of those scribes, during the last forty years of the institution'sexistence, were Pharisees, whereas the members belonging to the sacerdotal caste represented in the assembly the Sadducean ideas (Acts 4:1; 5:17, 34;23:6; "Antiq.", XX, 9:1; "Bell. Jud.", II, 17:3; "Vita", 38, 39), but history shows that at other periods thePharisean influence had been far from preponderating. According to what rules the members were appointed and the vacancies filled up, we are unable to state; it seems that various customs prevailed on this point at different periods; however, from what has been said above, it is clear that politics interfered more than once in the transaction. At any rate we are told (Sanh., iv, 4) that a semikah, or imposition of hands, took place at the formal installation of the new appointees; and there is every reason to believe that the appointment was for life.

Who was president of the Sanhedrin? The Bible andJosephus on the one hand, and the Talmud on the other, contain statements which may shed some light on the subject; unfortunately these statements appear to be at variance with each other and need careful handling. In I Mach., xiv, 44, we read that no meeting (sustrophéd) might be called in the land outside of the high priest's bidding; but it would be clearly illogical to infer from this that the high priestwas appointed by Demetrius ex officio president of the Sanhedrin. To conclude the same from the passage of Josephus narrating Herod's arraignment before the Sanhedrin (Antiq., XIV, ix, 3-5) would likewise perhaps go beyond what is warranted by the text of the Jewish historian: for it may be doubtedwhether in this occurrence Hyrcanus acted as the head of the Hasmonean family or in his capacity ofhigh priest. At any rate there can be no hesitation about the last forty years of the Sanhedrin'sexistence: at the trial of Jesus, Caiphas, the high priest (John 11:49), was the head of the Beth-Din(Matthew 26:5;7); so also was Ananias at the trial ofSt. Paul (Acts 23:2), and we read in "Antiq.", XX, ix, I, about the high priest Ananus II summoning the Sanhedrin in A.D. 62. What then of the Rabbinicaltradition speaking persistently of Hillel, and Simonhis son, and Gamaliel I his grandson, and the latter's son Simon, as holding the office of Nasi from 30 B.C.to A.D. 70 (Talm., Bab. Shabbath, 15a)? Of one of thesemen, Gamaliel, we find mention in Acts 5:34; but even though he is said to have played a leading part in the circumstances referred to there, he is not spoken of as president of the assembly. The truthmay be that during the first century B. C., not to speak of earlier times, the high priest was not ex officio the head of the Sanhedrin, and it appears that Hillelactually obtained that dignity. But after the death ofHerod and the deposition of Archelaus, which occurred about the time of Hillel's demise, there was inaugurated a new order of things, and that is possibly what Josephus means when, speaking of these events, he remarks that "the presidency over the people was then entrusted to the high priests" (Antiq., XX, x, end). It was natural that, in an assembly containing many scribes and called upon the decide many points of legislation, there should be, next to the Sadducean presidents, men perfectly conversant with all the intricacies of the Law. Gauged by the standard of later times, the consideration which must have attached to this position of trust led to the misconception of the actual rôle of Hillel's descendants in the Sanhedrin, and thus very likely arose the tradition recorded in the Talmud.

Jurisdiction and procedure

We have seen above how the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin varied in extension at different periods. At the time of the public life of the Saviour, only the eleven toparchies of Judea were de jure subject to the Great Sanhedrin of Jerusalem; however, de factothe Jews all the world over acknowledged its authority (as an instance of this, see Acts 9:2; 22:5;26:12). As the supreme court of justice of the nation, the Sanhedrin was appealed to when the lower courts were unable to come to a decision (Sanh., vii, 1; xi, 2); moreover, it had the exclusive right ofjudgment in matters of special importance, as for instance the case of a false prophet, accusations against the high priest, the sending out of an army in certain circumstances, the enlarging of the city ofJerusalem, or of the Temple courts, etc. (Sanh., i, 5; ii, 4; iii, 4); the few instances mentioned in the New Testament exemplify the cases to which the competency of the Sanhedrin extended; in short, allreligious matters and all civil matters not claimed byRoman authority were within its attributions; and the decisions issued by its judges were to be held inviolable (Sanh., xi, 2-4). Whether or not the Sanhedrin had been deprived, at the time of Jesus Christ, of the right to carry death-sentences intoexecution, is a much-disputed question. On the one hand, that such a curtailing of the Sanhedrin's power did actually take place seems implied in the cry of the Jews: "It is not lawful for us to put any man to death" (John 18:31), in the statement of Josephus(Ant., XX, ix, 1) and in those of the Talmud of Jer. (Sanh., 18a, 24b). Still we see in Acts 7, St. Stephenput to death by the Sanhedrin; we read likewise inTalm. Jer. (Sanh., 24, 25) of an adulteress burnt at the stake and a heretic stoned; and these three facts occurred precisely during the last forty years of theTemple's existence, when the power of life and death is supposed to have been no longer in the Sanhedrin. Assuming the two facts recorded in Talm. Jer. to behistorical, we might explain them away, just as thestoning of St. Stephen, and reconcile them with the curtailing of the Sanhedrin's rights by attributing them to outbursts of popular passion. Some scholars, however, deny that the Romans ever deprived the Sanhedrin of any part of its power: the Sanhedrin, they say, owing to the frequency of cases half-religious and half-political in nature, in order not to alienate the feelings of the people and at the same time not to incur the displeasure of the Romanauthorities, practically surrendered into the hands of the latter the right to approve capital sentences; the cry of the Jews: "it is not lawful for us to put any man to death", was therefore rather a flattery to theprocurator than the expression of truth.

It should be noted, however, that of these views the former is more favourably received by scholars. At all events, criminal causes were tried before a commission of twenty-three members (in urgent cases any twenty-three members might do) assembled under the presidency of the Ab Beth-Din; two other boards, also of twenty-three members each, studied the questions to be submitted to plenary meetings. These three sections had their separate places of meeting in the Temple buildings; the criminal section met originally in the famous "Hall of the Hewn Stone" (Mishna, Peah, ii, 6; Eduyoth,vii, 4) which was on the south side of the court (Middoth, v, 4) and served also for the sittings of the "Great Sanhedrin", or plenary meetings; about A.D. 30, that same section was transferred to another building closer to the outer wall; they had also another meeting place in property called khanyioth,"trade-halls", belonging to the family of Hanan (cf.John 18:13). The members of the Sanhedrin sat in a semicircle that they might see one another while deliberating (Mishna, Sanh., iv, 2; Tos., Sanh., vii, 1). Two clerks stood before them, the one to the rightand the other to the left, to take down the votes (Mishna, Sanh., iv, 2). The members stood up to speak, and on matters of civil or ceremonial law the voting began with the principal member of the assembly, whereas the younger members were the first to give their opinion in criminal affairs. Forjudgments of the latter description a quorum of at least twenty-three members was required: a majorityof one vote sufficed for the acquittal; for a condemnation a majority of two votes wasnecessary, except when all the members of the court (seventy-one) were present (Mishna, Sanh., iv; Tos.,Sanh., vii).

Since in spite of the identity of names there is little in common between the old Great Sanhedrin ofJerusalem and the schools of Jamnia and Tiberias, it is quite useless to dwell on the latter, as well as on the Kalla assemblies of Babylon. But it will not be amiss to mention the fact that before the fall ofJerusalem there were, besides the Great Sanhedrin we have dealt with above, local courts of justicesometimes designated by the same name, in all the Jewish cities.
www.newadvent.org/cathen/13444a.htm
Last Edit: 23 Apr 2015 01:02 by Orangeaid.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: PFIZIPFEI, Return of Zorro

The Sanhedrin Rabbis: The Killers of Jesus Christ and those who destroyed messianic Judaism with the Talmud 23 Apr 2015 10:34 #2

  • PFIZIPFEI
  • PFIZIPFEI's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • WORDS are my SWORD
  • Posts: 20376
  • Likes received: 7951



"The Protocols is the plan by which a handful of Jews, who compose the Sanhedrin,
aim to rule the world by first destroying Christian civilisation.
Not only are the Protocols genuine, in my opinion, but they have been almost entirely fulfilled."


- Henry H. Klein



Henry H. Klein (April 10, 1879 - July 18, 1955) was an anti-Communist anti-Zionist Jewish attorney who defended Col. Eugene Nelson Sanctuary accused in the Great Sedition Trial of 1944. The judge during the trial sentenced Klein to 90 days in jail for contempt of court.[1] Klein had to leave the case in July--six months into the trial--after receiving a number of death threats from fellow Jews.[2]

Klein contributed articles to the nationalist publication Women’s Voice. He was a Jewish convert to Christianity.[3]

www.dict.cc/?s=klein




Luke tells us about the early history of the Christian Church, particularly focusing on St. Paul and St. Peter.
Details the Pharisaic Sanhedrin's persecution of the Christians.


=> www.catholicfirst.com/thefaith/bible/acts.html
=> www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/luke-kjv.html
.
"The truth must be repeated over and over again,
because error is repeatedly preached among us, not
only by individuals, but by the masses. In periodicals
and cyclopaedias, in schools and universities; every-
where, in fact, error prevails, and is quite easy in the
feeling that it has a decided majority on its side."

~ J. W. v. Goethe

Johannes Lang "The Hollow World Theory" Blog
My Zone by PFIZIPFEI
Last Edit: 23 Apr 2015 12:01 by PFIZIPFEI.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Orangeaid

The Sanhedrin Rabbis: The Killers of Jesus Christ and those who destroyed messianic Judaism with the Talmud 23 Apr 2015 11:29 #3

  • Orangeaid
  • Orangeaid's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 11634
  • Likes received: 8018
Caiaphas, the Jewish "Nasi" who hated Jesus Christ and ordered him to be killed.
Joseph Caiaphas, known simply as Caiaphas(Greek: Καϊάφας) in the New Testament, was the Jewish high priest who organized the plot to kill Jesus. Caiaphas was also involved in the Sanhedrin trial of Jesus.[1] The Babylonian Talmud (Yevamot 15B) gives the family name as Kuppai, while the Jerusalem Talmud (Yevamot 1:6) mentions Nekifi. The Mishnah, Parah 3:5 refers to him as Ha-Koph (the monkey), a play on his name for opposing Mishnat Ha-Hasidim.[2]

According to the Gospel accounts, Caiaphas was the major antagonist of Jesus.

Caiaphas hated the followers of Jesus Christ and continued to persecute them after the execution of Jesus Christ.
According to Josephus (Antiquitates, XVIII, iv, 3), Caiphas was appointed High-Priest of the Jews by the Roman procurator Valerius Gratus, the predecessor of Pontius Pilate, about A.D. 18 (Ant., XVIII, ii, 2), and removed from that office by theprocurator Vitellius, shortly after he took charge of affairs in Palestine, A.D. 36 (Ant., XVIII, iv, 3). During this period the famous Annas, father-in-law of Caiphas (John 18:13), who had been high-priest from A.D. 6 to 15, continued to exercise a controlling influence over Jewish affairs, as he did when his own sons held the position. This explains the rather puzzling expression of Luke 3:2, epi archiereos Anna kai Kaiapha (under the high-priest Annas and Caiphas; cf. Acts 4:6). Caiphas was certainly the only official high-priest at the time St. Luke refers to, at the beginning of the public life of Christ; but Annasstill had his former title and a good deal of his former authority. The role assigned him in the trial of Christ, in John 18, points to the same continued influence. In the measures taken by the Jewish authorities to do away with Jesus, Caiphas certainly had the most discreditable part. After the raising of Lazarus, thepriests and Pharisees held council to determine what was to be done in view of the manifest signs of theProphet of Nazarus and what they were pleased to consider the danger resulting to the country. The words of Caiphas, the high-priest of that year, are reported by St. John: "You know nothing. Neither do you consider that it is expedient to you that one manshould die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not" (11:49-50). They show a disdain for others, and a determination to get rid of this manwho was displeasing to him, without any consideration of the justice of his cause. But while we may see in the declaration of Caiphas the manifestation of very unworthy sentiments, we are warned by St. John that it was prophetical. The high-priest expressed in a striking way the meaning of thesufferings of the Man-God (John 11:51-52), though he could not have realized the full import of those mysterious words. The death of Jesus being resolved upon, the most unscrupulous means were employed in order to bring it about, and Caiphas is chiefly to blame. The meeting determined upon by the princes of the priests and the elders of the people, "that by subtlety they might apprehendJesus", was held in the house of Caiphas (Matthew 26:3-5). The hill south of Jerusalem where this house is said by tradition to have stood is called the "Hill of Evil Counsel". As high-priest, Caiphas was the official head of the Sanhedrin, and consequently responsible for the travesty of a trial to which Christ was submitted by the Jewish authorities, before they handed Him over to Pilate and stirred up the people to demand his death.

After the death of Jesus, Caiphas continued topersecute his followers. When Peter and John were brought before the Council after the cure of the lameman at the Beautiful Gate of the Temple (Acts 4:6 sqq.), Caiphas was still high-priest, since he was removed A.D. 36 or 37. We can say with almost equal certainty that he was the high-priest before whom St. Stephen appeared (Acts 7:1), and that it is from him that Saul obtained letters authorizing him to bring the Christians of Damascus to Jerusalem (Acts 9:1-2). At a time when high-priests were made and unmade by officials of Rome, and when the principal quality required seems to have been subserviency, it is no credit to the character of Caiphas to have enjoyed their favour so long. Josephus mentions his rule in connection with a series of acts of Vitellius which were agreeable to the Jews. We are not told what became of him after his deposition.
www.newadvent.org/cathen/03143b.htm
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: PFIZIPFEI

The Sanhedrin Rabbis: The Killers of Jesus Christ and those who destroyed messianic Judaism with the Talmud 23 Apr 2015 13:15 #4

  • Orangeaid
  • Orangeaid's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 11634
  • Likes received: 8018
The Jewish "High Priests" concocted false evidence against Jesus Christ and determined he was guilty of treason under Jewish law, which was punishable by death.

Jewish law did not apply due to Roman occupation. The Sanhedrin then pleaded with the Romans for them to execute Jesus Christ. The Romans ignored the pleas.

Caiaphas had decided that they need to sacrifice one of their own in order to "protect their own" and save their Temple. Caiaphas had determined that the Temple was at risk of destruction by the Romans with Jesus Christ preaching he was Son of God.

They killed him.

The Romans tore the Temple down anyway in 70AD.

The Sanhedrin then taught Jews pure evil about Jesus Christ.
Matthew 26:57-67New International Version (NIV)Jesus Before the Sanhedrin

57 Those who had arrested Jesus took him to Caiaphas the high priest, where the teachers of the law and the elders had assembled. 58 But Peter followed him at a distance, right up to the courtyard of the high priest. He entered and sat down with the guards to see the outcome.

59 The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death. 60 But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward.

Finally two came forward 61 and declared, “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.’”

62 Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” 63 But Jesus remained silent.

The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.”

64 “You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”[a]

65 Then the high priest tore his clothesand said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy.66 What do you think?”

“He is worthy of death,” they answered.

67 Then they spit in his face and struck him with their fists. Others slapped him

Footnotes:Matthew 26:64 See Psalm 110:1; Daniel 7:13.

www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2026:57-67
Last Edit: 23 Apr 2015 13:16 by Orangeaid.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Lizzy, PFIZIPFEI

The Sanhedrin Rabbis: The Killers of Jesus Christ and those who destroyed messianic Judaism with the Talmud 23 Apr 2015 15:56 #5

  • wiikkidd
  • wiikkidd's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5699
  • Likes received: 938
King James Bible
Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Take note! I will make those from the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews and are not, but are lying--note this--I will make them come and bow down at your feet, and they will know that I have loved you.

International Standard Version
I will make those who belong to the synagogue of Satan—those who claim to be Jews and aren't, but are lying—come and bow down at your feet. Then they will realize that I have loved you.

NET Bible
Listen! I am going to make those people from the synagogue of Satan--who say they are Jews yet are not, but are lying--Look, I will make them come and bow down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
“And behold, I grant some of the synagogue of Satan, of those who say about themselves that they are Jews and are not, but they are lying, behold, I shall make them come and worship before your feet and to know that I love you.”

GOD'S WORD® Translation
I will make those who are in Satan's synagogue come and bow at your feet and realize that I have loved you. They claim that they are Jewish, but they are lying.

Jubilee Bible 2000
Behold, I give of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but do lie; behold, I will constrain them to come and worship before thy feet and to know that I have loved thee.

King James 2000 Bible
Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you.

American King James Version
Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you.

American Standard Version
Behold, I give of the synagogue of Satan, of them that say they are Jews, and they are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Behold, I will bring of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie. Behold, I will make them to come and adore before thy feet. And they shall know that I have loved thee.

Darby Bible Translation
Behold, I make them of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews, and are not, but lie; behold, I will cause that they shall come and shall do homage before thy feet, and shall know that *I* have loved thee.

English Revised Version
Behold, I give of the synagogue of Satan, of them which say they are Jews, and they are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

Webster's Bible Translation
Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

Weymouth New Testament
I will cause some belonging to Satan's synagogue who say that they themselves are Jews, and are not, but are liars--I will make them come and fall at your feet and know for certain that I have loved you.

World English Bible
Behold, I give of the synagogue of Satan, of those who say they are Jews, and they are not, but lie. Behold, I will make them to come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you.

Young's Literal Translation
lo, I make of the synagogue of the Adversary those saying themselves to be Jews, and are not, but do lie; lo, I will make them that they may come and bow before thy feet, and may know that I loved thee.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

The Sanhedrin Rabbis: The Killers of Jesus Christ and those who destroyed messianic Judaism with the Talmud 23 Apr 2015 22:24 #6

  • Orangeaid
  • Orangeaid's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 11634
  • Likes received: 8018
SANHEDRIN

TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH
WITH NOTES, GLOSSARY
AND INDICES

CHAPTERS I - VI
BY

JACOB SHACHTER

CHAPTERS VII - XI
BY

H. FREEDMAN, B.A., Ph.D.

UNDER THE EDITORSHIP OF

RABBI DR I. EPSTEIN

B.A., Ph.D., D. Lit.

INTRODUCTION

[page xi] The word Sanhedrin in the tractate which bears its name has a specialised meaning somewhat remote from that of its Greek original ([G]). It designates the higher courts of law which in the latter part of the period of the Second Temple administered justice in Palestine according to the Mosaic law in the more serious criminal, and especially capital cases. The main subject of our tractate is the composition, powers, and functions of these courts. Incidentally, as is only natural, it deals in some detail with the conduct of criminal cases; and in this way it forms, along with Makkoth, the chief repository of the criminal law of the Talmud.

When the Mishnah was compiled, towards the end of the second century CE., the Sanhedrin was already a thing of the more or less distant past. As an institution it does not seem to have survived the destruction of the Second Temple; it may even have been falling into decay for some time before that event. Consequently, the information about it given in the Talmud, in this and other tractates, has neither the fulness nor the precision that we could desire. Both Josephus and the New Testament contain references to what is called the "Synhedrion" of the Jewish people, which it is not easy to reconcile with what we are told about any of the Sanhedrin mentioned in the Talmud.

From this tractate itself we learn that there were two kinds of Sanhedrin — the Great Sanhedrin, with 71 members, and the Lesser, with 23. Both, according to tradition, were instituted by Moses, but the first date at which a Sanhedrin is mentioned as actually functioning is 57 B.C.E. In the Talmud the Sanhedrin is almost always spoken of as a purely judicial institution, and the name seems in fact to be interchangeable with Beth Din Haggadol…the great Court of Justice. The Great Sanhedrin met in the Lishkath Hagazith [Chamber of Hewn Stone] in the Temple at Jerusalem; the Lesser Sanhedrin [there seem to have been several of them] met both in Jerusalem and at other places. The Lesser Sanhedrin was also competent to try capital cases, but the Great Sanhedrin was the

  
Dilling Exhibit 44
Begins 

[page xii] supreme Court of Appeal on all disputed points of law or religious practice. By whom members of the Sanhedrin were appointed is not clear from the Talmud. Naturally they were chosen primarily on account of their learning, but it seems that priests had a prior claim, other things being equal. In the period of the Hasmoneans.Sadducean or Pharisaic elements seem to have predominated in the Great Sanhedrinaccording to the disposition of the ruling prince.

According to the Talmud, the two most distinguished members of the Great Sanhedrin were known as Nasi [Prince] andAb-beth-din [Father of the Beth din], while there was a third known as Mufla[distinguished]. The last named may have been a kind of expert adviser; the other two titles seem to have been purely honorary, and not to have denoted any official position. Certain it is that in Josephus and the New Testament it is the High Priest who is spoken of as the President of the Synhedrion, and this in itself seems inherently probable. Josephus and the New Testament also picturethe Synhedrion as an institution of some political importance; whether this institution was identical with the Great Sanhedrin of the Talmud it is difficult to say.1

In the eyes of Christian students, Sanhedrin has always occupied a favoured place among the tractates of the Talmud on account of the light which it is capable of throwing on the trial of Jesus of Nazareth. It is not without significance that when Reuchlin. the Christian champion of Jewish learning, searched Europe to find a copy of the Talmud, the only Treatise he could find was Sanhedrin. For the Jewish student also, in spite of the fact that its main theme was already at the time of its compilation one of academic interest only, it possesses a peculiar fascination, partly on account of thefundamental importance of the legal principles with which it deals, partly on account of the wide range of its digressions and the exceptionally high quality of its aggadic material. In particular in view of their influence on the teaching of Maimonides, may be mentioned its famous statement on the limits of monarchic power,[page xiii] with the consequent disputation on the reasons for the Mosaic laws, and the celebrated eleventh chapter. which is thelocus classicus for the problem of Dogma.

CHAPTER I. This chapter deals with the composition of Courts enumerating the cases, civil, criminal, religious or political, which are brought before either a court of three, a minor, or a major Sanhedrin. The Biblical sources for the number of judges in each of these courts are then quoted, leading to an interesting discussion on the question whether Mikra or Massora is the determinant in Biblical exegesis. The status of the specially authorised judge [Mumhe] is defined, as well as that of the Palestinian and Babylonian authorisations. The attitude of the judge towards the litigants, as well as the merit, or otherwise, of settlement by compromise, is elaborately dealt with, these discussions being intermingled with many moral maxims, indicating among other things the serious consequences of appointing incompetent judges. A considerable part of this chapter is devoted to the procedure and conditions governing intercalation, which became the basis for the compilation of our calendar, and in this connection many incidents of interest are cited. The chapter concludes with references to the Urim and Tummim and David's council of war, and specifies the qualifications required from members of the Sanhedrin, and from a city to be eligible for a seat of the Sanhedrin.

CHAPTER II. The privileges of the High Priest and King. in judicial courts and elsewhere, are here discussed. The aggadic portion covers such subjects as the original script and language of the Torah. the deciphering of the 'writing on the wall,' and the non revelation of reasons for the Biblical commands, and contains touching homilies on the sanctity of a first marriage and the evils of divorce.

CHAPTER III discusses the rights of the parties to a suit to choose or reject judges in courts of arbitration, as well as the rejection of witnesses. The discussions are interwoven with aggadic passages regarding Babylonian and Palestinian scholars, Included are also rulings on omissions in the drafting of documents. The grounds on which judges or witnesses are disqualified are given [page xiv] in extenso, and these are followed by the rules governing procedure and the admonition of witnesses, and laws as to when and how evidence can be upset and the manner in which the verdict is announced. The chapter concludes with the general procedure in the event of a dispute arising between the litigants regarding the place of trial.

CHAPTER IV begins with differentiating between the procedures in civil and capital cases. The legal principle of the judges' liability to compensation or revocation of judgment in cases of error is discussed in detail, and the position in which the Sanhedrin, their secretaries, and supplementary members were seated, is described. The aggadic portion of this chapter contains some beautiful stories, historic and folkloristic, as in connection with the creation of man, and disputations with heretics.

CHAPTER V gives the rules for the cross-examination of witnesses, and refers also to the cases which render them subject to the law of retaliation. The procedure in cases of discrepancies or contradictions in the evidence is also discussed. This chapter also deals with the mode of procedure on the part of the judges at the voting and at the promulgation of the sentence.

CHAPTER VI describes how the condemned man was led to the place of execution, and how a last opportunity was offered to him by the court for the revocation of the sentence. Such details as the announcement of the execution by a herald, confession of sins before the execution and the benumbing of the criminal's senses before execution are vividly portrayed. Hanging as a posthumous addition and the different procedure in the case of women criminals, to lessen shame, are also discussed. The burial of the condemned in special cemeteries and the resignation of their relatives to the verdict are referred to, leading to an extensive discussion on the practice of burial as a whole. The chapter concludes by raising the interesting point to what extent one may act in self-defence.

CHAPTER VII deals with the four modes of execution practised in ancient Israel — stoning, burning, decapitation and strangulation — and proceeds to describe the methods of the last three, stoning having already been dealt with in the previous chapter. In the [page xv] discussion on decapitation, the important principle is laid down that a practice derived from the Torah is not to be rejected merely because it is similar to non-Jewish practice.

The Noachian precepts form also one of the main subjects of discussion in this chapter.

CHAPTER VIII treats of the stubborn and rebellious son, and lays down the age limits within which the term 'son' is applicable and the conditions that must be fulfilled before he incurs the supreme penalty. By a natural transition the right to kill a housebreaker in self-defence is discussed, and this leads to a list of those who may be killed to prevent them from sinning, followed by a discussion on the sins which may not be committed even under threat of death.

The Aggada treats of the age at which childbirth was possible in ancient days, the insidious dangers of wine, and the nature of the forbidden tree in the Garden of Eden.

CHAPTER IX continues with the four modes of execution, and burning is stated to be the penalty of certain forms of incest. Those who are decapitated follow, viz., a murderer and the inhabitants of a condemned city. Noteworthy are the statements that a person who was twice flagellated and a murderer whose guilt, though adequately proved, was not attested with all the minutiae of the law, were irregularly put to death. This leads to the enumeration of other offences likewise punished irregularly. The Aggada deals at some length with the sinning of Israel at Baal Peor and Phineas's revenge.

CHAPTER X deals with the last of the four deaths, viz., strangulation, and the crimes for which it is imposed. The rebellious elder we are told, was put to death only for giving a practical ruling [as opposed to stating a mere theoretical view] in conflict with th accepted Rabbinical interpretation of a Biblical Law, but not if he denied the Biblical law itself. An interesting Baraitha relates how halachic disputes arose when the two schools of Shatnmai and Hills sprang up, consisting largely of immature disciples. The Aggad treats of the false prophesying of Zedekiah the son of Chenaanal and also contains a fanciful elaboration of the Biblical narrative Isaac's sacrifice. [page xvi]

CHAPTER Xl consists almost entirely of Aggada. Commencing with the principle that all Israel have a portion in the world come, the Mishnah proceeds to enumerate those who forfeit it. Of the interesting portions of the Aggada may be mentioned the stories of Gebiha b. Passisa, the conversations between Rabbi and Antoninus on sin and other subjects, the praise of knowledge and study, the stories of Bar Coziba, Sennacherib's siege of Jerusalem and Nebuchadnezzar's siege and conquest of Jerusalem, the picture of the times preceding the coming of the Messiah, and the discussion whether Israel's redemption through the Messiah depends on repentance.

J. SHACHTER
H. FREEDMAN

On this question v. Krauss, Introduction toDie Misshna Sanhedrin-Makkot, 1933; Buchler, Das Synedrion in Jerusalem und das Grosse Beth Din in der Quaderhalle des Jerusalemischen Tempels, and Taubsch. Z. [H].ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Rabbi J. Shachter wishes to record his indebtedness to Professor J. Ernest Davey. MA.. D.D.. of Belfast, who spent much of his valuable time in reading the manuscript and proofs and by whose suggestions this work has greatly benefited. His thanks are also due to his son Chaim for his technical assistance in preparing work for the press.
Last Edit: 23 Apr 2015 22:25 by Orangeaid.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Lizzy

The Sanhedrin Rabbis: The Killers of Jesus Christ and those who destroyed messianic Judaism with the Talmud 24 Apr 2015 00:14 #7

  • wiikkidd
  • wiikkidd's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5699
  • Likes received: 938
They are anything but semites. They lie & there for anyone calling them semite is perpetuating this lie. :wissl:
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

The Sanhedrin Rabbis: The Killers of Jesus Christ and those who destroyed messianic Judaism with the Talmud 24 Apr 2015 01:03 #8

  • Orangeaid
  • Orangeaid's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 11634
  • Likes received: 8018
Derailing already Rabbi? Why is that?

Messianic Jews are correctly referred to as Biblical Israelites.

When the Romans expelled them in 70AD they fled to Africa or the Mediterranean and became known as Sephardic Jews.

Those who stayed in the Holy Land converted to Islam.

Sephardic Jews ARE semites ... as was former Sanhedrin "Nasi" Ovadia Yosef ... an Iraqi Sephardic semitic Jew.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

The Sanhedrin Rabbis: The Killers of Jesus Christ and those who destroyed messianic Judaism with the Talmud 24 Apr 2015 01:11 #9

  • wiikkidd
  • wiikkidd's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5699
  • Likes received: 938
Orangeaid wrote:
Derailing already Rabbi? Why is that?

Messianic Jews are correctly referred to as Biblical Israelites.

When the Romans expelled them in 70AD they fled to Africa or the Mediterranean and became known as Sephardic Jews.

Those who stayed in the Holy Land converted to Islam.

Sephardic Jews ARE semites ... as was former Sanhedrin "Nasi" Ovadia Yosef ... an Iraqi Sephardic semitic Jew.
Box of rocks filthy one. I am far more on topic than you ever will be on that vatican thread. These children of satan that accused & persecuted Jesus are not semite. The same descendants that rule today are their lineages.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

The Sanhedrin Rabbis: The Killers of Jesus Christ and those who destroyed messianic Judaism with the Talmud 24 Apr 2015 04:07 #10

  • Lizzy
  • Lizzy's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Silver Member
  • Posts: 4989
  • Likes received: 3025
Christopher Jon Bjerknes with Daryl Bradford Smith, January 13, 2006.
On Free Speech, Benjamin H. Freedman, Samuel Untermyer, The Jewish Messiah, The Rothschilds, Sabbatai Zevi, Jacob Frank, The Temple of Solomon, Nazism, Marranos, Amalek, Zionism, Homosexuality, Christian Zionists, Benjamin Disraeli, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Bolshevism, Adolf Hitler and the Myth that Hitler was a great economist, and much more.

Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

The Sanhedrin Rabbis: The Killers of Jesus Christ and those who destroyed messianic Judaism with the Talmud 24 Apr 2015 11:55 #11

  • Orangeaid
  • Orangeaid's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 11634
  • Likes received: 8018
The Roman expulsion of Jews from the Holy Land in 70AD. They initially largely fled to Arabia.

No .... Jews aren't semites. :iitm:


After the destruction of the Temple,  the Jews fled to Arabia

Long before the Arab conquest, as a British Member of Parliament pointed out in 1939, a thousand years before the Prophet Mohammed was born, the Jew, already exiled, sitting by the waters of Babylon, was singing: "If I forget thee O Jerusalem, may my right hand forget its cunning."1

The Reverend Parkes says that the theme that "gives to Jewish history characteristics which begin by being unusual and end by being unique" is that "the religion which was developing into a universalistic ethical monotheism never lost its root in The Land."2

... Jewry has nowhere established another independent national centre; and, as is natural, the Land of Israel is intertwined far more intimately into the religious and historic memories of the people; for their connection with the country has been of much longer duration -- in fact it has been continuous from the 2nd millenium B.C.E. up to modem times.... The Land therefore has provided an emotional centre which has endured through the whole of their period of "exile", and has led to constant returns or attempted returns, culminating in our own day in the Zionist Movement."3

Israel had already become a nation about 1220 B.c.-nearly two thousand years before the first Arab invasion began.4 The Jews' persistent presence on the land survived periodic attempts to extinguish them throughout their history. Around the first century,

Many Diaspora Jews observed the commandments of pilgrimage, and on the High Holidays in Jerusalem one might have met Jews from such different lands as Parthia, Media, Elam, Mesopotamia, Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia Minor, I'hrygia, Pamphylia, Cyrene, Crete, Rome and Arabia.5

By the time of the Roman conquest of Judea the Jews were considered "turbulent and troublesome people to deal with," according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica,6 when they stubbornly refused to surrender their country to Roman rule.

The Emperor Hadrian, "determined to stamp out this aggressive Jewish nationalism," ruled that henceforth Jewish traditions such as circumcision, the Sabbath, reading of the law-in fact, the beliefs of Judaism itself-were illegal and "forbidden."7Hadrian was "determined to convert the still half-ruined Jerusalem into a Roman colony." After the Jews' Temple was destroyed in A.D. 70, the revolt of Jewish leader Bar Kochba-who had "200,000 men at his command" -- recaptured Jerusalem and many "strongholds and villages throughout the country." The "full-scale country-wide war ... raged with fierce bitterness for four years, the Romans having to bring in legion after legion of reinforcements to suppress the insurgents."8

Although the Romans ultimately regained political reign, "sacked the city [of Jerusalem] ... and expelled the bulk of the Jewish survivors from the country"9 the cost of victory was shattering -- "It is said that as many as 580,000 men were slain!" -- Romans as well as Jews. It was after the debacle that Hadrian changed the name of the city of Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina, ordered the building of a temple of Jupiter on the Jewish Temple site and "forbade any Jew, on pain of death, to appear within sight of the city."10

But in the same way that the name Judea did not disappear, neither did the Jews abandon their land. A number had obstinately remained, and many others quickly returned to rebuild their world. Some Jews, however, fled the Roman conquest for other points -- including Arabia, where they formed some new settlements and in many instances joined Jewish Arabian communities established at the time of release from the captivity in Babylon or existing even before then. Thus evolved the flight of the first "Palestinian" refugees-the Judeans, or Jews.

The Haven in ArabiaA look at the haven where these "Palestinian" or "Judean" Jewish refugees from the Romans found sanctuary is important to understanding the "heart of the matter" in the Middle East today -- the conflict between Arab and Jew. The circumstances of the Arabian Jewish communities in the Arabian Peninsula -- both before and after the Arab Conquest-bear importantly upon Arab-Jewish relationships until this day, because the pattern that developed in Arabia established a tradition that has been followed ever since.

According to Arabist scholar Alfred Guillaume, Jews probably first settled in Arabia in connection with the fall of Samaria in 721 B.C.:

...it is almost certain that the self-contained Jewish military colony in Aswan and upper Egypt, about which the world knew nothing until a few years ago, was founded just after the fall of Samaria, and consequently it is not impossible that some Jewish settlements in Arabia were due to fugitives fleeing from the old northern capital of the Hebrews.

Guillaurne is certain that "in the first and second centuries A.D., Arabia offered a near asylum" to the Jews who had been victimized by the "utterly ruthless" Romans.11

In the Arabian land considered by many to be "purely Arab," the land which would spawn Islam many centuries later,

Numbers of Jewish and Christian settlements were established in different parts of Arabia, both spreading Aramaic and Hellenistic culture. The chief southern Arabian Christian centre was in Najran, where a relatively advanced political life was developed. Jews and Judaised Arabs were everywhere, especially in Yathrib, later renamed Medina. They were mainly agriculturists and artisans. Their origin is uncertain and many different theories have been advanced.12

Although the fact is little recognized, more than one historian has affirmed at the Arab world's second holiest city, Medina, was one of the allegedly "purely Arab" cities that actually was first settled by Jewish tribes." Bernard Lewis writes:

The city of Medina, some 280 miles north of Mecca, had originally been settled by Jewish tribes from the north, especially the Banu Nadir and Banu Quraiza. The comparative richness of the town attracted an infiltration of pagan Arabs who came at first as clients of the Jews and ultimately sucqeeded in dominating them. Medina, or, as it was known before Islam, Yathrib, had no form of stable government at all. The town was tom by the feuds of the rival Arab tribes of Aus and Khazraj, with the Jews maintaining an uneasy balance of power. The latter, engaged mainly in agriculture and handicrafts, were economically and culturally superior to the Arabs, and were consequently disliked.... as soon as the Arabs had attained unity through the agency of Muhammad they attacked and ultimately eliminated the Jews.13

..... written by a Jew

This page was produced by Joseph E. Katz 
Middle Eastern Political and Religious History Analyst 
Brooklyn, New York  

www.eretzyisroel.org/~peters/fled.html

If anyone cares to read the rest of the article, feel free.
Last Edit: 24 Apr 2015 12:13 by Orangeaid.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

The Sanhedrin Rabbis: The Killers of Jesus Christ and those who destroyed messianic Judaism with the Talmud 24 Apr 2015 11:56 #12

  • Orangeaid
  • Orangeaid's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 11634
  • Likes received: 8018
We can then move on to the connection between the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin. :)

History of the Sanhedrin: Who was this Council?

SANHEDRIN

The Greek word sunedrion, translated “council” is referred to in the New Testament as “the Great Law-Court”, “the Court of Seventy-One”, and “the rulers and elders and scribes.” It was the supreme theocratic court of the Jews and reflected the local autonomy which the Greek and Roman powers granted the Jewish nation. Its origin can be traced back as far as 200 B.C. The council had 70 members plus the ruling high priest. Three professional groups composed the council:

High priests (the acting high priest and former high priests) and members of the chief-priestly familiesElders (tribal and family heads of the people and the priesthood)Scribes (legal professionals).



At the time of Jesus two religio-political parties within Judaism were represented in this membership: theSadducees of the majority and the Pharisees of the minority. Caiaphas the high priest was a Sadducee. Most of the scribes were Pharisees. The presiding officer of the council was usually the high priest. The council was connected with the minor courts, being the highest court of appeal from these. The Sanhedrin’s authority was broad and far-reaching, involving legislation, administration, and justice. There was religious, civil, and criminal jurisdiction. However, during the time of Jesus, the council had lost to the Roman governor the power of capital punishment. The council met daily, except on Sabbath and feast days, in a session room adjoining the temple. In extraordinary cases, the council met at the house of the high priest. One of the responsibilities of the Sanhedrin was the identification, and confirmation of the Messiah. The gospel writers identify a delegation from the council going out to question John the Baptist as to whether he was the Messiah. There were about a dozen false Messiahs running around during the first part of this century deceiving the people, and it was the responsibility of the council to identify and denounce them. This is why Jesus had to eventually come into conflict with them.

Although the minority party within the council was the Pharisees, they were the majority party outside the council. During the first century, Philo tells us they numbered six thousand. They were highly respected among the people, operating principally in the synagogues. The typical Jewish boy would have received his religious training from a Pharisee. Their name meant “separated ones” and they kept themselves pure of any corrupting influence, including Greek or Roman influences. They first appeared more than a century before Jesus though by this time had little interest in politics. They had a highly developed system of rabbinic tradition which sought to apply the Biblical Law to a variety of circumstances. They held to three doctrines that the Sadducees did not: the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the body, and angels and demons. This they had in common with Jesus, and it should be noted that these were devout laymen, not priests. Where they conflicted with Jesus was the charge that in their over attention to the tradition of men concerning the minutiae of the Law, they had largely neglected the real intention of the Law. Numbered among the Pharisees were Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, the great teacher Gamaliel, and his student Saul of Tarsus, later known as St. Paul.

The Sadducees seem to have gotten their name from “zaddikim” the “righteous ones”. They had little in common with the Pharisees except their antagonism toward Jesus. They represented the Jewish aristocracy and the high priesthood. They had made their peace with the political rulers and had attained positions of wealth and influence. Temple administration and ritual was their specific responsibility. Being well educated and wealthy, they held themselves aloof from the masses and were unpopular with them. They were externally religious and were very political, seeing Jesus as a threat to the status quo. Unlike the Pharisees, the Sadducees held only to the written Law, specifically the first five books of Moses, the Torah.

The New Testament calls two men high priest, Annas and Caiaphas. It turns out that Caiaphas was actually the current high priest at this time, though there are a number of reasons why Annas was called high priest. He was the father-in-law of Caiaphas and had been high priest from A.D. 6-15, when he had been deposed by the Roman governor, Valerius Gratus, shortly after the governor took office. The governor tried three more high priests within the next three years until he appointed Caiaphas, in A.D. 18, a man he found cooperative. Nevertheless, Annas was the patriarch and real power behind the high priesthood. While the title was used later for Annas as an honorific, the Jews still saw the high priesthood as an office for life, whether the Romans felt that way or not. He was the senior ex-high priest and may have presided over the council at times. This is why Jesus was first brought to him during his trial.
billpetro.com/history-of-the-sanhedrin
Last Edit: 24 Apr 2015 12:21 by Orangeaid.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Lizzy

The Sanhedrin Rabbis: The Killers of Jesus Christ and those who destroyed messianic Judaism with the Talmud 24 Apr 2015 12:23 #13

  • Orangeaid
  • Orangeaid's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 11634
  • Likes received: 8018
wiikkidd wrote:
Orangeaid wrote:
Derailing already Rabbi? Why is that?

Messianic Jews are correctly referred to as Biblical Israelites.

When the Romans expelled them in 70AD they fled to Africa or the Mediterranean and became known as Sephardic Jews.

Those who stayed in the Holy Land converted to Islam.

Sephardic Jews ARE semites ... as was former Sanhedrin "Nasi" Ovadia Yosef ... an Iraqi Sephardic semitic Jew.
Box of rocks filthy one. I am far more on topic than you ever will be on that vatican thread. These children of satan that accused & persecuted Jesus are not semite. The same descendants that rule today are their lineages.
That's right Rabbi .... Jews aren't semites. :noway:



Yemeni Jews.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

The Sanhedrin Rabbis: The Killers of Jesus Christ and those who destroyed messianic Judaism with the Talmud 24 Apr 2015 12:52 #14

As I understand it some Jews are indeed Semites or Arabic. The Jews that illegally occupy Palestine (and many other nations by proxy) are not typically Semites though. Neither are they in any shape or form ''Gods Chosen''; people. Talmudic Judaism is as far away from ''God'' than one could possibly imagine. In fact it's a complete reversal of natural law.

What kind of Religion teaches it's followers that all Non Jews are animals to be killed or enslaved? Which is what's written clearly in the Talmud. No religion that holds such racist, wicked and evil belief's can be from ''God''. Such beliefs are only born from hatred.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. – Marcus Aurelius
Last Edit: 24 Apr 2015 12:58 by Return of Zorro.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Lizzy, Orangeaid

The Sanhedrin Rabbis: The Killers of Jesus Christ and those who destroyed messianic Judaism with the Talmud 24 Apr 2015 14:07 #15

  • Orangeaid
  • Orangeaid's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 11634
  • Likes received: 8018
That teaching though Zorro started with the semitic Jews 2000 years ago. The Sanhedrin Rabbis wrote the Babylonian Talmud after they killed Jesus Christ

The Pharisees opposed Jesus Christ when he was alive ... and were aligned with the Sanhedrin.

The white Jews that constitute most of the Israeli Jewish population though largely immigrated from Eastern Europe during and after WWII with another large influx coming after the Soviet Union collapsed.

The Rabbinical teachings have existed for over 2000 years.

Remember, their "Holy Temple" sanctioned prostitution and homosexuality and money changing flourished. .. where Rabbis took commissions.

They've been corrupted and perverted for 2000+ years.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

The Sanhedrin Rabbis: The Killers of Jesus Christ and those who destroyed messianic Judaism with the Talmud 24 Apr 2015 16:33 #16

  • wiikkidd
  • wiikkidd's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5699
  • Likes received: 938
Talmud is satanic. Yet no one renounces satan here. Why the mask. I shall never call someone what they chose to. A devil is a devil. That is plainly seen in these teachings of evil. And this. ~~~~~~"""Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan,.... Which may be understood either of the Papists, the followers of the man of sin, whose coming was after the working of Satan, and whose doctrines are the doctrines of devils, many of whom will now be converted, and brought to the true church; or rather of the Jews, who had, and have, and will have till this time, their synagogues for religious worship in their way; but they are no other than synagogues of Satan; the men that assemble in them are of their father the devil, and do his works, and will do them:

which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; they are Jews by name and nation; they are. Jews outwardly, but not inwardly and spiritually, Romans 2:28; they are carnal wicked men, under the influence of Satan, though they pretend to be religious men, and worshippers of God:

behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet; the conversion of the Jews is here intended. The worship here spoken of is not either a religious or civil worship of the church, for the church is not the object of worship; only before whom, and at whose feet, this worship shall be given to God in the most humble and hearty manner: the sense is, that the convinced and converted Jews shall come to the church, and in the most lowly and contrite manner acknowledge their former blindness, furious zeal, and violent hatred of the Christians, and shall profess their faith in Christ; shall join themselves to the church, and partake of the ordinances of the Gospel with them; and shall worship God and Jesus Christ, their Lord and King, in their presence, and at their feet:

and to know that I have loved thee; the Gentile church, and the members of it, in assuming human nature, and dying for, and redeeming them, as well as the Jews; in sending his Gospel to them, and calling them by his grace, and planting them into Gospel churches; giving them a place, and a name in his house, better than that of sons and daughters." After this quote to continue to waste time w/the endless redundancy is just that. The devils children are poised for WWIII. 'Thank' them not me. :wissl:
Last Edit: 24 Apr 2015 16:37 by wiikkidd.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

The Sanhedrin Rabbis: The Killers of Jesus Christ and those who destroyed messianic Judaism with the Talmud 23 May 2015 20:32 #17

  • PFIZIPFEI
  • PFIZIPFEI's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • WORDS are my SWORD
  • Posts: 20376
  • Likes received: 7951

Who Killed Jesus And Why Did They Want Him Dead?








MEETING OF THE SANHEDRIN

Even though the testimony of this man raised from the dead did much to consolidate the faith of the mass of believers in the gospel of the kingdom, it had little or no influence on the attitude of the religious leaders and rulers at Jerusalem except to hasten their decision to destroy Jesus and stop his work.

168:3.2 At one o'clock the next day, Friday, the Sanhedrin met to deliberate further on the question, "What shall we do with Jesus of Nazareth?" After more than two hours of discussion and acrimonious debate, a certain Pharisee presented a resolution calling for Jesus' immediate death, proclaiming that he was a menace to all Israel and formally committing the Sanhedrin to the decision of death, without trial and in defiance of all precedent.

168:3.3 Time and again had this august body of Jewish leaders decreed that Jesus be apprehended and brought to trial on charges of blasphemy and numerous other accusations of flouting the Jewish sacred law. They had once before even gone so far as to declare he should die, but this was the first time the Sanhedrin had gone on record as desiring to decree his death in advance of a trial. But this resolution did not come to a vote since fourteen members of the Sanhedrin resigned in a body when such an unheard-of action was proposed. While these resignations were not formally acted upon for almost two weeks, this group of fourteen withdrew from the Sanhedrin on that day, never again to sit in the council. When these resignations were subsequently acted upon, five other members were thrown out because their associates believed they entertained friendly feelings toward Jesus. With the ejection of these nineteen men the Sanhedrin was in a position to try and to condemn Jesus with a solidarity bordering on unanimity.

168:3.4 The following week Lazarus and his sisters were summoned to appear before the Sanhedrin. When their testimony had been heard, no doubt could be entertained that Lazarus had been raised from the dead. Though the transactions of the Sanhedrin virtually admitted the resurrection of Lazarus, the record carried a resolution attributing this and all other wonders worked by Jesus to the power of the prince of devils, with whom Jesus was declared to be in league.

168:3.5 No matter what the source of his wonder-working power, these Jewish leaders were persuaded that, if he were not immediately stopped, very soon all the common people would believe in him; and further, that serious complications with the Roman authorities would arise since so many of his believers regarded him as the Messiah, Israel's deliverer.

168:3.6 It was at this same meeting of the Sanhedrin that Caiaphas the high priest first gave expression to that old Jewish adage, which he so many times repeated: "It is better that one man die, than that the community perish."

168:3.7 Although Jesus had received warning of the doings of the Sanhedrin on this dark Friday afternoon, he was not in the least perturbed and continued resting over the Sabbath with friends in Bethphage, a hamlet near Bethany Early Sunday morning Jesus and the apostles assembled, by prearrangement, at the home of Lazarus, and taking leave of the Bethany family, they started on their journey back to the Pella encampment.


CHALLENGING THE MASTER'S AUTHORITY

173:2.1 On Sunday the triumphal entry into Jerusalem so overawed the Jewish leaders that they refrained from placing Jesus under arrest. Today, this spectacular cleansing of the temple likewise effectively postponed the Master's apprehension. Day by day the rulers of the Jews were becoming more and more determined to destroy him, but they were distraught by two fears, which conspired to delay the hour of striking. The chief priests and the scribes were unwilling to arrest Jesus in public for fear the multitude might turn upon them in a fury of resentment; they also dreaded the possibility of the Roman guards being called upon to quell a popular uprising.

173:2.2 At the noon session of the Sanhedrin it was unanimously agreed that Jesus must be speedily destroyed, inasmuch as no friend of the Master attended this meeting. But they could not agree as to when and how he should be taken into custody. Finally they agreed upon appointing five groups to go out among the people and seek to entangle him in his teaching or otherwise to discredit him in the sight of those who listened to his instruction. Accordingly, about two o'clock, when Jesus had just begun his discourse on "The Liberty of Sonship," a group of these elders of Israel made their way up near Jesus and, interrupting him in the customary manner, asked this question: "By what authority do you do these things? Who gave you this authority?"

173:2.3 It was altogether proper that the temple rulers and the officers of the Jewish Sanhedrin should ask this question of anyone who presumed to teach and perform in the extraordinary manner which had been characteristic of Jesus, especially as concerned his recent conduct in clearing the temple of all commerce. These traders and money-changers all operated by direct license from the highest rulers, and a percentage of their gains was supposed to go directly into the temple treasury. Do not forget that authority was the watchword of all Jewry. The prophets were always stirring up trouble because they so boldly presumed to teach without authority, without having been duly instructed in the rabbinic academies and subsequently regularly ordained by the Sanhedrin. Lack of this authority in pretentious public teaching was looked upon as indicating either ignorant presumption or open rebellion. At this time only the Sanhedrin could ordain an elder or teacher, and such a ceremony had to take place in the presence of at least three persons who had previously been so ordained. Such an ordination conferred the title of "rabbi" upon the teacher and also qualified him to act as a judge, "binding and loosing such matters as might be brought to him for adjudication."

173:2.4 The rulers of the temple came before Jesus at this afternoon hour challenging not only his teaching but his acts. Jesus well knew that these very men had long publicly taught that his authority for teaching was Satanic, and that all his mighty works had been wrought by the power of the prince of devils. Therefore did the Master begin his answer to their question by asking them a counter-question. Said Jesus: "I would also like to ask you one question which, if you will answer me, I likewise will tell you by what authority I do these works. The baptism of John, whence was it? Did John get his authority from heaven or from men?"

173:2.5 And when his questioners heard this, they withdrew to one side to take counsel among themselves as to what answer they might give. They had thought to embarrass Jesus before the multitude, but now they found themselves much confused before all who were assembled at that time in the temple court. And their discomfiture was all the more apparent when they returned to Jesus, saying: "Concerning the baptism of John, we cannot answer; we do not know." And they so answered the Master because they had reasoned among themselves: If we shall say from heaven, then will he say, Why did you not believe him, and perchance will add that he received his authority from John; and if we shall say from men, then might the multitude turn upon us, for most of them hold that John was a prophet; and so they were compelled to come before Jesus and the people confessing that they, the religious teachers and leaders of Israel, could not (or would not) express an opinion about John's mission. And when they had spoken, Jesus, looking down upon them, said, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things."

173:2.6 Jesus never intended to appeal to John for his authority; John had never been ordained by the Sanhedrin. Jesus' authority was in himself and in his Father's eternal supremacy.

173:2.7 In employing this method of dealing with his adversaries, Jesus did not mean to dodge the question. At first it may seem that he was guilty of a masterly evasion, but it was not so. Jesus was never disposed to take unfair advantage of even his enemies. In this apparent evasion he really supplied all his hearers with the answer to the Pharisees' question as to the authority behind his mission. They had asserted that he performed by authority of the prince of devils. Jesus had repeatedly asserted that all his teaching and works were by the power and authority of his Father in heaven. This the Jewish leaders refused to accept and were seeking to corner him into admitting that he was an irregular teacher since he had never been sanctioned by the Sanhedrin. In answering them as he did, while not claiming authority from John, he so satisfied the people with the inference that the effort of his enemies to ensnare him was effectively turned upon themselves and was much to their discredit in the eyes of all present.

173:2.8 And it was this genius of the Master for dealing with his adversaries that made them so afraid of him. They attempted no more questions that day; they retired to take further counsel among themselves. But the people were not slow to discern the dishonesty and insincerity in these questions asked by the Jewish rulers. Even the common folk could not fail to distinguish between the moral majesty of the Master and the designing hypocrisy of his enemies. But the cleansing of the temple had brought the Sadducees over to the side of the Pharisees in perfecting the plan to destroy Jesus. And the Sadducees now represented a majority of the Sanhedrin.


STATUS OF INDIVIDUAL JEWS

175:2.1 The fact that the spiritual leaders and the religious teachers of the Jewish nation onetime rejected the teachings of Jesus and conspired to bring about his cruel death, does not in any manner affect the status of any individual Jew in his standing before God. And it should not cause those who profess to be followers of the Christ to be prejudiced against the Jew as a fellow mortal. The Jews, as a nation, as a sociopolitical group, paid in full the terrible price of rejecting the Prince of Peace. Long since they ceased to be the spiritual torchbearers of divine truth to the races of mankind, but this constitutes no valid reason why the individual descendants of these long-ago Jews should be made to suffer the persecutions which have been visited upon them by intolerant, unworthy, and bigoted professed followers of Jesus of Nazareth, who was, himself, a Jew by natural birth.

175:2.2 Many times has this unreasoning and un-Christlike hatred and persecution of modern Jews terminated in the suffering and death of some innocent and unoffending Jewish individual whose very ancestors, in the times of Jesus, heartily accepted his gospel and presently died unflinchingly for that truth which they so wholeheartedly believed. What a shudder of horror passes over the onlooking celestial beings as they behold the professed followers of Jesus indulge themselves in persecuting, harassing, and even murdering the later-day descendants of Peter, Philip, Matthew, and others of the Palestinian Jews who so gloriously yielded up their lives as the first martyrs of the gospel of the heavenly kingdom!

175:2.3 How cruel and unreasoning to compel innocent children to suffer for the sins of their progenitors, misdeeds of which they are wholly ignorant, and for which they could in no way be responsible! And to do such wicked deeds in the name of one who taught his disciples to love even their enemies! It has become necessary, in this recital of the life of Jesus, to portray the manner in which certain of his fellow Jews rejected him and conspired to bring about his ignominious death; but we would warn all who read this narrative that the presentation of such a historical recital in no way justifies the unjust hatred, nor condones the unfair attitude of mind, which so many professed Christians have maintained toward individual Jews for many centuries. Kingdom believers, those who follow the teachings of Jesus, must cease to mistreat the individual Jew as one who is guilty of the rejection and crucifixion of Jesus. The Father and his Creator Son have never ceased to love the Jews. God is no respecter of persons, and salvation is for the Jew as well as for the gentile.


THE FATEFUL SANHEDRIN MEETING

175:3.1 At eight o'clock on this Tuesday evening the fateful meeting of the Sanhedrin was called to order. On many previous occasions had this supreme court of the Jewish nation informally decreed the death of Jesus. Many times had this august ruling body determined to put a stop to his work, but never before had they resolved to place him under arrest and to bring about his death at any and all costs. It was just before midnight on this Tuesday, April 4, A.D. 30, that the Sanhedrin, as then constituted, officially and unanimously voted to impose the death sentence upon both Jesus and Lazarus. This was the answer to the Master's last appeal to the rulers of the Jews which he had made in the temple only a few hours before, and it represented their reaction of bitter resentment toward Jesus' last and vigorous indictment of these same chief priests and impenitent Sadducees and Pharisees. The passing of death sentence (even before his trial) upon the Son of God was the Sanhedrin's reply to the last offer of heavenly mercy ever to be extended to the Jewish nation, as such.

175:3.2 From this time on the Jews were left to finish their brief and short lease of national life wholly in accordance with their purely human status among the nations of Urantia. Israel had repudiated the Son of the God who made a covenant with Abraham, and the plan to make the children of Abraham the light-bearers of truth to the world had been shattered. The divine covenant had been abrogated, and the end of the Hebrew nation drew on apace.

175:3.3 The officers of the Sanhedrin were given the orders for Jesus' arrest early the next morning, but with instructions that he must not be apprehended in public. They were told to plan to take him in secret, preferably suddenly and at night. Understanding that he might not return that day (Wednesday) to teach in the temple, they instructed these officers of the Sanhedrin to "bring him before the high Jewish court sometime before midnight on Thursday."


THE SITUATION IN JERUSALEM

175:4.1 At the conclusion of Jesus' last discourse in the temple, the apostles once more were left in confusion and consternation. Before the Master began his terrible denunciation of the Jewish rulers, Judas had returned to the temple, so that all twelve heard this latter half of Jesus' last discourse in the temple. It is unfortunate that Judas Iscariot could not have heard the first and mercy-proffering half of this farewell address. He did not hear this last offer of mercy to the Jewish rulers because he was still in conference with a certain group of Sadducean relatives and friends with whom he had lunched, and with whom he was conferring as to the most fitting manner of dissociating himself from Jesus and his fellow apostles. It was while listening to the Master's final indictment of the Jewish leaders and rulers that Judas finally and fully made up his mind to forsake the gospel movement and wash his hands of the whole enterprise. Nevertheless, he left the temple in company with the twelve, went with them to Mount Olivet, where, with his fellow apostles, he listened to that fateful discourse on the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the Jewish nation, and remained with them that Tuesday night at the new camp near Gethsemane.

175:4.2 The multitude who heard Jesus swing from his merciful appeal to the Jewish leaders into that sudden and scathing rebuke which bordered on ruthless denunciation, were stunned and bewildered. That night, while the Sanhedrin sat in death judgment upon Jesus, and while the Master sat with his apostles and certain of his disciples out on the Mount of Olives foretelling the death of the Jewish nation, all Jerusalem was given over to the serious and suppressed discussion of just one question: "What will they do with Jesus?"

175:4.3 At the home of Nicodemus more than thirty prominent Jews who were secret believers in the kingdom met and debated what course they would pursue in case an open break with the Sanhedrin should come. All present agreed that they would make open acknowledgment of their allegiance to the Master in the very hour they should hear of his arrest. And that is just what they did.

175:4.4 The Sadducees, who now controlled and dominated the Sanhedrin, were desirous of making away with Jesus for the following reasons:

175:4.5 They feared that the increased popular favor with which the multitude regarded him threatened to endanger the existence of the Jewish nation by possible involvement with the Roman authorities.
175:4.6 His zeal for temple reform struck directly at their revenues; the cleansing of the temple affected their pocketbooks.
175:4.7 They felt themselves responsible for the preservation of social order, and they feared the consequences of the further spread of Jesus' strange and new doctrine of the brotherhood of man.

175:4.8 The Pharisees had different motives for wanting to see Jesus put to death. They feared him because:

175:4.9 He was arrayed in telling opposition to their traditional hold upon the people. The Pharisees were ultraconservative, and they bitterly resented these supposedly radical attacks upon their vested prestige as religious teachers.
175:4.10 They held that Jesus was a lawbreaker; that he had shown utter disregard for the Sabbath and numerous other legal and ceremonial requirements.
175:4.11 They charged him with blasphemy because he alluded to God as his Father.
175:4.12 And now were they thoroughly angry with him because of his last discourse of bitter denunciation which he had this day delivered in the temple as the concluding portion of his farewell address.

175:4.13 The Sanhedrin, having formally decreed the death of Jesus and having issued orders for his arrest, adjourned on this Tuesday near midnight, after appointing to meet at ten o'clock the next morning at the home of Caiaphas the high priest for the purpose of formulating the charges on which Jesus should be brought to trial.

175:4.14 A small group of the Sadducees had actually proposed to dispose of Jesus by assassination, but the Pharisees utterly refused to countenance such a procedure.

175:4.15 And this was the situation in Jerusalem and among men on this eventful day while a vast concourse of celestial beings hovered over this momentous scene on earth, anxious to do something to assist their beloved Sovereign but powerless to act because they were effectively restrained by their commanding superiors.



truthbook.com/jesus/passion-of-the-christ/who-killed-jesus-and-why-did-they-want-him-dead

I haven't studied this text in depth but only browsed it yet, same is valid for the source, thus I only present it as another source of information for the time being and I recommend to watch Mel Gibson's PASSION OF THE CHRIST:


TZ Reference:


=> CHRIST - the healer - charlatan, occultist, avatar ?

=> Passion Of The Christ Mel Gibson Full Movie
"The truth must be repeated over and over again,
because error is repeatedly preached among us, not
only by individuals, but by the masses. In periodicals
and cyclopaedias, in schools and universities; every-
where, in fact, error prevails, and is quite easy in the
feeling that it has a decided majority on its side."

~ J. W. v. Goethe

Johannes Lang "The Hollow World Theory" Blog
My Zone by PFIZIPFEI
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

The Sanhedrin Rabbis: The Killers of Jesus Christ and those who destroyed messianic Judaism with the Talmud 23 May 2015 20:58 #18

  • wiikkidd
  • wiikkidd's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5699
  • Likes received: 938
Yes, who killed Him is written and seen. What is Jesus Christ to the 4 gang members here on this thread? He is my personal savior, though Him is the only way to vanquish the deity that drives his killers and their descendants & followers of whom? Satan, their father. Shoes ia ll you wish to see. Gate Keeps w/out Christ.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

The Sanhedrin Rabbis: The Killers of Jesus Christ and those who destroyed messianic Judaism with the Talmud 23 May 2015 21:04 #19

  • PFIZIPFEI
  • PFIZIPFEI's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • WORDS are my SWORD
  • Posts: 20376
  • Likes received: 7951
wiikkidd wrote:
Yes, who killed Him is written and seen. What is Jesus Christ to the 4 gang members here on this thread? He is my personal savior, though Him is the only way to vanquish the deity that drives his killers and their descendants & followers of whom? Satan, their father. Shoes ia ll you wish to see. Gate Keeps w/out Christ.


P*ss off - lying hasbara troll!
Nobody is interested in your boring hasbaring.

◄ John 8:44 ►

.
"The truth must be repeated over and over again,
because error is repeatedly preached among us, not
only by individuals, but by the masses. In periodicals
and cyclopaedias, in schools and universities; every-
where, in fact, error prevails, and is quite easy in the
feeling that it has a decided majority on its side."

~ J. W. v. Goethe

Johannes Lang "The Hollow World Theory" Blog
My Zone by PFIZIPFEI
Last Edit: 23 May 2015 21:04 by PFIZIPFEI.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

The Sanhedrin Rabbis: The Killers of Jesus Christ and those who destroyed messianic Judaism with the Talmud 23 May 2015 22:01 #20

  • wiikkidd
  • wiikkidd's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5699
  • Likes received: 938
PFIZIPFEI wrote:
wiikkidd wrote:
Yes, who killed Him is written and seen. What is Jesus Christ to the 4 gang members here on this thread? He is my personal savior, though Him is the only way to vanquish the deity that drives his killers and their descendants & followers of whom? Satan, their father. Shoes ia ll you wish to see. Gate Keeps w/out Christ.


P*ss off - lying hasbara troll!
Nobody is interested in your boring hasbaring.

◄ John 8:44 ►

.
So the meltage is under way this week end herr frau. No Jesus/soup for you.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Related topics

Topic subjectRelevanceDate of latest post
Christ Killers of Ohio out to Shoah Scottie Spencer and Smoloko12.58Wednesday, 03 May 2017
Jesus Christ NEVER EXISTED12.07Saturday, 31 August 2019
MARY'S CHRIST MESSAGE .... THE MERRY CHRISTMAS ...... THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST9.11Monday, 11 January 2016
Rabbis to Kerry: Cease mediation or face ‘God’s wrath’7.89Monday, 19 January 2015
Serial Killers7.02Thursday, 23 July 2015
THE TALMUD6.96Saturday, 07 July 2018
Jewish Serial Killers6.94Tuesday, 13 August 2019
the smiley face killers6.94Saturday, 13 April 2019
The Babylonian Talmud6.88Tuesday, 24 July 2018
WHEN ISRAEL IS MIGHTY, THE TALMUD6.81Tuesday, 03 December 2019
  • Page:
  • 1
  • 2
Moderators: novum, rodin, Flare
Powered by Kunena Forum

Annual Server Target

Whether its 50 cents or five dollars, your donations are appreciated and help keep this community site running so we can all continue to enjoy using it. Secure transactions via paypal.
This target is to meet our server cost for one year, June 2020 - May 2021, in USD.
$ 340 - Target
( £ 255 GBP )
donation thermometer
donation thermometer
$ 70 - Raised
( £ 53 GBP )
donation thermometer
21%
Most Recent Donation $50 USD
28th August 2020

No one is obliged to donate, please only donate what you can afford. Even the smallest amount helps. Being an active member is a positive contribution. Thank You.