Resurrexi Posted April 16, 2006 Share Posted April 16, 2006 I believe the modern people of the Talmudic/ modern Jewish religion are guilty of Deicide. Do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenchild17 Posted April 16, 2006 Share Posted April 16, 2006 (edited) I know many traditional Catholics like to put the blame on them exclusively and yes in a most literal sense the Jews at the time were the ones to put Jesus to death, and they were the ones who accepted the curse upon themselves. However I maintain that we are all responsible. We all sin, Jesus died for our sins, so we are all partly responsible for His death. But in the literal sense it was those Jews who put Jesus to death. Edited April 16, 2006 by goldenchild17 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peccator Posted April 16, 2006 Share Posted April 16, 2006 ...am I correct to assume you're refering to the jews? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theoketos Posted April 16, 2006 Share Posted April 16, 2006 No more then any one else in a false religion. Luckly we cannot and should not judge them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted April 16, 2006 Author Share Posted April 16, 2006 [quote]In what way? Are we talking about killing Jesus here, or something else?[/quote] Deicide = God killing yes, we are talking about them killing Jesus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peccator Posted April 16, 2006 Share Posted April 16, 2006 Hmmm...well accourding to the Bible they are. They did say "his blood be on our and our children's hands" ...however on the cross Christ himself said they know not what they were doing so on must keep that in mind. I must also be confronted with the question whetehr or not we would have treated him any better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted April 16, 2006 Author Share Posted April 16, 2006 [quote]They did say "his blood be on our and our children's hands" ...however on the cross Christ himself said they know not what they were doing so on must keep that in mind.[/quote] no, they said "His blood be upon us and upon our children," at least in the offocial Catholic bible (aka the DR) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ora et Labora Posted April 16, 2006 Share Posted April 16, 2006 i dont know about modern religion now, ya know? i think the exact ones who crucified him where... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peccator Posted April 16, 2006 Share Posted April 16, 2006 [quote name='StThomasMore' date='Apr 16 2006, 07:56 PM']no, they said "His blood be upon us and upon our children," at least in the offocial Catholic bible (aka the DR) [right][snapback]949146[/snapback][/right] [/quote]Indeed, however I use an Afrikaans bible so I have to paraphrase...the meaning is exactly the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted April 16, 2006 Share Posted April 16, 2006 [quote]Whether the sin of those who crucified Christ was most grievous? Objection 1. It would seem that the sin of Christ's crucifiers was not the most grievous. Because the sin which has some excuse cannot be most grievous. But our Lord Himself excused the sin of His crucifiers when He said: "Father, forgive them: for they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34). Therefore theirs was not the most grievous sin. Objection 2. Further, our Lord said to Pilate (John 19:11): "He that hath delivered Me to thee hath the greater sin." But it was Pilate who caused Christ to be crucified by his minions. Therefore the sin of Judas the traitor seems to be greater than that of those who crucified Him. Objection 3. Further, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. v): "No one suffers injustice willingly"; and in the same place he adds: "Where no one suffers injustice, nobody works injustice." Consequently nobody wreaks injustice upon a willing subject. But Christ suffered willingly, as was shown above (1,2). Therefore those who crucified Christ did Him no injustice; and hence their sin was not the most grievous. On the contrary, Chrysostom, commenting on the words, "Fill ye up, then, the measure of your fathers" (Matthew 23:32), says: "In very truth they exceeded the measure of their fathers; for these latter slew men, but they crucified God." I answer that, As stated above (5), the rulers of the Jews knew that He was the Christ: and if there was any ignorance in them, it was affected ignorance, which could not excuse them. Therefore their sin was the most grievous, both on account of the kind of sin, as well as from the malice of their will. The Jews also of the common order sinned most grievously as to the kind of their sin: yet in one respect their crime was lessened by reason of their ignorance. Hence Bede, commenting on Lk. 23:34, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do," says: "He prays for them who know not what they are doing, as having the zeal of God, but not according to knowledge." But the sin of the Gentiles, by whose hands He was crucified, was much more excusable, since they had no knowledge of the Law. Reply to Objection 1. As stated above, the excuse made by our Lord is not to be referred to the rulers among the Jews, but to the common people. Reply to Objection 2. Judas did not deliver up Christ to Pilate, but to the chief priests who gave Him up to Pilate, according to John 18:35: "Thy own nation and the chief priests have delivered Thee up to me." But the sin of all these was greater than that of Pilate, who slew Christ from fear of Caesar; and even greater than the sin of the soldiers who crucified Him at the governor's bidding, not out of cupidity like Judas, nor from envy and hate like the chief priests. Reply to Objection 3. Christ, indeed willed His Passion just as the Father willed it; yet He did not will the unjust action of the Jews. Consequently Christ's slayers are not excused of their injustice. Nevertheless, whoever slays a man not only does a wrong to the one slain, but likewise to God and to the State; just as he who kills himself, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. v). Hence it was that David condemned to death the man who "did not fear to lay hands upon the Lord's anointed," even though he (Saul) had requested it, as related 2 Kgs. 1:5-14.[/quote] [quote]Whether Christ's persecutors knew who He was? Objection 1. It would seem that Christ's persecutors did know who He was. For it is written (Matthew 21:38) that the husbandmen seeing the son said within themselves: "This is the heir; come, let us kill him." On this Jerome remarks: "Our Lord proves most manifestly by these words that the rulers of the Jews crucified the Son of God, not from ignorance, but out of envy: for they understood that it was He to whom the Father says by the Prophet: 'Ask of Me, and I will give Thee the Gentiles for Thy inheritance.'" It seems, therefore, that they knew Him to be Christ or the Son of God. Objection 2. Further, our Lord says (John 15:24): "But now they have both seen and hated both Me and My Father." Now what is seen is known manifestly. Therefore the Jews, knowing Christ, inflicted the Passion on Him out of hatred. Objection 3. Further, it is said in a sermon delivered in the Council of Ephesus (P. iii, cap. x): "Just as he who tears up the imperial message is doomed to die, as despising the prince's word; so the Jew, who crucified Him whom he had seen, will pay the penalty for daring to lay his hands on God the Word Himself." Now this would not be so had they not known Him to be the Son of God, because their ignorance would have excused them. Therefore it seems that the Jews in crucifying Christ knew Him to be the Son of God. On the contrary, It is written (1 Corinthians 2:8): "If they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory." And (Acts 3:17), Peter, addressing the Jews, says: "I know that you did it through ignorance, as did also your rulers." Likewise the Lord hanging upon the cross said: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34). I answer that, Among the Jews some were elders, and others of lesser degree. Now according to the author of De Qq. Nov. et Vet. Test., qu. lxvi, the elders, who were called "rulers, knew," as did also the devils, "that He was the Christ promised in the Law: for they saw all the signs in Him which the prophets said would come to pass: but they did not know the mystery of His Godhead." Consequently the Apostle says: "If they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory." It must, however, be understood that their ignorance did not excuse them from crime, because it was, as it were, affected ignorance. For they saw manifest signs of His Godhead; yet they perverted them out of hatred and envy of Christ; neither would they believe His words, whereby He avowed that He was the Son of God. Hence He Himself says of them (John 15:22): "If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin." And afterwards He adds (John 15:24): "If I had not done among them the works that no other man hath done, they would not have sin." And so the expression employed by Job (21:14) can be accepted on their behalf: "(Who) said to God: depart from us, we desire not the knowledge of Thy ways." But those of lesser degree--namely, the common folk--who had not grasped the mysteries of the Scriptures, did not fully comprehend that He was the Christ or the Son of God. For although some of them believed in Him, yet the multitude did not; and if they doubted sometimes whether He was the Christ, on account of the manifold signs and force of His teaching, as is stated John 7:31,41, nevertheless they were deceived afterwards by their rulers, so that they did not believe Him to be the Son of God or the Christ. Hence Peter said to them: "I know that you did it through ignorance, as did also your rulers"--namely, because they were seduced by the rulers. Reply to Objection 1. Those words are spoken by the husbandmen of the vineyard; and these signify the rulers of the people, who knew Him to be the heir, inasmuch as they knew Him to be the Christ promised in the Law, but the words of Ps. 2:8 seem to militate against this answer: "Ask of Me, and I will give Thee the Gentiles for Thy inheritance"; which are addressed to Him of whom it is said: "Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee." If, then, they knew Him to be the one to whom the words were addressed: "Ask of Me, and I will give Thee the Gentiles for Thy inheritance," it follows that they knew Him to be the Son of God. Chrysostom, too, says upon the same passage that "they knew Him to be the Son of God." Bede likewise, commenting on the words, "For they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34), says: "It is to be observed that He does not pray for them who, understanding Him to be the Son of God, preferred to crucify Him rather than acknowledge Him." But to this it may be replied that they knew Him to be the Son of God, not from His Nature, but from the excellence of His singular grace. Yet we may hold that they are said to have known also that He was verily the Son of God, in that they had evident signs thereof: yet out of hatred and envy, they refused credence to these signs, by which they might have known that He was the Son of God. Reply to Objection 2. The words quoted are preceded by the following: "If I had not done among them the works that no other man hath done, they would not have sin"; and then follow the words: "But now they have both seen and hated both Me and My Father." Now all this shows that while they beheld Christ's marvelous works, it was owing to their hatred that they did not know Him to be the Son of God. Reply to Objection 3. Affected ignorance does not excuse from guilt, but seems, rather, to aggravate it: for it shows that a man is so strongly attached to sin that he wishes to incur ignorance lest he avoid sinning. The Jews therefore sinned, as crucifiers not only of the Man-Christ, but also as of God.[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God Conquers Posted April 16, 2006 Share Posted April 16, 2006 As a religion? I don't know. As individuals they are in the same boat as you and I: GUILTY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peccator Posted April 16, 2006 Share Posted April 16, 2006 So then, using the top mentioned logic I'm also guily of Apartheid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted April 16, 2006 Author Share Posted April 16, 2006 what is Aparthid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God Conquers Posted April 16, 2006 Share Posted April 16, 2006 Maybe, if you actively participated in it... or inactively accepted it. As for Christ: Isaiah 53 Yet it was our infirmities that he bore, our sufferings that he endured, While we thought of him as stricken, as one smitten by God and afflicted. But he was pierced for our offenses, crushed for our sins, Upon him was the chastisement that makes us whole, by his stripes we were healed. We had all gone astray like sheep, each following his own way; But the LORD laid upon him the guilt of us all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peccator Posted April 16, 2006 Share Posted April 16, 2006 [quote name='God Conquers' date='Apr 16 2006, 08:21 PM']Maybe, if you actively participated in it... or inactively accepted it. [/quote] At the moment I'm 22. I was 7 when Namibia became independant of South Africa, and moved here after the 1994 elections. Am I guilty of Apartheid? Well, as a baby my crying could probably have been interpreted as being pro-apartheid : ...otherwise I don't think so. (oohh yes, and Apartheid was a more brutal version of Segregation.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts