Why don't christians follow the laws of Leviticus and kill homosexuals, adulterers, etc.?

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: enterthestage
a reply to: NOTurTypical

You can follow them...by doing the 2 Jesus simplified them into.

You absolutely can fulfill every word of the Tanakh by fulfilling the two. They are Love, built on Love.

You can follow the 10 comandments from Mt. Sinai by following Christ's 2 commands, you cannot follow the Mosaic Law since 70 AD because there isn't a priesthood or a temple to do the sacrifices.

It's not 10, 613 or anything like that. But the WHOLE Torah (when you follow the 2) and the Tanakh. It doesn't matter about priesthood or templed or sacrifice that fulfills the Tanak, it's Love and it fulfills every 'jot and tittle' automatically because Love is the foundation of the Tanakh.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

You're confused and don't know the history of the Pharisees and Sadducees. They elevated the oral law and rabbinical teachings above the Torah. Again, I directed you to Mark 7 where Jesus explains this. He said their doctrines made the word of God to be on none effect by the traditions of their elders.

This will help quite a bit for you to understand what the Pharisees and Sadducees had done:

There weren't only two sects of Jews. There were others besides the Pharisees and the Saducees. Look into the Ebionites, the Essenes, and the Nazareans. The title Ebionites means "the poor". All of the three I listed were vegetarians. Jesus was probably one of them (most likely a Nazarean). He didn't COME from a town called Nazareth, he was Nazarene..a sect of Jews that did not follow the temple practices of animal sacrifice and believed the Torah the temple priests taught was a corrupted version of it.


What is a Nazarene?
He shall be called a Nazarene. ~Matt 2:23



Nazarene is the title by which Jesus and his followers were referred to. The word 'Christian' was never used by Jesus or used to describe those who followed him.


In the New Testament book of Acts, Paul is tried in Caesarea, and Tertullus is reported as saying:


"We have, in fact, found this man a pestilent fellow, an agitator among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes" (Acts 24:5, New Revised Standard Version).

It is clear that "Christian" was not the earliest term for the followers of Jesus, since Acts 11:26 reports its first use in Antioch - at a time and in a place at least 10 and possibly 20 or more years after the death of Jesus.

Many authors have argued that "Nazarene" was not just one term that was used, but the dominant term, and that it was also used to describe Jesus himself. The chief argument for this claim rests on an interpretation of the way Jesus is referred to by the writers of the gospels. The original Greek forms of all four gospels call him, in places, "Iesou Nazarene" (e.g. Matthew 26:71; Mark 1:24, 10:47, 14:67; Luke 4:34; John 17:5; Acts 2:22).

Translations of the Bible, from the fifth century Vulgate on, have generally rendered this into a form equivalent to "Jesus of Nazareth." However, it is not the only possible translation. Linguistically, "Jesus the Nazarene" would be at least as correct, and some critics have argued that it is more plausible given that city of Nazareth seems to have not existed at the time of Jesus; it is unmentioned in any contemporary history and it is not possible to prove its early existence other than by reference to the gospels.

The Vulgate does use a form equivalent to "Nazarene" in one verse (Matthew 2:23), where its reading is Nazaroeus (Nazoraios), but here the original Greek has the word Nazarene on its own, without Iesou.

However we translate these verses from the gospels, the evidence from Acts 24 does support the claim that "Nazarene" was an early term for the followers of Jesus. But it does not appear to have been the term most used by those followers: the earliest Christian writings we have, the letters of Paul (which predate the gospels by ten to forty years), use the phrase "followers of the way" or, by far the most common, "the church."

Derivations of "Nazarene"

Regardless of these issues of translation, it seems clear that the term "Nazarenes" had at least some currency as a description of some followers of Jesus. What, therefore, does the word mean? The word Nazarene might come from at least four different sources:

1) The place-name Nazareth, via the Greek form Iesou Nazarene; this is the traditional interpretation within mainstream Christianity. In support of this interpretation is that Iesou Nazarene is applied to Jesus in the Gospels only by those who are outside the circle of his intimate friends, as would be natural if a place-name was meant. However in Acts it is employed by Peter and Paul, and attributed by Paul to the risen Christ (Acts, 22:8). Matthew 2:23 reads that "coming he dwelt in a city said by the prophets: That he shall be called a Nazarene," though no convincing identification of the prophecy concerned has been brought forward, the phrasing again strongly suggests that Matthew meant Nazarene to refer to a place name.

2) The word netzer meaning "branch" or "off-shoot." This could in turn refer to the claim that Jesus was a "descendant of David," or to the view that Jesus (or rather the teachings he or his followers advocated) were an offshoot from Judaism.

3) The word nosri which means "one who keeps (guard over)" or "one who observes".

4) The word nazir which refers to a man who is consecrated and bound by a vow to God, symbolized by avoiding cutting his hair, eating meat or drinking alcohol. Such a man is usually referred to as a Nazirite in English translations, and there are a number of references to Nazirites in the Old Testament.

None of these interpretations is unproblematic. It is therefore, quite possible that "Nazarene" was simply a deliberate play on words combining Nazirite with Essene.

Nazarenes: Jewish Christians

After the word "Christian" had become established as the standard term for the followers of Jesus, there appear to have been one or more groups calling themselves "Nazarenes", perhaps because they wished to lay claim to a more authentic and/or a more Jewish way of following Jesus.

Descriptions of groups with this title are given by the fourth century church father Epiphanius (flourished 370 CE), and Jerome. On the basis of their accounts, the Encyclopaedia Britannica of 1911 stated definitely that the name Nazarenes specifically identified an obscure Jewish-Christian sect, existing at the time of Epiphanius.

continued....

Epiphanius gives the more detailed, though thoroughly disapproving, description, calling the Nazarenes neither more nor less than Jews pure and simple. He mentions them in his Panarion (xxix. 7) as existing in Syria, Decapolis (Pella) and Basanitis (Cocabe).

According to Epiphanius they dated their settlement in Pella from the time of the flight of the Jewish Christians from Jerusalem, immediately before the siege in 70 CE. He describes them as those "...who accept Messiah in such a way that they do not cease to observe the old Law." Epiphanius adds, however, that they recognized the new covenant as well as the old, and believed in the resurrection, and in the one God and His Son Jesus Christ.

He cannot say whether their christological views were identical with those of Cerinthus and his followers, or whether they differed at all from his own.

Jerome (Epistle 79, to Augustine), on the other hand, says that though the Nazarenes believed in Christ the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary, who suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rose again, desiring to be both Jews and Christians, they are neither the one nor the other.

They used the Aramaic Gospel of the Hebrews, also known as the Gospel of the Holy Twelve, but while adhering as far as possible to the Mosaic economy as regarded circumcision, Sabbaths, vegetarian foods and the like, they did refuse to recognize the apostolicity of Paul. (Jerome's Commentary on Isaiah, ix. I).

Jerome's description, taken along with the name (cf. Acts 24:5) and geographical position of the sect, strongly suggest that the Nazarenes of the 4th century interacted with the Ebionites in spite of Epiphanius' distinction.

Earlier church fathers such as Justin Martyr, Origen and Eusebius mention other groups who, to varying extent, accepted Jesus as Messiah while continuing to observe the Jewish Law. It is often suggested that these are the same as the groups identified by Jerome and Epiphanius as Nazarenes. One such group were the Ebionites, referred to in second century writings. There Epiphanius draws a comparative distinction between the Nazarenes and the Ebionites.

originally posted by: enterthestage
a reply to: craig732

So unless you are a Hebrew and a part of the Abrahamic Covenant you never had a share in the Israelites Covenant and weren't bound by Torah/Law. Even the first Roman converts were not burdened by James and Peter, the Jewish faction allowed conversion without heavy burdens and 4 codes of conduct (that are dismissed by Paul as for the weak spiritually) are the only thing James asks of the Roman converts to the Way.

Paul was a rabid Anti-Semite, if you read his epistles it is very obvious (and mind blowing that people don't read them) he is the arch nemesis of James and his probable murderer.

And Christians just love the guy.

Yup. He was also constantly putting himself above the true apostles, putting women "in their place" and also said those who chose to eat vegetables over meat were weaker in their faith.
(right there with ya, bro).

CAIN'T abraCADABRAham ABEL because he be able.

No one is good----No not one.

Bunch of irresponsible people pointing out peoples irresponsibility, the lawless making the laws, the ignorant pointing out others ignorance, racists calling others racist. Mankind (which there is very little kindness in that word) days are numbered.

God didn't destroy this world- We did by dictating what is good and what is evil.

originally posted by: Matrixsurvivor

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

You're confused and don't know the history of the Pharisees and Sadducees. They elevated the oral law and rabbinical teachings above the Torah. Again, I directed you to Mark 7 where Jesus explains this. He said their doctrines made the word of God to be on none effect by the traditions of their elders.

This will help quite a bit for you to understand what the Pharisees and Sadducees had done:

Dont forget the Frankists and Zevites also known as ZioNazis

There weren't only two sects of Jews. There were others besides the Pharisees and the Saducees. Look into the Ebionites, the Essenes, and the Nazareans. The title Ebionites means "the poor". All of the three I listed were vegetarians. Jesus was probably one of them (most likely a Nazarean). He didn't COME from a town called Nazareth, he was Nazarene..a sect of Jews that did not follow the temple practices of animal sacrifice and believed the Torah the temple priests taught was a corrupted version of it.


What is a Nazarene?
He shall be called a Nazarene. ~Matt 2:23



Nazarene is the title by which Jesus and his followers were referred to. The word 'Christian' was never used by Jesus or used to describe those who followed him.


In the New Testament book of Acts, Paul is tried in Caesarea, and Tertullus is reported as saying:


"We have, in fact, found this man a pestilent fellow, an agitator among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes" (Acts 24:5, New Revised Standard Version).

It is clear that "Christian" was not the earliest term for the followers of Jesus, since Acts 11:26 reports its first use in Antioch - at a time and in a place at least 10 and possibly 20 or more years after the death of Jesus.

Many authors have argued that "Nazarene" was not just one term that was used, but the dominant term, and that it was also used to describe Jesus himself. The chief argument for this claim rests on an interpretation of the way Jesus is referred to by the writers of the gospels. The original Greek forms of all four gospels call him, in places, "Iesou Nazarene" (e.g. Matthew 26:71; Mark 1:24, 10:47, 14:67; Luke 4:34; John 17:5; Acts 2:22).

Translations of the Bible, from the fifth century Vulgate on, have generally rendered this into a form equivalent to "Jesus of Nazareth." However, it is not the only possible translation. Linguistically, "Jesus the Nazarene" would be at least as correct, and some critics have argued that it is more plausible given that city of Nazareth seems to have not existed at the time of Jesus; it is unmentioned in any contemporary history and it is not possible to prove its early existence other than by reference to the gospels.

The Vulgate does use a form equivalent to "Nazarene" in one verse (Matthew 2:23), where its reading is Nazaroeus (Nazoraios), but here the original Greek has the word Nazarene on its own, without Iesou.

However we translate these verses from the gospels, the evidence from Acts 24 does support the claim that "Nazarene" was an early term for the followers of Jesus. But it does not appear to have been the term most used by those followers: the earliest Christian writings we have, the letters of Paul (which predate the gospels by ten to forty years), use the phrase "followers of the way" or, by far the most common, "the church."

Derivations of "Nazarene"

Regardless of these issues of translation, it seems clear that the term "Nazarenes" had at least some currency as a description of some followers of Jesus. What, therefore, does the word mean? The word Nazarene might come from at least four different sources:

1) The place-name Nazareth, via the Greek form Iesou Nazarene; this is the traditional interpretation within mainstream Christianity. In support of this interpretation is that Iesou Nazarene is applied to Jesus in the Gospels only by those who are outside the circle of his intimate friends, as would be natural if a place-name was meant. However in Acts it is employed by Peter and Paul, and attributed by Paul to the risen Christ (Acts, 22:8). Matthew 2:23 reads that "coming he dwelt in a city said by the prophets: That he shall be called a Nazarene," though no convincing identification of the prophecy concerned has been brought forward, the phrasing again strongly suggests that Matthew meant Nazarene to refer to a place name.

2) The word netzer meaning "branch" or "off-shoot." This could in turn refer to the claim that Jesus was a "descendant of David," or to the view that Jesus (or rather the teachings he or his followers advocated) were an offshoot from Judaism.

3) The word nosri which means "one who keeps (guard over)" or "one who observes".

4) The word nazir which refers to a man who is consecrated and bound by a vow to God, symbolized by avoiding cutting his hair, eating meat or drinking alcohol. Such a man is usually referred to as a Nazirite in English translations, and there are a number of references to Nazirites in the Old Testament.

None of these interpretations is unproblematic. It is therefore, quite possible that "Nazarene" was simply a deliberate play on words combining Nazirite with Essene.

Nazarenes: Jewish Christians

After the word "Christian" had become established as the standard term for the followers of Jesus, there appear to have been one or more groups calling themselves "Nazarenes", perhaps because they wished to lay claim to a more authentic and/or a more Jewish way of following Jesus.

Descriptions of groups with this title are given by the fourth century church father Epiphanius (flourished 370 CE), and Jerome. On the basis of their accounts, the Encyclopaedia Britannica of 1911 stated definitely that the name Nazarenes specifically identified an obscure Jewish-Christian sect, existing at the time of Epiphanius.

Don't forget the Frankists and Zevites which are the ZioNazis

a reply to: craig732

List of people executed for homosexuality
John de Wettre (1292), a "maker of small knives", condemned at Ghent and burned at the pillory next to St. Peter's[1]
Giovanni di Giovanni (1350 – 1365), 15-year-old Italian boy charged with being "a public and notorious passive sodomite"[2][3]
Katherina Hetzeldorfer (d. 1477), German cross dressing lesbian executed for heresy against nature after having used a dildo on two female partners.
Jacopo Bonfadio (c1508 – 1550), Italian humanist and historian[4]
Francesco Calcagno (1528 – 1550), Venetian Franciscan friar.[5]
Dominique Phinot (c1510 – c1556), French composer of the Renaissance[6]
Mervyn Tuchet, 2nd Earl of Castlehaven (1593 – 1631), tried and executed for committing sodomy with male servants and procuring the rape of his wife[7]
John Atherton (1598 – 1640), Bishop of Waterford and Lismore[8]
Lisbetha Olsdotter (died 1679), Swedish cross-dresser and early female soldier (disguised as a man).
Ensign James Hepburn, 25, and Thomas White, 16, hanged in front of Newgate Prison, London, March 7, 1811, for sodomy [9]
James Pratt and John Smith, two London men who became the last two to be hanged for sodomy in England, in November 1835

[1]In the period from 1810 to 1835, 46 people convicted of sodomy were hanged and 32 sentenced to death but reprieved. A further 716 were imprisoned or sentenced to the pillory, before its use was restricted in 1816 (See: Lauterbach and Alber (2009), p.49).

When Bible Law is seen as somehow a bulwark for civilization, then the survival of civilization is seen hanging in the balance. Those who value civilization will enact laws enforcing death penalty for infractions as a matter of national survival.

Another option may be to view the Bible Law as being against civilization, and set it aside for the sake of civilization.

Basically, the institution of death penalty in the U.S. for homosexuals and adulterers could be only a vote of congress away.

Look at the language here:

H.J.Res.104 — 102nd Congress (1991-1992)
...
Whereas Congress recognizes the historical tradition of ethical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society and upon which our great Nation was founded;

Whereas these ethical values and principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws;

Whereas without these ethical values and principles the edifice of civilization stands in serious peril of returning to chaos;

Whereas society is profoundly concerned with the recent weakening of these principles that has resulted in crises that beleaguer and threaten the fabric of civilized society;

Whereas the justified preoccupation with these crises must not let the citizens of this Nation lose sight of their responsibility to transmit these historical ethical values from our distinguished past to the generations of the future;

Whereas the Lubavitch movement has fostered and promoted these ethical values and principles throughout the world;

Under the seven Noahide laws, penalty is death by beheading or strangulation.

It's all about gaining donations to tax free interprises , i.e. Churches, not the teachingsa of Christ. reply to: craig732

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor



You can't trust Epiphanius his innaccuracy is kown, whether deliberate or unintentional, as he (pretty sure) or Origen maybe Iranaeus, I think it was Iranaeus who said (lied) that the Ebionites were a heretical sect founded by a man named Ebion (who never existed). Ebionites are mentioned in the New Testament (The Poor) and were the followers of James. He said the same about the Nazarenes but it was because they were the originals, rejected the apostate Saul and had a greater legitimate connection to the first Nazarenes and Jesus. They had to be and were destroyed which I believe is what started Islam. They didn't believe in the Godhood of Christ but that he was adopted upon baptism as his Son. Sound familiar? Islam believes in the virgin birth and that Jesus was human so it's not a perfect fit but still the chronology of the fall of the Messianic Jews and the rise of Islam are close. Islam connection is a theory but the rest I'm sure of.

When I found out that the Ebionites and Nazarenes were the Dead Sea Scrolls authors and are mentioned many times (Ebionim/Notzrim) in the Scrolls I was psyched . Proof that the Nazarenes and Ebionites were the first "Christians" exists and this is something they don't want anyone knowing but too late. They also call themselves the Way and Zaddikim and James was a or The Zaddik (Just). They believed Melchizedek was a Metatron type of Elohim. In a final Apocalyptical war against the Kittim (Rome and Syria) and then the world and a Messiah of heaven and earth and the similarities go on and on.

Most church "Fathers" had no conscience about lying to hide the truth but Clements of Rome and Alexandria were ok as was Hermas.

No, Disraeli... He never, ever fulfilled ONE thing of "the law". He broke all of them. You still need to explain how that qualifies him as " fulfilling the law of Yahweh??
You can't get around that by saying "Jesus died for our sins". He would not be " fulfilling the law if he broke all of them.
When I say "law", you know I mean Yahweh's law.

because we dont live in the stone ages anymore? is it really that hard to grasp that we can be better?

originally posted by: Matrixsurvivor
No, Disraeli... He never, ever fulfilled ONE thing of "the law". He broke all of them. You still need to explain how that qualifies him as " fulfilling the law of Yahweh??
You can't get around that by saying "Jesus died for our sins". He would not be " fulfilling the law if he broke all of them.
When I say "law", you know I mean Yahweh's law.

Jesus Himself stated that He came to fulfill the Law. Maybe you should try to see things from His perspective, and actually listen to what He had to say.

a reply to: enterthestage

They believed Melchizedek was a Metatron type of Elohim. In a final Apocalyptical war against the Kittim (Rome and Syria) and then the world and a Messiah of heaven and earth and the similarities go on and on.

So suppose you happened to be a Roman Emperor. Just hypothetical. There are two sects.

One has explicit plans to kill all Romans.

The other has no problem living peaceably within Roman jurisdiction.

You are Roman Emperor. Which group would you prefer?

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest

originally posted by: Matrixsurvivor
No, Disraeli... He never, ever fulfilled ONE thing of "the law". He broke all of them. You still need to explain how that qualifies him as " fulfilling the law of Yahweh??
You can't get around that by saying "Jesus died for our sins". He would not be " fulfilling the law if he broke all of them.
When I say "law", you know I mean Yahweh's law.

Jesus Himself stated that He came to fulfill the Law. Maybe you should try to see things from His perspective, and actually listen to what He had to say.

That's the thing...I have. I also listen to HIm minus Paul's input. What He said becomes so much clearer when you do.
It took several years to get the Pauline doctrine out of my head, heart, and spirit...and just listen to Jesus.
When one does that, it's amazing what you see.
You are very knowledgeable, BelieverPriest. I wish you would try to understand Jesus, just on HIs words.

a reply to: pthena

I don't get why you asked that, which would actually help me answer beyond the obvious, of course the pacifist would be prefered. I think you don't realize how militantly apocalyptic this DSS sect or its sub-sects were and that they were the community that produced Christianity. If not for the Romans being violent oppressors these people (Notzrim/Nazarenes Ebionim/Ebionites) would have been pacifist.

Fast forward to the first Roman Christian voyage to Judea. They discovered that an anti-Pauline sect that has legitimate succession from James and Jesus called the Ebionites exists.

What do think is going to happen to the now pacifist Ebionite and Nazarene sects? Of course they are going to be persecuted out of existence and propaganda spread to make them heretics (like that makes it better).

But it's the fact that an older truer version exists that led them to be exterminated, not violence. Bar Kochba wasn't an Ebionite or Nazarene so I don't think that the E's were violent at all but under subjection and planning to rebel.

I would too. I'm of Roman descent and I side with the Judeans on that.

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

I think that you may be on to something with your Nazirite +Essene=Nazarene, one thing:

The Essenes were actually Samaritan monastics (Philo) and called Jesseans after Jesse, who later became Messianic. Josephus seems to not know this or maybe he did but was under orders to produce a propaganda piece.

Still a good theory though. It's possible but another thing is in Hebrew Nazirite and Nazarene are Notzrim both. I don't know what Jesseans would be (Yessim?). But I doubt Greek authors that wrote then would know this so it's possible.

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

Never knew Jesus was such a rebel - sex, drugs and rock-n-roll!

Because thr new testimate replaced the old testiment. Simple answer christianity would not have survived without Jesus changing most of thr bibe with his beliefs. He considered it wrong as he stated consider it a misinterpretation. Then you have islam which came along thr prophet Mohammad was familiar with thr old testiment as most where in thr region. So he created a religion based on thr old testament but instead also misquoted large sections meaning his training was mostly verbal. Both versions were very brutal books like an eye for an eye. They both condoned war and violence but later a battle occurs in christianity itself between people that believed the old testament was important. And finally people that said it is thr word of christ being sent by God superceeds thr old testament to just being history.

This caused dramatic changes especially after thr middle ages. As fire and brimstone would be replaced with believe in thr word of god and seek salvarion. This again leads to the reformation and this causes even the Vatican to change meaning popes were no longer leaders of armies and became promoters of peace. Unfortunately in Islam this hasn't happened yet and they see the old testament as the way god intended us to live. Unfortunate ly it includes all the violence of thr old testament with some additions by the prophet mohammad and done in such a convoluted way as to lose context of even the story and what it had to teach. Though I will say the Koran does make it easier for study in thr respect that it's set up to make it easier to memorize. But alot of that is because it's quoted from memory.

Now let's hit thr torah real quick this was where thr old testament originated. Only problem was the old testament disn't include all the books. Basically the first 5 and the rest watered down translations. But people think the torah is simply the old testament it's not.

Think about people and how we remember things we tend to remember the bad over thr good or sensational over mundane. Look at our news fireman rescuing a cat from a tree won't be on tour local news but a gunman killing people will go national. This is what happened with thr old testament when books were selected from the torah they remembered the violence and ignored the rest including oral traditions. The Torah includes far more than both the Bible and the Koran. So much so you could litterally spend several lifetimes studying the written and oral traditions. Of course for many including christians this was just to much. So they borrowed what they believed to be important and could remember. The irony is a man named Jesus told them to forget the whole thing.

a reply to: enterthestage

I think you don't realize how militantly apocalyptic this DSS sect or its sub-sects were and that they were the community that produced Christianity. If not for the Romans being violent oppressors these people (Notzrim/Nazarenes Ebionim/Ebionites) would have been pacifist.

I do know. I've read their war manual. They planned to kill the Romans, then fight their way into Jerusalem and kill everyone there who didn't fit their idea of righteousness.

Judea was under Roman rule. They were the government.

If not for the Romans being violent oppressors these people (Notzrim/Nazarenes Ebionim/Ebionites) would have been pacifist.

The books were written before the riot in Caesarea cAD68. Nero suicided that year. Paul was already gone. The books were buried about that time.

Fast forward to the first Roman Christian voyage to Judea.

And what year would that be?

I would too. I'm of Roman descent and I side with the Judeans on that

Why? What do they have to offer?

a reply to: pthena

I don't like subjection, I don't care about what they've to offer. You would rebel too if you had been under subjection for generations and generations, just like the USA did to England.

As far as the War Scroll goes they were waiting for help from on High i.e. Angels to help them. I don't think they started the rebellion (Qumran peoples) I think they were invaded due to rumor.

But these are the people that were the first Nazarenes or "Christians" and the Romans were no better, nicer or anything that would give them a legitimate reason to invade. If anything the ancients were violent as a whole and Catholicism was no exception.

If you ask me the Romans were the worst ever and demanded that Caesar be called Lord, something that the sects of nationalistic Judeans couldn't, wouldn't do unto death. That should tell you how they felt and explain much.

Years? Google it. Like I did, it's in the writings of the church "fathers."