Was it Jesus who initiated conflict with the Jews (Romans)?

Question

This verse is about intolerance, exclusivism and hositility?

Matthew 8:21 And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.[b]
8:22 But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.[/b]
8:23 And when he was entered into a ship, his disciples followed him.

I learned that 'Pharisees and Sadducees" were very cooperative with the Romans. So it shoots no wonder then if it is said that Jesus didn't want all of his disciplies tortured by the Romans when he asked Peter to put his sword back in its place. So, it was Jesus who began showing the "hositility, exclusivism and intolerance"?

If Jesus was as compromising as Pharisees and Sadducees and taught tolerance, he would not be so worried about his discipled being killed and tortured.

Answer 1

No. The Saducees and the Pharisees dispised him because they didn't understand Jesus. They are too legalistic and based their faith on the Law of Moses.

And this is how people look like when they are in Church but their hearts are far from God. They konw the "facts" about the word of God, but they them selves are not interested with God.

finally, Kindly understand the Passage and the context of yuor question. Dont just pick verses, relate then make a hypothesis. Be Sound. It's fallacy by unduly selected data, and fallacy by unrelated terms.

Answer 2

well Jesus was a Jew and so the "Jews(Romans)" part of your question isn't accurate. Also, Jesus was not compromising because he was perfect and never 'compromised' with any sins of the world, unless by compromise you instead mean including becuause he did practice inclusivism, asserting that God is righteous, pure, holy, and also loving and forgiving. The Saducees were inclusivists also. On the other hand the Pharisees were seperatists and thought that in order to truly worship God they couldn't compromise with others. For this reason Jesus and the Pharisees somewhat clashed.

Answer 3

The verses you mentioned in Matthew are there simply to show some of the excuses people gave Jesus for not following him. He had been around, preaching, for long enough that people knew who he was and what he represented--either directly or through word-of-mouth. So these excuse-makers knew who and what they were refusing.
Yes, the religious leaders were cooperative with the Romans--because the Romans appointed them to those positions! They enjoyed the power and authority they had, such as it was, and felt threatened by Jesus. (See John 11: 47, 48)
The reason Peter had the sword in the first place was because Jesus told him to bring it along; but not because he expectd to need it. Rather, he intended showing that such would not be necessary. He was not afraid of what was about to happen--he knew from prophecy he had to undergo such things; and he knew his followers would eventually do so too. (John 15: 20)
Jesus NEVER compromised; that was not why he came to earth. (Matthew 4: 17) And his unswerving loyalty to God and the message he was sent to speak was one of the reasons the religious leaders hated him--since such preaching showed them up for the hypocrites they were. He knew it, but still wouldn't back down. That would have invalidated his life's work, his raison d'etre, as it were.
Could you stand up for your beliefs that strongly, in the face of that kind of opposition and hatred?

Answer 4

no Jews were in conflict with the Romans before and long after Jesus.

Why do you think they were so quick to kill him? They wanted to suppress any type of uprising.