No, ‘the Jews’ did not kill Jesus

[Colt]

Then you agree that it is logical that there would be a difference of attitude towards various individuals? Therefore, it would not be correct to say that the deaths of John and Jesus reflect "the Jews hav[ing] a long history of killing even their own prophets" (post 64). If a person is not established as a prophet of the people, then how can he be dumped in the statistics?

Thats quibbling. Let me rework it for you. Religions as well as politicians have a history of silencing voices that might be critical of or threatening to entrenched leadership and hypocrisy. Some cultures might be tempted to develop just a tad bit of nationalistic and religious pride. Its a crazy stretch I know but, could you imagine a situation where one religious group might come to see themselves as "Gods chosen people"?

That being the case if one of their own appears and says he's Gods Son, implies divine attributes and wants ALL the world to share the "chosen peoples" God with them, that might just drive some people to suspend their court formalities?

 

[rosends]

Its how corrupt legal proceedings work. Jesus was bitterly hated by those who were determined to stop him.

but the entire fiction of "they hated him" is part of the invention of the gospel writer. Why do you suddenly assume that the gospels are accurately depicting a conspiracy of an entire community when the details are wrong?

 

[Colt]

but the entire fiction of "they hated him" is part of the invention of the gospel writer. Why do you suddenly assume that the gospels are accurately depicting a conspiracy of an entire community when the details are wrong?

So Jesus never existed nor his apostles and the religion that grew up about him?

These inventors of the gospels, who were they and why subject themselves to pointless martyrdom for a fictional character?

 

[rosends]

So Jesus never existed nor his apostles and the religion that grew up about him?

These inventors of the gospels, who were they and why subject themselves to pointless martyrdom for a fictional character?

I don't recall saying that anyone didn't exist but the echoic nature of his myth is certainly suspect.

 

[Colt]

I don't recall saying that anyone didn't exist but the echoic nature of his myth is certainly suspect.

One way to experience the hatred by some that Jesus encountered is to view YouTube videos of how Christian street preachers are received in Jerusalem today.

 

[PruePhillip]

Again, you are taking the Bible accounts as gospel ('scuse the pun).

Indeed. We should only accept as historical those accounts that have independent corroboration, especially these they describe extraordinary events. There is no evidence for giant scorpions or their use in battle. Therefore we should treat the account with extreme scepticism. However, you may be confusing Hannibal's actual use of the Scorpion, which was a type of small ballista firing large arrows/bolts.

On the other hand there is a large body of evidence for war elephants used around that period, and many accounts of the battles against the Romans in Italy in which Hannibal used them. Researchers have found evidence of large numbers of animals and humans moving through the Alps, carbon dated to 218BC, the period when Hannibal is supposed to have crossed the Alps. So it is reasonable to accept it as an historical event.

The scorpion thing was a claim by the Hannibal historians that the Numidian allies of Hannibal
rode upon giant scorpions. So is the story of Hannibal true?
And the crucifixion - two THIEVES were crucified. These two did not challenge Roman rule,
they just stole stuff.

 

[rosends]

One way to experience the hatred by some that Jesus encountered is to view YouTube videos of how Christian street preachers are received in Jerusalem today.

ah, so the sanhedrin running rampant on the streets of Jerusalem must have an opinion

 

[Colt]

ah, so the sanhedrin running rampant on the streets of Jerusalem must have an opinion

Maybe you are deliberately misunderstanding? Just a mixture of average Jews as far as I can tell. Some get really angry when Jesus is preached as Messiah savior.

I’ve encountered Jews who explain that, once the Temple is rebuilt Judaism will resume practicing OT sacrifices and laws which I assume will include the death penalty for a number of offenses?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Pilate had his own axe to grind. Aside from Pilate much antisemitism is due to “erroneous and unjust interpretations of the New Testament.”

You think inferring antisemitism in this story is "erroneous"?

Personally, my take on the Gospel of John was that it was written by an antisemite trying to justify antisemitism. The antisemitism of this passage seems to me to be deliberate.

 

[rosends]

Maybe you are deliberately misunderstanding? Just a mixture of average Jews as far as I can tell. Some get really angry when Jesus is preached as Messiah savior.

Maybe you aren't paying attention -- the court system was not made of average people and yet they were the ones who would have had to subvert their own system in order to do what the text claims.

I’ve encountered Jews who explain that, once the Temple is rebuilt Judaism will resume practicing OT sacrifices and laws which I assume will include the death penalty for a number of offenses?

Yes and no. The court system will be reinstated and it will have that power but even back in temple days, a court that actually effected a death penalty once in 7 years (some say 70) was considered "bloody" -- the system is set up to make it very, very difficult to level a death penalty. And that was when there was much sin. In messianic days, when we can expect significantly less intentional sin (it is an interesting question as to whether there will be ANY intentional sin at that point) so will there be any death penalty in practice? Possibly not.

 

[Colt]

Maybe you aren't paying attention -- the court system was not made of average people and yet they were the ones who would have had to subvert their own system in order to do what the text claims.

Yes and no. The court system will be reinstated and it will have that power but even back in temple days, a court that actually effected a death penalty once in 7 years (some say 70) was considered "bloody" -- the system is set up to make it very, very difficult to level a death penalty. And that was when there was much sin. In messianic days, when we can expect significantly less intentional sin (it is an interesting question as to whether there will be ANY intentional sin at that point) so will there be any death penalty in practice? Possibly not.

I realize that the Sanhedrin was comprised of chief priests, elders, and scribes. During the 3+ years of his public ministry, Jesus had many open confrontations with the Jewish authorities. He questioned their interpretation of the law, their motives, and their behavior. Therefore the biggest threat that Jesus posed was to the Sanhedrin types. Attempts to arrest Jessus had already occurred. The Sanhedrin had already been considering the problem of Jesus considering that there were earlier attempts to arrest him. He had been accused of blasphemy which was punishable by death. The rules of the Sanhedrin were not that complex. The Jesus problem was important enough for the enemies of Jesus to bend them apparently.

You never answered my question. You claim that the gospels were all made up, These inventors of the gospels, who were they ? Why subject themselves to pointless martyrdom for a fictional character?

 

[rosends]

He had been accused of blasphemy which was punishable by death. The rules of the Sanhedrin were not that complex. The Jesus problem was important enough for the enemies of Jesus to bend them apparently.

You see? That's the problem. What he had done was not "blasphemy" under Jewish law and the laws ARE complex. The writer didn't know themso he made stuff up based on his limited understanding. Instead of assuming that an entire legal structure is simplistic and was manipulated in one particular case, it makes more sense to say that the story teller was making errors.

You never answered my question. You claim that the gospels were all made up, These inventors of the gospels, who were they ? Why subject themselves to pointless martyrdom for a fictional character?

Well, there is one opinion that they were written by Jews in order to create an origin story which made the Christian sect distinct from the Jewish sect. Scholars see the stories as dating to well after Jesus' supposed death so at best the content is hearsay, steps removed from the events depicted. So the narrative is reconstructed with details invented to satisfy an agenda.

 

[Colt]

You see? That's the problem. What he had done was not "blasphemy" under Jewish law and the laws ARE complex. The writer didn't know themso he made stuff up based on his limited understanding. Instead of assuming that an entire legal structure is simplistic and was manipulated in one particular case, it makes more sense to say that the story teller was making errors.

Well, there is one opinion that they were written by Jews in order to create an origin story which made the Christian sect distinct from the Jewish sect. Scholars see the stories as dating to well after Jesus' supposed death so at best the content is hearsay, steps removed from the events depicted. So the narrative is reconstructed with details invented to satisfy an agenda.

His enemies considered it blasphemy weather it was or not. Being the Son of God incarnate then no, what he said was true and not blasphemy. But considering that the Jews didn't believe Jesus was the Son of God then yes, to them what he said was blasphemy.

One reason that the gospels weren't written for a while was the belief that Jesus would "soon return" . So word of mouth preaching and teaching worked until they decided to record what happened.

BTW, many of early the events depicted in Genesis were thousands of years after the fact and credited to multiple authors, but I'm assuming you have no problem believing them??? Double standard?


A: Jesus was “directly” accused of “blasphemy” on three different occasions, and “indirectly” accused on two more (they didn’t say Jesus had committed “blasphemy,” but they wanted to kill Him [the penalty for blasphemy] for proclaiming deity. Of course, we know that since Jesus “IS” God (He has never stopped being God), and He was sinless (2 Cor 5:21)(Heb 4:15)(1 Jn 3:5)(1 Pet 2:22), any accusations of blasphemy were false. Following are the five occasions.

#1. (Mt 9:1-8)(Mk 2:1-12)(Lk 5:17-26) Jesus was accused of blasphemy by the scribes for telling the paralytic man that his sins were forgiven.

#2. (Jn 10:30-33) The Jews accused Jesus of blasphemy, and were going to stone Him for “making Himself God.”

#3. (Mt 26:63-66)(Mk 14:61-64)(Lk 22:67-71) The High Priest accused Jesus of blasphemy for claiming to be “the Christ, the Son of God.”

#4. (Jn 5:17-18) (“indirect”) The Jews wanted to “kill” Jesus for saying “that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.”

#5. (Jn 8:58-59) (“indirect”) The Jews were going to stone Jesus for calling Himself the “I AM.”

In addition, Jesus was accused of committing “sin” in several other places (Jn 9:24)(Mt 11:18-19)(Lk 4:16-29)(Lk 7:33-35). He was also called a “friend of sinners” several times (Mt 9:10-13)(Lk 7:36-50 – He forgave sins here too)(Lk 15:1-3)(Lk 19:7).

credit Steve Shirly

 

[pearl]

Personally, my take on the Gospel of John was that it was written by an antisemite trying to justify antisemitism. The antisemitism of this passage seems to me to be deliberate.

Of course it was deliberate. The historical setting of the Gospel must be considered. All gospel authors wrote for the benefit of their community and John's church had been expelled from the synagogue as a heretical cult. As I previously stated, they are now subject to the persecution of the Roman's, having lost the protective umbrella of the Jews, So, the Jewish establishment referred to in the synoptics becomes for John's church 'the Jews' period.
There are many other questions raised in this Gospel.

You think inferring antisemitism in this story is "erroneous"?

Maybe better, blown out of proportion. The present situation of the Johannine community at the time of writing is retrojected back onto Jesus' ministry.

 

[rosends]

His enemies considered it blasphemy weather it was or not. Being the Son of God incarnate then no, what he said was true and not blasphemy. But considering that the Jews didn't believe Jesus was the Son of God then yes, to them what he said was blasphemy.

No, it would not have been. Two reasons -- one is that that isn't the definition of blasphemy under Jewish law. There are other problems with the statement but blasphemy isn't one of them. The other is that the statement is actually a reference to a line in the bible in which the Jewish people are called sons of God (in both Exodus and Hoshea). So his statement was that he was Jewish and as such, a son of God. No Jewish court would have a problem with that.

BTW, many of early the events depicted in Genesis were thousands of years after the fact and credited to multiple authors, but I'm assuming you have no problem believing them??? Double standard?

As a matter of belief I understand that the biblical text was written by God, so I see no double standard.

A: Jesus was “directly” accused of “blasphemy” on three different occasions, and “indirectly” accused on two more (they didn’t say Jesus had committed “blasphemy,” but they wanted to kill Him [the penalty for blasphemy] for proclaiming deity. Of course, we know that since Jesus “IS” God (He has never stopped being God), and He was sinless (2 Cor 5:21)(Heb 4:15)(1 Jn 3:5)(1 Pet 2:22), any accusations of blasphemy were false. Following are the five occasions.

None of this (or the examples which follow) is blasphemy under Jewish law. And being a sinner doesn't always lead to a death penalty. So, again, this speaks to huge errors in the writing of the narrative.

 

[Colt]

No, it would not have been. Two reasons -- one is that that isn't the definition of blasphemy under Jewish law. There are other problems with the statement but blasphemy isn't one of them. The other is that the statement is actually a reference to a line in the bible in which the Jewish people are called sons of God (in both Exodus and Hoshea). So his statement was that he was Jewish and as such, a son of God. No Jewish court would have a problem with that.

As a matter of belief I understand that the biblical text was written by God, so I see no double standard.

None of this (or the examples which follow) is blasphemy under Jewish law. And being a sinner doesn't always lead to a death penalty. So, again, this speaks to huge errors in the writing of the narrative.

There aren't huge errors. "Sons of God" as in we are all sons of God isn't what they heard Jesus say as per their reaction. The Sanhedrin found Jesus guilty of religious offences becuse the occupiers had no issue with his spiritual kingdom. He hadn't done anything wrong worthy of death under Roman law. It would be even worse than it was if the Sanhedrin really didn't believe he had blasphemed God yet had the Romans execute him.

There are no stone tablets in existence purportedly written by the "finger of God". For obvious reasons you are hiding behind the claim of divine authorship of the OT scriptures. Obviously your point about the gospels being written 40 or so years after Jesus left, making them questionable gets trounced by the fact that the Israelites scriptures were finalized in Babylon thousands of years after the events depicted.

 

[rosends]

There aren't huge errors.

There absolutely are. The crime wasn't blasphemy and the process isn't as described.

"Sons of God" as in we are all sons of God isn't what they heard Jesus say as per their reaction.

Or, the reaction attributed to them indicates that the writer didn't think the line meant what it meant.

The Sanhedrin found Jesus guilty of religious offences becuse the occupiers had no issue with his spiritual kingdom. He hadn't done anything wrong worthy of death under Roman law. It would be even worse than it was if the Sanhedrin really didn't believe he had blasphemed God yet had the Romans execute him.

Except that the Sanhedrin wouldn't have met then, they wouldn't have discussed as blasphemy something that wasn't blasphemy and their process would have been much longer and more complex. Why do you insist on defending the text when it has these many mistakes? Why do you assume the text is reliable and everyone in the Jewish legal system is wrong. isn't it more likely that a single author, years later is an unreliable narrator?

There are no stone tablets in existence purportedly written by the "finger of God".

THis is true. Irrelevant, but true.

For obvious reasons you are hiding behind the claim of divine authorship of the OT scriptures.

Are those "obvious reasons" things like "because I am an orthodox jewish rabbi"? I'm not hiding.

Obviously your point about the gospels being written 40 or so years after Jesus left, making them questionable gets trounced by the fact that the Israelites scriptures were finalized in Babylon thousands of years after the events depicted.

You feel free to believe what you want. You are hiding behind these beliefs for obvious reasons.

 

[Colt]

There absolutely are. The crime wasn't blasphemy and the process isn't as described.

Or, the reaction attributed to them indicates that the writer didn't think the line meant what it meant.

Except that the Sanhedrin wouldn't have met then, they wouldn't have discussed as blasphemy something that wasn't blasphemy and their process would have been much longer and more complex. Why do you insist on defending the text when it has these many mistakes? Why do you assume the text is reliable and everyone in the Jewish legal system is wrong. isn't it more likely that a single author, years later is an unreliable narrator?

THis is true. Irrelevant, but true.

Are those "obvious reasons" things like "because I am an orthodox jewish rabbi"? I'm not hiding.

You feel free to believe what you want. You are hiding behind these beliefs for obvious reasons.

The OT has errors and ridiculous exaggerations but the scripture books are all we have to work with so we have to reason it out.

The enemies of Jesus had already found him guilty in their hearts as he mopped the floor with them publicly every time they tried to trap him. History is replete with biased courts rushing judgment! I'm sorry but the Israelites are not perfect people. They really feared Jesus and the potential of his popularity among his followers. I realize that you have an idealistic view of the men of the Sanhedrin and just cant possibly imagine that they were blinded by their bias, but that's what 4 different Jewish writers said in the Gospel books. Many went to their deaths to carry a story that you claim they invented and for no particular reason?

 

[rosends]

The OT has errors and ridiculous exaggerations but the scripture books are all we have to work with so we have to reason it out.

Then you believe differently from me. I don't see errors or ridiculous exaggerations in what you call the "OT." But does this mean that you are accepting that there are errors in the gospels?

The enemies of Jesus had already found him guilty in their hearts as he mopped the floor with them publicly every time they tried to trap him. History is replete with biased courts rushing judgment!

And there are plenty of books of fiction full of misrepresentations of misunderstood systems so the gospels fits right in.

I'm sorry but the Israelites are not perfect people.

I don't recall saying they were.

I realize that you have an idealistic view of the men of the Sanhedrin and just cant possibly imagine that they were blinded by their bias, but that's what 4 different Jewish writers said in the Gospel books.

What I have is an understanding of the process of the Jewish judicial system, something sorely lacking in the gospel accounts, all written well after the fact based on guesswork and invention.

Many went to their deaths to carry a story that you claim they invented and for no particular reason?

Their reason was to justify their beliefs. Within a generation, myth would take hold and people would die for beliefs. It isn't unique to Christians.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Killed by the ruling class in Judaism like Jesus. But the mob did vote against Jesus when Pilate tried to absolve himself from the whole sordid affair.

Who witnessed it, since the apostles had run off?