• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

question

Brian2

Veteran Member
Antisemitism Uncovered: Myth – Jews Killed Jesus

"The myth that Jews collectively murdered Jesus, also referred to as “deicide,” has been used to justify violence against Jews for centuries. Historians as well as Christian leaders have agreed that the claim is baseless."

It cannot be legitimately used to justify violence against Jews, but those Jews who condemned Jesus in front of Pilate (Jews from all over the world of the time, who had come to Jerusalem for the Passover) ended up cursing themselves and their descendants because of the death of Jesus.

Matt 27:24 When Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but that instead a riot was breaking out, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “You bear the responsibility.” 25 All the people answered, “His blood be on us and on our children!” 26 So Pilate released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed Him over to be crucified.…
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Yes the Jewish leaders in Jesus day had Jesus killed unjustly and then told lies about His resurrection from the dead to turn others away from Jesus.
But the Jews as a people are still the chosen of God and loved by God and are still under the Covenants in the OT and will be saved by Him when Jesus returns, and they will realise that they killed their Messiah.
Even if you accept the account in the gospels, teh responsibility for Jesus' execution rests on Pontius Pilate, and the roman empire that he represented.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Even if you accept the account in the gospels, teh responsibility for Jesus' execution rests on Pontius Pilate, and the roman empire that he represented.

It is because I accept the account in the gospels that I can see the part the Jewish leaders (Sanhedrin) and representation from the populace had to play in it.
It is like when David wanted to count the troops and God punished all the Jews for what David did.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Jews from all over the world of the time, who had come to Jerusalem for the Passover)
?
The rule, if I recall, is that each household has to prepare a pascal lamb. So, if I understand, most people would be home.
?

See Exodus 12:3
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
It is because I accept the account in the gospels that I can see the part the Jewish leaders (Sanhedrin) and representation from the populace had to play in it.
It is like when David wanted to count the troops and God punished all the Jews for what David did.
ROFL So you think God is punishing all the Jews for the actions of a few? We don't often get antisemitism like this in here.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
?
The rule, if I recall, is that each household has to prepare a pascal lamb. So, if I understand, most people would be home.
?

See Exodus 12:3

It looks like there was a tradition that a prisoner would be released at that time. That would have been a reason for many Jews to be there I would say.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
ROFL So you think God is punishing all the Jews for the actions of a few? We don't often get antisemitism like this in here.

If what I said is antisemitic then there must be antisemitic Jews, the ones who have worked out why the Jews were exiled in 70AD.
40 years from Jesus to 70AD is probably enough time for the gospel message to have reached most Jews and the ones who rejected the gospel were exiled. I think the Jews in Israel weren't favourably disposed to Christians at the time.
Maybe you have a reason for the exile. A reason that all the Jews were guilty of. If not then maybe you are antisemitic.
Do you think all the Jews were guilty when Nebuchadnezzar exiled them? Surely there were innocent Jews in the Exile. Maybe Daniel and his mates.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
There are Self-hating Jews, but I have yet to encounter one that claims all Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus.

No I imagine that a Jew who believed that might not be a Jew any longer.
But God punishes the whole nation for the sins of the leaders.
(as I pointed out with David and God's punishment on the Jews for the actions of David)
There are Jews who have decided on the reason that the whole nation was exiled in 70AD however even if they don't think it had anything to do with Jesus and presumably it also would not have involved all Jews.
But it is interesting that even if some Jews were involved in the death of Jesus and others agreed to it and it is something that they are guilty of, God meant it for good for the Jews and the Gentiles.
It is the way the word of God became spread to the Gentiles and the way Abraham's faith became a blessing for all peoples.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
No I imagine that a Jew who believed that might not be a Jew any longer.
But God punishes the whole nation for the sins of the leaders.
(as I pointed out with David and God's punishment on the Jews for the actions of David)
There are Jews who have decided on the reason that the whole nation was exiled in 70AD however even if they don't think it had anything to do with Jesus and presumably it also would not have involved all Jews.
But it is interesting that even if some Jews were involved in the death of Jesus and others agreed to it and it is something that they are guilty of, God meant it for good for the Jews and the Gentiles.
It is the way the word of God became spread to the Gentiles and the way Abraham's faith became a blessing for all peoples.
Brian, a Jew cannot unjew themselves. They will always technically be a jew even if they are apostates. They simply lose their Jeiwsh rights, like being buried in a jewish cemetary, testifying in a jewish court, etc.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
It looks like there was a tradition that a prisoner would be released at that time. That would have been a reason for many Jews to be there I would say.

Of historical importance in reconstructing the circumstances of Jesus' death is the fact that Passover in Jerusalem could be a volatile time. Thousands of Jewish pilgrims streamed to Jerusalem from all over the Mediterranean world to celebrate the festival of freedom from foreign domination, but upon arriving they would see many signs of Roman supremacy. The first-century writer Flavius Josephus tells of the regular Roman practice of stationing troops to maintain public order in the Temple precincts (Jewish Wars, 2.12.1). The inflamed mood of the Jewish populace at Passover probably explains why Pilate was in Jerusalem, instead of at his headquarters in Caesarea Maritima, when Jesus entered the city. If, as the synoptic Gospels relate, Jesus caused a disturbance in the Temple after his arrival, this would certainly alarm both Jewish and Roman authorities: a Galilean troublemaker might be planning to start a Passover riot. Pilate would want to keep the peace. So would Caiaphas, who could reasonably fear that violence could lead to the destruction of the Temple, as indeed eventually occurred (see John 11:48-50).

It is because I accept the account in the gospels

Yet they do not all agree. The "blood curse" in 27:25 is thus not a Stage 1 historic event, but is part of Matthew's Stage 3 polemic against Jewish rivals.

Pilate released Barabbas to them.

An interesting character. Questions mount when one realizes that the name Bar-abbas means "son of the father," an excellent soubriquet for Jesus of Nazareth. In fact, in certain texts of Matthew's Gospel, Barabbas' surname is Jesus and so Pilate asks whether he should release Jesus son of the Father or Jesus the messiah (Mt 27:17)!
One solution;
A man with the name Barabbas was arrested after a riot that had caused some deaths in Jerusalem. Eventually he was released by Pilate when a feast brought the governor to Jerusalem to supervise public order. Presumably this took place at the same time that Jesus was crucified, or not far from it, or on another Passover. In any case, this release struck Christians as ironic: The same legal issue was involved, sedition against the authority of the emperor. Although they knew Jesus was innocent, he was found guilty by Pilate, while Barabbas was let go. The storytelling tendency to contrast the released Barabbas and the crucified Jesus by bringing them together at the same moment before Pilate's 'justice' would have been enhanced if both had the same personal name, Jesus (819-20).

Given the difficulties and uncertainties associated with the Barabbas incident, it questions the degree of historicity.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Brian, a Jew cannot unjew themselves. They will always technically be a jew even if they are apostates. They simply lose their Jeiwsh rights, like being buried in a jewish cemetary, testifying in a jewish court, etc.

Yes I suppose there is more than one possible interpretation for "Jew".
I was using the interpretation not from genetics but from belief.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Of historical importance in reconstructing the circumstances of Jesus' death is the fact that Passover in Jerusalem could be a volatile time. Thousands of Jewish pilgrims streamed to Jerusalem from all over the Mediterranean world to celebrate the festival of freedom from foreign domination, but upon arriving they would see many signs of Roman supremacy. The first-century writer Flavius Josephus tells of the regular Roman practice of stationing troops to maintain public order in the Temple precincts (Jewish Wars, 2.12.1). The inflamed mood of the Jewish populace at Passover probably explains why Pilate was in Jerusalem, instead of at his headquarters in Caesarea Maritima, when Jesus entered the city. If, as the synoptic Gospels relate, Jesus caused a disturbance in the Temple after his arrival, this would certainly alarm both Jewish and Roman authorities: a Galilean troublemaker might be planning to start a Passover riot. Pilate would want to keep the peace. So would Caiaphas, who could reasonably fear that violence could lead to the destruction of the Temple, as indeed eventually occurred (see John 11:48-50).

Yes John 11:48-50 and the concern for a riot etc shows reasons that the Jewish leaders might feel justified in acting unjustly in Jesus death.

Yet they do not all agree. The "blood curse" in 27:25 is thus not a Stage 1 historic event, but is part of Matthew's Stage 3 polemic against Jewish rivals.

I am of those who believe the gospels to be true historical narrative.

An interesting character. Questions mount when one realizes that the name Bar-abbas means "son of the father," an excellent soubriquet for Jesus of Nazareth. In fact, in certain texts of Matthew's Gospel, Barabbas' surname is Jesus and so Pilate asks whether he should release Jesus son of the Father or Jesus the messiah (Mt 27:17)!
One solution;
A man with the name Barabbas was arrested after a riot that had caused some deaths in Jerusalem. Eventually he was released by Pilate when a feast brought the governor to Jerusalem to supervise public order. Presumably this took place at the same time that Jesus was crucified, or not far from it, or on another Passover. In any case, this release struck Christians as ironic: The same legal issue was involved, sedition against the authority of the emperor. Although they knew Jesus was innocent, he was found guilty by Pilate, while Barabbas was let go. The storytelling tendency to contrast the released Barabbas and the crucified Jesus by bringing them together at the same moment before Pilate's 'justice' would have been enhanced if both had the same personal name, Jesus (819-20).

Given the difficulties and uncertainties associated with the Barabbas incident, it questions the degree of historicity.

It does not question the degree of historicity for me.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Yes I suppose there is more than one possible interpretation for "Jew".
I was using the interpretation not from genetics but from belief.
Excuse me??? Jews get to define what does and does not make a Jew. No one else. Halakha, Jewish law, states that there are two ways to be a part of the People of Israel. The first is to be born of a Jewish mom. The second is to undergo a halakhic conversion and thus be adopted into the People. In either case, once you are a Jew, you can never be a non-Jew again. You can be a heretic, an apostate, the world's worst jerk... but you are still technically a Jew.

Belief doesn't make you a Jew. For example, there are many atheist Jews. Furthermore, let's say someone believes all that Judaism teaches (they may even aspire to keeping the Torah), but they were born a non-Jew -- this person is not a Jew, since they have not undergone formal conversion.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Yes the Jewish leaders in Jesus day had Jesus killed unjustly and then told lies about His resurrection from the dead to turn others away from Jesus.
But the Jews as a people are still the chosen of God and loved by God and are still under the Covenants in the OT and will be saved by Him when Jesus returns, and they will realise that they killed their Messiah.
At Matthew 23:37,38, Jesus said otherwise. As individuals, they all had a chance, individually exercising faith in Jesus. (And those who’ve died, they will at their resurrection. [Everyone will, at their resurrection.]) But as a group, I believe the Scriptures say no.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
what are they chosen for? Jewish people that is.
That’s a good question!

Genesis 22:18.

If as a nation they had accepted the Messiah, they could have been kings & priests with Him, representing God’s sovereignty over the Earth, and have helped in bringing blessings of healing to all of mankind. Restoring & extending Eden’s Garden earth wide.

Please look at Revelation 21:3,4… it’s like a fulfillment to the Lord’s Prayer, “Thy Will be done on earth.”
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
At Matthew 23:37,38, Jesus said otherwise. As individuals, they all had a chance, individually exercising faith in Jesus. (And those who’ve died, they will at their resurrection. [Everyone will, at their resurrection.]) But as a group, I believe the Scriptures say no.

I think Matt 23:37,37 does not go as far as you suggest.
There are scriptures that say that God will not abondon His chosen forever. The Moses Covenant has a return clause even if God exiles His people from their land. God will not abandon them forever. The Jews will be brought back to Israel and saved from political destruction by their Messiah and they will see their mistake and turn to Him imo.
 
Top