1. 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!

The Jews killed Jesus

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by TashaN, Dec 30, 2009.

  1. TashaN

    TashaN Islamopolitan Staff Member Premium Member

    I thought this was interesting, because on another thread, Dan asserted that the Jews didn't cause Jesus to die and they have absolutely nothing to do with it.

    Are you sure?

    29Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man?

    30They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.

    31Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death:

    (The Jews wanted to kill him but it wasn't lawful for them to do so, then at the end of the conversation ....)

    38Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.

    John 18:29-38 (KJV)

    (I don't think he broke any Roman law. The Jews just wanted him to die)


    20Pilate therefore, willing to release Jesus, spake again to them. ​

    21But they cried, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. ​

    (Who was shouting? You guessed right, the Jews)

    22And he said unto them the third time, Why, what evil hath he done? I have found no cause of death in him: I will therefore chastise him, and let him go.

    Luke 23:20-22 (KJV)

    Firstly, you can't prove he committed idolatry.

    Secondly, Jews were hanging people to the tree, no?

    22And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree:

    23His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

    Deuteronomy 21:22-23 (KJV)

    So, they do hang people and bind them to trees, and there is a condition, the body should be buried that same day.

    And yeah, something else ...

    31The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.

    John 19:31 (KJV)

    So, any comment?
    Sahar and Just_me_Mike like this.
  2. Oberon

    Oberon New Member

    You have to understand what "law" meant to both romans and jews living in 1st century palestine, and this is a complicated matter. Both had a system of "laws" but not in the way we would think in terms a legal system (sharia is far closer to the jewish system, but issues are present there as well given roman dominance). So lets break this down a bit.

    1. Romans had some laws which were written down. However, they didn't really have a police force or a legal system in which the state could prosecute an individual. Punishments, executions, etc, did not have to directly violate any written law.
    2. Even more important than the "loose" nature of the roman legal system was the fact that Jesus and most of the Jews weren't roman citizens. They were an occupied nation. The primary duty of Pilate and the romans was to ensure the pax romana by killing and violently subduing anybody threatening the peace.
    3. For the Jews, as with sharia, there was no clear distinction between religious and secular laws. In fact, there was no conception in jewish minds that such a difference really could exist.

    In short, we have a complicated system were an occupied nation has its own laws/customs, which not only differ between various sects and various towns (even families) but which have to deal with an occupying power who REALLY has control.

    Let's turn to the case of Jesus in particular. First, our sources are secondary, redacted, and hardly unbiased. While they certainly fit into historical genres of the time, that isn't saying much. However, we can be pretty certain about a number of things:

    1) Jesus did claim to be the messiah. He rarely states this directly, but without a claim of kingship over the jews it is hard to explain the roman reaction.
    2) Jesus didn't violate "roman law." He was executed because he was seen by the romans as a threat to roman power (see 1) above).
    3) Jesus and his followers were jews. To assert that Jesus was killed by the Jews creates a divide between Jesus and the Jews which did not exist.
    4) Those primarily responsible for Jesus' execution were neither romans or THE jews. Rather, an elite group of Jewish authorities who were (to some degree) in bed with the roman authorities were responsible for his execution.
  3. footprints

    footprints New Member

    People killed Lord Jesus, not Romans nor Jews nor any other race or culture on earth. People with intelligence filled with human perception and a maddening crowd gathered around them who would condemn him instead of saving him. Jesus failed in turning human intelligence around, just as God per se, said he would.

    What is true will later be false. Human intelligence is perfect for turning things around.

    Have a happy and safe new year.
    xkatz likes this.
  4. kai

    kai ragamuffin Staff Member

    TahaN i am very surprised you are using new testament quotes as evidence here when you dont beleive them to be true anyway.
    arimoff and Wandered Off like this.
  5. Sunstone

    Sunstone De Diablo Del Fora Staff Member Premium Member

    Erotic Dance
    As I've been told (but I'm no scholar), the early Christians at some point felt a need to align themselves more with the Grecco-Roman Empire than with the Jews. This caused them to fudge the story a bit in order to cover up the Roman participation in the death of Jesus and emphasize -- or perhaps fabricate -- the Jewish participation.
    arimoff likes this.
  6. Oberon

    Oberon New Member

    I'm not sure what you are referring to. However, the gospels were all composed at a time when relationships with the roman empire were pretty bad. Christians had already been scapegoats for Nero's fire. It would be hard to make the argument that the gospel authors were interested in making the romans look good. They certainly didn't mind making the sadducees and pharisees look bad, though.

    In the end, saying the Jews killed Jesus is a bit like saying the americans killed abraham lincoln or the romans killed caesar. Technically, it is true, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Jesus was a jew, starting a fairly sectarian jewish movement, and the central people who brought about his death were other jews in belonging to a different part of the jewish community (i.e. the authorities).
  7. dogsgod

    dogsgod New Member

    Yes, it was a wise means of disassociating oneself from the Jews and to not blame the Romans for killing their saviour, particularly at a time when Jews were being hunted down and killed by Roman soldiers.
  8. Oberon

    Oberon New Member

    Harldy. Matthew's gospel clearly demonstrates on going interactions between jews and christians, and jewish-christians. See section 2.3 Das Matthäusevengelium in Theißen and Merz's Die Historische Jesus: Ein Lehrbuch.
  9. Quagmire

    Quagmire Imaginary talking monkey Staff Member Premium Member

    Politicians killed Jesus. Then they spent the next 2000 years using his death as an excuse for more killing.

    Clever turds those politicians.
    DarkSun and Sunstone like this.
  10. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    According to reading the literature (in this case, the gospels), I would have to say that the Romans did carry out Jesus' execution.

    It was the Jewish authorities, who wanted to trap, arrest and interrogate Jesus before handing him over to the Romans. They conspire this. Perhaps they handed him over the Romans, because Jesus had a large following.

    But you can't blame Jews now who were involved in Jesus' death.

    But in any case, there are no independent witnesses or sources, other than those given in the gospels, I don't think the gospels are reliable sources as historical records.
  11. DarkSun

    DarkSun :eltiT


    Wasn't Jesus dying meant to be a good thing? Why are we all pointing the finger? :facepalm:
  12. JasonII

    JasonII New Member

    Dark Sun – We nailed a man to the cross, how is that a good thing?
  13. JasonII

    JasonII New Member

    Does anyone read the bible?? Pontius Pilot washed his hands of Jesus’ crucifixion, he even offered to released Barabus if Jesus was not set free. A vote was made by the Jewish people and they demanded Jesus crucified. The Romans had no choice to uphold the people’s law, they were a police force. As powerful as the Romans were they had so much land to control that their army was spread all over the world. The Romans had peace because they were accepted as the law and police force. If the people revolted against the Romans for protecting Jesus then Pontius Pilot wouldn’t have been able to control them, he would have had to flee Palistine and explain to Cesar that he had lost control of his district, for that Pilot would have been killed.
  14. kai

    kai ragamuffin Staff Member

    thats what he was there for wasnt It?
  15. Oberon

    Oberon New Member

    You can't even blame jews then. If one were actually interested in who the main players responsible for bringing about jesus' death were, the first would be Jesus himself, who probably knew his teachings and actions would get him killed, but went into the belly of the beast anyway, and next a small group of the elite jews, who hardly constitute "the jews." Finally, the Jews of Jesus' day have almost as little in common with later rabbinic judaism as with christians.

    They are as reliable as history was in those days (more reliable than some, less reliable than others). History as a discipline and genre in the ancient world was not anywhere near as reliable as history in the modern world.

    Nonetheless, Tacitus, Josephus, Paul, and two independent gospel traditions (John and the synoptics) describe Jesus dying, and with the exception of Paul all those also mention Pilate. It is highly unlikely that Pilate would execute a nobody from a hick town of Nazareth unless he did something to really **** somebody off. It appears quite likely that those people were the elite of Jerusalem.
  16. dogsgod

    dogsgod New Member

    As the story goes, the crowd of Jews called for Jesus' execution after Pilate found no fault with him. The Jews are blamed for his death. Matthew goes so far as to say : His blood be upon us and upon our children, chapter 27.
  17. imaginaryme

    imaginaryme New Member

    Can't kill a guy who never existed. :D

    But no. I think it is more relevant to see it as he was crucified based upon considerations from his peers. It seems far more realistic to die for all mankind if it's your own homies that end your tale.
  18. challupa

    challupa Well-Known Member

    His story is certainly a lot like the other dying and rising godmen in other religions isn't it!
  19. Ardipithecus

    Ardipithecus New Member

    Jewish execution was by stoning. Roman execution was by crucifixion. Even the gospel writers confirm that the sign on the cross on which Jesus was nailed said, "Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews."

    It did not contain an claim that Jesus was a god, a false god, or a prophet. It was a civil crime of claiming to be King of a Roman provence without appointment by either the Roman Senate or the Emperor. It would have to be a political execution. Naturally some conservative Jews would have opposed Jesus' preaching love, compassion, healing, justice, and indicting the widespread corruption of the Jewish heirarchy. They may have urged Pilate to do that but we'll never know. Roman records contain no mention of Jesus of Nazareth being crucified.

    When any self-proclaimed King of a province defied the Emperor and Senate, he would have been captured, defeated or slain in battle, or crucified. Such would be spread by the Romans to all of the Empire as a warning for future rebels. Pilate would have prided himself on crucifying a rebel King. But he did not. His records do not even list an execution of Jesus.

    So there are inconsistencies in the story. Gospels describe a political execution of a rebel King or claimant to the Israeli Throne. Yet the total absense of mention of such an execution in Roman records. The only mention comes later as the story was told orally. The absense of any records of Jesus' death, or even contemporary record of his very existence, makes me think the entire story was fabricated. I think it was made up decades after his supposed life during which no-one seemed to notice him.

    Jesus of the christian religion came from a merger of several Pagan virgin born god men fathered by a god and about 4 Jewish reformers preaching at the time Jesus was believed to exist. Those included John the Baptist, Honi, Hinara Ben Dosa, and perhaps Simon Bar Kochba.

    In summary, we have no good evidence that Jesus ever walked on land let alone water. And there is no evidence at all that he was a god or that he ever claimed to be god. The Christian religion is founded on myth, confusion, and political intrigue of Constantine.300 years after his supposed death.

    challupa likes this.
  20. Oberon

    Oberon New Member

    There is more evidence for Jesus' existence than for virtually every person from antiquity.

    No, it isn't. Having read the actual greek (and latin) texts of myths from these cultures, it really isn't.

    Literary devices mean nothing to you I suppose. The "people" or "crowd" who state this in Matthew 27:25 (laos greek) are the same laos who support Jesus again and again elsewhere. Matthew's audience is likely jewish-christians, and the earliest christians, even during gospel composition, were jews.
    Wrong on both points.
    Do you know what "messiah" meant? It meant one claiming the davidic kingship.

    Not to the jews. Claiming davidic kingship was completely religious.

    Have you studied classics or ancient judiasm? Politics and religion were not differentiated. Why did Andocides write "peri ton musterion?"

    Do you know anything about roman records? It would be a miracle if we had such records.

    Wrong. Most would be ignored, unless they had a following. And the roman empire allowed foreign kings (such as herod) to control their territory, as long as they were paid.

    You don't know what you're talking about. We have no records from pilate.

    Have you read any histories written in greek or latin (or translations)? They ALL have issues with accuracty.

    You clearly aren't familiar with what survives from roman records, or even what was recorded.

    The earliest mention comes from a contemporary. There is more evidence for Jesus than for almost anybody from ancient history.

    Your complete ignorance of roman and greek sources and records makes me think you have no idea what you are talking about, and also that you are completely unfamiliar with historical jesus scholarship.

    Well, I guess I was right. You really don't know anything about this subject.
    YmirGF likes this.
Draft saved Draft deleted