Bible help: Jesus/Jews murdered him

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2008-05-17 11:32pm

I'm trying to source the various passages from the NT that shows that the Jews were responsible for murdering Jesus. Can anyone help me?

The ones that I know of are Pontius Pilate washing his hands and the Jews accepting the killing of the Messiah, Jesus being crucifiaed blaming the Jews and some passages regarding the Pharisees being "punished" for Jesus death by God.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2008-05-17 11:37pm

Because the Jews called for Barbaras to be released instead of Jesus.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2008-05-17 11:40pm

DPDarkPrimus wrote:Because the Jews called for Barbaras to be released instead of Jesus.

They did it with the intent of Jesus dying instead of him, and the crowd probably did it because they were under the Jewish religious authorities.

And the name is "Barabbas."

Kodiak · Post by **Kodiak** » 2008-05-18 12:20am

There have been many studies done of the trial of Christ before the Sanhedrin, which point out that they broke Jewish law dozens of times in order to convict Jesus. The one I'm most familiar with is in "Jesus The Christ" by Talmage, but you should be able to find many internet resources.

Also, probably the most condemning verses are the ones where Pilate asks them if they want Jesus released and they say "His blood be upon us!" or something like that.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2008-05-18 12:41am

Kodiak wrote:There have been many studies done of the trial of Christ before the Sanhedrin, which point out that they broke Jewish law dozens of times in order to convict Jesus.

Whose law? The Jewish authorities charged him with blasphemy, which was a capital offense under Jewish law.. Jesus broke the Sabbath multiple times alone throughout the New Testament. According to John 18:31, the Jews didn't have authority to kill him, so they got the Romans to do it (the Jews ordered the deaths of other people though, so there's another great example of the infallibility of the Bible).

Omeganian · Post by **Omeganian** » 2008-05-18 01:41am

Around that time (40 years before the destruction of the Temple), the Jewish court has officially refused to deal with capital punishment (for all the power it still had - the social implications of the sentence were severe, but Rome kept the actual right to itself).

Even before that, it was veeery problematic to earn a death sentence (limitations upon limitations, including one which forbid execution in case of an unanimous vote for death), certainly not for being a false prophet (about three centuries ago there was already such an influx of those, that a decision was made to simply ignore all the prophets without checking, and switch to sages in interpretation of the law).

Likely, Jesus was executed by the Romans for the mess he made at the temple - a severe disturbance by Roman standards.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2008-05-18 02:02am

Omeganian wrote:Likely, Jesus was executed by the Romans for the mess he made at the temple - a severe disturbance by Roman standards.

Pontius Pilot felt that Jesus wasn't guilty of any crime. Luke 22:70-71, on the other hand, records Jesus' "crime" as having admitted that he was the son of God to the Sanhedrin. I agree that execution via crucifixion was probably not something the Romans would have done for this "crime." He probably would have been stoned.

That is, of course, if the Bible is to be trusted as a source. Given the fact that the Gospel writers had an obvious agenda to push, and a total lack of historical corroboration, I find it doubtful that Jesus ever existed at all.

the Jewish court has officially refused to deal with capital punishment (for all the power it still had - the social implications of the sentence were severe, but Rome kept the actual right to itself).

There were still examples of Jewish capital punishment being carried out. The usual method was stoning; St. Stephen and James the Just being two examples. Both were mentioned in the New Testament.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2008-05-18 02:38am

You know... I dont even see why the matter of who did or did not kill jesus is even a big deal. Even if we accept that YHWH is real, and there is a Messiah to be had, Jesus was not the Jewish messiah.

First thing first, he was supposed to build a third temple... has not been done.

He was also supposed to bring ALL the jews back to Israel. Now, my friend Max still lives in phoenix... so that has not happened.

World peace... HAHAHAH!

Jesus did not fulfill these.

Then there is the matter of the personal qualifications.

He had to be a prophet. There were no prophets, as Israel itself did not meet the criteria to have prophets, namely when the majority of the worlds jews are in israel. At the time Jesus supposedly lived, most jews were still in Babylon.

By definition Jesus, who was supposedly immaculately conceived, could not have been descended on his fathers side from David.

Then there is that little bit about observing the torah. WHich Jesus did not do, and which he actively tried to keep others from doing. This means immediately that he is a false prophet and not the messiah, because only a person who perfectly obeys the Torah and the 613 laws of the Mitzvot can actually be the messiah.

Then there is all the shit the early christians fabricated out of nothing and attributed to the Tanakh....

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2008-05-18 03:32am

Errr..... can anyone like Superman help me source the quotes? So far, what I got is the differring accounts from Mark/Luke with regards to Pontius Pilate washing his hands, and Luke Pilus even outright declearing that Jesus was innocent. Mark of course carries the infamous "blood on our heads and on our children" quote.....

I can't find the Jesus blaming Jews passage at all....... much less any other passages that do blame the jews.

Omeganian · Post by **Omeganian** » 2008-05-18 08:10am

PainRack wrote:Errr..... can anyone like Superman help me source the quotes? So far, what I got is the differring accounts from Mark/Luke with regards to Pontius Pilate washing his hands, and Luke Pilus even outright declearing that Jesus was innocent. Mark of course carries the infamous "blood on our heads and on our children" quote.....

I can't find the Jesus blaming Jews passage at all....... much less any other passages that do blame the jews.

For something anti Jewish, you should look in John. There is chapter 19, for example. Or in Paul's messages.

BTW, about the immaculate conception. one of our university teachers said, that Jesus being the son of God (instead of just a prophet or teacher) belongs to Paul. A guy who never saw Jesus in his entire life. The original apostles had no such notion. The couldn't make a god out of someone they saw peeing at the same wall they did.

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2008-05-18 04:41pm

Omeganian wrote:
For something anti Jewish, you should look in John. There is chapter 19, for example. Or in Paul's messages.

BTW, about the immaculate conception. one of our university teachers said, that Jesus being the son of God (instead of just a prophet or teacher) belongs to Paul. A guy who never saw Jesus in his entire life. The original apostles had no such notion. The couldn't make a god out of someone they saw peeing at the same wall they did.

Depending on whether you're using historical criticism or a literal reading of the Bible. The accounts of Jesus life, from Luke, Matthew and etc are certainly indicative of John as being the son of God. However, historical analysis reveals otherwise.
For example, take the Baptism by John.
The unknown Q source eludes us, but Mark simply has Jesus experiencing a vision when baptised by John that he is the messiah and son of God.
NO big deal...........

Historically later sources like Matthew will elaborate further on this trend, until Luke outright says that John refuses to baptise him because Jesus is without sin and is the Son of God.

Ritterin Sophia · Post by **Ritterin Sophia** » 2008-05-18 06:00pm

IIRC Jesus is the English form of Ιησους (Iesous), which was the Greek form of the Aramaic name יֵשֻׁעַ (Yeshu'a). Yeshu'a is itself a contracted form of Yehoshu'a (Joshua). Wasn't Joshua a pretty common name back then?

If messianistic apocalypse cults were that common I don't see why the Jesus Christ we know of today couldn't be the amalgamation of all of these Josh'.

Ritterin Sophia · Post by **Ritterin Sophia** » 2008-05-18 06:08pm

General Schatten wrote:If messianistic apocalypse cults were that common I don't see why the Jesus Christ we know of today couldn't be the amalgamation of all of these Josh'.

What I mean is the Jesus written into the Bible seems to contradict himself at every turn, whch seems more likely if people are attributing the quotes and actions onto the wrong Josh.