Did the Jews kill Jesus?

by OUTLAW 34 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • heathen

    I think jesus put the blame on the jews himself over putting it on the Romans , Mexico didn't even exist at the time .LOL As you read the entire account we find jesus calling jerusalem the killer of prophets also telling pilate that ciaphus would bear the blame . They clearly rail roaded jesus with false accusations and also were a threatening mob that the Romans were not too eager to tangle with at the time .

  • free2beme

    It was those crazy Arabs again. No, actually God killed Jesus. He planned it out in writing for centuries and then did exactly what he said he would do. There is a warrant out for his arrest on premeditated murder.

  • Mary

    I don't think it was Jewish people as a whole who killed Jesus, I think it was probably a few power loving Pharisees who probably railroaded him and ultimately turned him over to Rome for execution.

    There are a couple of scenarios in the bible which make me believe this. First of all, under Jewish law, a man could be condemned at the testimony of as little as "two or three witnesses". That's all it would have taken. After the Jewish crowds being mostly receptive to what Jesus had to say, there doesn't seem to be any reason why they would suddenly turn on him like the bible depicts. He was no threat to the common man, but he was to their leaders.

    The second passage that bothers me, is when Pilate supposedly makes a half-assed attempt to "save" Jesus' life, seemingly reluctant to order his execution. Anyone who's read a bit of ancient history knows that Pilate was no saint and did not hesitate to execute anyone who was deemed a possible threat to Roman rule. With the crowds that Jesus had following him, and the tension between the Jews and Romans mounting, it would not have taken too long for say, a few soldiers to make a report to their superiors about a man named Jesus who seemed to be forming a rebellion against Rome.

    And lastly, the scenario that says it was a "custom" for the Romans to release a prisoner to the Jews each year. It describes the Jewish crowds screaming for the release of Barrabas, a condemned killer, and for the execution of Jesus, who had done nothing wrong. There is absolutely no historical evidence whatsoever that the Romans ever had a practice of releasing a Jewish prisoner to the Jews just to be nice. Today, that would be the equivalent of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad releasing a Jewish prisoner to the Jews, just to be a nice guy. It ain't never gonna happen.

    It is felt by many scholars that when these letters that form the New Testament were being written, that there was an effort on the part of the writers to minimize Rome's part in Jesus' execution, and to put the blame primarily on the Jewish people as a whole. This would have been done to incur some favour from Rome, so that perhaps they wouldn't come down so hard on Christians, and let them practice openly, their new faith. As the tensions and hard feelings between regular Jews and the Messianic Jews (who became Christians) mounted, it's not surprising that the Christian's writings reflected these ideas.

    In my opinion, the Jews as a whole did not kill Jesus. He was most likely betrayed by two or three Pharisees, he was turned over to Rome and executed for crimes against Caesar and/or the State.

  • Midget-Sasquatch

    If the incident in the Temple with the money changers was essentially historical, then Jesus would have gotten the attention of the establishment (both Roman and Jewish). That disturbance alone would be enough to brand him as a troublemaker to be subdued. The Romans were the ones who had the ultimate power to execute him. They'd quickly use that option if someone/something threatened their control. I think that the possible way Jesus' actions could have roused some other Jewish dissidents may have been a good enough reason.

    I agree with Mary that the gospels are shifting the blame and the main reasons she listed for it.

  • LongHairGal

    Whatever happened back then is no excuse for anybody hating anyone today. Hopefully, most intelligent people know this.

    The Roman empire is gone and the Pharisees are long gone.

    We cannot help and are not responsible for whatever happened in antiquity. This is a different world than the one of the first century.


  • heathen

    I think mary needs to read the account again . Pilate is quoted as saying he finds no fault in jesus , it is a jewish custom and not a roman one that set a prisoner free , the jews are quoted as saying " his blood be on us and our children" , there you have it . I agree there is no reason for anybody to hate over it , jesus had to die and can fend for himself as he said he could have called angels to defend him but did not because he had to die as the ransom and fulfill prophesy . That was the only reason he came into the world .

  • Mary
    I think mary needs to read the account again . it is a jewish custom and not a roman one that set a prisoner free

    Heathen, I think you need to read the account again. It clearly said: (Matthew 27:15) "..Now from festival to festival it was the custom of the governor to release a prisoner...." Pilate was governor of Judea for the years 26-37CE. And he was a Roman, not a Jew.

    the jews are quoted as saying " his blood be on us and our children" , there you have it.

    Yes, but my point was, there are some highly questionable quotes in the bible and I named them above. History tells us that Pilate was not the weak leader that the NT portrays him as, and there was no reason for the average Jew who had been receptive to Jesus' teachings, to suddenly turn on him. There is no evidence that the Romans ever had a custom of releasing a prisoner to the Jews, so therefore, I surmise that the above quote saying: "his blood be on us and our children" is also highly suspicious. Just because someone wrote these words down 1,900 years ago, doesn't mean these words were actually ever spoken by anyone.

    And even if this quote had been uttered, aas that talking about the entire Jewish race, or simply those few who were responsible for His death? Should all Germans today be held responsible for the death of 6,000,000 Jews during the Holocaust? Should all Italians today be held responsible for Jesus' death? After all, He died under Rome.

  • heathen

    mary - Try John 18:38-40

    I don't think anybody on this board or this thread suggested that modern day jews are responsible for anything 2 thousand years ago , that was a stupid catholic thing .

  • Mary
    Try John 18:38-40

    Interesting. So one book clearly says it was a Roman tradition, another one says it was a Jewish tradition. This also makes me wonder about the validity of some of the scriptures when they contradict each other like that. Either way, history has no record of the Romans ever releasing Jewish prisoners to the Jewish population when this was taking place.

    I don't think anybody on this board or this thread suggested that modern day jews are responsible for anything 2 thousand years ago , that was a stupid catholic thing.

    You're right, I don't this anyone on this board would say that, but believe me, those sentiments are still out there. One of my co-workers is an Orthodox Jew....she's about 30 years old and she told me that when she was growing up, the other kids in school told her that she "murdered Jesus". Pretty sad eh?

  • Skoshi

    It makes much more sense that the Romans killed Jesus for sedition, because crucifixion, in my understanding, was reserved for very heinous crimes such as sedition. The Jews of the time did have the right to execute--by stoning--malefactors of a lesser kind, such as blasphemers. However, as the Evangel went forth into the Roman world, a Roman world in which Jerusalem was no more and the Jews had been all but annihilated, it would not have made sense to blame the real culprits, the Romans. So, Pilate was placed in a sympathetic light as reluctant to crucify Jesus and the Jews taking the blame upon themselves and upon their children. This made the Evangel much more palatable to the Romanized world. "Judas" is simply the word for "Jew." he is not an actual person, but is a single embodiment of the Jewish race.


Share this