I don’t have a copy of “The Guide for the Perplexed” handy. My recollection, if correct, was that Rambam puts forth the explanation of why Jesus was not the Jewish Messiah, and that Jewish Law of that day may very well have found him guilty of heresy and condemned him to die. The death sentence for that crime at that time was stoning and then being hung by a gallows and would not have been done on the eve of Shabbat.
Rambam believed in rational analysis. No he was not an anti-Semite. No he did not commit blood libel.
BTW, there are two parts of the blood libel - One is that Jews killed Jesus. Rambam did not claim they did but, if I recall correctly, said Jewish Law of the time could have justified it, since he was not the Messiah. Two is that the Jewish people forevermore are stained by and deserving of punishment for the actions of what is claimed to have been the actions of small few of many of the time, in a time long ago, when his followers were Jews too.
Perhaps someone with a copy can quote some exact text?
I think you have to differentiate between the Jesus-killing as a reason versus an excuse.
Now, I happen to be an ex-Catholic who has not set foot in a Catholic Church for almost 50 years. But I must say that in my many years of Roman Catholic indoctrination, which was a good waste of educational time and energy, I was NOT ONCE told by any priest or nun that the Jews were responsible for killing Jesus. And this was in the 50s and 60s.
The concept that any group would be responsible for the death of Jesus is patently ridiculous. What are the anti-semites saying? That Jesus was meant to die at a ripe old age with his children and grandchildren around him, and would have done so if not for those “evil” Jews? Of course not. This flies in the very face of Christian doctrine, which is that God chose to come down and be sacrificed.
So what if some of the main actors were Jews? The event happened in Judea. Did you expect them to be mainly Chinese? His mother, his disciples, his many supporters, ALL JEWS, opposed his death. Romans and the collaborator Jewish element in Judea called for his death. It’s that simple. No such thing as a nation being responsible.
If you are accepting a false premise, you cannot argue about the validity of any outcome of that false premise.
The trap is to accept the existence of the Christian god. Since you do, or you allow Christians to present that statement as valid, there’s no legitimate logical statement you can make about anything else Christians claim.
That’s not true; people do it all the time when they argue about hypothetical situations like “what if Hitler were assassinated”.
Not true, since they make plenty of claims that are illogical or contrafactual even if you accept that their god exists. The Problem of Evil being a famous example of such a criticism. It isn’t like they simply claim there’s a"God" and that’s it; they make many, many other assertions.
I don’t get the “Jews Killed Jesus” thing.
It is a cornerstone of Christian theology that Jesus HAD to suffer and die …witness his own prayer “Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me”
Whover was responsible was acting in fulfillment of a divine plan, and had no choice in the matter.
In any even, Jesus triumphed over death, and mankind was redeemed. Wasn’t this the logical end of Jesus’ mission on earth?
There’s the point I made earlier. The real “crime” of the Jews wasn’t helping to kill Jesus. It was rejecting his message and not converting to Christianity.
Jesus’ mission wasn’t to stay alive. It was the convert people.
That’s why the Romans don’t have the same burden of collective guilt. They converted to Christianity and therefore helped Jesus’ missions succeed. The fact that they executed Jesus before converting is seen as incidental. Same principle with the converts like Peter and Paul - they converted so they have no guilt for rejecting Jesus.
It has never against Jewish law to claim to be the Messiah. Such a person might be (so far always has been) wrong, but it’s not against any Jewish law, and it’s certainly not a capital crime.
You’re thinking of the Blood Curse, which is different from the Blood Libel. The quote is from Matthew 27:24-25:
When Pilate saw that he could not prevail, but rather that a tumult was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, “I am innocent of the blood of this just person. See ye to it.” Then answered all the people and said, “His blood be on us, and on our children!” (KJV)