The reason Jesus was crucified was because he upset the Pharisees. Pharisees were extremely legalistic and Jesus didnt’ care what they thought. They were upset by the the company he took (tax collectors, the sinners of the time, etc), the things he said (the meek are going to inherit the Kingdom of Heaven?), and how he exposed them (“Woe to you, Pharisee…”). Basically, he upset the status quo. And it was the Father’s Will that this all happen. A really good book is The Jesus I Never Knew by Phillip Yancey. In this book, you come to understand why the leaders of the time were so put off by Jesus.
When John the Baptist was sitting in jail, he sent a message back to Jesus and essentially asked him if he was the one that they had been waiting for (the messiah) or should they expect someone else (this is related in both Matthew 11:2-6 and Luke 7: 18-35) Jesus sent a message back to him saying that the blind have been given sight, the deaf hear, lepers have been cured and the dead have been brought back to life. These things were talked about as signs that the Son of God had come. Jesus was assuring John the Baptist that, yes, he was the Messiah that they were waiting for. He was the one who was to come.
Keep in mind, Jesus was not exactly what the Jews were expecting. Most were expecting him to be a great leader with possibly more coersive and political power. So John the Baptist’s doubts were not completely unfounded.
Another point to consider is that “rex” (the word translated as “king”) was a very negative word to the Romans: To them, it had much the same connotations that “dictator” has to us. It would be a big deal for anyone to claim to be a rex, even Caesar (or perhaps, especially Caesar).
Now also consider that he hung out with at least one known terrorist (Simon the Zealot; again, the Romans would have viewed the Zealots much the same way we view Al Qaida). And of course, he wasn’t even a Roman citizen (which would have offered him some degree of protection; Paul got a lot of milage out of his citizenship). The Romans had a very simple policy for non-citizens who hung out with terrorists and called themselves dictators.
Note: Blasphemy under Jewish law means disrespectfully uttering the ineffable name of God. Saying you’re His son might have gotten you some strange looks, but it isn’t against any law.
By Christian records. By Jewish records, the Pharisees were far from judgmental hypocrites, but devout and compassionate men who tried to discern God’s will and help Judaism adapt to changing circumstances. It’s hard to pin down for sure exactly what happened, when for centuries you could be executed for even asking the question.
So it’s OK to say this:
but it isn’t OK to call that action anti-Semitism? What could it be called then? Seriously.
Could you post some examples of anti-Semitism in the Gospels?
I thought his crime was re-broadcasting the events and descritptions of a Major League Baseball game without getting permission.[sup]1[/sup]
Wow, they are really strict about enforcing that.
[sup]1[/sup] Other sources claim that he tore the “Do Not Remove” tag off of his mattress.
LMAO
Right, they could have release Woger. Or Wodewick…
Well, maybe that topic should be continued to another thread, like the man said. Honestly, I didn’t know you guys would get mad at me for that. I didn’t mean it as a zinger, I meant it in good faith as a serious question that was a followup to what aldiboronti said. It didn’t occur to me that there was much difference between aldi’s post and mine–unless “anti-Semitic” is too loaded a word to use. It hadn’t occurred to me that others might see it that way, so if I gave offense, I’m sorry. When I was raised Catholic, every year there was a service re-enacting the Passion story, with audience participation. The congregation took the role of the Jews and said things like “Crucify him! Crucify him!” And there was pint-sized me, speaking the words along with everyone else. When I grew up and learned that such verses in the gospel had been used as an excuse for persecuting Jews, I felt sicked and used; I want some way to atone for having taken part in that. I feel dirty.
I know you meant it in good faith. When people use the Bible to make it into something it is not, it makes me sick too. Now, the Jews did scream out “Crucify him” but it was a huge crowd and sometimes people will follow a few in the crowd and not know what they are saying.
The Bible is not anti-Semetic but it has been used for that purpose and that is a misuse. Jesus was a Jew, all his followers were Jews. It has also been used for racism, domestic violence, etc and those are all misuses. You really do need to work on forgiving yourself. You haven’t done anything wrong.
Peace.
First off, everyone should adjourn to the Straight Dope Archives and read the SDSAB report on Who killed Jesus?
Now, as to some points raised (or attempted) here:
In short: No. As coffeecat has already mentioned, there is a somewhat distorted view of the Pharisees that we may take from the Gospels. One thing to remember is that the Pharisees were a movement that included a lot of different people. As it happens, they were a political movement dedicated to reforming Judaism and holding it to its roots in the face of hellenizing culture that would have weakened Judaism and made it just one weak religion among many.
As a political movement, the Pharisees had only held power for a very short period around 60 years prior to the birth of Jesus. Other than that, they served only as the “loyal opposition.” I know that Mark has a passage in which the Pharisees conspire with the rest of the Jewish political establishment, but that seems unlikely, given what we know about the period.
There is simply no reason to ascribe power and authority to a group who so clearly lacked either.
Regarding the charge of blasphemy. Most discussions of that charge have come back with the information that, based on actual Jewish law, and not the law interpreted by writers (generally Gentile) living years after the events, nothing in the Gospel accounts amount to balsphemy. The one argument against that is found in the Gospels in which Jesus says “I am” during questioning. The Gospels, of course, were written in Greek and Jesus probably spoke Aramaic, but a charge of blasphemy might have been declared if, when Jesus said “I am.” he used the archaic form of the phrase in Hebrew (which would not have translated accurately to Greek) that indicated the name of God, rendered with the Tetragammaton (sloppily rendered as “Jehovah” in some sects). Of course, even getting Jesus charged with blasphemy does not result in a deatrh sentence, since the Jews were unable to carry out such a sentence. Beyond that, the Jews had no provisions for or traditions of cucifixion, so blaming the Jews for the death of Jesus has several obstacles in the way.
I think the closest He came to this is “he who sees Me sees the Father”
It’s extremely doubtful that Jesus was executed for “blaspehmy.” Why, exactly, would the Romans care that he broke the laws of a religion in which they had no belief? What they were concerned with was keeping political order, not making sure everyone followed Jewish religious law.
No, Jesus was executed because he was a political rabble-rouser. As Chronos pointed out, he was hanging out with some pretty unsavory characters as far as politcs go-- not only Simon, but Judas Iscariot (as I’ve heard, “Iscariot” means “the knife”, indicating that Judas was an assasin.) At least one tax collector quit his job because of the message of Jesus. He also said things like, “I come not to bring peace, but the sword.”
It’s possible the religious authorities of the day wanted him dead, but Jesus wasn’t the only person preaching a messianic message. It’s extremely doubtful they thought Jesus would be of any future religious importance, because to them, he would have just seemed like another kook. So, when (or if), they approached the Roman authorities, they probably emphasized his political troublemaking. Nor is it certain that the Pharisees were involved at all-- this could have been the invention of the apostles to make Jesus seem more important-- that his message was “dangerous” enough to inspire persecution.
At this same time that Jesus called God his Father, he also remined them of the 82,d(or 81st) psalm. where their fathers were also called God,JESUS called all people son’s of god and most all the time said:My Father and Yours. No special claime to divinity in the sense that people think of it now.
I translate Jesus telling the Apostles that the bread and wine were his body and blood meant: that we are sustained by food and drink,since he was not yet dead in reality it was not his body and blood.
Monavis
As other posters have noted, these are separate questions.
A preliminary point: there are two ways to approach this. Each is valid, within its own set of presuppositions.
- What charges do the Gospels identify?
- What might we think, with hindsight, actually happened?
For example: did Jesus break laws against blasphemy? The Gospels indicate that this was a charge brought against him. (Presupposition 1) One might argue either that a charge of blasphemy was improbable, or that he himself probably didn’t actually say anything which would call for such a charge. (Presupposition 2) Personally, I consider question 1 resolvable. We can see what the Gospels say. Question 2, in my opinion, runs the grave risk of making up an historical myth whose main virtue is that it appeals to 21st century expectations of how reality ought to have gone.
So: according to the Gospels, Jesus was indeed accused of blasphemy: both for claiming the authority to forgive sins (Mark 2.7) and for claiming to be the Messiah (Mark 14.61-64, John 10.33). That was not the charge on which he was crucified; it would have been no offense under Roman law. But it may have been the charge which led to his arrest. (Consider Al Capone: convicted, as I recall, for tax evasion; but that wasn’t why anybody thought it worth bringing him to trial.)
Jesus was also accused, repeatedly, of breaking the Sabbath. (Mark 2.23-28, Mark 3.2-6, etc.)
That is what the Gospels record (Presupposition 1). I would be prepared to guess that is actually “what happened” (Presupposition 2). Would these have been a capital crime under Roman law? No. Would they have made Jesus hated by reform-minded persons? Quite possibly.
What crime was he sentenced to crucifixion for? As other posters have noted, the accusation that he:
- Claimed to be a “King”. (In itself, for the Romans, a red-flag word.)
- Was associated with dangerous elements.
- Was nobody of political importance anyway; there was no real “down side” to executing him.
OK- clarification moment here.
The Pharisee party held that the Prophets & the Writings were to Holy Scripture along with Torah, and believed in the concepts of Oral Torah, Messiah, angels, the afterlife/resurrection.
They consisted of rabbis & laity & were a more “popular” movement that the Sadducees who were priestly aristocrats. The Pharisaic Oral Torah which became codified into the Talmuds constituted a “fence” of laws around the Law- in some places, showing deep judicial thought, and in other places, legalistic nitpicking. Within the Pharisees were followers of Rabbi Hillel, regarded as more compassionate & supportive of outreach to the Gentiles. and those of Rabbi Shammai, regarded as more law- & ethno-centric.
The Sadducees as I said were the Priestly Aristocracy who actually held the offices of power in JC’s day. They tended to focus on Torah alone & reject the above Pharisaic concepts as unScriptural innovations.
JC tended to Hillelian Pharisaism, except JC was stricter about divorce. The legalistic Pharisees opposing him may well have been Shammaists who would have been offended by some of JC’s handling of Torah as well as his Gentile-inclusive policies.
Three Jewish groups JC would have threatened-
the Aristorcratic Sadducees who feared a challenge to their governing authority & upset of the status quo with Rome;
the legalistic & Israel-first type of Pharisees who feared a challenge to their popular
authority, lenient handling of the Law, and inclusion of the Gentiles;
those tax-collectors, whoremongers & sinners who resented JC’s incursion among them to do his evangelistic work (remember, he didn’t dine with them in approval of them but to challenge them to turn back to God).
Those three groups may have opposed each other but they could well join against a common enemy. Status-quo Sadducees provided the official opposition, legalistic Pharisees the religious opposition, and the riffraff provided the mob. Each side able to comfort themselves that the best interests of all was in getting rid of JC.
You mean, the Judean People’s Front?
Chronos
NO !! I mean the People’s Front of Judea !! (a totally different group)
… and they hate the Romans a lot.
That piece of hallibut was good enough for Jehovah.