Who killed Jesus

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
101

**

OK, Live.org, thanks for the clarification. Now I know what your talking about. Now, let me explain what you saw to you. (Hasidic Gentiles, indeed…)

Jewish law teaches that there are 613 commandments. Those commandments, however, only apply to Jews. Non-Jews are not required to keep the Sabbath, eat only kosher, celebrate the Jewish holidays, etc.

Jewish law does teach, however, that there are seven commandments that non-Jews are required to keep. It’s been stated numerous times on the boards before, but since you’re new here, I’ll re-iterate them. The seven commandments are…

  1. prohibition against murder
  2. prohibition against idolatry
  3. prohibition against forbidden sexual unions (adultery, incest, etc.)
  4. prohibition against eating the flesh of a living animal (you must kill it first)
  5. prohibition against blasphemy
  6. prohibition against theft
  7. obligation to set up civil courts, create laws for the betterment of society and to live by them.

Non-Jews who keep these commandments ARE NOT Hasidim. Hasidic Jews are Jews who belong to a particular sect of Orthodox Judaism. The website you saw was a site put up to teach non-Jews about these seven commandments so that they can live by them (as many of them are anyway).

**

Yes, but when you said “Hasidic Gentile” I had no idea what you were talking about.

I should point out that the site you found is run by a fringe group within the Lubavitch movement. While we do hold that non-Jews are required to keep the seven Noahide commandments, much of the rest of the stuff on that page is not held by the rest of the Orthodox Jewish community.

Zev Steinhardt

102

C K Dexter Haven: Nonsense. I am commenting directly on the report – which is all about religion. The only historical evidences you do have support my views, not yours, and we have covered that ground already.

Do you deny that you have removed and/or justified Jewish involvement in the death of Jesus through your report? If so, you are not being honest. And how did I know that you’d play the race/power cards? Your bias is fairly transparent and I’ve poked enough holes in your report to prove that.

Since you can’t stand up to the test and have failed to answer most of my direct questions, instead burying vague replies in long-winded speeches about assumed scholarship, I will now address this in far more detail elsewhere.

Case closed.

103

Hi Zev: Thanks, I understand. I did not mean to imply that mainstream Jews held those views.

104

Hi tomndebb: I asked who else was associated with a “council” and showed how Jesus and Josephus agreed on the identity of “principal men among us” and unless I’m missing it, I did not receive a clear reply.

I’m sorry if I seem harsh but I also have Jewish ancestors and have worked for years to promote racial equality so I don’t take kindly to veiled accusations, or comments like “rantings and ravings of those who want to blame the Jews, punish the Jews, kill the Jews” simply because I do not believe that Romans were entirely to blame for something that took place in a culture highly influenced by Jewish law. I may also argue against slavery reparations – does that mean I want to kill black people, especially since my wife is black?

That admittedly set me off and would much rather pursue objective debate.

However, since I have been warned to watch my step, I will leave it at that, but I will certainly have my own report on this issue available online sometime soon.

-J

105

<< Do you deny that you have removed and/or justified Jewish involvement in the death of Jesus through your report? >>

I do deny this. The report stated, fairly clearly, that Jewish authorities (mainly the High Priest) were the primary instigator. I have not tried to mitigate that, except to say that the motives were doubtless political rather than religious… for all the reasons listed in the report.

What I have tried to do is to point the specific finger of blame, not on the entire people, but on the few individuals. Even if we accept that Pilate addressed a crowd of Jews (which I have repeatedly said is highly unlikely), that crowd was small and not representative. Those were the Jews in Jerusalem who camed to whatever meeting Pilate called, and were given admittance.

I have not tried to blame the entire Roman Empire, either – I blame Pilate, acting under Roman law.

Now, Live.Org, do you deny that you are trying to remove ROMAN involvement in the death of Jesus through your rantings?

I didn’t “play the race card”, you did, and have continually. You make provocative statements such as:

  • << And the Jewish population was so benign that it had to eventually be destroyed by Rome, I suppose… >> implying that the Jews deserved to be almost exterminated by the Romans

  • << The rest of the report is a methodical gutting of the Gospels to further shift most of the blame to the big, bad Romans in order to let Jews off the hook. >> implying that the Romans are innocent, and “the Jews” are guilty. Not any specific individual Jews, not any specific sect of Jews (you want to blame the Pharisees, be my guest), not any specific population of Jews (like the Jews who were in Jerusalem at that time), but ALL the Jews, then and now.

I don’t care what your race is, nor your wife’s race, nor your ancestry, nor your wife’s ancestry. Your comments verge on the racist and the anti-semitic, and are in line with the comments of those who have used gospel texts over the centuries to commit unChristian-like persecutions and murders of the Jews.

The problem is setting up the dichotomy, that we must blame “the Romans” (who no longer exist) or “the Jews” (who DO still exist.) The staff report tried to point out that both those explanations are way too facile.

In terms of your specific question, which you claim are unanswered, I have no idea what they are. Could you restate them CONCISELY?

I think your “challenges” were:

  • The gospels say that the Pharisees conspired to destroy Jesus… but then don’t say what that means. You choose to interpret that as meaning “drove in the nails.” Tomndebb (and the Staff Report, I thought) interpreted the phrase as inconclusive – the Pharisees may have conspired, but then are not mentioned in the actual execution process. If they had been, surely the gospels would have said so? Anyway, I think Tomndebb’s comments above answer this.

  • You seem to think that the paragraph you’ve quoted from Josephus is meaningful. I have to say, I don’t much care. I make the point (again) that Josephus is a dubious source, both because of who he was (he would say anything that pleased his patrons, including the Emperor) and because of how his manuscripts have survived (copied by individuals who wanted them preserved to help prove their religion.)

  • You seem to think that the Staff Report “gutted” the gospels. I don’t know what to say in reply, except that if I had really wanted to “gut” the gospels, you would have seen a very different report, with very different wording. I went out of my way to treat the gospel account as “accurate”, recognizing that they were compiled from various preachings, not from history text books.

As far as I can tell, your only problem is the scene where Pilate asks the crowd what he should do. As I’ve said many times, I (and most scholars) think this is highly implausible, inconsistent with the Pilate that we know from other sources, and inconsistent with the general application of Roman justice. The Roman law courts were NOT a gladiatorial arena, asking the people to hold thumbs up or thumbs down… although the gospels certainly give that poetic impression through the scene of Pilate addressing the crowd.

OK, let’s say that, despite the implausibility, that scene actually did happen. I add the following obvious point: the entire Jewish population was certainly not there. Not even the entire Jewish population of Jerusalem. Only a small number could have fit into the courtyard, and those would be by invitation only.

So, if you want to have it that Pilate asked a crowd of his Jewish followers, petitioners, sycophants, etc. what to do, fine, by all means have it that way. But that’s very different from blaming “the Jews.”

The conclusion of the Staff Report is unchanged – that the execution was the result of the political tensions, manipulated by the High Priest and his cronies, and carried out by Pilate and his cronies. Those are the people to blame. The law, court system, and process is clearly Roman – the Jewish courts would not have permitted the death sentence for the offenses charged. The Jewish courts would not have used crucifixion as a form of execution, and would not have beat and whipped the victim first.

I think I’ve been through this several times. If you still think your questions aren’t answered, then please tell me CONCISELY what your questions are.

106

No. On this thread you have not shown how “Jesus and Josephus agreed.” You quoted the line from Josephus who leaves the “principal men” unspecified. They could have been the Chief Priest and his associates. They could have been the Sanhedrin. They could have been some other council that none of us have addressed. They could have been Pilate’s Jewish advisors (if he had any). The Josephus text does not identify them.

You then quoted Jesus talking about the scribes and Pharisees sitting in “Moses’ seat.” In the context of the passage, particularly with the reference to the synagogues–local places of prayer and religious discussion–and all the allusions to the Law and moral obligations, Jesus is clearly not talking about the civil or political leaders of the Jewish people, but the moral and religious leadership.

There is no reason to connect the religious and civil leadership of the Jews in the early/middle first century. Certainly the priests performed the necessary religious function of offering sacrifice, but under the direction of the Pharisees (and their establishment of both synagogues and yeshivas), the religious leadership had actually moved away from the Temple. (Particularly since the High Priest was a political appointee, first by the Hasmonean Jewish kings and later by the Roman procurators.)

Thus a reference by Josephus to the “principal men” has no direct connection (with a reasonable argument to be made against such a connection) to the religious leadership that Jesus was challenging.

You have not received a clear reply because I was not aware that you needed your “connection” clarified. I will see whether I can find any specific descriptions of the politics of Jewish power in the time of Pilate, but even if I find it, it seems unlikely that Josephus and Jesus were describing the same people in their rather different comments.

107

Previous Question from Live.Org: Do you deny that you have removed and/or justified Jewish involvement in the death of Jesus through your report?

Straight Dope to Live.Org: I do deny this. The report stated, fairly clearly, that Jewish authorities (mainly the High Priest) were the primary instigator. I have not tried to mitigate that, except to say that the motives were doubtless political rather than religious… for all the reasons listed in the report.

Response from Live.Org: The original reader question was, “Can you give me the straight dope on who in fact was formally and/or morally responsible for the decision to execute Jesus?” Your report says “Caiaphas’ actions were political. He had the official and moral responsibility to preserve the peace and to prevent riots and bloodshed.” You also exclude the Pharisees and claim that the crowds were not there. Your view indicates, then, that Jews were either morally just and/or completely innocent of anything to do with Jesus’ arrest and execution. No moral blame is placed on any Jew. Right or wrong? If I am wrong, which Jew is morally to blame for the death of Jesus? If none, did Jesus deserve to die?

Straight Dope to Live.Org: I have not tried to blame the entire Roman Empire, either – I blame Pilate, acting under Roman law.

Response from Live.Org: Huh? What is this then…

Straight Dope Staff Report: In summary, Jesus was killed because the Roman empire mercilessly put down any possible source of rebellion or riot.

Response from Live.Org: Oops.

Straight Dope to Live.Org: Now, Live.Org, do you deny that you are trying to remove ROMAN involvement in the death of Jesus through your rantings?

Response from Live.Org: Considering your contradictions and the ridiculousness of advising that Christians ought to be thanking those who killed Jesus, do you really want to accuse me of ranting? And as a Christian, I will believe in the Bible until it is disproved – with proof, not conjecture. Does the Bible say that there was no ROMAN involvement in the death of Jesus?

Straight Dope to Live.Org: I didn’t “play the race card”, you did, and have continually. You make provocative statements such as:

  • << And the Jewish population was so benign that it had to eventually be destroyed by Rome, I suppose… >> implying that the Jews deserved to be almost exterminated by the Romans

Response from Live.Org: According to Roman law, the Jews apparently had to be exterminated, I thought you (collectively) believed in the moral justification of law? In reality, I am protesting your minimization of Jewish influence on matters in Jerusalem, even under Roman rule. But following your reasoning, if Jews caused trouble then Rome ought to have had “the official and moral responsibility to preserve the peace and to prevent riots and bloodshed.” Right or wrong? I thought so.

Straight Dope to Live.Org: * << The rest of the report is a methodical gutting of the Gospels to further shift most of the blame to the big, bad Romans in order to let Jews off the hook. >> implying that the Romans are innocent, and “the Jews” are guilty. Not any specific individual Jews, not any specific sect of Jews (you want to blame the Pharisees, be my guest), not any specific population of Jews (like the Jews who were in Jerusalem at that time), but ALL the Jews, then and now. I don’t care what your race is, nor your wife’s race, nor your ancestry, nor your wife’s ancestry. Your comments verge on the racist and the anti-semitic, and are in line with the comments of those who have used gospel texts over the centuries to commit unChristian-like persecutions and murders of the Jews.

Response from Live.Org: Yes, and I also dance in the street every time a suicide bomber strikes in Israel…in reality, if someone puts out a similar report denying that the Holocaust never happened, then I will also speak out. As I said, I’m for the “straight dope” and I didn’t find much of it in your report. I have no problem admitting that I do believe that Jews were responsible for bringing Jesus to a Roman death, as portrayed in the Bible, and I don’t agree with many aspects of Judaism, but that doesn’t constitute hatred, racism, or religious intolerance. Further, your attempts now and in the report to imply that Christians are automatically parties to murder if they believe what the Gospels say seems to be an obvious tactic to avoid the kind of hard criticism and questions I have posed. Contradictory, perhaps?

Straight Dope to Live.Org: The problem is setting up the dichotomy, that we must blame “the Romans” (who no longer exist) or “the Jews” (who DO still exist.) The staff report tried to point out that both those explanations are way too facile.

Response from Live.Org: But it’s not “way too facile” to say it doesn’t matter anyway and that Christians ought to thank responsible parties…or do I smell another contradiction?

Straight Dope to Live.Org: The gospels say that the Pharisees conspired to destroy Jesus… but then don’t say what that means. You choose to interpret that as meaning “drove in the nails.” Tomndebb (and the Staff Report, I thought) interpreted the phrase as inconclusive – the Pharisees may have conspired, but then are not mentioned in the actual execution process. If they had been, surely the gospels would have said so? Anyway, I think Tomndebb’s comments above answer this.

Response from Live.Org: Where did I say that Pharisees drove in the nails? Exaggerating my statements still do not explain yours. The Gospels say that the “council” was at the trial; again, IN THE GOSPELS, WHICH GROUPS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH A COUNCIL HELD TO DESTROY JESUS? And, does the following sound inconclusive? Or, another contradiction…

Straight Dope Staff Report: The conclusion of most scholars is that the Pharisees had nothing to do with Jesus’ arrest and execution…Now that we’ve excluded the most commonly held rationales for Jesus’ arrest, what’s left?

Straight Dope to Live.Org: You seem to think that the paragraph you’ve quoted from Josephus is meaningful. I have to say, I don’t much care. I make the point (again) that Josephus is a dubious source, both because of who he was (he would say anything that pleased his patrons, including the Emperor) and because of how his manuscripts have survived (copied by individuals who wanted them preserved to help prove their religion.)

Response from Live.Org: Your report says that Josephus is our only outside source of Jesus, and you also use his descriptions to discuss rule in Jerusalem…if what Josephus wrote isn’t meaningful, why do you refer to it at all? Or, another contradiction?

Straight Dope to Live.Org: You seem to think that the Staff Report “gutted” the gospels…

Response from Live.Org: If I had a problem with Bill Gates, which would be more effective: telling people to throw out their computers, or convincing them to switch to Mac or Linux? I think you know what I mean.

Straight Dope to Live.Org: As far as I can tell, your only problem is the scene where Pilate asks the crowd what he should do. As I’ve said many times, I (and most scholars) think this is highly implausible, inconsistent with the Pilate that we know from other sources, and inconsistent with the general application of Roman justice. The Roman law courts were NOT a gladiatorial arena, asking the people to hold thumbs up or thumbs down… although the gospels certainly give that poetic impression through the scene of Pilate addressing the crowd.

Response from Live.Org: Pilate and Caiaphas were supposedly ousted by Vitellius due to public disapproval. Also, as in my example of Saddam, history shows that brutal dictators often hold mock displays of humanitarianism to use as propaganda. In this case, your reasoning is rather simplistic (Pilate was a mean guy so he must have always used his fist, not his mouth, etc.) and I hold that the Gospels present a more realistic version than the one you propose.

Straight Dope to Live.Org: So, if you want to have it that Pilate asked a crowd of his Jewish followers, petitioners, sycophants, etc. what to do, fine, by all means have it that way. But that’s very different from blaming “the Jews.”

Response from Live.Org: Agreed, Jesus was supposedly a Jew and I’m not blaming him, either. The “blame” you keep referring to is also not one of emotion but acknowledgment of the more likely scenario, and also a protest against what essentially amounts to saying that the Christian faith is based on a series of lies.

Straight Dope to Live.Org: The conclusion of the Staff Report is unchanged…

Response from Live.Org: Likewise. As for the many contradictions I’ve pointed out, I suggest you read the one about good fruit and bad fruit…it’s a hoot.

(how’s that for poetic impression?)

-J

108

If you don’t believe that the Pharisees, who “held” the “chief seats” and also “held” a “council” to “destroy” Jesus, are not the "principal men among us"who “indicted” Jesus, then…

Who else held a council to indict Jesus that may have helped deliver him to Pilate?

Why is all of Matthew Chapter 23 devoted to the Pharisees? What other group did Jesus criticize to such an extent?

In Matthew 23:29-36 why does Jesus conclude with condemning them to Hell for whipping and crucifying the prophets? Which ones?

Are these statements “minor errors” as well?

109

Two corrections, please strike bold:

To C K Dexter Haven:
“if someone puts out a similar report denying that the Holocaust never happened”

To tomndebb:
“If you don’t believe”

Apologies,
-J

110

Perhaps the Sanhedron (a mixture of Pharisees, Sadducees, and other religious and poltical parties in Judea) as mentioned in Mark’s version?
Perhaps the private councillors of the High Priest?
Perhaps a collection of private individuals who feared that Jesus would attract the attention of the Romans?
One can speculate freely without any hope for resolution.

The make-up of the “council” is not explicit and your scattered attempts to grab random Pharisee related verses from the New Testament and drag them together out of context does nothing to illuminate the subject.
As to Matthew 23, I have already addressed the issue of why the Pharisees were so prominently featured in the gospels. If you are only reading this thread to highlight selected lines and quote them out of context to pretend you have rebutted them while ignoring the substance of the other posts, we are not going to have a fruitful discussion.

For example:
You claim that Dex said

in the very same paragraph that you quote him establishing the participation of the high priest.

Your comments on the distinction between Pilate’s actions and the general milieu of the Roman Empire are also simplistic (and back to your habit of false dichotmies). That the Roman Empire had an attitude toward troublemakers does not exempt Pilate, the individual, from the moral consequences of his action. Nor does Pilate’s interpretation of how to handle troublemakers indict the entire Roman Empire for a single event carried out by a single individual.

You have also set up the straw man that someone has held that the actions of Caiaphas were “moral” while no one has done that. To claim (as you may have, your text was a bit murky) that Jews (or someone) would have considered the actions of Caiaphas “moral” because “they” hold that the law is moral ignores the fact that laws can be unjust and laws can be twisted. No one in this discussion has implied that any group has ever held that all laws are moral (and you have not demonstrated that any group holds such an odd notion). That is not honest discussion.

However, you have demonstrated no historical information that supports your contention that the Jewish people actually had the influence that you impute to them. The fact that you “can’t believe” it only demonstrates your unfamiliarity with history, and does not reflect on the report.

No. You demonstrate a lack both of reading skills and of an apprehension of Christian thought over the last 2,000 years. There have been many Christian commentators who have spoken of the need for Jesus to die. None of them have suggested that Jesus needed to die at the hands of any particular group. The comments regarding the irrelevance of the identities of those responsible and the need for Christians to thank them are both from the foreword to the report and address the religious aspect of the crucifixion. Paul very clearly states that it was necessary for Jesus to suffer and die. For you to twist that opening remark to be some sort of attempt to avoid identifying the responsible parties is ludicrous. Further, your leap from that misunderstanding to this tortured logic

suggests that you have not actually read anything posted. There is no place in the reports or this thread where any reasonable person could make Christians “party to murder” after the fact.

This is more silliness. Noting that the Gospels are not historical reporting does nothing to say that Christianity is based on lies. Drawing hysterical conclusions that are not supported by the presentation does not further the discussion.

111

Nowhere did I say that.

This board does have a policy about pretending, in print, that folks said something they didn’t say. It’s one of the pinned notices, so you should be able to find it easily enough.

112

(1) << No moral blame is placed on any Jew. Right or wrong? If I am wrong, which Jew is morally to blame for the death of Jesus? >>

Dead wrong. Caiaphas and his council/advisors/cronies. Was that not clear from the report?

(2) << I have not tried to blame the entire Roman Empire, either – I blame Pilate, acting under Roman law.

Response from Live.Org: Huh? What is this then…

Straight Dope Staff Report: In summary, Jesus was killed because the Roman empire mercilessly put down any possible source of rebellion or riot.

Response from Live.Org: Oops. >>

No “oops” at all. The Roman empire means Roman law, Roman rule. I nowhere blamed “the Roman people.” The fact that the Roman Empire merciless struck down rebellion is a fact of Roman rule and the Roman legal system.
(3) << According to Roman law, the Jews apparently had to be exterminated, I thought you (collectively) believed in the moral justification of law? >>

Where the hell did you get this?? I thought I was pretty clear that I thought Roman rule was merciless and oppressive, that freedom of speech was unheard of, that preservation of the “peace” and tax collection were their objectives and the welfare (or lives) of the populace be damned, that the legal system allowed almost no (or very limited) appeal, and on and on and on. EMPHASIS: NO, I do NOT believe that civil law is moral justification for anything. I believe that the civil law is an explanation for the actions of the players in this drama, but there’s a difference between “explanation” and “justification.” Read on.

(4) << But following your reasoning, if Jews caused trouble then Rome ought to have had “the official and moral responsibility to preserve the peace and to prevent riots and bloodshed.” Right or wrong? >>

Wrong, again. The High Priest had the “official and moral responsibility” to sacrifice a small number of trouble-makers to preserve the entire population. He tried to do this, and that meant that a handful of rabble-rousers were executed under Roman Law. When the later High Priests FAILED to keep down the trouble-makers, in 70 AD, the Romans came in and destroyed the city and massacred the population. This was perfectly acceptable to the Romans under their laws and rule, but I find it morally utterly offensive.

In short: Caiaphas was living under a Nazi-like regime. He did his best to preserve the peace for the general population, at the cost of sacrificing a few trouble-makers. I find nothing morally incorrect with that stance. When the Roman general says to him, “I will kill those ten troublemakers, or I will kill many thousands of people, you must choose which I do. If you do not choose, then I will kill the thousands.” The moral choice was to allow the ten to be killed.

Thus, Caiaphas made the best moral choice he could. It was not an enviable position.

(5) << In reality, I am protesting your minimization of Jewish influence on matters in Jerusalem, even under Roman rule. >>

Then I suggest you grab a few history books and read them. The Romans ran roughshod over Jewish laws, Jewish tradition, Jewish religion, and Jewish culture at every opportunity. Yes, it is true, when they went too far, there were a few instances where Jewish protests were successful in getting them to pull back.

Rome had ruled Judea for under a hundred years, and there were massive protests, individual protests, and grumbings of rebellion at least every decade and probably more often. When Roman rule finally became too oppressive (around 67 AD), there was open armed revolt which lead to the destruction of Jerusalem (70 AD) and dispersion of the Jews.

No, I am not minimlalizing Jewish influence on matters in Jerusalem under Roman rule.

Overview: I am not gutting the gospels in saying that they were written as preaching, not as history. They are full of parables and sermons and sayings. They emphasize one point or another, depending on the audience. I do not say they lie, I say that they preach. Their purpose is NOT to describe how Roman justice worked, or how Judaic courts functioned, or how Temple sacrifices were carried out, or what the economic underpinings were of the Temple money-changes. Their purpose is to convert people to the new religion. They speak in poetry and parable, they are dramatic and moving.

Quick example: We know for a fact that Caesar Augustus NEVER decreed “that the whole world should be taxed.” Just as a start, he had no power in China or the Americas. Can you accept that “the whole world” is a poetic expression to mean “large hunks of territory under Roman rule, especially in the Mideast”? It is not disrespectful of the gospels to suggest that it was easier (and more dramatic) to say “the whole world” than to say “the territories of Judea, Samaria, and Idumaea, and Syria, but not Galilee.”

That’s what I mean by the gospels being preaching, not history.

In the same way, can you not accept that the expression “the Jews” to be a broad generalization?

I am not being disrespectful of the gospels to treat them in their historic context. To the contrary, I am being very careful to be extremely respectful of them.

Tomndebb has answered the question of why the gospels spend so much time on the Pharisees – they were the primary religious competitor. It’s the same reason that so many early Protestant speeches and writings attacked the Catholics, but made no mention of the Moslems or Hindus.

The later writers found that the world at large had no idea who the Pharisees were, and so just called them all “the Jews.” It was arguably sloppy wording, and it lead to centuries of persecution and murder,which you apparently approve of… and which I, and most people, find a dreadful stain on the history of Christianity.

I am not trying to denounce Christianity, I am only trying to suggest that the expression “the Jews” as used in gospels is an over-simplification for poetic and dramatic purposes, that has had murderous consequences.

Conclusion: Live, I’m not sure what’s going on here. It seems to me that you’re raising an enormous fuss over whether I “minimalized” the involvement of the entire Jewish population. All this other crap is just smoke around your basic point.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course, based on your religious beliefs. And we are entitled to ours, based on historic records, common sense, and an understanding (from other sources) of how the Roman Emperors rules.

You raise the issue of Holocaust deniers. I will tell you my policy with such creatures: I will answer them ONCE, because they may be honestly deluded or ignorant. After that, I decline to get involved in debate, because all they want is the publicity.

I am unwilling to give more public space in this forum to your assertion that the Jews are responsible, the Romans are not, and that the gospels are absolutely accurate in terms of history, economics, and sociology. And I am also unwilling to engage in a discussion where you persistently and maliciously misquote me and then ask “Right or wrong?” You have been WRONG every time. Misquoting people is a violation of the rules of these boards, as Monty points out.

If you want to witness or debate religion, go the Great Debates forum: Who killed Jesus?

Edited to include link to Great Debates forum – Dex

113

To tomndebb:

Perhaps we can debate the concept of Biblical interpretation in another forum. If Jesus criticizing the guilt of Pharisees in whipping and crucifying isn’t prophetic about their involvement in his death, what is it? It certainly casts doubt over the idea that we’ve “we’ve excluded the most commonly held rationales for Jesus’ arrest.” But as requested, enough about that here.

…as doing his moral job to keep the peace, not an immoral job of sending Jesus to his death. I am giving you my interpretation of what has been said, and that I asked “right or wrong” proves that, isn’t leaving that out “quoting me out of context” to claim I have “quoted out of context” or is going round and round making you dizzy? Does the report ever suggest that any Jew acted wrongly? Does Dex as you read further on this post? Yes or no, please.

Do you deny that historical record shows that Pilate was expelled by Vitellius due to public disapproval? Does this indicate that Pilate may have wanted to use that and similar events for propaganda in attempts save his hide? Yes or no, please.

Do you personally believe that the high priest was acting morally or immorally in sending Jesus to his death? Again, read on. Yes or no, please.

Again, Vitellius supposedly expelled Pilate and Caiaphas due to public influence, do you have historical evidence to the contrary? Yes or no, please.

I can read just fine, thanking responsible parties and acknowledging that Jesus’ death was part of God’s plan are two different things. The plan may call for you to go to Heaven, will you thank someone who kills you if it sends you to Heaven? There’s the absurd logic behind that statement. The report says what it says, in my opinion, to minimize any objection over its contents, which were admittedly expected by the Staff. As a Christian, do you believe that who killed Jesus is “irrelevant” or feel the need to thank responsible parties? Yes or no, please.

The report and comments in this thread “imply” that those who believe that the Gospels implicate any Jews are in some way contributing to persecutions and murders of Jews throughout history. Because I have defended the Gospels, have I not been charged with the same thing? Yes or no, please.

When the report says that the Gospels are not accurate, and if Christianity is based on the Gospels, what is it saying, that Christianity is based on a series of truths? Yes or no, please.

To Monty:

The report and justifications here suggest that Rome was responsible for any Jewish involvement, accusing me of playing tricks with your statements doesn’t change that, and it would be pointless for me to do since the entire text is available for anyone to go back and review. If you want me to repost every paragraph I respond to, fine. In the interest of saving space, I have not. I completely reject these accusations as appearing to be an attempt to distract from the discussion at hand, or to get me banned. If you want no further discussion, don’t reply to my posts, it’s that simple.

To C K Dexter Haven:

Absolutely not, especially when you then go on to say that you “find nothing morally incorrect” in this involvement – which is it?

Now, let’s be clear. I am going to give you my interpretation of what you are saying. I’m not misquoting, or pretending, or taking anything out of context. If I am wrong, you go ahead and tell me.

Jesus was a trouble-maker and a rabble-rouser. Caiaphas was morally just in having Jesus arrested and sent to a Roman death. Caiaphas and his gang were the only Jews involved in this. No Jew was morally wrong in taking part in Jesus’ death. Only said Romans were morally wrong. It’s ok to kill ten like Jesus that threaten thousands of Jews, but not ok to kill thousands of Jews that threaten many more Roman citizens.

Any Americans remember the Revolution? I wonder how many would agree in the morality of sacrificing a small number of trouble-makers to preserve the entire population when faced with British destruction?

While I admit that your theory is possible, I find fault with your idea of moral justification and value of individual rights, and I still stand by the Gospels: Jesus was primarily seen as a threat to Jewish religious and political leadership, he was arrested on violations of Jewish Law based on what the council of Pharisees observed, and when that didn’t hold up, he was executed by Rome on claims that he held himself up to be a new King of the Jews, which was the accusation placed over his head on the cross.

If you have anything to add, feel free to reply, otherwise I think we have covered everything.
-J

114

Vitlellius recalled Pilate when threatened by riots from among the Jews. Remember the first rule of the Romans: “keep order.” To equate the ability of the entire Jewish people to demand a change with riots in the wake of a massacre (Mt. Gerizim) with a general ability to influence Roman decisions on a day-to-day basis is, at best, disingenuous. It appears dishonest.

I believe that it is irrelevant to know the specific parties involved in the death of Jesus. I do not feel a need to thank them or excoriate them and I can tell the difference between an off-the-cuff ironic remark and a whatever weird point you are making (that I still don’t understand).

Your first sentence is absolutely false. The statement has been that a too literal misreading of the Gospels has been used as an excuse to justify anti-Jewish actions. There is no statement that those who believe the Gospels are contributing to a persecution of the Jews.
Your insistence that the Gospels need to be read as condemning the Jews is what has seemed to place you in the same category as others who have misinterpreted the Gospels to justify persecution. If your rhetoric sounds like their rhetoric, then people will draw inferences. I do not insist that you desire to persecute the Jews. You do, however, sound like those who do.

(By your wording, I assume you meant untruths to which I reply: )
No.
And your simplistic rendering of the discussion to turn it to support your polemic does not encourage further discussion.
If the Gospels accurately portray the purpose, the general sequence of events, and the accomplishments of the life and ministry of Jesus, then it is irrelevant whether specific details are expressly, literally accurate. We already know that the Gospels are not literally accurate in every detail. There are a number of contradictions among even the synoptic Gospels which shared much of the same material and there are significant differences between the synoptics and the Gospel of John.
People who are aware of the development of historiography recognize that the first century had little or no use for the sort of “factual accuracy” that people of the 21st century demand (and then ignore). Recognizing that fact aids people in avoiding the trap of insisting on a level or variety of accuracy that would have been meaningless to the Evangelists.

To a person who reads the Gospels as they were intended to be read, as proclamations of the message of salvation, and not as the sort of journalistic reporting that we expect from the BBC, they are quite sufficiently accurate regarding the message.
Now, if one approaches the Gospels with an entirely anachronistic belief that they were literal renderings of exact events, one will soon fall victim to a vain attempt to reconcile all the detail contradictions.

One may easily note that the Gospels are accurate in the message without falling into the trap of defending the errors of the details, therefore there is no reason to claim that Christianity is in error because the Gospels are inaccurate.

115

Live,

Let me clue you into something. When I said that Roman Law ruled, that’s exactly what I meant. You might recall that Palestine “back in the day” was part of the Roman Empire. Rome ruled. Pilate certainly wasn’t Jewish and it’s quite obvious that he ruled in Palestine. Just because Rome ruled doesn’t make the High Priest or any of his council Roman.

BTW, did you see CK’s comment about the quotes you’ve attributed to him?

116

<< Jesus was a trouble-maker and a rabble-rouser. Caiaphas was morally just in having Jesus arrested and sent to a Roman death. Caiaphas and his gang were the only Jews involved in this. No Jew was morally wrong in taking part in Jesus’ death. Only said Romans were morally wrong. It’s ok to kill ten like Jesus that threaten thousands of Jews, but not ok to kill thousands of Jews that threaten many more Roman citizens. >>

I think we’re dealing with someone who needs meds here. I’ll go sentence at a time and speak real slow.

<<Jesus was a trouble-maker and a rabble-rouser. >> Yes. His followers called him “king” and he disrupted activities in the Temple. That would label him trouble-maker and rabble-rouser. If you don’t think that of Jesus, you have a very strange view.

<<Caiaphas was morally just in having Jesus arrested and sent to a Roman death. >>

“Just”? No. “Justified”, yes, in my opinion. They were the difficult position of having to harm the few to preserve the peace for many. Note the Caiaphas did NOT order the death of all Jesus’ followers, which happened to other rebels. Caiaphas’s job was preserving the peace. Don’t read modern notions of freedom of the individual and rights of the accused into Roman law – they weren’t there. And Roman law is what dominated.

<< Caiaphas and his gang were the only Jews involved in this. >> I have no idea what roles exactly who played. Jewish scribes may have written it down, Jewish witnesses were called to testify, etc. Caiaphas and his gang were the prime movers.

<< No Jew was morally wrong in taking part in Jesus’ death.>>
Again, it depends on the standards or morality that you apply. I have no idea what may have happened in terms of details. Did one of the Jewish witnesses lie? Possibly. I don’t make blanket statements like “No” or “all” – you do. I only say that Caiaphas made the best decision he could, both legally and morally.

<< Only said Romans were morally wrong. >>
Depends on what Romans you mean, but they were an occupying force. It was Roman law that dominated, Roman authorities who made decisions, Roman soldiers who carried out the decisions. I don’t know why you insist on terms like “only” and “not any” and “all.” It’s far more complex than that.

<< It’s ok to kill ten like Jesus that threaten thousands of Jews, but not ok to kill thousands of Jews that threaten many more Roman citizens. >>

What the f—? Where the hell does this come from? The Jews did not threaten Roman citizens. The Jews were fighting for the independence, and they were squashed like bugs. They threatened only the Roman soldiers and authorities that ruled Judea.

I repeat: this starts to look a lot like religious trolling and not at all like discussion or debate. You continually misquote, distort, and twist what we are saying. You conveniently ignore our responses and continue to make implicit accusations.

Go to your website, publish there whatever rants and stupidities and frothing at the mouth occur to you, and don’t dark on our door again, huh?