Who killed Jesus?

Great Debates
1

The “Staff Report: Who killed Jesus” has generated considerable discussion in the forum COMMENTS ON STAFF REPORTS, here: “Who killed Jesus?”

In this instance, there is a fine line between comments on the staff report, witnessing, and religious debate. The thread notd above has wandered into the area that I would call witnessing and religious debate, which belongs here. Thus, I am deliberately starting a new thread here for the contenders to continue their debate, if they so choose.

Interested participants might want to look at the Staff Report and the comments by Live.Org (beginning on page 2 of the thread in the COMMENTS ON STAFF REPORT forum) and the responses thereto.

2

I did.
It was part of converting.
Hell, somebody had to.
You want Jesus to dodder of and die for your sins of old age?

3

It was Judas in the kitchen with the wrench.

…oh, I’m going to hell for that joke. :smiley:

4

One last comment, then I’m gone.

From C K Dexter Haven to Live.Org:
“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.”

I said I believed in the Gospels and I meant it, Rome is also to blame in the death of Jesus and by attributing to me things I did not say, you clearly did the very thing you accused me of without basis. It’s easy to “avoid the hard questions” when you label those who disagree with you as trolls, racists, and so on. You approached that in your report and did it to me.

You should be ashamed of yourself, not only for what you call an “expert report” which I easily trashed, along with most of your arguments following, but also for your treatment of those who seek debate, at your invitation.

That’s all…here.

5

“Easily trashed”? Please, get real. All you did was post alternative theories, which fail to explain the events near as thoroughly as did Dex’s report. You seek to explain the circumstances of the crucifiction solely through reference to the Gospels (or at least the verses that support your personal interpretation) and those external sources that support (however weakly or however easily discredited) your version. Instead of accounting for contrary evidence, you ignore it. These are not the a person honestly and disinterestedly evaluating the evidence as a whole.

6

Ummm, Live.org? Perhaps you didn’t catch the important part of Dex’s post:

See, Comments on Staff Reports is for, well, comments. When it turns into a fully-fledged debate it heads here . . .

in our forum . . .

The People’s Court!

Umm, I mean Great Debates.

7

I’m only human, if you keep replying then I will probably answer. And that, andros, is why I kept answering in the other thread. My initial reply would have been my last had no one debated it.

Also note that I never, ever claimed that Rome was not responsible for the death of Jesus, if you want to get technical about it. :slight_smile:

So who is going to admit that this was a false claim against me? Is Dex always right no matter what?

So much for “honestly and disinterestedly evaluating the evidence as a whole,” minty green.

If anyone wants to debate the real issues, let’s go, I’ll take back my earlier promise to stay away. No more nonsense, threats, or charges of racism, though. And I want real answers to my previous questions, not more doubletalk. Like, should we really thank those who killed Jesus? Was any Jew morally wrong regarding the death of Jesus? Stuff like that.

However, if we can’t get this resolved here somehow, I will resolve it elsewhere. That’s a promise I will keep.

-J

8

What does that mean?

All by itself it sounds vaguely threatening, in an impotant psychotic sort of way.

Tris

“It is when I struggle to be brief that I become obscure.” ~ Horace ~

9

Triskadecamus: Do you mean “impotent” or “important” – at any rate, you may like that to be the case in order to further discredit me, but no, had you read my first post by following the provided link then you would have known that I am referring to a written critique on the report in question.

More? This may help: http://www.objectivethought.com/apologetics/debateaxian.html

10

Well, I read the thread.

Live-Org, if everyone on the board was convinced, and agreed with you, I am still entirely in the dark about what they would now believe.

And I still have no idea what resolution you intend to achieve by posting whatever it is you intend to post, wherever it is that you intend to post it. I don’t understand it even a little bit.

But don’t worry, I don’t disagree with you, I just don’t have even the smallest clue what the heck you are trying to convince me of.

Whoever killed my Lord may seek His forgiveness. That sin is my sin, as much as it is the sin of any other man who lives today and that forgiveness too must come from my Lord. Jerusalem was destroyed, and so was Rome. The Legionnaire who thrust the spear into the body of Christ has already gone to his judgment, and I am not privy to that matter either. So, aside from a difference of opinion on the details of political events two thousand years ago, involving far more contention than content I don’t understand what the point of the entire thread is.

But you really should read the sentence I quoted and consider what it sounds like, by itself. It’s troubling.

Tris

“Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all.” ~ Hypatia of Alexandria ~

11

Hi Triskadecamus. Well, as I said, I’m only human, and I can get angry too. I don’t pretend to be a saint just because I’m a Christian. I don’t use it as license to do wrong but I don’t beat myself with it either, I just pray and move on the best I can.

I’m also not the kind of person who goes out condemning so-called “sinners” – I am against abortion but not for prohibition, against the War on Drugs, for freedom of speech, and many other non-fundamentalist concepts.

But the conclusion of the report seems to be that all Jews of that day were either morally right or removed from involvement in the death of Jesus. Something seems to be up, and that is why I poked a bit, just to see what would surface. What resulted is what you see in that thread.

Yes, we all know Jesus died a Roman death. But if we reject certain parts of the Bible regarding Jews then we will have to start removing many more. For example:

Acts 4:10-11 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.

So what Peter says becomes in doubt, as with Jeremiah, Isaiah, and so on, concerning Jesus. I feel free to say that I believe Judaism has been replaced with a New Covenant as foretold in Jeremiah, but I also believe that the Laws of Moses were God-given, not some fabrication whipped-up by sly historians. So there is a big difference in acknowledging what the prophets said, which still does not remove Israel’s share in Heaven, and claiming that much of it is fiction.

Even though I stand firm on my positions, I’ll finish with apologizing to Dex for a private message sent claiming censorship when the other thread was closed. I am apparently still posting, so I was wrong to assume that I couldn’t post anywhere before checking first.

-J

12

It was me. Cthulhu put out the contract.

13

Yes.

14

I almost always stay away from online religious discussions, and I don’t suppose you’ll listen to this anymore than you’ve listened to anyone else, Live.Org but what the hell.

But no one but you seems to see it that way. Everyone else sees the logic behind the report.

The Romans saw a small nuisance, and got rid of it before it became a big nuisance. At the time, it didn’t make a ripple in the empire as a whole, just business as usual.

The local religious leaders also saw a problem, and acted accordingly. Their choice was to get rid of him, or suffer harder consequences from the Romans. It’s entirely possible that they participated in trumped up charges, and pushed for what happened. No one denies that, certainly not Dex.

But that doesn’t makes “Jews” responsible, or “Romans” responsible. It means the individuals involved were responsible, along with the situation and the prevailing laws and attitudes of those in charge. No one has denied this. You seem to be the only one reading the report the other way.

Ah, the defender of the faith. Good thing you’re around to “poke a bit” so we poor souls won’t get lost on our way to salvation.

The Straight Dope is aimed at giving the best information available. Dex did this in the report. If this isn’t the kind of information you want, you’re certainly entitled to your opinion, but you might be more comfortable on another site. Given your comment about “Something seems to be up”, alt.paranoid.religious.wankers comes to mind.

Ugly

15

That’s problematic. The bible is not factually accurate. Given the enormous numbers of internal contradictions (Was Jesus born in a manger or not?), how can it be factual?

16

Ha! Try and take the credit yourself!

17

Dang.
I should’ve said:

Oh, ulhu, too?

:slight_smile:

18

I thought it were the sparrow, with his bow and arrow…

19

Hi RJKUgly:

According to the Gospels, Romans didn’t go looking for Jesus to trap him, Pharisees and “experts in the law” did because he threatened the religious establishment and its control over the masses. Where is it written that Jesus called for people to riot, or for political change? He talked about a spiritual Kingdom of Heaven, the Good News.

Once Pharisees and the crowds are removed from the picture, and the High Priest and his council (which I maintain included said Pharisees) are deemed morally just, who is left among Jews to be at fault for the death of a guy who performed miracles, spoke about love as opposed to the harshness of the Law, and fit the description of a prophetic Messiah?

If none, are you prepared to say that Jesus deserved to die, if the story is true at all?

Urban Ranger:

The bible is not factually accurate.

Proof, please? If anyone had it, either way, he or she would be the most powerful person on the planet. I have my own personal proof through spiritual experiences, that’s enough for me. All I can do is debate possibilities and probabilities when discussing my beliefs with others. That’s all you can do, too, since at this point, anything is possible.

20

Urban Ranger:

s/b

Apologies,
-J