Who killed Jesus?

Great Debates
61

Which, I guess, is the rub, here.

You seem to need the theology as presented in the hagiography to be a complete and accurate description of events. Whereas, I recognize that hagiography–especially as practiced in the first century, when even historiography was not subject to the rigors of factual reporting we expect today–may differ from the events as related.

Sure. I believe in the resurrection. I believe it on testimony and the belief of the followers of Jesus. I suspect that they did not record the events in the way that the BBC would have reported them, however. Since you have introduced the Exodus into the discussion, I would note the same thing. I am sure that some group of Hebrews fled conditions of slavery in Egypt, escaping into the Sinai. I do not believe that every plague occurred in the exact order described. I do not believe that Pharoah and his whole army was drowned. I do not believe that there were hundreds of thousands of Hebrews in the flight. I do believe that that people looked back on their history and perceived the hand of God in their deliverance. That tradition was passed down and enlarged upon through time. In the same way, the deeds of Jesus were recorded.

The problem that we encounter is that when you look through the lens of faith and demand that historical events be treated as if the faith-based perceptions were the factual records, you open believers to charges of willful ignorance. Pilate, historically presented as a hard-nosed governor, becomes weak and vacillating. The Pharisees, the group most nearly like Jesus in approach to God’s word, become opponents of God. Actions are attributed to the Jewish leaders that were in violation of both Roman and Jewish law. An outside observer looks at those discrepancies and says “You’re making it up.”
If we recognize that the stories in scripture, even (perhaps especially) when based on actual events, are written to portray an aspect of God’s plan and that the message of the story may differ from the actual events, we may be accused of self-delusion, but we are not accused of lying.

By insisting that the prophetic voice of the Gospels are more factually accurate as history than the historical record, you simply cause unnecessary dissension. By doing so in an insulting way, you actually impede the spreading of the Gospel.

62

We at last have the perfect example of an ad hominem argument - This statement in a discussion about the killing of Jesus:

OK it had a smile.

I know, I know, technically this could be considered an ad hominem argument too.

63

tomndebb: History has no proof to contradict the Gospels, if it did we wouldn’t be debating this. I said I believe the Gospels to be fact, I am not claiming to prove them as fact, only primary evidence. All written evidence and probable circumstance points to the validity of the Gospels, and all other theories are just that, unproven beliefs and opinions, seemingly arrived at with a “less religion = more scholarly” goal in mind. Among other things.

I’m not sure I can understand how you may accept the resurrection but reject other more believable parts of the Gospels, and felt justified in asking since it qualifies you as an expert on the report, but I will leave it at that.

I apologize for any sarcasm, I will fix that by not replying at all to insulting posts which I have been promising to do.

64

That’s an interesting perspective. The Gospel accounts of the great census have numerous problems in terms of what is actually known of the way that the Romans ordered their censuses. The gospels contradict other descriptions of the personality of Pilate. The Gospels identify the “crime” of Jesus as blasphemy when Jewish Law would not consider his actions blasphemous. The Gospels portray the Sanhedrin (alternatively, the High Priest) condemning Jesus to death before sending him to Pilate, yet the Jews had no authority under the Romans to pass such a sentence (and, although you are disputing that with Zev) they had no protocol to permit such a sentence under Jewish Law.

I am not sure what you would consider “proof to contradict the Gospels,” but I suspect that it goes beyond most reasonable measures. You appear to take the Gospels as accurate unless someone provides a specific contradiction of a specific act. At that point, I can’t help you. We simply see the world differently.

65

tomndebb: Through discovered inscriptions and writings of Josephus there is some evidence of conditions allowing for a Roman census in Palestine prior to 6 AD. Lack of proof does not constitute disproof. All it takes is one more definitive inscription of such a census to change that considerably. No proof either way.

Matthew 26:64-66 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.

Mishnah, Sanhedrin 7.5 apparently allows for charges of blasphemy when the Name of God is spoken. Did Jesus speak the Name of God? On authority to pass a sentence, perhaps they acted illegally and sought to cover up their guilt by handing Jesus to Pilate on charges of treason. Many possibilities, no proof yet either way.

Someday perhaps you can explain to me how you believe in the resurrection without a shred of evidence that such a thing would be possible, yet doubt other simple events in the Gospels which may be validated easily over time. Doesn’t that seem a bit contradictory?

66

Ah, but lack of proof does equal lack of proof. If you’re going to assert that something is so, then provide proof for it.

67

Ah, but “we’ve excluded the most commonly held rationales for Jesus’ arrest” because “the conclusion of most scholars is that the Pharisees had nothing to do with Jesus’ arrest and execution” – not because we have any proof, but because we have opinions.

What’s good for the goose…you know the rest.

68

You know, Live; the staff report provided evidence for every assertion made.

69

[pointless hijack]The Jews began to return to England after 1500[/pointless hijack]

70

Live: << I want to know if you think any Jew was morally wrong in the death of Jesus. >>

Sigh. Again and again and again. One last time: I think that Caiaphas and his crowd bear responsibility. I think they were faced with a situation in which all choices are morally dubious, and they made they best decision they could, both morally and politically.

I do NOT think morality is as simple as “right” and “wrong” in all cases. This is a case where there is no answer to morally “right” or “wrong.”

There were situations in the Nazi death camps where sadistic Nazi guards would ask a Jewish parent which of their children should be killed and which saved, choose one, and if you don’t choose, he would kill them both. If a parent made a choice, saved one child over the other, do you think that was “morally wrong” to have sacrificed one child to save the other? Or do you think that was making the best choice possible in a difficult situation.

I think there is also a difference between “morality” and “responsibility.” In the Nazi instance, the responsibility/blame rests with the Nazi, not with the parent.

You repeatedly ask this question, and tomndebb has categorized it as “have you stopped beating your wife.” Is it not a question that can be answered.

So I repeat (over and over): Caiaphas (and his crowd) made the best decision he could in a difficult situation, both morally and politically. He bears responsibility for his decision, but I cannot say that he made a wrong choice.

I ask you again: would you choose to sacrifice one person to save the lives of many thousands? Or would you save the one person and sacrifice the lives of many thousands?

tomndebb says: << Now, I have no doubt that the Pharisees and early Christians were not on good terms. I suspect that some Pharisees talked about how to get Jesus “off the street” or something. >>

Heh. Now, of course, within a generation, we all know that the Christians and the Pharisees (and all Jews) were “not on good terms” and that the Christians didn’t just talk about how to get Jews “off the street”… they robbed, murdered, tortured, and exiled Jews for the next 2,000 years, with only a few exceptions.

Zev says: <<Lastly, there are four methods of execution in Jewish law. Turning someone over to the Romans is not one of them. >>

And I re-emphasize the comment in the Staff Report, that crucifixion was certainly not one of them.

Live quotes Matthew: << Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? >>

This scene is also one of dramatic exaggeration (at best.) First off, as Zev has pointed out, nothing that Jesus said would be viewed as blasphemy under Jewish Law. Idolatry, perhaps, but not blasphemy.

Second, “what further need have we of witnesses” is a grotesque violation of Jewish law, which would have required two eye-witnesses to a capital violation.

Finally, on the questions of prophecies about the Jews rejecting Jesus:
(1) Those prophecies are all ambiguous and could be interpreted to mean almost anything. Most of the “explanation” are very much ex post facto, by later Christians.
(2) The Jews (as a group) have rejected Jesus as Messiah and continue to do so, to this very day. Does not that fulfill your interpretations of those prophecies? Do the prophecies say that the Jews must drive in the nails? Do the prophecies say that a Jewish magistrate must deliver the death sentence?

On a total side track, and FYI, the reason the Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah is exactly that he does NOT fulfill the obvious prophecies. When the Messiah comes, the dead will arise, the lion will lie down with the lamb, the swords will be beat into plowshares, and nation will not make war against nation, and the entire world will recognize the sovereignty and unity of God. None of those things have come to pass: hence Jesus was not the Messiah.

The fact that he was rejected by the Jews just puts him in a category of many hundreds of would-be Messiahs who have been rejected by the Jews. That’s not any particularly convincing prophecy. (And I deny that it was a prophecy at all, of course, but that’s a matter of personal interpretation.)

I also want to repeat, again, the opinions presented in the Staff Report represent the vast majority view of biblical scholars, scholars of Roman law and Empire, archaeologists, historians, textual analysts, etc.

71

The answer is no. Being a subject of roman law was a privilege reserved for Roman Citizens. Barbarians were ruled by their own laws. At least untill the year 212 a.c (after christ) when Emperor Antonino Caracalla extended the citizenship to virtually every person in the empire.

You can continue your discussion.

72

There’s a difference, Estilicon, between being ruled by Roman Law and being a Citizen of Rome.

73

Not really. When “most scholars” hold something as true, they need to be able to support their views with evidence. This does not guarantee that they are correct, but to dismiss them as mere opinion is dishonest.

So what? I did not claim there was no census, I pointed out that the description found in Matthew’s account is not consistent with our knowledge of the manner in which the Romans handled their censuses. There may well have been a census, but we have good reason to believe that it did not occur as described in the Gospel. Which brings us back to my original point. The overall story in the gospels is likely true, but many of the details have historical evidence arguing against them. Give a choice between the hagiography of the gospels and historical records, I’m going to follow history every time.

How does that affect my faith? I have felt the presence of God in my life and have seen the work of the Lord in people I know. I am, therefore, prepared to accept the basic story as provided. I simply do not feel compelled to accept details that appear to be incorrect. I can’t remember whether it was Chesterton or someone else who remarked that he could more easily accept the impossible than than the improbable. It is impossible for a man to return to life from the dead–and I am willing to accept that Jesus raised the officer’s daughter, Lazarus, and himself. It is improbable that the Jewish leadership would violate so many of their own laws to kill an itenerant preacher, therefore I am less inclined to accept that–especially since I can see how the presentation of the story could have been guided by the belief of the authors.

74

Live.Org, I have just two simple questions for you:

  1. Who do you think is responsible for the death of Jesus?
  2. What do you think should be done about it?
75

Just in time for your thread question;

Peter Krassa has penned (or should I say, crayoned) ane new book entitled : Father Ernetti’s Chronovisor : The Creation and Disappearance of the World’s First Time Machine.

I’ll save you the $16.95.

According to the author, with the promotional assitance of Art Bell who I heard last night on the way home from the bar:[ul][li]The Benedictine priest, Fr. Ernetti, with the assistance of 13 anonymous European physicists, invented a “time machine” that was able to record past and future occurances via television circuitry in the late 1950’s[]Going back in time, Ernetti recorded both the crucifiction of Christ and the presentaion of a thought to be extinct play performed in latin in 154AD[]Going into the future, Ernetti recorded a bank robbery on the Iberian peninsula and was able to tip police off prior to its’ occurance. Just in time for the release of Minority Report[]Those “we’re not sharing” rascals at the Vatican refuse to share with the world the Time Machine, nicknamed the Chronovisor. (Wasn’t Chronos the evil god of the underworld in some extinct religion?)[]For fear this wonderous invention could fall into the wrong hands, the Roman Catholic Church heirarchy continues to hide this RCA B&W TV connected to a long string and tin can and won’t show the public the recordings of the crucufiction.[/ul][/li]
Well there you have it, a clue as to where to find the definitive answer to your question. Maybe the 1.8 million visitors to Art’s official website will petition Pope John Paul in the hopes that he’ll sign an exclusive release deal with Blockbuster.

76

hmmmmm…

Art Bell vs JP II?

JP II vs Art Bell?

Art Bell vs JP II?

JP II vs Art Bell?

Art Bell vs JP II?

JP II vs Art Bell?

Art Bell vs JP II?

JP II vs Art Bell?

Who will win?

.

.

.

Who will care?

77

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by JohnBckWLD *
** the Time Machine, nicknamed the Chronovisor. (Wasn’t Chronos the evil god of the underworld in some extinct religion?)[li]**[/li][/QUOTE]

No, Chronos was the Evil Moderator of a forum on the SD…never mind.

dammit.

78

That a Jewish court is authorized to impose the death penalty only when the Sanhedrin is sitting in the Lishchas HaGazis - Sanhedrin 52b. Maimonides, Hilchos Sanhedrin 14:11.

**
Mishna, Sanhedrin 4:1

**

Talmud, based on Sanhedrin 4:1. Maimonides, Hilchos Sanhedrin 11:2.

**

Sanhedrin 4:1

**
Talmud, Sanhedrin 17a.

**

Sanhedrin 72. Maimonides, Hilchos Sanhedrin 12:3

**

Mishna, Sanhedrin 7:1

**

Avodah Zarah 8b. Maimonides, Hilchos Sanhedrin 14:13.

**

Avodah Zarah 8b.

Zev Steinhardt

79

**

No. The Talmud in Avodah Zarah (8b) clearly states that they left because the courts were becoming delinquent. There was an increase in the number of murders around that time. As a result, the cases could not all be judged. Rather than allow miscarriages of justice by not being able to attend to all the trials properly, they removed themselves from the Lishchas HaGazis voluntarily, thus removing any possibility of a death sentence.

[/quote]
**

OMG! I never heard of that…NOT!

Firstly, what does this have to do with who killed Jesus?

I’m making the assumption that the reason you are quoting this passage is to prove that because the Jews rejected Jesus, all these signs that used to happen no longer did.

First of all, your reasoning that these signs no longer occured because the Jews did not follow Jesus is simply without evidence. I could just as easily say that these signs no longer occured because some Jews did follow Jesus and were now being punished for it. THAT explanation would be more in line with the general theme of the Talmud than yours. In truth, the matter is unrelated to the death of Jesus.

I have found that missionaries love to quote that passage on 39b. They see that these signs no longer occured and reason that it was as punishment for rejecting Jesus. In truth, the passage you related was taken out of it’s original context. Let’s put it back and see what we have.

The Talmud on 39a begins a discussion of the declining spiritual state of the Jewish people. The Talmud begins with Shimon HaTzadikk’s tenure as the Kohen Gadol (High Priest). During his forty year tenure, the lot that said “For God” always appeared in the Kohen Gadol’s right hand on Yom Kippur, the crimson wool turned white during the Yom Kippur service, the westernmost light in the menorah would stay lit overnight, the fire on the altar did not require additional wood to remain lit, and there was a blessing on the two loaves offered at Shavouos, so that each kohen was satisfied by a piece no larger than an olive. The Talmud relates that after Shimon HaTzadikk’s death, the spiritual level of the people declined, and so the miracles recounted above started occuring intermittenly. Some years the miracles occured and some they did not. The low point came in the last forty years before the Temple’s destruction, when the spiritual level of the people was such that the miracles did not occur at all.

Furthermore, since you like to quote Yoma, let me send you another quote. The Talmud in Yoma (9b) explictly states why the Temple was destroyed (hint: it had nothing to do with Jesus). The Temple was destroyed becuase the Jews at the time had baseless hatred for one another.

Now that I’ve spent hours researching and answering your questions, how about answering mine. Specifically, which Jews do you hold responsible for Jesus’s death?

Zev Steinhardt

80

**

No. You have a faulty understanding of the Mishna. One is subject to the charge of blasphemy only when making the statement contained in that Mishna while using the name of God. Using the name of God may put you in violation of the third commandment, but it is not a capital offense, as is the offense in the Mishna you referenced.

Do us all a favor, willya? Don’t quote any more Jewish sources unless you’re sure of what you’re talking about…

Zev Steinhardt