Just a couple things really worth mentioning.
Did the response really have to be that long?
The Jews wanted Jesus dead and pressured the Romans to kill Jesus.
See how easy that was?
Another thing, at that time people were not killed on “Crosses”.
They were killed on large wooden stakes.
If Im not mistaken I remember reading where the word Crucifix in its original meaning, meant stake and not “Cross” as we know it today.
From my understanding by the time of Jesus Christ it would of been a stake with a cross. The greek word that is used could be translated stake but it is only translated that way by those with an ax to grind. The cross was an evolution of a stake like method of execution but it had been perfected by the romans and their was an upright beam and a cross beam. I could get some sources on this for you but all my books are in boxes at the moment so it will have to wait till next week when im done moving.
Hello endersshadow. Just FYI, here it is considered a courtesy to link to the article you are on about. Is this it?
No, “the Jews” did nothing of the kind, although the Christian record reports that some Jews (specifically, the Temple power structure) did.
What you mean is the word “crux”; “crucifix” isn’t even a Latin word. But that’s neither here nor there, since the gospels were not written in Latin.
As to the “stake” business, while it is true that the Greek word σταυροσ has “stake” as its root meaning, we know from Roman and Greek sources that the instrument of execution known by that name might at that time be a simple stake or a T shape or the traditional cross shape. And the early church fathers repeatedly refer to the arms being stretched out, which would rule out the first. (The second would appear to be ruled out by the Gospel account that Pilate had a sign placed above Jesus’ head.)
In brief, the “stake” interpretation is pretty much limited to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who aren’t even (by their own estimation) Christians, and to a small minority of the most severely anti-Catholic Protestants.
Easy, yes. Also misleading and distortive and potentially dangerous. That “easy” answer over centuries has led to persecutions, deprivation of rights, not to say robberies against and murders of the Jews. The Romans were no longer around to be made to suffer.
The report tries to correct such gross mis-statements.
This is absurd. Did some Americans invade Iraq? Only the misguided or those suffering from terminal political correctness infer that the fact that the Jews killed Jesus must mean that----to a man-----the entire Jewish population wanted him dead.
The notion that Jesus’s only critics were from the Sanhedrin isn’t supported in the text. While he was wildly popular in some quarters, more than once he had to run for his life, and he was challenged and debated on more than once occasion. In the last night of his life, was the mob that gathered to insist that Barabbas be spared entirely from the Sanhedrin? Of course not.
It’s entirely appropriate and accurate to say “the Jews” killed Jesus. (of course, in the larger context)
Who told you that JWs are not Christians generally, and who told you that they themselves don’t identify themselves as Christians?
How about “Some Jews probably wanted Jesus dead, if he was as big a troublemaker as he is made out to be, and would’ve been fairly pleased that the Romans jumped at any opportunity to kill troublemakers, often using crucifixion because it’s a horrible way to die.”
Pilate as “Good Cop?” It is to laugh! Pilate was a nasty piece of work who needed no encouragement.
Then there’s the part where only three people were crucified that day. Slacking off can be a problem when people get posted to one of the sleepier provinces. That simply wouldn’t do back in Rome.
I find that I cannot continue to participate in this thread while observing the rules of the forum.
Are you serious or are you baiting people?
First, you seem to be confusing “killed Jesus” with “wanted him dead”. And “The Jews” definitely implies all of them, furthermore most people who use that phrasing are intentionally implying all of them. “The Jews” is misleading for several reasons:
As far as I know, the only reason the phrase “The Jews” is used today is because it is a direct translation of what John says. The main reason not to use it today is that it implies antisemitism, and, thus ethnic and religious bigotry.
While they do sometimes self-identify as Christians, they also make a big deal out of not participating in anything labeled Christian by others. They won’t listen to Christian music. celebrate Christian holidays, attend a Christian church, wear any Christian icons, etc. (Note I say won’t, as there is some internal debate about JWs are allowed to do.) And they definitely do not self-identify as Protestant, despite being non-Catholic.
Anyways, the whole separation from anything labeled Christian is why they aren’t regarded by most Christians as merely another denomination, but as a sect.
(My reference is some JW relatives who can point out every one of their beliefs in the various Watchtower magazines.)
Now that I have finally read the report, I have to comment.
The version I’ve always heard is that Pilate did say what he was recorded as saying. The idea of Barrabas being set free would have been hard to lie about. Not all of the Jewish crowd was against Jesus, so Pilate incited the crowd so that they would agree to kill Jesus, and, thus, remain peaceful after the actual killing.
I also don’t think it’s that weird for the guy to have had second thoughts, as he could have thought killing Jesus might incite his followers. By “washing his hand of it”, he made it seem like it was their fault, not his.
Dead serious.
And it appears to me that you’re solidly in the PC crowd. Every single day we use terms akin to ‘the Jews killed Jesus’ without a second thought. ‘The’ Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, not ‘some’ Japanese. There are hundreds of other examples. Contextually we wouldn’t say ‘the’ Americans killed Timothy McVeigh, but we could certainly say that ‘the’ Federal Government put Timothy McVeigh to death without offending Federal Government Employees.
In fact, no Jews killed Jesus, right? Didn’t the Romans killl him? Yet even if we use the silly qualifier “some” Jews we see it as correct because the Jews (oh yea, “some” Jews…) instigated the matter.
They always self-identify as Christian.
Funny enough, if celebrating “Christian holidays”, or refusing to wear icons defines Christianity, none of the Apostles and the early church for hundreds of years after Christ’s death were Christians.
Wierd, huh?
They don’t. As in, I have asked my aunt if she is a Christian and gotten a negative answer. She seemed to have a problem with the word Christ being in it, but the reason may be different. You might be able to pull off “almost always” but not “always”.
I was simply pointing out why somebody might think that Jehovah’s Witnesses aren’t Christians: they have such a vocal disdain for things that are labeled “Christian”, so it would seem odd that they would call themselves that. But you are right. They usually do.
As for what the apostles did, well, they celebrated Easter and tons of Jewish holidays. Holidays that Jehovah’s Witnesses will also not celebrate. As for icons, well, they may not have worn crosses around their necks, but IIRC the ICHTHOS fish was pretty popular.
Finally, note that none of what I have said is meant to disparage Jehovah’s Witness beliefs. That is not my style. I’ve known for a long time to keep my opinions on various religions to myself. There are much more effective ways of getting my ideas across.
Jesus’ real name is Eashoa, and Christ is not a last name it’s a title(also put through the language blender of time). However, I’ll do the rest of the rest of this in American English since Aramaic can be a messy language with alot of slang usage. While American English
is Krispy Kreme clear with no slang usage at all, aint it the truth/lol.
First off, no one killed him, they temporarily disabled him, he came back to his body three days later and left. He had a last supper, broke bread, drank some wine(ahem…that’s all communion is to, you’re not supossed to actually eat him)with his mates and favorite gal Mary. He told them all he loved them, even the traitor. He planned to die and then to rise, so in a way, Jesus had himself killed. There were many responsible for carrying it out, but I’d say the main person after Jesus to set it in motion was Judas and the person who finished it was a Roman soldier who stabbed him in the side, I have no idea what his name was.
Is there some point to this thread? I’m still trying to figure it out. 
Well, since Jesus was Jewish, I guess it was a Jew who killed Jesus.
So the Supreme Leader of the Jews (whoever that was) mobilized the entire Jewish Army (whatever that was) and killed Jesus? Or, alternately, the Jewish Legal System held a trial, found him guilty, sentenced him to death, and executed him? And all this was done in the name of the Jews? Interesting.
:dubious: If your Aunt is a JW, she, without a doubt, considers herself a Christian. JWs always self-identify as Christians. Always.
The Apostles celebrated Easter, huh?
Show me that, ok?