No, ‘the Jews’ did not kill Jesus

[Colt]

I didn’t miss it. It’s historically unlikely.

And you missed the part about the Bible not being an accurate, historical record.

Its the basis for the claim. Jewish followers of Jesus wrote the accounts.

BTW, the Bible of Judaism has a whole bunch of prohibitions that call for the death penalty.....yet its unthinkable that the Jews could ever kill a Liberal spiritual revolutionary accused of blasphemy?


Leviticus 24:11-14
King James Version

11 And the Israelitish woman's son blasphemed the name of the Lord, and cursed. And they brought him unto Moses: (and his mother's name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan

12 And they put him in ward, that the mind of the Lord might be shewed them.

13 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

14 Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Zechariah the son of Jehoiada is one mentioned.

John the Baptist

Jesus, the incarnate Son of God is a good example of rejecting one of their own and killing him.

In terms of killing perceived enemies of Israel Elijah killed a bunch of the prophets of Baal.

9 Then he came there to a cave and lodged there; and behold, the word of the Lord came to him, and He said to him, “What are you doing here, Elijah?” 10 He said, “I have been very zealous for the Lord, the God of hosts; for the sons of Israel have forsaken Your covenant, torn down Your altars and killed Your prophets with the sword. And I alone am left; and they seek my life, to take it away.”

So maybe two guys, none of which were killed by the people?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Its the basis for the claim. Jewish followers of Jesus wrote the accounts.

Hellenized Jews.

 

[Harel13]

Zechariah the son of Jehoiada is one mentioned.

John the Baptist

Jesus, the incarnate Son of God is a good example of rejecting one of their own and killing him.

In terms of killing perceived enemies of Israel Elijah killed a bunch of the prophets of Baal.

9 Then he came there to a cave and lodged there; and behold, the word of the Lord came to him, and He said to him, “What are you doing here, Elijah?” 10 He said, “I have been very zealous for the Lord, the God of hosts; for the sons of Israel have forsaken Your covenant, torn down Your altars and killed Your prophets with the sword. And I alone am left; and they seek my life, to take it away.”

Side note: The main difference between Zechariah ben Yehoyadah and John & Jesus is that 99% of Jews accept Zechariah as a prophet (whatever that might mean to them is beside the point), and reject John & Jesus. Yes, even the people of the Kingdom of Judah who killed Zechariah thought he was a prophet, unlike in the cases of John & Jesus, where they were not thought of as prophets, at least in the eyes of most people.
Carry on.

 

[Colt]

So maybe two guys, none of which were killed by the people?

Killed by the ruling class in Judaism like Jesus. But the mob did vote against Jesus when Pilate tried to absolve himself from the whole sordid affair.

 

[rosends]

Blasphemy could be leveled against anyone arrogantly claiming to have the authority to criticize God's anointed priests. If Jesus did accuse the Temple leaders of being corrupt stewards then they might well have viewed his remarks as blasphemous preludes to violence against them.

the judicial process, though, in Judaism doesn't have a situation in which someone is immediately put on trial (on a capital level especially) and then a decision is leveled so quickly.

 

[Colt]

Hellenized Jews.

The point is that the gospels weren't written by Southern Baptist. And the Jewish authors of the NT books didn't always paint themselves in the best light. They have women as the first to belive in the resurrection while the boys were off hiding out! Thats gotta ding an apostles ego!

 

[Colt]

the judicial process, though, in Judaism doesn't have a situation in which someone is immediately put on trial (on a capital level especially) and then a decision is leveled so quickly.

It did when they hated the man so deeply who constantly embarrassed the quibbling lawyers and spies sent out to trip him up!

 

[rosends]

It did when they hated the man so deeply who constantly embarrassed the quibbling lawyers and spies sent out to trip him up!

No, you see, it didn't. Claiming that it did based on nothing but your own projection of your vision of the human psyche makes this a useless statement.

 

[Colt]

Side note: The main difference between Zechariah ben Yehoyadah and John & Jesus is that 99% of Jews accept Zechariah as a prophet (whatever that might mean to them is beside the point), and reject John & Jesus. Yes, even the people of the Kingdom of Judah who killed Zechariah thought he was a prophet, unlike in the cases of John & Jesus, where they were not thought of as prophets, at least in the eyes of most people.
Carry on.

You make a good point about the acceptance of Zechariah as an "established" prophet. Jesus lived anonymously up until the day of his appearance at the Jordan. His "sudden" pronouncements about himself at 30+ years old were startling even to his own family and home town.


The Rejection at Nazareth
(Matthew 13:53–58; Luke 4:16–30)

1Jesus went on from there and came to His hometown, accompanied by His disciples. 2When the Sabbath came, He began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard Him were astonished. “Where did this man get these ideas?” they asked. “What is this wisdom He has been given? And how can He perform such miracles? 3Isn’t this the carpenter, the son of Mary and the brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? Aren’t His sisters here with us as well?” And they took offense at Him.4Then Jesus said to them, “Only in his hometown, among his relatives, and in his own household is a prophet without honor.” 5So He could not perform any miracles there, except to lay His hands on a few of the sick and heal them. 6And He was amazed at their unbelief.

 

[Colt]

No, you see, it didn't. Claiming that it did based on nothing but your own projection of your vision of the human psyche makes this a useless statement.

Rush to judgment isn't anything new. I bet the Israelites were capable of making other sorts of human errors just like everyone else in the world as hard as it may be to accept. But hey look, honestly, I put myself in the position of the people in that day and I'm sympathetic with the dilemma. What would I have thought had I been an average, devoted Jewish man confronted with this Jesus guy?????

 

[rosends]

Rush to judgment isn't anything new. I bet the Israelites were capable of making other sorts of human errors just like everyone else in the world as hard as it may be to accept. But hey look, honestly, I put myself in the position of the people in that day and I'm sympathetic with the dilemma. What would I have thought had I been an average, devoted Jewish man confronted with this Jesus guy?????

But this is a supposedly an account of a formal judicial process. That would make it subject to the rules of that process. The people supposedly involved wouldn't be the average, devoted Jewish man and the process for judicial review would require many, many steps. The gospel account requires a suspension of anything resembling the official court process within Jewish law.

 

[Colt]

But this is a supposedly an account of a formal judicial process. That would make it subject to the rules of that process. The people supposedly involved wouldn't be the average, devoted Jewish man and the process for judicial review would require many, many steps. The gospel account requires a suspension of anything resembling the official court process within Jewish law.

I agree! The entire procedure was irregular and wholly contrary to the Jewish laws. They were intent upon getting rid of Jesus with some pretense of a court proceeding to take to Pilate. If the authors of the NT records were trying to perpetuate a fraud then they would have done a better job!

 

[metis]

Roman historians tend to read the Jesus/Barabbas account and roll their eyes as it doesn't make sense under Roman law ether, and in more ways than one.

A mistake we often tend to make is to read the scriptures as being objective history, but people back in that day & age were much more subjectively than objectively oriented. Plus, we need to remember that these accounts were written decades after the events being portrayed and were mostly from second-hand sources.

 

[pearl]

The point is that the gospels weren't written by Southern Baptist. And the Jewish authors of the NT books didn't always paint themselves in the best light. They have women as the first to belive in the resurrection while the boys were off hiding out! Thats gotta ding an apostles ego!

Especially given that women were not considered to be lawful or credible witnesses.

 

[rosends]

I agree! The entire procedure was irregular and wholly contrary to the Jewish laws. They were intent upon getting rid of Jesus with some pretense of a court proceeding to take to Pilate. If the authors of the NT records were trying to perpetuate a fraud then they would have done a better job!

So instead of seeing it as a flawed and therefore untrustworthy narrative, you decide that the authors are writing accurately about an entire religious system which is conspiratorily subverting its own methodology. Got it.

 

[Colt]

So instead of seeing it as a flawed and therefore untrustworthy narrative, you decide that the authors are writing accurately about an entire religious system which is conspiratorily subverting its own methodology. Got it.

I'm acknowledging the peculiarities really of much that happened with Jesus. You claim fraud, I'm saying that it appears that the authors are presenting the story as it happened without trying to "fix it" so that a skeptic would be satisfied. The religious authority had sought to have Jesus arrested on occasions before but backed off at the height of his popularity. Do we know that the Sanhedrin had not already convened about the matter of Jesus? The rushed trial before the Passover could have been a mere formality based on a forgone conclusion.


The Plot to Kill Jesus
(Matthew 26:1–5; Luke 22:1–2; John 11:45–57)

1Now the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Breada were two days away, and the chief priests and scribes were looking for a covert way to arrest Jesus and kill Him. 2“But not during the feast,” they said, “or there may be a riot among the people.”


John 10

34Jesus replied, “Is it not written in your Law: ‘I have said you are gods’d? 35If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36then what about the One whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world? How then can you accuse Me of blasphemy for stating that I am the Son of God?37If I am not doing the works of My Father, then do not believe Me. 38But if I am doing them, even though you do not believe Me, believe the works themselves, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I am in the Father.”39At this, they tried again to seize Him, but He escaped their grasp.

Luke 4:28–30

.....drove him out of the town and brought him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they could throw him down the cliff. passing through their midst, he went away.

 

[rosends]

I'm acknowledging the peculiarities really of much that happened with Jesus. You claim fraud, I'm saying that it appears that the authors are presenting the story as it happened without trying to "fix it" so that you would satisfied. The religious authority had had sought to have Jesus arrested on occasions before but backed off at the height of his popularity. Do we know that the Sanhedrin had not already convened about the matter of Jesus? The rushed trial before the Passover could have been a mere formality based on a forgone conclusion.

But again, that's not how the legal proceedings work so you are again expecting an accurate presentation by a singular author, years after the fact of an entire system that is not following its own rules. I mean, the fact that the John 10 quote you cite is a mistranslation of the Hebrew has Jesus saying an incredibly ignorant thing, and one which wouldn't be actionable in a Jewish court, just shows that the authors were making stuff up. But you would rather see the complete Jewish legal system as acting in a way against its own rules.

 

[Harel13]

You make a good point about the acceptance of Zechariah as an "established" prophet. Jesus lived anonymously up until the day of his appearance at the Jordan. His "sudden" pronouncements about himself at 30+ years old were startling even to his own family and home town.


The Rejection at Nazareth
(Matthew 13:53–58; Luke 4:16–30)

1Jesus went on from there and came to His hometown, accompanied by His disciples. 2When the Sabbath came, He began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard Him were astonished. “Where did this man get these ideas?” they asked. “What is this wisdom He has been given? And how can He perform such miracles? 3Isn’t this the carpenter, the son of Mary and the brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? Aren’t His sisters here with us as well?” And they took offense at Him.4Then Jesus said to them, “Only in his hometown, among his relatives, and in his own household is a prophet without honor.” 5So He could not perform any miracles there, except to lay His hands on a few of the sick and heal them. 6And He was amazed at their unbelief.

Then you agree that it is logical that there would be a difference of attitude towards various individuals? Therefore, it would not be correct to say that the deaths of John and Jesus reflect "the Jews hav[ing] a long history of killing even their own prophets" (post 64). If a person is not established as a prophet of the people, then how can he be dumped in the statistics?

 

[Colt]

But again, that's not how the legal proceedings work so you are again expecting an accurate presentation by a singular author, years after the fact of an entire system that is not following its own rules. I mean, the fact that the John 10 quote you cite is a mistranslation of the Hebrew has Jesus saying an incredibly ignorant thing, and one which wouldn't be actionable in a Jewish court, just shows that the authors were making stuff up. But you would rather see the complete Jewish legal system as acting in a way against its own rules.

Its how corrupt legal proceedings work. Jesus was bitterly hated by those who were determined to stop him.