Did the Jews kill Jesus?

LothlorienHeadRush said:
The truth is, no matter what any Christian says (I myself am a strong Roman Catholic), the Holy Bible is not 100% correct. In The New Testament, all the cannon gospels somehow contridict what the other says, and to me, only portions of the NT are correct.
Click to expand...


Spoken like a true Roman Catholic.

But maybe you should start reading all of God's Word, before you judge what is correct and what is not, or is a contradiction.

Because you would know, God knew his choosen people, would kill His son, when He formed Adam from the earth, and when He told Abraham, to take his only son, and kill him at the place I will show you. But then you would know, being the good Roman Catholic, that you are, that this was in the first 3500 years of God's Plan for mankind. And you would know what Prophet, and Chapter is the key for the OT, to see the last 3500 years of God's Plan unfold in the NT.
The Jews have counted the years rightly, only to have Roman Catholic Popes, obscure God's plan for believers, except they overlooked one thing, that the power of Scripture cannot be broken. Look and you shall find, seek and it will be made known to you.

Peace
 
The Fool said:
My reading was always actually that it was not the Jews per se who were held responsible for the death of Jesus, as much as mob mentality itself.

However, remaining with the New Testament accounts, how tenable is such an idea?
Click to expand...
It depends on which gospel you are reading. Have you read John Dominic Crossan's "Who Killed Jesus?"? If not, I highly recommend it. Crossan makes a very strong case for the Gospel of Peter pre-dating and serving as source material for the synoptic gospels and John. Interestingly, one aspect that is changed from the Gospel of Peter in Mark is that Peter has the Sanhedrin convict Jesus AND carry out the crucifixtion as the Roman soldiers look on. Indeed, in Peter, the Romans are converted when the see the risen Jesus.

On Vinegar and Gall

One interesting aspect of the story to trace through the gospels is the vinegar story. This lends very strong credence to Crossan's position that the Gospel of Peter was a source for the passion/ressurection account in Mark (and hence Matthew and Luke). In Peter, the Jews are carrying out the crucifixtion when the solar eclipse occurs. Afraid that night has suddenly fallen, they fear that they are breaking the Levitical law because a body must be buried before nightfall on the day of execution. But Jesus isn't dead yet! What do they do? They fulfill another "messianic prophecy" (Psalm 69:21) by giving him gall mixed with vinegar to poison him to death!

In Mark, the author apparently misses that the gall and vinegar story is a reference to Psalm 69:21 and as a result makes complete nonsense of a story that makes perfect sense in Peter. First of all, it is important to note that, probably for reasons of believability, Mark has the Romans carrying out the crucifixtion rather than the Sanhedrin (though only at the Jews' demand). In Mark 15:33 darkness falls on the crucixtion scene at noon. The Romans couldn't care less about breaking Levitical law so they don't care that Jesus might still be alive at nightfall. They have no reason to poison him as the Jews did in Peter. So in Mark 15:36 the soldiers give Jesus vinegar (what happened to the gall from Psalm 69:21?) and he spontaneously dies as if he were poisoned!

In Matthew it starts to get really confusing. There, the author has the soldiers giving Jesus wine mixed with gall which Jesus refuses to drink (Matt 27:33). What happened to the vinegar? It's in a different part of the story (Matt 27:48) that tracks Mark's account of Jesus spontaneously dying after the soldiers offer him vinegar (no gall). It would appear that the author of Matthew saw the reference to Psalm 69:21 in the vinegar story and sought to put it back in, but since the story had been changed from the Jews performing the crucifixtion to the Romans doing it, it no longer made sense in the form and place that Peter used it. So Matthew followed Mark on the vinegar and inserted ANOTHER reference to include the gall from Psalm 69!

In Luke (Chapter 23), the soldiers offer Jesus vinegar (no gall) and he does not spontaneously die as if poisoned (as in the other three accounts we've looked at). As in Mark, the gall from Psalm 69 is completely missing in Luke.

And in John 19, the soldiers offer Jesus the vinegar (again no gall but at his request for something to drink this time) and Jesus immediately expires upon drinking it (as in Mark).

Just Whose Legs Went Unbroken?

Interestingly, Luke includes the story of the worship of Jesus of one of the zealots being crucified alongside him after the vinegar incident. What's interesting about it is that it is not in Mark - but it is in the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of John.

Crucifixtion did not kill a person by itself ordinarily. A person would die in crucifixtion by suffocation as their weight was pulled across their chest through their arms. The crucifixtion was to torture a person and when time came to kill them the support for their feet would be removed or their legs would be broken.

In the Gospel of Peter, the author includes the worship of Jesus by the other crucified man but has a very interesting detail. Because this man praises Jesus, the Jews (who are doing the crucifixtion in Peter, remember) decide not to break his legs in order to prolong his suffering! Luke has no mention at all of the non-breaking of legs but includes the account of the man worshipping Jesus while being crucified.

But look at what the author of the Gospel of John does! In John 19, the soldiers break the legs of the two men crucified with Jesus to finish them off. When they get to Jesus it is his legs that remain unbroken because he is already dead. John uses this version to slip yet another "messianic prophecy" (reference to Exodus 12:46; Num. 9:12; Psalm 34:20) into the passion/ressurection story. Interestingly, this "prophecy fulfillment" is not in any other gospel and it is directly the opposite of the account in the Gospel of Peter which clearly appears to be the source material or reflective of the source material for the account of the crucifixtion as shown by tracing the vinegar and gall story.
 
the thing that does my head in with all this is that according to jewish law, there are only four ways of carrying out a death sentence. these are beheading, strangulation, burning and stoning. the thing which either the gospels don't appear to care about or know about is actual sanhedrin procedure - now there are only 2 options here:

1. that the sanhedrin did not follow correct procedure, in which case their verdict is invalid and they're disempowered from representing the jewish people as a whole. and from what they are accused of doing, there is absolutely NO way they followed procedure.
2. the various versions of events have been written to make the sanhedrin look bad.

personally, i think it's a combination of both. we know that the priestly hierarchy was subverted by the romans in combination with the later hasmonean rulers and the herods. it seems to me that caiaphas and his buddies are certainly behaving as if this was the case.

of course there's not much notice taken of the separation of powers between the sanhedrin and the priesthood - i'm not even sure it was permitted for the nasi (president) or the av beit din (no. 2) to be the kohen gadol - because they had to appoint him. i think what probably obtained here was the romans imposing their preferred candidate.

in terms of technical procedure, there's no way crucifixion is allowed by jewish law. even the prescribed anaesthetic is ignored. it's just total rubbish from a halachic perspective.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
bananabrain said:
in terms of technical procedure, there's no way crucifixion is allowed by jewish law. even the prescribed anaesthetic is ignored. it's just total rubbish from a halachic perspective.

b'shalom

bananabrain
Click to expand...
That's why I think the authors of Mark and later Matthew and Luke changed the story from Peter - because it made no sense to have anyone other than the Romans carrying out the cricifixtion. Unfortunately, when they made theose changes, it made nonsense of the Gospel of Peter's infusion of Psalm 69:21 into the death of Jesus.
 
I would add that as far as the Jews killing Jesus I'm inclined to doubt that. In fact, given the amazing similarity to other God-man myths prevalent in other "pagan" mystery traditions (Osiris, Dionysis, Attis, Mithras, Adonis and even the Buddah) I'm inclined to doubt that there was an actual, historical crucified Jesus at all. Rather, it appears to be a recasting of the mystery religion of Osiris-Dionysis tailored for Jewish use by incorporating references to messianic prophecy - particularly Psalm 22.

It's particularly interesting that the authors of these texts appear to be Jewish scholars wrote in Greek and worked from the Septuagint. That suggests Hellenized Greek speaking Jews as the authors. Perhaps the Therapeutae of Alexandria and/or the Essenes attempting to create a "Jewish version" of the mystery religions that were so prevalent throughout the Hellenic world. Ironically, most fundamentalist Jews rejected it (as would be expected) and it spawned its own fundamentalist tradition among the Gentiles that was locked into place when "Christianity's" autocratic tendencies made it particularly appealing to Constantine.

It's sad, really. I believe the root of much anti-semitism in the last two thousand years is the defamation of the Jews one gets from a literal reading of the Canonical gospels.
 
I said:
The God-man archetype ac tually goes back way further than Dionysios/Osiris, etc

Hopefully this should be nicely illustrative - from the Internet Book of Shadows:
http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/showthread.php?t=308
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link. Yeah, I'm familiar with older versions of the archetype as well. The list I gave was simply the ones I'm aware were still widely studied at or around the time the first gospels were likely written.
 
bananabrain said:
i'm not sure i would use the word "fundamentalist" in this context, ADD - the word "normative" or "mainstream" would be much more appropriate.

b'shalom

bananabrain
Click to expand...
Actually, I prefer the term "literalist."
 
umph - firstly, i've never seen a convincing argument for the god-man archetype in judaism and, secondly, to refer to mainstream/normative (ie rabbinic) judaism as "literalist" would be to do it a major disservice, seeing as it relies on the interpretative relationship between the Written Torah and the Oral Torah.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
bananabrain said:
umph - firstly, i've never seen a convincing argument for the god-man archetype in judaism and, secondly, to refer to mainstream/normative (ie rabbinic) judaism as "literalist" would be to do it a major disservice, seeing as it relies on the interpretative relationship between the Written Torah and the Oral Torah.

b'shalom

bananabrain
Click to expand...
That's not significantly different from literalist christianity, which relies on the "interpretive relationship" between the written Bible and church doctrine and theology. I don't recall reading anything about the "immaculate conception" of Mary anywhere in the Bible for example.

Also, I don't believe I said that Judaism used a god-man motif (except to the extent that early "christianity" may have been an offshoot of certain Jewish sects).
 
I think everybody is missing the point here. The Jews didn't kill Jesus. The Romans killed Jesus, in a Roman execution. If it had been a Jewish execution he would have been stoned to death. That would never have been allowed to happen because his bones would be broken. He even escaped having his legs broken on the cross, which was standard procedure to speed up death.

Another point being it was not the Jewish people who wanted him killed either. It was the Synagogue fathers. They stirred up the riot, had the false witnesses come in etc. It was nothing to do with Judaism, it was about power. The same old story!

Of course, the Romans had to be involved right? It was all part of the big plan to spread the message. I do not believe Jesus was the son of God, but I do believe that the Great One wanted his message spread. The Romans were the vehicle for this. And look how well they did.
 
Kalimiel said:
I think everybody is missing the point here. The Jews didn't kill Jesus. The Romans killed Jesus, in a Roman execution. If it had been a Jewish execution he would have been stoned to death. That would never have been allowed to happen because his bones would be broken. He even escaped having his legs broken on the cross, which was standard procedure to speed up death.

Another point being it was not the Jewish people who wanted him killed either. It was the Synagogue fathers. They stirred up the riot, had the false witnesses come in etc. It was nothing to do with Judaism, it was about power. The same old story!

Of course, the Romans had to be involved right? It was all part of the big plan to spread the message. I do not believe Jesus was the son of God, but I do believe that the Great One wanted his message spread. The Romans were the vehicle for this. And look how well they did.
Click to expand...
That's why I said it depends on the gospel you are reading.

According to the Gospel of Peter:

And he [Pontius Pilate] delivered him unto the people before the first day of (or on the day before the) unleavened bread, even their feast. And they having taken the Lord pushed him as they ran, and said: Let us hale the Son of God, now that 7 we have gotten authority over him. And they put on him a purple robe, and made him sit upon the seat of judgement, 8 saying: Give righteous judgement, thou King of Israel. And one of them brought a crown of thorns and set it upon the 9 Lord's head; and others stood and did spit in his eyes, and others buffeted his cheeks; and others did prick him with a reed, and some of them scourged him, saying With this honour let us honour (or at this price let us value) the son of God.


That would the "people" aka the Jews. It's significant because the story is following - in exact order the lines of Psalm 22!

Thus, the passage above is a "historicization" of Psalm 22:6-8:

6 But I am a worm and not a man,
scorned by men and despised by the people.
7 All who see me mock me;
they hurl insults, shaking their heads:
8 "He trusts in the LORD ;
let the LORD rescue him.
Let him deliver him,
since he delights in him."


And bananabrain can probably speak to this better than I can, but the events described also correspond to the events in the ceremony of the scapegoat in the temple tradition including the spitting and buffetting and piercing with "reeds." Crossan discusses the almost perfect parallel to the scapegoat in "Who Killed Jesus?"



 
You are quoting from a gospel that it not even in the New Testament canon:

Matthew: Then the governor’s soldiers took Jesus into the Praetorium, and gathered the whole garrison together against him.cb(27,28); 27:28 They stripped him, and put a scarlet robe on him.cb(27,29); 27:29 They braided a crown of thorns and put it on his head, and a reed in his right hand; and they kneeled down before him, and mocked him, saying, “Hail, King of the Jews!”cb(27,30); 27:30 They spat on him, and took the reed and struck him on the head.cb(27,31); 27:31 When they had mocked him, they took the robe off of him, and put his clothes on him, and led him away to crucify him.

Mark: 15:15 Pilate, wishing to please the multitude, released Barabbas to them, and handed over Jesus, when he had flogged him, to be crucified.cb(15,16); 15:16 The soldiers led him away within the court, which is the Praetorium; and they called together the whole cohort.cb(15,17); 15:17 They clothed him with purple, and weaving a crown of thorns, they put it on him.cb(15,18); 15:18 They began to salute him, “Hail, King of the Jews!”cb(15,19); 15:19 They struck his head with a reed, and spat on him, and bowing their knees, did homage to him.cb(15,20); 15:20 When they had mocked him, they took the purple off of him, and put his own garments on him. They led him out to crucify him.cb(15,21); 15:21

Etc.

He was crucified by the soldiers, not the multitudes.
 
Kalimiel said:
You are quoting from a gospel that it not even in the New Testament canon:
Click to expand...
What difference does that make?

Mark's account of the passion/ressurection is probably taken from the Gospel of Peter, as I demonstrate above (and which Crossan demonstrates in much, much greater detail). Thus, the earlier source document is probably the version I quoted, while the synoptics are later modifications. If you read them carefully, you can track the changes from Peter through Mark and them Matthew and Luke.
 
Abogado del Diablo said:
What difference does that make?

Mark's account of the passion/ressurection is probably taken from the Gospel of Peter, as I demonstrate above (and which Crossan demonstrates in much, much greater detail). Thus, the earlier source document is probably the version I quoted, while the synoptics are later modifications. If you read them carefully, you can track the changes from Peter through Mark and them Matthew and Luke.
Click to expand...
Mark knew Jesus, why would he copy from Peter's gospel?
 
Also, it is still clear that the whole passion/ressurection story is a historicization of Psalm 22. Does this look familiar:


14 I am poured out like water,
and all my bones are out of joint.
My heart has turned to wax;
it has melted away within me.
15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd,
and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;
you lay me in the dust of death.
16 Dogs have surrounded me;
a band of evil men has encircled me,
they have pierced my hands and my feet.
17 I can count all my bones;
people stare and gloat over me.
18 They divide my garments among them
and cast lots for my clothing.


The Gospel of Peter is a better historicization of the "messianic prophecy" of Psalm 22 than are the synoptics because that version, like the Psalm, has Jesus scorned by men "and despised by the people." (Psalm 22:6)

In addition, Peter is the only gospel where the historicization of Psalm 69:21 makes sense. The others use references to the language of the Psalm, but only Peter's use of it makes any sense - precisely because his version of the passion/resurrection has the Jews killing Jesus!
 
14 I am poured out like water,
and all my bones are out of joint.
My heart has turned to wax;
it has melted away within me.
15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd,
and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;
you lay me in the dust of death.
16 Dogs have surrounded me;
a band of evil men has encircled me,
they have pierced my hands and my feet.
17 I can count all my bones;
people stare and gloat over me.
18 They divide my garments among them
and cast lots for my clothing.

The above can be seen in the canonical gospels, so I fail to see why you think Peter's gospel is so special.

If you've studied the Gospel of Mark you will see that it was written from a personal perspective, containing much information missing from Matthew Luke and John. Mark was the boy who served at the Last Supper, his family owned the garden of Gethsemane. He was also a friend of Peter later in life.
 
Kalimiel said:
14 I am poured out like water,
and all my bones are out of joint.
My heart has turned to wax;
it has melted away within me.
15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd,
and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;
you lay me in the dust of death.
16 Dogs have surrounded me;
a band of evil men has encircled me,
they have pierced my hands and my feet.
17 I can count all my bones;
people stare and gloat over me.
18 They divide my garments among them
and cast lots for my clothing.

The above can be seen in the canonical gospels, so I fail to see why you think Peter's gospel is so special.
Click to expand...
I know, that was my point. But if you look at the whole Psalm, it is more thoroughly historicized in the Gospel of Peter than it is in the synoptics. That was my other point.

Kalimiel said:
If you've studied the Gospel of Mark you will see that it was written from a personal perspective, containing much information missing from Matthew Luke and John.
Click to expand...
Scholars agree that it was a source for Matthew Luke and John. It is itself borrowing from Peter as the vinegar story demonstrates.

Kalimiel said:
Mark was the boy who served at the Last Supper, his family owned the garden of Gethsemane. He was also a friend of Peter later in life.
Click to expand...
How do you know this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top