Did the Jews really kill Jesus?

[mikewhitney]

You are entirely free to do so, if that is your wish.

What early commission and from whom?

Not as many as later martyrologies would lead you to believe.

The Christian church and religion has always been quite prepared to destroy those who do not accept the prevailing orthodoxy [whatever that was deemed to be].

good whitewash.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

good whitewash.

No. It is based on what we know.

The number of early Christians who died for their faith was not as great as later martryologies would claim and the Christian church and religion has a long and bloody history of oppression and repression.

[Trucker]

good whitewash.

And by an apparent expert in the art of "Whitewashing"!! Postmodernism at it's best!!

And, before anyone screams INSULT ... i'M complimenting the lady on her ability to "whitewash"!!

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

And by an apparent expert in the art of "Whitewashing"!! Postmodernism at it's best!!

And, before anyone screams INSULT ... i'M complimenting the lady on her ability to "whitewash"!!

In some respects many early Christian religious fanatics were no better than their modern counterparts in Daesh. IS is not the first fanatical religious group to smash up buildings in Palmyra, and other ancient sites.

[Trucker]

IS is not the first fanatical religious group to smash up buildings in Palmyra, and other ancient sites.

Diversionary. i never mentioned ISIS which I assume you refer to when you say "IS". I spoke of ISLAM and Islam is here. Islam is now. An d Islam is doing very well. And I did present you some hard facts on Islam which you simply hand waved off. Typical.I do realize this is probably not the proper forum for a serious discussion on Islam, but I was addressing your comments. Come on over to the Islam board here is you wish to discuss Islam.

You are really good and diversions!

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Diversionary. i never mentioned ISIS which I assume you refer to when you say "IS". I spoke of ISLAM and Islam is here. Islam is now. An d Islam is doing very well. And I did present you some hard facts on Islam which you simply hand waved off. Typical.I do realize this is probably not the proper forum for a serious discussion on Islam, but I was addressing your comments. Come on over to the Islam board here is you wish to discuss Islam.

You are really good and diversions!

The tragic fact remains that Christianity has a long bloodthirsty and destructive history, just as repellent as any brutalities or destruction done in the name of Islam in recent history.

Nor, contrary to Mike's assumptions, were the numbers of early Christians executed for their political behaviour as great as later martyrologies would suggest.

[mikewhitney]

The tragic fact remains that Christianity has a long bloodthirsty and destructive history, just as repellent as any brutalities or destruction done in the name of Islam in recent history.

Nor, contrary to Mike's assumptions, were the numbers of early Christians executed for their political behaviour as great as later martyrologies would suggest.

If you want to look at Judaism from a modern naturalistic perspective, the tribes of Israel were bloodthirsty. They are guilty of genocide.

The other thing that has to be considered is that "leaders" among Christian groups can act bad without the general Christians being bad. Any evils done simply fall back on the humanity characteristics of all people -- the hearts set against God. This happened among Jews too. You keep painting with a broad brush. You like to use the worst of ancient situations (probably many that were justifiable) to describe all Christians. There also Christian groups that did not participate in any power grabs.

If you misunderstand a math book, that does not mean that the math book was wrong. Your logic follows this path.

[rogue06]

My argument is that the Jews did not kill Jesus. That they are accused of doing so is nothing but Christian apologetics and has led to the Jewish people being persecuted by the Christian church, and its adherents, for upward of 1700 years.

The Jewish Messiah was not expected to be executed by Rome - hence for the Jewish people, Jesus, as with all those other messianic claimants before and after him, was not the Messiah.

From Jews for Judaism https://www.jewsforjudaism.org/knowl...s-the-messiah/

a. The Messiah According To Judaism
One of the basic premises upon which Christianity rests is that Jesus was the Messiah predicted in the Jewish Bible. Judaism has always rejected this belief. Since the goal of “Hebrew Christian” missionaries is to convince Jews that Jesus did in fact fulfill the requirements of the promised Messiah, it is necessary to examine the Jewish understanding of the Messiah to understand why such claims are simply not true.

b. The Hebrew Roots Of The Word “Messiah”
The Hebrew word for “Messiah” is “Moshiach - .” The literal and proper translation of this word is “anointed,” which refers to a ritual of anointing and consecrating someone or something with oil (I Samuel 10:1-2). It is used throughout the Jewish Bible in reference to a wide variety of individuals and/or objects; for example, a Jewish king (I Kings 1:39), Jewish priests (Leviticus 4:3), prophets (Isaiah 61:1), the Jewish Temple and its utensils (Exodus 40:9-11), unleavened bread (Numbers 6:15), and a non-Jewish king (Cyrus king of Persia, Isaiah 45:1). *

* Some form of the Hebrew word moshiach is used over 150 times in the Jewish bible. Christians consistently translate this word as anointed, except in the ninth chapter of Daniel. In this chapter missionaries deviate from this and other correct translations in an attempt to prove that the messiah came before the destruction of the Second Temple. Rather than speaking about “the messiah,” when read in context and with a correct translation this chapter clearly speaks about two different “anointed” subjects hundreds of years apart. a) The first is the anointed King Cyrus (Isaiah 45:1) who granted permission to the Jews to return and build the Second Temple 52 years “7 weeks of years” after the destruction of the First Temple. b) The second is the anointed priesthood (Leviticus 4:3) that was terminated 434 years “62 weeks of years” later.

c. The Criteria To Be Fulfilled By The Jewish Messiah
In accurate translations of Jewish Scriptures, the word “Moshiach” is never translated as “Messiah,” but as “anointed.” Nevertheless, Judaism has always maintained a fundamental belief in a Messianic figure. Since the concept of a Messiah is one that was given by God to the Jews, Jewish tradition is best qualified to describe and recognize the expected Messiah. This tradition has its foundation in numerous biblical references, many of which are cited below. Judaism understands the Messiah to be a human being (with no connotation of deity or divinity) who will bring about certain changes in the world and who must fulfill certain specific criteria before being acknowledged as the Messiah.

These specific criteria are as follows:

1) He must be Jewish. (Deuteronomy. 17:15, Numbers 24:17)

2) He must be a member of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10) and a direct male descendant of King David (I Chronicles 17:11, Psalms 89:29-38, Jeremiah 33:17, II Samuel 7:12-16) and King Solomon.

(I Chronicles 22:10, II Chronicles 7:18)

3) He must gather the Jewish people from exile and return them to Israel. (Isaiah 27:12-13, Isaiah 11:12)

4) He must rebuild the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. (Micah 4:1)

5) He must bring world peace. (Isaiah 2:4, Isaiah 11:6, Micah 4:3)

6) He must influence the entire world to acknowledge and serve one G-d. (Isaiah 11:9, Isaiah 40:5, Zephaniah 3:9)

All of these criteria for the Messiah are best stated in chapter 37:24-28 of the book of Ezekiel:

“and My servant David will be a king over them, and they will all have one shepherd, and they will walk in My ordinances, and keep My statutes, and observe them, and they shall live on the land that I gave to Jacob My servant...and I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant and I will set my sanctuary in their midst forever and My dwelling place shall be with them, and I will be their G-d and they will be My people. And the nations will know that I am the Lord who sanctifies Israel, when My sanctuary is in their midst forever.” (Ezekiel 37:24-28)

Emphasis: If an individual fails to fulfill even one of these conditions, then he cannot be the Messiah!

What else would you expect from a group solely dedicated to keeping Jews from converting?

[mikewhitney]

My argument is that the Jews did not kill Jesus. That they are accused of doing so is nothing but Christian apologetics and has led to the Jewish people being persecuted by the Christian church, and its adherents, for upward of 1700 years.

The Jewish Messiah was not expected to be executed by Rome - hence for the Jewish people, Jesus, as with all those other messianic claimants before and after him, was not the Messiah.

From Jews for Judaism https://www.jewsforjudaism.org/knowl...s-the-messiah/

[i]a. The Messiah According To Judaism
One of the basic premises upon which Christianity rests is that Jesus was the Messiah predicted in the Jewish Bible. Judaism has always rejected this belief. Since the goal of “Hebrew Christian” missionaries is to convince Jews that Jesus did in fact fulfill the requirements of the promised Messiah, it is necessary to examine the Jewish understanding of the Messiah to understand why such claims are simply not true.

I forget if I mentioned this. Many Jews recognized they were not right with God. The lack of independence ... to rule on their own ... was recognized as the failure to be obedient to God. This is why there were followers of the false Messiahs. The timing of Daniel also pointed to that era for the arrival of the Messiah. So indeed it was fully proper for the true Messiah, Jesus, to arrive at the right point in time.

It is only the disobedient part of Judaism that rejected Jesus as the Messiah in the first century. The obedient Jews acknowledged their sins and came to Jesus as the Messiah. Those who recognize Jesus as the Messiah also recognize Jesus fulfilled all the requirements -- even those which the Pharisees and other teachers added on to the list of requirements.


The preaching of Peter in Acts 2 is not an "apologetic" but is just a record of what Peter preached and how the people responded. You have to provide video recordings of Peter preaching something else in order to prove he didn't say this.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

What else would you expect from a group solely dedicated to keeping Jews from converting?

That is not the point at issue. Jewish messianism was appropriated by Christianity and adapted for its own specific theological purposes.

You appear to have forgotten I Kings 1.32-46. That is the original meaning and understanding of Messiah [anointed].

As a matter of interest how do you personally feel about Mormons, or some other group, coming into Christian communities and [as they do] attempting to proselytise? After all the Mormons have all the trappings of Christianity, not to mention a few of their own devising, I would suggest that you are perfectly justified in feeling a sense of outrage. Yet you appear surprised that Jews continue to feel aggrieved by Christian missionaries trying to do undermine the Jewish faith in a similar manner.

[DesertBerean]

That is not the point at issue. Jewish messianism was appropriated by Christianity and adapted for its own specific theological purposes.

You appear to have forgotten I Kings 1.32-46. That is the original meaning and understanding of Messiah [anointed].

As a matter of interest how do you personally feel about Mormons, or some other group, coming into Christian communities and [as they do] attempting to proselytise? After all the Mormons have all the trappings of Christianity, not to mention a few of their own devising, I would suggest that you are perfectly justified in feeling a sense of outrage. Yet you appear surprised that Jews continue to feel aggrieved by Christian missionaries trying to do undermine the Jewish faith in a similar manner.

David's installment of Solomon as king and successor? I'm not sure I've encountered this as the Jewish idea of the Messiah. Source?

[DesertBerean]

And I'm questioning the Jews for Judaism claim that Christians did not consistently translate Daniel 9:25 as "anointed". a very quick skim of bibles at Bible Gateway show several translations that say "the anointed one" others say simply "Messiah". One modern english version say "God's chosen leader".

But of course that's the English versions....perhaps another language was used by the missionaries the writer speaks of. A more thorough inspection may show this. Or I need to reread the article.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

If you want to look at Judaism from a modern naturalistic perspective, the tribes of Israel were bloodthirsty. They are guilty of genocide.

The Israelites were bloodthirsty, as were most ancient Semitic peoples, and according to the Hebrew bible were guilty of quite a considerable amount of genocide that was ordained and approved of by their deity.

However, the ancient Israelites were not Jews.

The other thing that has to be considered is that "leaders" among Christian groups can act bad without the general Christians being bad.

That comment merely differentiates between practise and precept.

Any evils done simply fall back on the humanity characteristics of all people -- the hearts set against God.
This happened among Jews too. You keep painting with a broad brush. You like to use the worst of ancient situations (probably many that were justifiable) to describe all Christians. There also Christian groups that did not participate in any power grabs.

I have no idea what you are attempting to suggest by these remarks.

If you misunderstand a math book, that does not mean that the math book was wrong. Your logic follows this path.

Mathematics is an exact science, theology is neither a science nor exact. Nor does history deal with exactitudes. History merely inquires in order to inform.

I forget if I mentioned this. Many Jews recognized they were not right with God.

What does this mean? It is a rather broad-brush approach towards a complex topic.

The lack of independence ... to rule on their own ... was recognized as the failure to be obedient to God.

This is all rather confusing. What historical periods are being referenced here?

This is why there were followers of the false Messiahs.

All the numerous messianic claimants failed in their objectives. They all ended up dead, either killed in battle or executed.

The timing of Daniel also pointed to that era for the arrival of the Messiah.

The Book of Daniel belongs to the class of apocalyptic literature, and is dated to the Hellenistic period. Its eschatological speculations are not historical fact. In other words it is a work of Jewish religious literature.

So indeed it was fully proper for the true Messiah, Jesus, to arrive at the right point in time.

During the early first century there was a widespread belief among a large portion of the Jewish population that they were living in the End Times and Jesus himself appears to have shared this belief.

It is only the disobedient part of Judaism that rejected Jesus as the Messiah in the first century. The obedient Jews acknowledged their sins and came to Jesus as the Messiah.

This is merely your own subjective and theologically slanted interpretation.

Those who recognize Jesus as the Messiah also recognize Jesus fulfilled all the requirements

He did not fulfil any of the Messianic requirements and did not inaugurate the Messianic Kingdom of God as specified by Jewish teachings.

-- even those which the Pharisees and other teachers added on to the list of requirements.

Pardon? To what precisely are you referring? What requirements would these be?

The preaching of Peter in Acts 2 is not an "apologetic" but is just a record of what Peter preached and how the people responded.

The work[s] Luke-Acts form an apologetic interpretation of the rise of early Christianity and attempts to harmonise the dissension and disagreements among the various factions within the movement, which we know were considerable.

Acts propounds the legitimacy of Christianity as a largely gentile religion and as the valid heir to the promises God made to Israel. For a contemporary audience of observant Jews much of the work would be considered odious and its claims highly preposterous.

However, Luke’s objective was to emphasise that God's fulfilment of the ancient promises had led to the inclusion of gentiles and his task in this work was to demonstrate that it was gentile Christianity which had become the legitimate inheritor of those old promises. Moreover, it was a specific form of gentile Christianity that would fulfil this role, and that was the work of the Pauline mission.

In other words the "new Jews " would be Christians who rejected the Torah, which the essence of Judaism.

The Christian community in Acts continues the way Jesus himself had lived: truly Jewish, and at the same time, truly loyal towards Rome. Once we recognise this apologetic function in Acts we no longer need to worry about specific narrative details.

It can also clearly be seen that the author of Acts was a forthright and open apologist for Christianity.

[mikewhitney]

The Israelites were bloodthirsty, as were most ancient Semitic peoples, and according to the Hebrew bible were guilty of quite a considerable amount of genocide that was ordained and approved of by their deity.

However, the ancient Israelites were not Jews.

That comment merely differentiates between practise and precept.

I have no idea what you are attempting to suggest by these remarks.

Mathematics is an exact science, theology is neither a science nor exact. Nor does history deal with exactitudes. History merely inquires in order to inform.
What does this mean? It is a rather broad-brush approach towards a complex topic.

This is all rather confusing. What historical periods are being referenced here?

All the numerous messianic claimants failed in their objectives. They all ended up dead, either killed in battle or executed.

The Book of Daniel belongs to the class of apocalyptic literature, and is dated to the Hellenistic period. Its eschatological speculations are not historical fact. In other words it is a work of Jewish religious literature.

During the early first century there was a widespread belief among a large portion of the Jewish population that they were living in the End Times and Jesus himself appears to have shared this belief.

This is merely your own subjective and theologically slanted interpretation.

He did not fulfil any of the Messianic requirements and did not inaugurate the Messianic Kingdom of God as specified by Jewish teachings.

Pardon? To what precisely are you referring? What requirements would these be?

The work[s] Luke-Acts form an apologetic interpretation of the rise of early Christianity and attempts to harmonise the dissension and disagreements among the various factions within the movement, which we know were considerable.

Acts propounds the legitimacy of Christianity as a largely gentile religion and as the valid heir to the promises God made to Israel. For a contemporary audience of observant Jews much of the work would be considered odious and its claims highly preposterous.

However, Luke’s objective was to emphasise that God's fulfilment of the ancient promises had led to the inclusion of gentiles and his task in this work was to demonstrate that it was gentile Christianity which had become the legitimate inheritor of those old promises. Moreover, it was a specific form of gentile Christianity that would fulfil this role, and that was the work of the Pauline mission.

In other words the "new Jews " would be Christians who rejected the Torah, which the essence of Judaism.

The Christian community in Acts continues the way Jesus himself had lived: truly Jewish, and at the same time, truly loyal towards Rome. Once we recognise this apologetic function in Acts we no longer need to worry about specific narrative details.

It can also clearly be seen that the author of Acts was a forthright and open apologist for Christianity.

I'm not sure how to respond to your fantasy world. You should not even study these texts after you have become so disoriented. Your perspective is very weird and seems to discount all sensibility. You have created a scenario in your head that does not match anything of reality.

[DesertBerean]

And I'm questioning the Jews for Judaism claim that Christians did not consistently translate Daniel 9:25 as "anointed". a very quick skim of bibles at Bible Gateway show several translations that say "the anointed one" others say simply "Messiah". One modern english version say "God's chosen leader".

But of course that's the English versions....perhaps another language was used by the missionaries the writer speaks of. A more thorough inspection may show this. Or I need to reread the article.

Yeah....no. The writer of this article does claim that Christians don't translate Daniel 9:25 with the word "anointed" which of course is not accurate.