Why so many think the Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus?

Question

What about the Romans (Italians), they had at least part in it and nobody nags about them. Is it because they have the pope now, or is this the secret working of the pasta church?

I only want serious answers please.

Answer 1

This question has been asked many times in Y/A..and over the centuries. Open the New Testament sometime and read all the passages that demonize Jews..that's why "so many think" that..the New Testament wishes to demonize the people who adhere to the faith that it's concepts of faith are designed to replace.

Jews refused then to abandon the eternal covenant of Torah and Jews still refuse to do so. The New Testament claims in more than one passage the covenant of Israel was done away with. Daily, Christians tell Jews in Yahoo our faith was "nailed to the cross"..despite the continued existence of this covenant and faith 2,000 years after it's claimed to have been done away with.

The story of Barabbas was fabricated to demonize Jews. The circular reasoning of this story and some of the elements in it are hard to palate if one is at all familiar with Hebrew or Jewish history or Roman history for that matter. I assert it was fabricated since there has NEVER been any other mention of the non-existent "custom" of pardoning a prisoner for Passover anywhere else outside this story..designed to claim that the Jews could have 'saved' the "savior" ..and instead chose the criminal who had a literal name of the "son of the father" rather than the son of God. Hmmm..
Now..since the VERY first appearance of that story, Jews have asserted that it was ridiculous for several reasons.
1) No such custom associated with Passover existed..no reason for it to exist..it did not fit with any known Jewish law.

2) No Roman record of there ever being any pardons for Passover in the entire time of their occupation of Judea exist...and there ARE archaeologic records of much of their goings on in Judea when it came to edicts and proceedings.

3) The Romans were crucifying and persecuting Jews. If there HAD been such a bizarre custom...WHY would the persecutors honor that custom when they honored no other customs, and in fact sought to violate them to offend Jews to assert dominance.

They also place a catch 22 onto the Jew.
was it murder or willing self sacrifice?
was it a human or was it a deity who died?
It made no sense.

I could go on to list lengthy explanation to show how and why the story of the trial also makes similarly styled embellishments and fabrications about the Sanhedrin that are even more illogical in the face of historic record, but what's the point? Christians believe as "Gospel truth" the stories about Jews written in their holy scriptures no matter what evidence may exist to the contrary..

The New Testament really is the source of most antisemitism and haters of other stripes ( fundamentalist Islamists through demonizing passages in Quran) simply took that and ran with it...with their own version of replacement theology.

This may sound harsh, but there is no other conclusion that can be made from an exhaustive study of history and the texts in question.

I must disagree with William..it is not JEWS who have made the BIG DEAL out of the antisemitism in the New Testament, the history of persectuion of Jews reveals it is the FUNDAMENTALIST literalist Christian who has taken those words to heart and lived them in expression to justify hatred who has made the BIG DEAL out of them.

Simply read many of the answers here from Chrisitans and tell me if they do not take those demonizing passages serious and truthful?

Justify demonizing someone and it is not at all a "leap" of faith to justify turning your back or participating in persecution.

I think that the ONLY WAY that people can overcome these aspects of their dogma is to recognize the historic perspective and the reason those passages were put there..

AND I thank GOD that not all Christians follow what those passages lead to in practice
and that they recognize that it is our brotherhood as humans, and as children of one God to live more as an example of a walk with justice and mercy and compassion...the SERMON on the MOUNT and the Lord's Prayer are the core essence of what Jesus taught..and much has to be sifted out of the New Testament to gain that.

I simply cannot ignore what is said here by people who claim to hold the New Testament dear as infallible in every word and the history of what has happened and continues to happen because of the expression of such beliefs.

Shalom

EDIT: I suppose it IS necessary to explain..for people like DAVID C who believes himself to being objective..and I can understand that from his perspetive he IS objective..because he doesn't have a clue that the New Testament story turns Jewish law and Jewish history recorded by Jewish scholars about the doings of the Sanhedrin during that time..topsy turvy.

The New Testament writers are TRUSTING to the ignorance of their readers about Jewish law and about the established procedures of the Sanhedrin that were taken EXTREMELY seriously , so that they don't get caught in those embellishments. For the most part..because most people are not interested in learning about the ancient Jewish system..they've been successful.

For instance, they do not know that a preliminary hearing of any kind, such as they allege to have taken place at the residence of Annas, or Caiphas( for even on that point there is no congruence in the Gospel accounts) could not possibly have been held. It violated their procedure and law they were swon to uphold. The whole court simply threw out their vows? Absurd.

They do not know that for a session of the Sanhedrin, it could NOT convene until the morning service at the Temple was completed. They also were apparently unaware that the Sanhedrin NEVER met on a Friday, nor on the eve of a Pesach ( Passover) Those were unalterable traditions..as well as the fact that for the charge of a crime that was capable of being sentenced to capital punishment, one had to have a mandatory appeals process and there could be FIVE such appeals before sentence was carried out. IN addition..NO sentence was to be passed on the same day as the trail was held.
The Sanhedrin was comprised of members of exceptional learning and character. No man could be a member of the Sanheddrin who had not previously filed three offices of "gradually increasing dignity" who was also not learned in sacred law, be free from "haughtiness" and never have been occupied in a trade or profession for the sake of finanacial gain or profit, he must be married and could not be a gambler, slave dealer or usurer, ..the list goes on to indicate that the members of the Sanhedrin were the most respected and given the task of upholding the Torah..to claim they behaved in such a manner as the New Testament depicted..is more absurd than to claim the United States Supreme Court( for which there exist none of the strictly enforced prerequisites of character) would hold a capital murder trial in secret and have witnesses act out in the manner of a kangaroo court with people screaming and acting out with no decorum whatsoever.

To the "objective" observer who knows these facts of Jewish history about the proceedings of the Sanhedrin..the story claimed about it does not ring true at all.The picture of a confused and wild scene at the crack of dawn at the High Priests residence where they throw all Torah law they are sworn to uphold and have spent their lives defending..sounds utterly ridiculous. Not only do they not follow any procedure of testimony of character witness for the defense first..but they allow witnesses to barge in and shout, they tie Jesus hands during interrogation and he is spat upon!

This is a long list of inconsistencies and I am leaving out many more just for the sheer length it would take to explain them all.

The High Preist is shown rending his clothes in a place and at a time when he is forbidden by Torah to do so! So it is obvious that the Sanhedrin trial of Jesus simply did not take place as it is depicted at all. Jesus did not appear before the Sanhedrin.

It was ONLY the Romans that a messiah hopeful or pretender would even threaten.

The Jewish idea of a Jewish republic with God as the master authoirity and the Torah as the law of the land would only threaten the Roman overlords. Pilate would not look upon the leader of a band of Galilean rebels as a harmless teller of religious tales..yet because the Romans even knew that the messiah must be an annointed KING..they mocked him as " king of the Jews"..

Pilate and the Romans were not PLACATING JEWISH WISHES..because what the Christian New Testament depicts as being done by the Jews flies in the face of any Jewish belief whatsoever. And from the VERY first appearance of those stories IN the New Testament..Jews have known that it was simply NOT TRUE that the Jews were the people who either sought or killed their savior deity ( sacrificed human for sin ) whichever it is they believe ( as I recognize not all Christians agree on whether he was man or deity) Pilate would have been remiss in his duty to Rome if he had not halted this rebel. And to make Pilate..a man whose own record reveals his cruel streak..the innocent victim of the wishes of the Jewish mob..also shows him to be a weak and ineffective leader of Roman rule and that doesn't fit Roman history, either.

So..now that you have a little more background into the Jewish history..do you see why it's not so objective to think that the Romans were appeasing the Jewish COURT?

Shalom

Messiah hopefuls have lived both before and after Jesus and the Jews never sought to kill any of them.

In fact..look up about the life of Simeon Bar Kochba who lived after the time of Jesus. He actually was an annointed king of Israel for a time...but also failed at the job. Jews didn't want to kill him, either.

Answer 2

The main root of the story that the 'Jews killed Jesus' comes from the tale of Barbarus and Pontius Pilate (In the NT). This portrays the Jews as choosing for Jesus to be crucified and for the murderer, Barabus, to be set free. This of course, is not authentic. The Jews had no, I repeat, NO authority in the Roman Empire, and they certainly would not have been given the 'authority' to choose whether a man was to die on the cross. Being a Catholic myself, I have no doubt what-so-ever that the Romans where, in fact, responsible for the death of Jesus Christ.

What really confuses me about the whole situation is that, if the Romans where responsible for the death of Jesus, as parts of the NT clearly state, then why is the Vatican, and the Pope, situated in, wait for it, ROME?

PAPERBACK WRITER, great answer as usual.
I know, L'CHAIME, it is so sad that my religion can show such hypocrisy.

Answer 3

We are talking about a Jew who upset the Jewish authority in an occupied back garden of the huge ROMAN empire. most of the Roman troops in Judea at the time were recruited from all over the empire, and were obeying the Jewish religious feelings trying to keep the peace.

I doubt very much that if they had crucified him, they would have allowed his body to be given back afterwards. the whole point of the punishment was to leave the body to rot as an example to others.

So you have to ask the big question, if there was in fact a Jesus Christ, and not get bogged down in the small details which contradict the evidence dug up by archaeology and contemporary writings.

So if you still believe the story of Jesus, then you have to accept that he wanted to sacrifice himself for the rest. If you are a sceptical agonistic, then you have to assume that the Jews would have had the right to punish one of their own, under Roman Occupation for religious blasphemy, the Romans would not do so, for he (sic) did not break any of their civil or religious laws, and since the majority of Romans in Judea at the time were Hellenistic Asians then you have to blame the Turks for finishing him off- but the Turks were Greek then?

Ok, if you are atheiest like myself, then you can point out in an unbiased way that -
1. There are amazingly few manuscripts of ANY text written during Jesus' time, even the new testament was written after the events - long after.
2. Historians of this period wrote amazingly little about religious figures anyway, it was an age of many different religious beliefs, and to be honest, figures of great deeds were more interesting material to read about.
3. Jesus was active for an amazingly short period of time (just three years) - that is the time that all this fuss revolves about.
4. Jesus ministered in an amazingly remote corner of the Roman Empire, a mountain top miles from any major city, which was reduced to the size of a small town by this period - and sandwiched between two huge empires, Persia and Rome. It was on the edge of a war zone, like Kuwait is today, not exactly the center of attention.

Answer 4

Let me answer your question, from a non-Christian, Jewish perspective. First when the Roman's conquered Judea they renamed it Palestina. They removed the Jewish King and installed Herod as a puppet head of state. Then when and if Jesus appeared all he was, was a teacher or rabbi. He wanted the Laws of Judaism followed. Therefore the incident at the Temple. The Pharisees, Jewish Priests of the time, got nervous that Jesus would cause the Romans to come down harder on Palestina. When Pilate started hearing about the "rabble rouser" Jesus, he wanted him out of the picture. Pilate had a good thing going in Palestina. He was a total dictator and enjoyed all the perks. He did not want anyone to upset his apple cart. He told Herod to handle Jesus, Herod finally chickened out and turned Jesus back to Pilate. Pilate decided to end the problem before it got to big and had Jesus crucified.

Christianity itself would have never spread beyond a small insignificant sect of Judaism except for Paul. Paul started converting the heathen to follow the teaching of Christ as Paul saw them. The first written New Testament Gospel was not written until 150 years after Christ's death. By then the situation in the middle east had changed and the Romans wanted to look good. They made sure that the Christians blamed the Jews and kept the Romans out of it. By the time of Constantine there were more Christians then Jews or Roman God followers. That is why he converted.

Answer 5

Some Jews supported Jesus, some didn't. It's definitely a historically complex issue.

Keep in mind, too, that this historical lens is influenced by years of persecuting Jews, from the Crusades to the Holocausts. So approach quick judgments with caution.

Yes, Judas, Pilate, and others were Jewish. But shouldn't the discussion then be about them, as individuals, and why they chose that course of action? Haven't we learned by this point not to judge an entire group based on individual actions? "All Jews are this" "All Muslims are this" make about as much sense as "All tall people are this"
C'mon now, aren't we at least a bit more enlightened after all these years?

Answer 6

How can you ask for serious answers after making a statement about "the secret working of the pasta church"?
I personally do not hold either Jews or Italians responsible for what their ancestors did unless, of course, they think that what their ancestors did to Jesus was just. Although I am not a Christian, I know that this is an emotionally charged issue. I identify with it because as an African-American I had to get over my resentment for white people although the ones who oppressed my family are long dead. But if any white person seems to have the same mentality as those who did, I will react.

Answer 7

Of course the Romans did it, since they feared a Jewish rebellion with this Jewish messiah as the pivot of this rebellion, and the Jews buried Jesus and his family in Jerusalem, which shows he was considered an important Jewish person.
But later, The church, in an effort to compete, went on a crusade to defame the Jews, and distance the New religion from the Jewish establishment, and what better way than to blame the Jews for the killing of Jesus

Answer 8

You've already gotten the answer that only the Romans could have the power to crucify someone, and that Jesus gave his life up willingly. But everyone involved died 2,000 years ago so why punish their descendants? Is this what Jesus would want, he who said "Father forgive them?" I hardly think so. It's a convenient excuse to persecute people.

Answer 9

The Jews (as a whole) are not responsible for Jesus's death - God was - several Jews did however play a part in his Crucifixion

Answer 10

The Jews as a people were not responsible for Jesus' death, but the authorities were. Jesus said:
'Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.' (John 10:17,18, KJV).

However, the Roman Catholic institution, possibly originally to divert the charge of deicide from the Romans, decided to blame the Jews, ignoring the the prophecies that said Messiah (i.e. Christ) must be put to death (see e.g. Isaiah 52:13 - 53:12; Daniel 9: 25-6, etc), and passed that burden to the Jews. That the Jews were willing to have that blood on their own heads and on those of their descendants is clear (Matthew 25:27), which reveals how far they were from God at that time.
But Scripture, far from agreeing with this self-administered curse, says the Jews are to be gathered in (see Romans chapters 9-11, particularly chapter 11). Jesus Himself said, on the cross: 'Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.' (Luke 23:34). We see the fulfilment of Rom. chapter 11 prophesied in both Zechariah 12:10 (where the believing remnant of approximately 1/3 alive at the climax of the Battle of Armageddon) and following verses & chapters, and Revelation chapter 16 & following.

Therefore any who speaks of the Jews as any more sinful than any other people-group in history is both deceiving, and being deceived (2 timothy 3:13). Most of us Christians have failed in their God-given mission to teach all nations -- including their work colleagues, neighbours, friends and families -- and in making the Jews jealous (Rom. 11:11). We are warned not to be arrogant (i.e. prejudiced) against the Jews, as God wants them saved (Rom. 11:19-21; Ezekiel 18:31, 33:11).

If only more Christians would read the Bible for themselves, instead of swallowing the vitriol produced by 'Christian' Texe Marrs, & those Calvinists & 'Replacement Theology' espousers et al who call Israel finished -- despite prophecy being literally fulfilled before their eyes today as the Jews continue to be ingathered to their own land from every country they dwell in(Jeremiah 23:8; 31:8). Unfortunately many Christians would rather be told what to think by others, than read what God Himself says in the Bible: 'Thus saith my pastor' instead of 'Thus saith the LORD'.

May God bless all who truly seek Him, & His will for the people of the earth.

Answer 11

The jews had jesus killed. I don't blame them for playing a part in Gods plan but there is no denying that in real time the jews felt offended and threatened by his popularity and antics(money tables). Christians shouldn't be hypocrites about it since if someone was claiming to be the messiah and overthrowing the church they would have him executed. The romans have received a small pass because jesus was a bit player to them and there wasn't the same level of contempt-- the romans went on to kill a zillion christians and you don't hear much complaint since they went on to purchase christianity and start roman catholic church, which seems to have went over as the biggest apology in history.