Why was Jesus crucified ? ( Legally speaking )

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He healed the sick on the Sabbath.

uh huh. And this is apropos of exactly what?

It was against the law as it would have been like working on the Sabbath. He was accused of blasphemy.

Saving a life is one of those things that can override shomer shabbat laws in Judaism, so this wouldn't be a problem.

OK yes, but this is a good example of the absurdity of this thread's whole premise. (I don't mean you specifically, but the entire idea of looking for a legal explanation for the Crucifixion.) The pikuach nefesh exception to the Shabbat laws was mostly elaborated in the Talmud, which mostly wasn't written until after Jesus's death/the destruction of the Second Temple! The entire understanding of halacha changed in exile, as we built up a rabbinic tradition separate from the High Priests and the Temple rituals...

Fortunately, the straightforward question was answered by multiple people.

For every attempt to answer based on historical legal info, there were two answers that quoted scripture blaming the Jews.

I don't understand this because the scripture is what it is. You're saying that just quoting the gospels is "blaming the Jews"?
The question simply couldn't be answered without reference to Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. There is also a passing reference to the incident in Josephus, but that's about it.
Or maybe you're saying the question shouldn't have been asked at all?

The gospels blame the Jews, so, yes, "just quoting the gospels is 'blaming the Jews.'"

But not just the Jews. Jesus himself behaved very recklessly. One has to conclude he had a death wish. And of course Pilate was also responsible for condemning him to death.
Let's not use the word "blame." There was plenty of responsibility to go around.

Not sure what things you find reckless, but let’s start with Jesus demonstrating God’s new covenant with mankind—radical love while eating with prostitutes, not respecting cleanliness laws, dietary laws or the sabbath, etc. This was quite the revolution so you can call it “reckless,” but it was also necessary.

Going to Jerusalem for Passover might be the most reckless thing about his ministry. The Romans did see Jesus as a political threat, and he likely knew that. But, it was also a Jewish religious obligation, Jesus was a Jew, so this too was “necessary.”

Seriously? See the Book of John, like chapters 5-8 -- he had to know he had enemies there who wanted to kill him. He was acting like he was the Messiah, and never denied it. That was blasphemous to a certain powerful group in Jerusalem. He could have just played it cool and done his miracles, but the way he rode into town for Passover was poking a snake with a stick. He had to know that would likely infuriate the religious officials and even the Romans.

It was Passover, and a religious obligation for Jews like him and the apostles to go to Jerusalem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He healed the sick on the Sabbath.

uh huh. And this is apropos of exactly what?

It was against the law as it would have been like working on the Sabbath. He was accused of blasphemy.

Saving a life is one of those things that can override shomer shabbat laws in Judaism, so this wouldn't be a problem.

OK yes, but this is a good example of the absurdity of this thread's whole premise. (I don't mean you specifically, but the entire idea of looking for a legal explanation for the Crucifixion.) The pikuach nefesh exception to the Shabbat laws was mostly elaborated in the Talmud, which mostly wasn't written until after Jesus's death/the destruction of the Second Temple! The entire understanding of halacha changed in exile, as we built up a rabbinic tradition separate from the High Priests and the Temple rituals...

Fortunately, the straightforward question was answered by multiple people.

For every attempt to answer based on historical legal info, there were two answers that quoted scripture blaming the Jews.

I don't understand this because the scripture is what it is. You're saying that just quoting the gospels is "blaming the Jews"?
The question simply couldn't be answered without reference to Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. There is also a passing reference to the incident in Josephus, but that's about it.
Or maybe you're saying the question shouldn't have been asked at all?

The gospels blame the Jews, so, yes, "just quoting the gospels is 'blaming the Jews.'"

But not just the Jews. Jesus himself behaved very recklessly. One has to conclude he had a death wish. And of course Pilate was also responsible for condemning him to death.
Let's not use the word "blame." There was plenty of responsibility to go around.

Not sure what things you find reckless, but let’s start with Jesus demonstrating God’s new covenant with mankind—radical love while eating with prostitutes, not respecting cleanliness laws, dietary laws or the sabbath, etc. This was quite the revolution so you can call it “reckless,” but it was also necessary.

Going to Jerusalem for Passover might be the most reckless thing about his ministry. The Romans did see Jesus as a political threat, and he likely knew that. But, it was also a Jewish religious obligation, Jesus was a Jew, so this too was “necessary.”

Seriously? See the Book of John, like chapters 5-8 -- he had to know he had enemies there who wanted to kill him. He was acting like he was the Messiah, and never denied it. That was blasphemous to a certain powerful group in Jerusalem. He could have just played it cool and done his miracles, but the way he rode into town for Passover was poking a snake with a stick. He had to know that would likely infuriate the religious officials and even the Romans.

John was written a century later, in Greek, so it shouldn't be taken too literally. It's more like a Hollywood remake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He healed the sick on the Sabbath.

uh huh. And this is apropos of exactly what?

It was against the law as it would have been like working on the Sabbath. He was accused of blasphemy.

Saving a life is one of those things that can override shomer shabbat laws in Judaism, so this wouldn't be a problem.

OK yes, but this is a good example of the absurdity of this thread's whole premise. (I don't mean you specifically, but the entire idea of looking for a legal explanation for the Crucifixion.) The pikuach nefesh exception to the Shabbat laws was mostly elaborated in the Talmud, which mostly wasn't written until after Jesus's death/the destruction of the Second Temple! The entire understanding of halacha changed in exile, as we built up a rabbinic tradition separate from the High Priests and the Temple rituals...

The same can be said of every book in the bible
The book of Job is considered to be the oldest
Books of moses were definitely eritoten several centuries later. Most stories were word of mouth before they were written down. Believe it or not, the same is true of the Quran

Fortunately, the straightforward question was answered by multiple people.

For every attempt to answer based on historical legal info, there were two answers that quoted scripture blaming the Jews.

I don't understand this because the scripture is what it is. You're saying that just quoting the gospels is "blaming the Jews"?
The question simply couldn't be answered without reference to Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. There is also a passing reference to the incident in Josephus, but that's about it.
Or maybe you're saying the question shouldn't have been asked at all?

The gospels blame the Jews, so, yes, "just quoting the gospels is 'blaming the Jews.'"

But not just the Jews. Jesus himself behaved very recklessly. One has to conclude he had a death wish. And of course Pilate was also responsible for condemning him to death.
Let's not use the word "blame." There was plenty of responsibility to go around.

Not sure what things you find reckless, but let’s start with Jesus demonstrating God’s new covenant with mankind—radical love while eating with prostitutes, not respecting cleanliness laws, dietary laws or the sabbath, etc. This was quite the revolution so you can call it “reckless,” but it was also necessary.

Going to Jerusalem for Passover might be the most reckless thing about his ministry. The Romans did see Jesus as a political threat, and he likely knew that. But, it was also a Jewish religious obligation, Jesus was a Jew, so this too was “necessary.”

Seriously? See the Book of John, like chapters 5-8 -- he had to know he had enemies there who wanted to kill him. He was acting like he was the Messiah, and never denied it. That was blasphemous to a certain powerful group in Jerusalem. He could have just played it cool and done his miracles, but the way he rode into town for Passover was poking a snake with a stick. He had to know that would likely infuriate the religious officials and even the Romans.

John was written a century later, in Greek, so it shouldn't be taken too literally. It's more like a Hollywood remake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What strikes me as strangely odd, is that J seemed in some way to be in control of the events, to the point of it being possibly suicide. The way he fortold it, making it difficult for anyone to defend him, and the subsequent story of self sacrifise

If he hadn't been crucified and risen from the dead, there would be no Christianity.

Just another apocalyptic itinerant preacher lost to history

So it was a DIY orchestrated show

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He healed the sick on the Sabbath.

uh huh. And this is apropos of exactly what?

It was against the law as it would have been like working on the Sabbath. He was accused of blasphemy.

Saving a life is one of those things that can override shomer shabbat laws in Judaism, so this wouldn't be a problem.

OK yes, but this is a good example of the absurdity of this thread's whole premise. (I don't mean you specifically, but the entire idea of looking for a legal explanation for the Crucifixion.) The pikuach nefesh exception to the Shabbat laws was mostly elaborated in the Talmud, which mostly wasn't written until after Jesus's death/the destruction of the Second Temple! The entire understanding of halacha changed in exile, as we built up a rabbinic tradition separate from the High Priests and the Temple rituals...

Fortunately, the straightforward question was answered by multiple people.

For every attempt to answer based on historical legal info, there were two answers that quoted scripture blaming the Jews.

I don't understand this because the scripture is what it is. You're saying that just quoting the gospels is "blaming the Jews"?
The question simply couldn't be answered without reference to Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. There is also a passing reference to the incident in Josephus, but that's about it.
Or maybe you're saying the question shouldn't have been asked at all?

The gospels blame the Jews, so, yes, "just quoting the gospels is 'blaming the Jews.'"

But not just the Jews. Jesus himself behaved very recklessly. One has to conclude he had a death wish. And of course Pilate was also responsible for condemning him to death.
Let's not use the word "blame." There was plenty of responsibility to go around.

Not sure what things you find reckless, but let’s start with Jesus demonstrating God’s new covenant with mankind—radical love while eating with prostitutes, not respecting cleanliness laws, dietary laws or the sabbath, etc. This was quite the revolution so you can call it “reckless,” but it was also necessary.

Going to Jerusalem for Passover might be the most reckless thing about his ministry. The Romans did see Jesus as a political threat, and he likely knew that. But, it was also a Jewish religious obligation, Jesus was a Jew, so this too was “necessary.”

Seriously? See the Book of John, like chapters 5-8 -- he had to know he had enemies there who wanted to kill him. He was acting like he was the Messiah, and never denied it. That was blasphemous to a certain powerful group in Jerusalem. He could have just played it cool and done his miracles, but the way he rode into town for Passover was poking a snake with a stick. He had to know that would likely infuriate the religious officials and even the Romans.

John was written a century later, in Greek, so it shouldn't be taken too literally. It's more like a Hollywood remake.

You don't *know* when it was written. And 100 years is a fart in the wind. Slavery was over 100 years ago. WWII was almost 100 years ago. 100 years is a blink of an eye in historical time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He healed the sick on the Sabbath.

uh huh. And this is apropos of exactly what?

It was against the law as it would have been like working on the Sabbath. He was accused of blasphemy.

Saving a life is one of those things that can override shomer shabbat laws in Judaism, so this wouldn't be a problem.

OK yes, but this is a good example of the absurdity of this thread's whole premise. (I don't mean you specifically, but the entire idea of looking for a legal explanation for the Crucifixion.) The pikuach nefesh exception to the Shabbat laws was mostly elaborated in the Talmud, which mostly wasn't written until after Jesus's death/the destruction of the Second Temple! The entire understanding of halacha changed in exile, as we built up a rabbinic tradition separate from the High Priests and the Temple rituals...

Fortunately, the straightforward question was answered by multiple people.

For every attempt to answer based on historical legal info, there were two answers that quoted scripture blaming the Jews.

I don't understand this because the scripture is what it is. You're saying that just quoting the gospels is "blaming the Jews"?
The question simply couldn't be answered without reference to Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. There is also a passing reference to the incident in Josephus, but that's about it.
Or maybe you're saying the question shouldn't have been asked at all?

The gospels blame the Jews, so, yes, "just quoting the gospels is 'blaming the Jews.'"

But not just the Jews. Jesus himself behaved very recklessly. One has to conclude he had a death wish. And of course Pilate was also responsible for condemning him to death.
Let's not use the word "blame." There was plenty of responsibility to go around.

Not sure what things you find reckless, but let’s start with Jesus demonstrating God’s new covenant with mankind—radical love while eating with prostitutes, not respecting cleanliness laws, dietary laws or the sabbath, etc. This was quite the revolution so you can call it “reckless,” but it was also necessary.

Going to Jerusalem for Passover might be the most reckless thing about his ministry. The Romans did see Jesus as a political threat, and he likely knew that. But, it was also a Jewish religious obligation, Jesus was a Jew, so this too was “necessary.”

Seriously? See the Book of John, like chapters 5-8 -- he had to know he had enemies there who wanted to kill him. He was acting like he was the Messiah, and never denied it. That was blasphemous to a certain powerful group in Jerusalem. He could have just played it cool and done his miracles, but the way he rode into town for Passover was poking a snake with a stick. He had to know that would likely infuriate the religious officials and even the Romans.

John was written a century later, in Greek, so it shouldn't be taken too literally. It's more like a Hollywood remake.

I kinda do agree with this, but there are many who take it as, well, "gospel."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He healed the sick on the Sabbath.

uh huh. And this is apropos of exactly what?

It was against the law as it would have been like working on the Sabbath. He was accused of blasphemy.

Saving a life is one of those things that can override shomer shabbat laws in Judaism, so this wouldn't be a problem.

OK yes, but this is a good example of the absurdity of this thread's whole premise. (I don't mean you specifically, but the entire idea of looking for a legal explanation for the Crucifixion.) The pikuach nefesh exception to the Shabbat laws was mostly elaborated in the Talmud, which mostly wasn't written until after Jesus's death/the destruction of the Second Temple! The entire understanding of halacha changed in exile, as we built up a rabbinic tradition separate from the High Priests and the Temple rituals...

Fortunately, the straightforward question was answered by multiple people.

For every attempt to answer based on historical legal info, there were two answers that quoted scripture blaming the Jews.

I don't understand this because the scripture is what it is. You're saying that just quoting the gospels is "blaming the Jews"?
The question simply couldn't be answered without reference to Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. There is also a passing reference to the incident in Josephus, but that's about it.
Or maybe you're saying the question shouldn't have been asked at all?

The gospels blame the Jews, so, yes, "just quoting the gospels is 'blaming the Jews.'"

But not just the Jews. Jesus himself behaved very recklessly. One has to conclude he had a death wish. And of course Pilate was also responsible for condemning him to death.
Let's not use the word "blame." There was plenty of responsibility to go around.

Not sure what things you find reckless, but let’s start with Jesus demonstrating God’s new covenant with mankind—radical love while eating with prostitutes, not respecting cleanliness laws, dietary laws or the sabbath, etc. This was quite the revolution so you can call it “reckless,” but it was also necessary.

Going to Jerusalem for Passover might be the most reckless thing about his ministry. The Romans did see Jesus as a political threat, and he likely knew that. But, it was also a Jewish religious obligation, Jesus was a Jew, so this too was “necessary.”

Seriously? See the Book of John, like chapters 5-8 -- he had to know he had enemies there who wanted to kill him. He was acting like he was the Messiah, and never denied it. That was blasphemous to a certain powerful group in Jerusalem. He could have just played it cool and done his miracles, but the way he rode into town for Passover was poking a snake with a stick. He had to know that would likely infuriate the religious officials and even the Romans.

John was written a century later, in Greek, so it shouldn't be taken too literally. It's more like a Hollywood remake.

I kinda do agree with this, but there are many who take it as, well, "gospel."

All biblical texts were written after the fact. At some point they were verbal stories, before being written down
Even Quran was verbal hand me down info at one point in history

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He healed the sick on the Sabbath.

uh huh. And this is apropos of exactly what?

It was against the law as it would have been like working on the Sabbath. He was accused of blasphemy.

Saving a life is one of those things that can override shomer shabbat laws in Judaism, so this wouldn't be a problem.

OK yes, but this is a good example of the absurdity of this thread's whole premise. (I don't mean you specifically, but the entire idea of looking for a legal explanation for the Crucifixion.) The pikuach nefesh exception to the Shabbat laws was mostly elaborated in the Talmud, which mostly wasn't written until after Jesus's death/the destruction of the Second Temple! The entire understanding of halacha changed in exile, as we built up a rabbinic tradition separate from the High Priests and the Temple rituals...

Fortunately, the straightforward question was answered by multiple people.

For every attempt to answer based on historical legal info, there were two answers that quoted scripture blaming the Jews.

I don't understand this because the scripture is what it is. You're saying that just quoting the gospels is "blaming the Jews"?
The question simply couldn't be answered without reference to Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. There is also a passing reference to the incident in Josephus, but that's about it.
Or maybe you're saying the question shouldn't have been asked at all?

The gospels blame the Jews, so, yes, "just quoting the gospels is 'blaming the Jews.'"

But not just the Jews. Jesus himself behaved very recklessly. One has to conclude he had a death wish. And of course Pilate was also responsible for condemning him to death.
Let's not use the word "blame." There was plenty of responsibility to go around.

Not sure what things you find reckless, but let’s start with Jesus demonstrating God’s new covenant with mankind—radical love while eating with prostitutes, not respecting cleanliness laws, dietary laws or the sabbath, etc. This was quite the revolution so you can call it “reckless,” but it was also necessary.

Going to Jerusalem for Passover might be the most reckless thing about his ministry. The Romans did see Jesus as a political threat, and he likely knew that. But, it was also a Jewish religious obligation, Jesus was a Jew, so this too was “necessary.”

Seriously? See the Book of John, like chapters 5-8 -- he had to know he had enemies there who wanted to kill him. He was acting like he was the Messiah, and never denied it. That was blasphemous to a certain powerful group in Jerusalem. He could have just played it cool and done his miracles, but the way he rode into town for Passover was poking a snake with a stick. He had to know that would likely infuriate the religious officials and even the Romans.

John was written a century later, in Greek, so it shouldn't be taken too literally. It's more like a Hollywood remake.

You don't *know* when it was written. And 100 years is a fart in the wind. Slavery was over 100 years ago. WWII was almost 100 years ago. 100 years is a blink of an eye in historical time.

Yes, absolutely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What strikes me as strangely odd, is that J seemed in some way to be in control of the events, to the point of it being possibly suicide. The way he fortold it, making it difficult for anyone to defend him, and the subsequent story of self sacrifise

If he hadn't been crucified and risen from the dead, there would be no Christianity.

Just another apocalyptic itinerant preacher lost to history

So it was divinely inspired, orchestrated by the almighty
What could the people living at that time have done to stop it?
Since this is what allows men to be saved, why did the devil allow it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What strikes me as strangely odd, is that J seemed in some way to be in control of the events, to the point of it being possibly suicide. The way he fortold it, making it difficult for anyone to defend him, and the subsequent story of self sacrifise

If he hadn't been crucified and risen from the dead, there would be no Christianity.

Just another apocalyptic itinerant preacher lost to history

So it was divinely inspired, orchestrated by the almighty
What could the people living at that time have done to stop it?
Since this is what allows men to be saved, why did the devil allow it?

1) Nothing
2) God is the boss, Remember Job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He healed the sick on the Sabbath.

uh huh. And this is apropos of exactly what?

It was against the law as it would have been like working on the Sabbath. He was accused of blasphemy.

Saving a life is one of those things that can override shomer shabbat laws in Judaism, so this wouldn't be a problem.

OK yes, but this is a good example of the absurdity of this thread's whole premise. (I don't mean you specifically, but the entire idea of looking for a legal explanation for the Crucifixion.) The pikuach nefesh exception to the Shabbat laws was mostly elaborated in the Talmud, which mostly wasn't written until after Jesus's death/the destruction of the Second Temple! The entire understanding of halacha changed in exile, as we built up a rabbinic tradition separate from the High Priests and the Temple rituals...

Fortunately, the straightforward question was answered by multiple people.

For every attempt to answer based on historical legal info, there were two answers that quoted scripture blaming the Jews.

I don't understand this because the scripture is what it is. You're saying that just quoting the gospels is "blaming the Jews"?
The question simply couldn't be answered without reference to Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. There is also a passing reference to the incident in Josephus, but that's about it.
Or maybe you're saying the question shouldn't have been asked at all?

The gospels blame the Jews, so, yes, "just quoting the gospels is 'blaming the Jews.'"

But not just the Jews. Jesus himself behaved very recklessly. One has to conclude he had a death wish. And of course Pilate was also responsible for condemning him to death.
Let's not use the word "blame." There was plenty of responsibility to go around.

Not sure what things you find reckless, but let’s start with Jesus demonstrating God’s new covenant with mankind—radical love while eating with prostitutes, not respecting cleanliness laws, dietary laws or the sabbath, etc. This was quite the revolution so you can call it “reckless,” but it was also necessary.

Going to Jerusalem for Passover might be the most reckless thing about his ministry. The Romans did see Jesus as a political threat, and he likely knew that. But, it was also a Jewish religious obligation, Jesus was a Jew, so this too was “necessary.”

Seriously? See the Book of John, like chapters 5-8 -- he had to know he had enemies there who wanted to kill him. He was acting like he was the Messiah, and never denied it. That was blasphemous to a certain powerful group in Jerusalem. He could have just played it cool and done his miracles, but the way he rode into town for Passover was poking a snake with a stick. He had to know that would likely infuriate the religious officials and even the Romans.

John was written a century later, in Greek, so it shouldn't be taken too literally. It's more like a Hollywood remake.

You don't *know* when it was written. And 100 years is a fart in the wind. Slavery was over 100 years ago. WWII was almost 100 years ago. 100 years is a blink of an eye in historical time.

100 years might be no time at all in the grand scheme of things, but they're not first-hand contemporary accounts of events.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He healed the sick on the Sabbath.

uh huh. And this is apropos of exactly what?

It was against the law as it would have been like working on the Sabbath. He was accused of blasphemy.

Saving a life is one of those things that can override shomer shabbat laws in Judaism, so this wouldn't be a problem.

OK yes, but this is a good example of the absurdity of this thread's whole premise. (I don't mean you specifically, but the entire idea of looking for a legal explanation for the Crucifixion.) The pikuach nefesh exception to the Shabbat laws was mostly elaborated in the Talmud, which mostly wasn't written until after Jesus's death/the destruction of the Second Temple! The entire understanding of halacha changed in exile, as we built up a rabbinic tradition separate from the High Priests and the Temple rituals...

Fortunately, the straightforward question was answered by multiple people.

For every attempt to answer based on historical legal info, there were two answers that quoted scripture blaming the Jews.

I don't understand this because the scripture is what it is. You're saying that just quoting the gospels is "blaming the Jews"?
The question simply couldn't be answered without reference to Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. There is also a passing reference to the incident in Josephus, but that's about it.
Or maybe you're saying the question shouldn't have been asked at all?

The gospels blame the Jews, so, yes, "just quoting the gospels is 'blaming the Jews.'"

But not just the Jews. Jesus himself behaved very recklessly. One has to conclude he had a death wish. And of course Pilate was also responsible for condemning him to death.
Let's not use the word "blame." There was plenty of responsibility to go around.

Not sure what things you find reckless, but let’s start with Jesus demonstrating God’s new covenant with mankind—radical love while eating with prostitutes, not respecting cleanliness laws, dietary laws or the sabbath, etc. This was quite the revolution so you can call it “reckless,” but it was also necessary.

Going to Jerusalem for Passover might be the most reckless thing about his ministry. The Romans did see Jesus as a political threat, and he likely knew that. But, it was also a Jewish religious obligation, Jesus was a Jew, so this too was “necessary.”

Seriously? See the Book of John, like chapters 5-8 -- he had to know he had enemies there who wanted to kill him. He was acting like he was the Messiah, and never denied it. That was blasphemous to a certain powerful group in Jerusalem. He could have just played it cool and done his miracles, but the way he rode into town for Passover was poking a snake with a stick. He had to know that would likely infuriate the religious officials and even the Romans.

John was written a century later, in Greek, so it shouldn't be taken too literally. It's more like a Hollywood remake.

You don't *know* when it was written. And 100 years is a fart in the wind. Slavery was over 100 years ago. WWII was almost 100 years ago. 100 years is a blink of an eye in historical time.

100 years might be no time at all in the grand scheme of things, but they're not first-hand contemporary accounts of events.

But at 100 years you still have access to first-hand accounting and eye-witnesses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He healed the sick on the Sabbath.

uh huh. And this is apropos of exactly what?

It was against the law as it would have been like working on the Sabbath. He was accused of blasphemy.

Saving a life is one of those things that can override shomer shabbat laws in Judaism, so this wouldn't be a problem.

OK yes, but this is a good example of the absurdity of this thread's whole premise. (I don't mean you specifically, but the entire idea of looking for a legal explanation for the Crucifixion.) The pikuach nefesh exception to the Shabbat laws was mostly elaborated in the Talmud, which mostly wasn't written until after Jesus's death/the destruction of the Second Temple! The entire understanding of halacha changed in exile, as we built up a rabbinic tradition separate from the High Priests and the Temple rituals...

Fortunately, the straightforward question was answered by multiple people.

For every attempt to answer based on historical legal info, there were two answers that quoted scripture blaming the Jews.

I don't understand this because the scripture is what it is. You're saying that just quoting the gospels is "blaming the Jews"?
The question simply couldn't be answered without reference to Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. There is also a passing reference to the incident in Josephus, but that's about it.
Or maybe you're saying the question shouldn't have been asked at all?

The gospels blame the Jews, so, yes, "just quoting the gospels is 'blaming the Jews.'"

But not just the Jews. Jesus himself behaved very recklessly. One has to conclude he had a death wish. And of course Pilate was also responsible for condemning him to death.
Let's not use the word "blame." There was plenty of responsibility to go around.

Not sure what things you find reckless, but let’s start with Jesus demonstrating God’s new covenant with mankind—radical love while eating with prostitutes, not respecting cleanliness laws, dietary laws or the sabbath, etc. This was quite the revolution so you can call it “reckless,” but it was also necessary.

Going to Jerusalem for Passover might be the most reckless thing about his ministry. The Romans did see Jesus as a political threat, and he likely knew that. But, it was also a Jewish religious obligation, Jesus was a Jew, so this too was “necessary.”

Seriously? See the Book of John, like chapters 5-8 -- he had to know he had enemies there who wanted to kill him. He was acting like he was the Messiah, and never denied it. That was blasphemous to a certain powerful group in Jerusalem. He could have just played it cool and done his miracles, but the way he rode into town for Passover was poking a snake with a stick. He had to know that would likely infuriate the religious officials and even the Romans.

John was written a century later, in Greek, so it shouldn't be taken too literally. It's more like a Hollywood remake.

You don't *know* when it was written. And 100 years is a fart in the wind. Slavery was over 100 years ago. WWII was almost 100 years ago. 100 years is a blink of an eye in historical time.

100 years might be no time at all in the grand scheme of things, but they're not first-hand contemporary accounts of events.

But at 100 years you still have access to first-hand accounting and eye-witnesses.

1. But John did make use of any of that.

2. Also, in those days, there were no newspapers or video recording. It's word of mouth

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He healed the sick on the Sabbath.

uh huh. And this is apropos of exactly what?

It was against the law as it would have been like working on the Sabbath. He was accused of blasphemy.

Saving a life is one of those things that can override shomer shabbat laws in Judaism, so this wouldn't be a problem.

OK yes, but this is a good example of the absurdity of this thread's whole premise. (I don't mean you specifically, but the entire idea of looking for a legal explanation for the Crucifixion.) The pikuach nefesh exception to the Shabbat laws was mostly elaborated in the Talmud, which mostly wasn't written until after Jesus's death/the destruction of the Second Temple! The entire understanding of halacha changed in exile, as we built up a rabbinic tradition separate from the High Priests and the Temple rituals...

Fortunately, the straightforward question was answered by multiple people.

For every attempt to answer based on historical legal info, there were two answers that quoted scripture blaming the Jews.

I don't understand this because the scripture is what it is. You're saying that just quoting the gospels is "blaming the Jews"?
The question simply couldn't be answered without reference to Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. There is also a passing reference to the incident in Josephus, but that's about it.
Or maybe you're saying the question shouldn't have been asked at all?

The gospels blame the Jews, so, yes, "just quoting the gospels is 'blaming the Jews.'"

But not just the Jews. Jesus himself behaved very recklessly. One has to conclude he had a death wish. And of course Pilate was also responsible for condemning him to death.
Let's not use the word "blame." There was plenty of responsibility to go around.

Not sure what things you find reckless, but let’s start with Jesus demonstrating God’s new covenant with mankind—radical love while eating with prostitutes, not respecting cleanliness laws, dietary laws or the sabbath, etc. This was quite the revolution so you can call it “reckless,” but it was also necessary.

Going to Jerusalem for Passover might be the most reckless thing about his ministry. The Romans did see Jesus as a political threat, and he likely knew that. But, it was also a Jewish religious obligation, Jesus was a Jew, so this too was “necessary.”

Seriously? See the Book of John, like chapters 5-8 -- he had to know he had enemies there who wanted to kill him. He was acting like he was the Messiah, and never denied it. That was blasphemous to a certain powerful group in Jerusalem. He could have just played it cool and done his miracles, but the way he rode into town for Passover was poking a snake with a stick. He had to know that would likely infuriate the religious officials and even the Romans.

John was written a century later, in Greek, so it shouldn't be taken too literally. It's more like a Hollywood remake.

You don't *know* when it was written. And 100 years is a fart in the wind. Slavery was over 100 years ago. WWII was almost 100 years ago. 100 years is a blink of an eye in historical time.

100 years might be no time at all in the grand scheme of things, but they're not first-hand contemporary accounts of events.

But at 100 years you still have access to first-hand accounting and eye-witnesses.

1. But John did make use of any of that.

2. Also, in those days, there were no newspapers or video recording. It's word of mouth

Who cares whether the Bible is accurate -- that it can be verified? Religion will tell you that belief is a matter of faith, not facts. Some people lose their faith and some regain it. Doubters are generally welcomed in religious organizations. Doubting is frequently considered normal. As long as the doubter returns to faith, everything is OK.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He healed the sick on the Sabbath.

uh huh. And this is apropos of exactly what?

It was against the law as it would have been like working on the Sabbath. He was accused of blasphemy.

Saving a life is one of those things that can override shomer shabbat laws in Judaism, so this wouldn't be a problem.

OK yes, but this is a good example of the absurdity of this thread's whole premise. (I don't mean you specifically, but the entire idea of looking for a legal explanation for the Crucifixion.) The pikuach nefesh exception to the Shabbat laws was mostly elaborated in the Talmud, which mostly wasn't written until after Jesus's death/the destruction of the Second Temple! The entire understanding of halacha changed in exile, as we built up a rabbinic tradition separate from the High Priests and the Temple rituals...

Fortunately, the straightforward question was answered by multiple people.

For every attempt to answer based on historical legal info, there were two answers that quoted scripture blaming the Jews.

I don't understand this because the scripture is what it is. You're saying that just quoting the gospels is "blaming the Jews"?
The question simply couldn't be answered without reference to Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. There is also a passing reference to the incident in Josephus, but that's about it.
Or maybe you're saying the question shouldn't have been asked at all?

The gospels blame the Jews, so, yes, "just quoting the gospels is 'blaming the Jews.'"

But not just the Jews. Jesus himself behaved very recklessly. One has to conclude he had a death wish. And of course Pilate was also responsible for condemning him to death.
Let's not use the word "blame." There was plenty of responsibility to go around.

Not sure what things you find reckless, but let’s start with Jesus demonstrating God’s new covenant with mankind—radical love while eating with prostitutes, not respecting cleanliness laws, dietary laws or the sabbath, etc. This was quite the revolution so you can call it “reckless,” but it was also necessary.

Going to Jerusalem for Passover might be the most reckless thing about his ministry. The Romans did see Jesus as a political threat, and he likely knew that. But, it was also a Jewish religious obligation, Jesus was a Jew, so this too was “necessary.”

Seriously? See the Book of John, like chapters 5-8 -- he had to know he had enemies there who wanted to kill him. He was acting like he was the Messiah, and never denied it. That was blasphemous to a certain powerful group in Jerusalem. He could have just played it cool and done his miracles, but the way he rode into town for Passover was poking a snake with a stick. He had to know that would likely infuriate the religious officials and even the Romans.

John was written a century later, in Greek, so it shouldn't be taken too literally. It's more like a Hollywood remake.

You don't *know* when it was written. And 100 years is a fart in the wind. Slavery was over 100 years ago. WWII was almost 100 years ago. 100 years is a blink of an eye in historical time.

100 years might be no time at all in the grand scheme of things, but they're not first-hand contemporary accounts of events.

But at 100 years you still have access to first-hand accounting and eye-witnesses.

1. But John did make use of any of that.

2. Also, in those days, there were no newspapers or video recording. It's word of mouth

Who cares whether the Bible is accurate -- that it can be verified? Religion will tell you that belief is a matter of faith, not facts. Some people lose their faith and some regain it. Doubters are generally welcomed in religious organizations. Doubting is frequently considered normal. As long as the doubter returns to faith, everything is OK.

Yes, this is true, except that in this thread, people are taking the gospels as literally true and thus apportioning 40 percent of the blame for Jesus's crucifixion to "the Jews." Some of the current Jews on DCUM are, in turn, asking the rest of you to ... not do that.