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:

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.

Lots of things in the Bible are questionable, including in the Old Testament. It's a story book, not a text book. I don't think that some people can be stopped from taking it literally. It's how they think, how they've been taught, what they feel and what they believe.

Beliefs can change and sometimes do. People go from religious to non-religious frequently. There are more and more non-believers these days in any religion. Meanwhile, some Christians will believe what they want to about Jews, despite Jews' protestations - or actual facts.

[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:

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.

Lots of things in the Bible are questionable, including in the Old Testament. It's a story book, not a text book. I don't think that some people can be stopped from taking it literally. It's how they think, how they've been taught, what they feel and what they believe.

Beliefs can change and sometimes do. People go from religious to non-religious frequently. There are more and more non-believers these days in any religion. Meanwhile, some Christians will believe what they want to about Jews, despite Jews' protestations - or actual facts.

Well maybe someone publisher will come along and re-write parts of the NT that are not suited to our modern sensibilities like they're doing with Roald Dahl's and other authors works.

[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:

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.

NP
It seems to me it was one poster who did that.
I was the first one to correct him and am not Jewish.

[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:

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.

NP
It seems to me it was one poster who did that.
I was the first one to correct him and am not Jewish.

Without going back through the entire thread, there were 3 other posts that engaged with the Jews' percentage of blame:
03/20/2023 11:50
03/20/2023 11:52
03/20/2023 13:15

This one also blamed Jews, though without a percentage: 03/22/2023 11:50

[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:

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.

NP
It seems to me it was one poster who did that.
I was the first one to correct him and am not Jewish.

Without going back through the entire thread, there were 3 other posts that engaged with the Jews' percentage of blame:
03/20/2023 11:50
03/20/2023 11:52
03/20/2023 13:15

This one also blamed Jews, though without a percentage: 03/22/2023 11:50

The percentage poster first posted
3/19/23 @ 9:54
The first three you mentioned are answers to him.

[Anonymous]

I can't accept that quoting the gospels on the subject of who arrested Jesus and handed him over to the Romans is inherently "anti-semitic."
If you want to disregard these scriptures as hearsay, or fiction, that's fine -- but they say what they say.
OTH, I apologize for using the word "blame." That was me, and I was actually trying to say it wasn't primarily the Jews fault. The Romans and Jesus himself were mainly responsible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can't accept that quoting the gospels on the subject of who arrested Jesus and handed him over to the Romans is inherently "anti-semitic."
If you want to disregard these scriptures as hearsay, or fiction, that's fine -- but they say what they say.
OTH, I apologize for using the word "blame." That was me, and I was actually trying to say it wasn't primarily the Jews fault. The Romans and Jesus himself were mainly responsible.

If you are now basing everything on what is in the gospels, why do you assign blame on the Romans?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't accept that quoting the gospels on the subject of who arrested Jesus and handed him over to the Romans is inherently "anti-semitic."
If you want to disregard these scriptures as hearsay, or fiction, that's fine -- but they say what they say.
OTH, I apologize for using the word "blame." That was me, and I was actually trying to say it wasn't primarily the Jews fault. The Romans and Jesus himself were mainly responsible.

If you are now basing everything on what is in the gospels, why do you assign blame on the Romans?

well it's pretty well agreed upon Pilate did give the order to execute him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't accept that quoting the gospels on the subject of who arrested Jesus and handed him over to the Romans is inherently "anti-semitic."
If you want to disregard these scriptures as hearsay, or fiction, that's fine -- but they say what they say.
OTH, I apologize for using the word "blame." That was me, and I was actually trying to say it wasn't primarily the Jews fault. The Romans and Jesus himself were mainly responsible.

If you are now basing everything on what is in the gospels, why do you assign blame on the Romans?

well it's pretty well agreed upon Pilate did give the order to execute him.

Pilote did not arrest or accuse him of anything, basically he was just needed to approve the lower court ruling

[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:

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.

Lots of things in the Bible are questionable, including in the Old Testament. It's a story book, not a text book. I don't think that some people can be stopped from taking it literally. It's how they think, how they've been taught, what they feel and what they believe.

Beliefs can change and sometimes do. People go from religious to non-religious frequently. There are more and more non-believers these days in any religion. Meanwhile, some Christians will believe what they want to about Jews, despite Jews' protestations - or actual facts.

Well maybe someone publisher will come along and re-write parts of the NT that are not suited to our modern sensibilities like they're doing with Roald Dahl's and other authors works.

The funny part of your comment was that is exactly how the bible has been adapted over the years to align with all types of behavior, including Christian practice today. Christian nationalism doesn't really look like anything historical Jesus would have stood for. Whereas Dahl and Suess are just children's book authors whose families ( not publishers) decided to eliminate some parts, the Bible, interpreted however anyine chooses, is considered sacrosanct and part of our global culture, sadly.