Why was Jesus crucified ? ( Legally speaking )

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The earthly reason Jesus was crucified: mankind is evil. Wicked men conspired against Him, falsely accused Him, and murdered Him. The leaders of Israel had several reasons they wanted Jesus to be executed. They were envious of His following (Matthew 27:18). They were afraid that Jesus would gather too large a following, which might bring the Roman authorities down on the nation, causing them to lose their positions (John 11:48). They hated the fact that Jesus called out their sin publicly (Matthew 23). And they thought He was blaspheming when He claimed to be the Son of God (Luke 22:66–71). But all these reasons were simply symptoms of their underlying unbelief (John 5:46).

Jesus was crucified, rather than stoned, hanged, drowned, etc., because His execution was carried out by the Romans. Crucifixion was the method of execution employed by the Roman Empire to make an example of someone and to deter others from committing the same offense. It was normal to post the charges against the condemned on the cross. Pilate posted the charge “King of the Jews” on Jesus’ cross (Matthew 27:37). The Jewish leaders had made this accusation to goad the Roman governor into executing Jesus. John 19:12 reports, “From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jewish leaders kept shouting, ‘If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar.’” Pilate could not afford to be seen as tolerating a rival to Caesar.

https://www.gotquestions.org/why-was-Jesus-crucified.html

The above site answers questions about Christian history, beliefs, the Bible, etc, very accurately.

"Very accurately" within Christian theology. Not "very accurately" to the historical record.

The crucifixion and death of Jesus occurred in 1st-century Judea, most likely in 30 CE or 33 CE. It is described in the four canonical gospels, referred to in the New Testament epistles, attested to by other ancient sources, and considered an established historical event.

An early non-Christian reference to the crucifixion of Jesus is likely to be Mara Bar-Serapion's letter to his son, written some time after AD 73 but before the 3rd century AD. The letter includes no Christian themes and the author is presumed to be neither Jewish nor Christian. The letter refers to the retributions that followed the unjust treatment of three wise men: Socrates, Pythagoras, and "the wise king" of the Jews.

In the Antiquities of the Jews (written about 93 AD) Jewish historian Josephus stated (Ant 18.3) that Jesus was crucified by Pilate, writing that:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, ... He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles ... And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross ...


Early in the second century another reference to the crucifixion of Jesus was made by Tacitus, generally considered one of the greatest Roman historians. Writing in The Annals (c. 116 AD), Tacitus described the persecution of Christians by Nero and stated (Annals 15.44) that Pilate ordered the execution of Jesus:

Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.
Scholars generally consider the Tacitus reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate to be genuine, and of historical value as an independent Roman source. Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.

Another possible reference to the crucifixion ("hanging", cf. Luke 23:39; Galatians 3:13) is found in the Babylonian Talmud:

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover.

— Sanhedrin 43a, Babylonian Talmud (Soncino Edition)

The baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion are considered to be two historically certain facts about Jesus. James Dunn states that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent" and "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical facts" that they are often the starting points for the study of the historical Jesus. Bart Ehrman states that the crucifixion of Jesus on the orders of Pontius Pilate is the most certain element about him.[78] John Dominic Crossan states that the crucifixion of Jesus is as certain as any historical fact can be. Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that there is non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus. Craig Blomberg states that most scholars in the third quest for the historical Jesus consider the crucifixion indisputable. Christopher M. Tuckett states that, although the exact reasons for the death of Jesus are hard to determine, one of the indisputable facts about him is that he was crucified.

John P. Meier views the crucifixion of Jesus as historical fact and states that Christians would not have invented the painful death of their leader, invoking the criterion of embarrassment principle in historical research. Meier states that a number of other criteria, e.g., the criterion of multiple attestation (i.e., confirmation by more than one source) and the criterion of coherence (i.e., that it fits with other historical elements) help establish the crucifixion of Jesus as a historical event.

While scholars agree on the historicity of the crucifixion, they differ on the reason and context for it. For example, both E. P. Sanders and Paula Fredriksen support the historicity of the crucifixion but contend that Jesus did not foretell his own crucifixion and that his prediction of the crucifixion is a "church creation".   Geza Vermes also views the crucifixion as a historical event but provides his own explanation and background for it.

Although almost all ancient sources relating to crucifixion are literary, in 1968, an archeological discovery just northeast of Jerusalem uncovered the body of a crucified man dated to the 1st century, which provided good confirmatory evidence that crucifixions occurred during the Roman period roughly according to the manner in which the crucifixion of Jesus is described in the gospels. The crucified man was identified as Yehohanan ben Hagkol and probably died about AD 70, around the time of the Jewish revolt against Rome. The analyses at the Hadassah Medical School estimated that he died in his late 20s. Another relevant archaeological find, which also dates to the 1st century AD, is an unidentified heel bone with a spike discovered in a Jerusalem gravesite, now held by the Israel Antiquities Authority and displayed in the Israel Museum.

Here is the historical record.

Oh, good (/s), the copy-paste poster is back.

You don’t like actual facts?

You want what to explain the historical facts concerning and surrounding the death of Jesus?

Historical record is what explains it- you want it paraphrased or made into a meme? Maybe a tik tok?

I mean, you just copy and pasted Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus) and most of the sources (not all, but most) there appear to be Christian in nature. Besides which, OP's question was not about the historicity of whether Jesus was crucified, which seems to be the focus of this Wikipedia article, but why? So, your whole post boils down to this one quote you copied that actually speaks to OP's question:

While scholars agree on the historicity of the crucifixion, they differ on the reason and context for it.

Yes, I told op to research and read for themselves and several posters made it seem like reading and researching on your own was too hard, so a few simple copy and pastes fulfilled the asked question. Op said thank you, so I guess instead of googling it, people ask here for others to google and link.

Where did the "thank you" poster identify themselves as OP? Also, again, all your info didn't actually answer the WHY behind the crucifixion, so it didn't really answer OP's question.

Are going to criticize and not attempt an answer yourself? You must have better information and sources and can get op their answer properly.

[Anonymous]

It was political. The Jews were a subject people of the Romans. Pretty much all we’re hoping for a Messiah to arrive and liberate them from Roman rule (which was oppressive due to a lack of religious freedom). The Nazarenes in particular expected the Messiah to come very soon. Some said Jesus was that Messiah. In scriptures, he never claims he’s a political liberator, but the Romans didn’t worry about details like that. If some Jews saw him that way, he was a threat to the political order.

He was crucified because he was charged with and found guilty of sedition and treason. Specifically, under Roman law the penalty for these crimes (in an occupied county) was death by crucifixion.

The PP was right. The Israelites were looking for a messiah who would be a warrior prince and lead them in a war that would drive the Romans from Israel.

However, His message was one of love for all people, Jews and non-Jews (including the Romans.) It was not as important that He died by crucifixion as that He gave His life to stop a war in His name,

[Anonymous]

Under Jewish law he was convicted for blasphemy under Roman law it was treason, because he said that he was king

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The earthly reason Jesus was crucified: mankind is evil. Wicked men conspired against Him, falsely accused Him, and murdered Him. The leaders of Israel had several reasons they wanted Jesus to be executed. They were envious of His following (Matthew 27:18). They were afraid that Jesus would gather too large a following, which might bring the Roman authorities down on the nation, causing them to lose their positions (John 11:48). They hated the fact that Jesus called out their sin publicly (Matthew 23). And they thought He was blaspheming when He claimed to be the Son of God (Luke 22:66–71). But all these reasons were simply symptoms of their underlying unbelief (John 5:46).

Jesus was crucified, rather than stoned, hanged, drowned, etc., because His execution was carried out by the Romans. Crucifixion was the method of execution employed by the Roman Empire to make an example of someone and to deter others from committing the same offense. It was normal to post the charges against the condemned on the cross. Pilate posted the charge “King of the Jews” on Jesus’ cross (Matthew 27:37). The Jewish leaders had made this accusation to goad the Roman governor into executing Jesus. John 19:12 reports, “From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jewish leaders kept shouting, ‘If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar.’” Pilate could not afford to be seen as tolerating a rival to Caesar.

https://www.gotquestions.org/why-was-Jesus-crucified.html

The above site answers questions about Christian history, beliefs, the Bible, etc, very accurately.

"Very accurately" within Christian theology. Not "very accurately" to the historical record.

The crucifixion and death of Jesus occurred in 1st-century Judea, most likely in 30 CE or 33 CE. It is described in the four canonical gospels, referred to in the New Testament epistles, attested to by other ancient sources, and considered an established historical event.

An early non-Christian reference to the crucifixion of Jesus is likely to be Mara Bar-Serapion's letter to his son, written some time after AD 73 but before the 3rd century AD. The letter includes no Christian themes and the author is presumed to be neither Jewish nor Christian. The letter refers to the retributions that followed the unjust treatment of three wise men: Socrates, Pythagoras, and "the wise king" of the Jews.

In the Antiquities of the Jews (written about 93 AD) Jewish historian Josephus stated (Ant 18.3) that Jesus was crucified by Pilate, writing that:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, ... He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles ... And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross ...


Early in the second century another reference to the crucifixion of Jesus was made by Tacitus, generally considered one of the greatest Roman historians. Writing in The Annals (c. 116 AD), Tacitus described the persecution of Christians by Nero and stated (Annals 15.44) that Pilate ordered the execution of Jesus:

Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.
Scholars generally consider the Tacitus reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate to be genuine, and of historical value as an independent Roman source. Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.

Another possible reference to the crucifixion ("hanging", cf. Luke 23:39; Galatians 3:13) is found in the Babylonian Talmud:

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover.

— Sanhedrin 43a, Babylonian Talmud (Soncino Edition)

The baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion are considered to be two historically certain facts about Jesus. James Dunn states that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent" and "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical facts" that they are often the starting points for the study of the historical Jesus. Bart Ehrman states that the crucifixion of Jesus on the orders of Pontius Pilate is the most certain element about him.[78] John Dominic Crossan states that the crucifixion of Jesus is as certain as any historical fact can be. Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that there is non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus. Craig Blomberg states that most scholars in the third quest for the historical Jesus consider the crucifixion indisputable. Christopher M. Tuckett states that, although the exact reasons for the death of Jesus are hard to determine, one of the indisputable facts about him is that he was crucified.

John P. Meier views the crucifixion of Jesus as historical fact and states that Christians would not have invented the painful death of their leader, invoking the criterion of embarrassment principle in historical research. Meier states that a number of other criteria, e.g., the criterion of multiple attestation (i.e., confirmation by more than one source) and the criterion of coherence (i.e., that it fits with other historical elements) help establish the crucifixion of Jesus as a historical event.

While scholars agree on the historicity of the crucifixion, they differ on the reason and context for it. For example, both E. P. Sanders and Paula Fredriksen support the historicity of the crucifixion but contend that Jesus did not foretell his own crucifixion and that his prediction of the crucifixion is a "church creation".   Geza Vermes also views the crucifixion as a historical event but provides his own explanation and background for it.

Although almost all ancient sources relating to crucifixion are literary, in 1968, an archeological discovery just northeast of Jerusalem uncovered the body of a crucified man dated to the 1st century, which provided good confirmatory evidence that crucifixions occurred during the Roman period roughly according to the manner in which the crucifixion of Jesus is described in the gospels. The crucified man was identified as Yehohanan ben Hagkol and probably died about AD 70, around the time of the Jewish revolt against Rome. The analyses at the Hadassah Medical School estimated that he died in his late 20s. Another relevant archaeological find, which also dates to the 1st century AD, is an unidentified heel bone with a spike discovered in a Jerusalem gravesite, now held by the Israel Antiquities Authority and displayed in the Israel Museum.

Here is the historical record.

Oh, good (/s), the copy-paste poster is back.

You don’t like actual facts?

You want what to explain the historical facts concerning and surrounding the death of Jesus?

Historical record is what explains it- you want it paraphrased or made into a meme? Maybe a tik tok?

I mean, you just copy and pasted Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus) and most of the sources (not all, but most) there appear to be Christian in nature. Besides which, OP's question was not about the historicity of whether Jesus was crucified, which seems to be the focus of this Wikipedia article, but why? So, your whole post boils down to this one quote you copied that actually speaks to OP's question:

While scholars agree on the historicity of the crucifixion, they differ on the reason and context for it.

Yes, I told op to research and read for themselves and several posters made it seem like reading and researching on your own was too hard, so a few simple copy and pastes fulfilled the asked question. Op said thank you, so I guess instead of googling it, people ask here for others to google and link.

Where did the "thank you" poster identify themselves as OP? Also, again, all your info didn't actually answer the WHY behind the crucifixion, so it didn't really answer OP's question.

Are going to criticize and not attempt an answer yourself? You must have better information and sources and can get op their answer properly.

This source says "Ribas Alba says that the charges against Jesus were both religious and political crimes, and that crucifixion was a standard punishment for such crimes."
https://world.time.com/2013/11/13/study-jesus-crucifixion-was-legal/

And from the same study: "the professor said Jesus faced two trials, one relating to blasphemy and the other to the crime of insulting a monarch or head of state."
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/jesus-trial-crucifixion-legal-study-article-1.1513910

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The earthly reason Jesus was crucified: mankind is evil. Wicked men conspired against Him, falsely accused Him, and murdered Him. The leaders of Israel had several reasons they wanted Jesus to be executed. They were envious of His following (Matthew 27:18). They were afraid that Jesus would gather too large a following, which might bring the Roman authorities down on the nation, causing them to lose their positions (John 11:48). They hated the fact that Jesus called out their sin publicly (Matthew 23). And they thought He was blaspheming when He claimed to be the Son of God (Luke 22:66–71). But all these reasons were simply symptoms of their underlying unbelief (John 5:46).

Jesus was crucified, rather than stoned, hanged, drowned, etc., because His execution was carried out by the Romans. Crucifixion was the method of execution employed by the Roman Empire to make an example of someone and to deter others from committing the same offense. It was normal to post the charges against the condemned on the cross. Pilate posted the charge “King of the Jews” on Jesus’ cross (Matthew 27:37). The Jewish leaders had made this accusation to goad the Roman governor into executing Jesus. John 19:12 reports, “From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jewish leaders kept shouting, ‘If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar.’” Pilate could not afford to be seen as tolerating a rival to Caesar.

https://www.gotquestions.org/why-was-Jesus-crucified.html

The above site answers questions about Christian history, beliefs, the Bible, etc, very accurately.

"Very accurately" within Christian theology. Not "very accurately" to the historical record.

The crucifixion and death of Jesus occurred in 1st-century Judea, most likely in 30 CE or 33 CE. It is described in the four canonical gospels, referred to in the New Testament epistles, attested to by other ancient sources, and considered an established historical event.

An early non-Christian reference to the crucifixion of Jesus is likely to be Mara Bar-Serapion's letter to his son, written some time after AD 73 but before the 3rd century AD. The letter includes no Christian themes and the author is presumed to be neither Jewish nor Christian. The letter refers to the retributions that followed the unjust treatment of three wise men: Socrates, Pythagoras, and "the wise king" of the Jews.

In the Antiquities of the Jews (written about 93 AD) Jewish historian Josephus stated (Ant 18.3) that Jesus was crucified by Pilate, writing that:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, ... He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles ... And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross ...


Early in the second century another reference to the crucifixion of Jesus was made by Tacitus, generally considered one of the greatest Roman historians. Writing in The Annals (c. 116 AD), Tacitus described the persecution of Christians by Nero and stated (Annals 15.44) that Pilate ordered the execution of Jesus:

Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.
Scholars generally consider the Tacitus reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate to be genuine, and of historical value as an independent Roman source. Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.

Another possible reference to the crucifixion ("hanging", cf. Luke 23:39; Galatians 3:13) is found in the Babylonian Talmud:

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover.

— Sanhedrin 43a, Babylonian Talmud (Soncino Edition)

The baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion are considered to be two historically certain facts about Jesus. James Dunn states that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent" and "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical facts" that they are often the starting points for the study of the historical Jesus. Bart Ehrman states that the crucifixion of Jesus on the orders of Pontius Pilate is the most certain element about him.[78] John Dominic Crossan states that the crucifixion of Jesus is as certain as any historical fact can be. Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that there is non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus. Craig Blomberg states that most scholars in the third quest for the historical Jesus consider the crucifixion indisputable. Christopher M. Tuckett states that, although the exact reasons for the death of Jesus are hard to determine, one of the indisputable facts about him is that he was crucified.

John P. Meier views the crucifixion of Jesus as historical fact and states that Christians would not have invented the painful death of their leader, invoking the criterion of embarrassment principle in historical research. Meier states that a number of other criteria, e.g., the criterion of multiple attestation (i.e., confirmation by more than one source) and the criterion of coherence (i.e., that it fits with other historical elements) help establish the crucifixion of Jesus as a historical event.

While scholars agree on the historicity of the crucifixion, they differ on the reason and context for it. For example, both E. P. Sanders and Paula Fredriksen support the historicity of the crucifixion but contend that Jesus did not foretell his own crucifixion and that his prediction of the crucifixion is a "church creation".   Geza Vermes also views the crucifixion as a historical event but provides his own explanation and background for it.

Although almost all ancient sources relating to crucifixion are literary, in 1968, an archeological discovery just northeast of Jerusalem uncovered the body of a crucified man dated to the 1st century, which provided good confirmatory evidence that crucifixions occurred during the Roman period roughly according to the manner in which the crucifixion of Jesus is described in the gospels. The crucified man was identified as Yehohanan ben Hagkol and probably died about AD 70, around the time of the Jewish revolt against Rome. The analyses at the Hadassah Medical School estimated that he died in his late 20s. Another relevant archaeological find, which also dates to the 1st century AD, is an unidentified heel bone with a spike discovered in a Jerusalem gravesite, now held by the Israel Antiquities Authority and displayed in the Israel Museum.

Here is the historical record.

Oh, good (/s), the copy-paste poster is back.

You don’t like actual facts?

You want what to explain the historical facts concerning and surrounding the death of Jesus?

Historical record is what explains it- you want it paraphrased or made into a meme? Maybe a tik tok?

I mean, you just copy and pasted Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus) and most of the sources (not all, but most) there appear to be Christian in nature. Besides which, OP's question was not about the historicity of whether Jesus was crucified, which seems to be the focus of this Wikipedia article, but why? So, your whole post boils down to this one quote you copied that actually speaks to OP's question:

While scholars agree on the historicity of the crucifixion, they differ on the reason and context for it.

Yes, I told op to research and read for themselves and several posters made it seem like reading and researching on your own was too hard, so a few simple copy and pastes fulfilled the asked question. Op said thank you, so I guess instead of googling it, people ask here for others to google and link.

Where did the "thank you" poster identify themselves as OP? Also, again, all your info didn't actually answer the WHY behind the crucifixion, so it didn't really answer OP's question.

Are going to criticize and not attempt an answer yourself? You must have better information and sources and can get op their answer properly.

This source says "Ribas Alba says that the charges against Jesus were both religious and political crimes, and that crucifixion was a standard punishment for such crimes."
https://world.time.com/2013/11/13/study-jesus-crucifixion-was-legal/

And from the same study: "the professor said Jesus faced two trials, one relating to blasphemy and the other to the crime of insulting a monarch or head of state."
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/jesus-trial-crucifixion-legal-study-article-1.1513910

Why copy and paste?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The earthly reason Jesus was crucified: mankind is evil. Wicked men conspired against Him, falsely accused Him, and murdered Him. The leaders of Israel had several reasons they wanted Jesus to be executed. They were envious of His following (Matthew 27:18). They were afraid that Jesus would gather too large a following, which might bring the Roman authorities down on the nation, causing them to lose their positions (John 11:48). They hated the fact that Jesus called out their sin publicly (Matthew 23). And they thought He was blaspheming when He claimed to be the Son of God (Luke 22:66–71). But all these reasons were simply symptoms of their underlying unbelief (John 5:46).

Jesus was crucified, rather than stoned, hanged, drowned, etc., because His execution was carried out by the Romans. Crucifixion was the method of execution employed by the Roman Empire to make an example of someone and to deter others from committing the same offense. It was normal to post the charges against the condemned on the cross. Pilate posted the charge “King of the Jews” on Jesus’ cross (Matthew 27:37). The Jewish leaders had made this accusation to goad the Roman governor into executing Jesus. John 19:12 reports, “From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jewish leaders kept shouting, ‘If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar.’” Pilate could not afford to be seen as tolerating a rival to Caesar.

https://www.gotquestions.org/why-was-Jesus-crucified.html

The above site answers questions about Christian history, beliefs, the Bible, etc, very accurately.

"Very accurately" within Christian theology. Not "very accurately" to the historical record.

The crucifixion and death of Jesus occurred in 1st-century Judea, most likely in 30 CE or 33 CE. It is described in the four canonical gospels, referred to in the New Testament epistles, attested to by other ancient sources, and considered an established historical event.

An early non-Christian reference to the crucifixion of Jesus is likely to be Mara Bar-Serapion's letter to his son, written some time after AD 73 but before the 3rd century AD. The letter includes no Christian themes and the author is presumed to be neither Jewish nor Christian. The letter refers to the retributions that followed the unjust treatment of three wise men: Socrates, Pythagoras, and "the wise king" of the Jews.

In the Antiquities of the Jews (written about 93 AD) Jewish historian Josephus stated (Ant 18.3) that Jesus was crucified by Pilate, writing that:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, ... He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles ... And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross ...


Early in the second century another reference to the crucifixion of Jesus was made by Tacitus, generally considered one of the greatest Roman historians. Writing in The Annals (c. 116 AD), Tacitus described the persecution of Christians by Nero and stated (Annals 15.44) that Pilate ordered the execution of Jesus:

Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.
Scholars generally consider the Tacitus reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate to be genuine, and of historical value as an independent Roman source. Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.

Another possible reference to the crucifixion ("hanging", cf. Luke 23:39; Galatians 3:13) is found in the Babylonian Talmud:

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover.

— Sanhedrin 43a, Babylonian Talmud (Soncino Edition)

The baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion are considered to be two historically certain facts about Jesus. James Dunn states that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent" and "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical facts" that they are often the starting points for the study of the historical Jesus. Bart Ehrman states that the crucifixion of Jesus on the orders of Pontius Pilate is the most certain element about him.[78] John Dominic Crossan states that the crucifixion of Jesus is as certain as any historical fact can be. Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that there is non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus. Craig Blomberg states that most scholars in the third quest for the historical Jesus consider the crucifixion indisputable. Christopher M. Tuckett states that, although the exact reasons for the death of Jesus are hard to determine, one of the indisputable facts about him is that he was crucified.

John P. Meier views the crucifixion of Jesus as historical fact and states that Christians would not have invented the painful death of their leader, invoking the criterion of embarrassment principle in historical research. Meier states that a number of other criteria, e.g., the criterion of multiple attestation (i.e., confirmation by more than one source) and the criterion of coherence (i.e., that it fits with other historical elements) help establish the crucifixion of Jesus as a historical event.

While scholars agree on the historicity of the crucifixion, they differ on the reason and context for it. For example, both E. P. Sanders and Paula Fredriksen support the historicity of the crucifixion but contend that Jesus did not foretell his own crucifixion and that his prediction of the crucifixion is a "church creation".   Geza Vermes also views the crucifixion as a historical event but provides his own explanation and background for it.

Although almost all ancient sources relating to crucifixion are literary, in 1968, an archeological discovery just northeast of Jerusalem uncovered the body of a crucified man dated to the 1st century, which provided good confirmatory evidence that crucifixions occurred during the Roman period roughly according to the manner in which the crucifixion of Jesus is described in the gospels. The crucified man was identified as Yehohanan ben Hagkol and probably died about AD 70, around the time of the Jewish revolt against Rome. The analyses at the Hadassah Medical School estimated that he died in his late 20s. Another relevant archaeological find, which also dates to the 1st century AD, is an unidentified heel bone with a spike discovered in a Jerusalem gravesite, now held by the Israel Antiquities Authority and displayed in the Israel Museum.

Here is the historical record.

Oh, good (/s), the copy-paste poster is back.

You don’t like actual facts?

You want what to explain the historical facts concerning and surrounding the death of Jesus?

Historical record is what explains it- you want it paraphrased or made into a meme? Maybe a tik tok?

I mean, you just copy and pasted Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus) and most of the sources (not all, but most) there appear to be Christian in nature. Besides which, OP's question was not about the historicity of whether Jesus was crucified, which seems to be the focus of this Wikipedia article, but why? So, your whole post boils down to this one quote you copied that actually speaks to OP's question:

While scholars agree on the historicity of the crucifixion, they differ on the reason and context for it.

Yes, I told op to research and read for themselves and several posters made it seem like reading and researching on your own was too hard, so a few simple copy and pastes fulfilled the asked question. Op said thank you, so I guess instead of googling it, people ask here for others to google and link.

Where did the "thank you" poster identify themselves as OP? Also, again, all your info didn't actually answer the WHY behind the crucifixion, so it didn't really answer OP's question.

Are going to criticize and not attempt an answer yourself? You must have better information and sources and can get op their answer properly.

This source says "Ribas Alba says that the charges against Jesus were both religious and political crimes, and that crucifixion was a standard punishment for such crimes."
https://world.time.com/2013/11/13/study-jesus-crucifixion-was-legal/

And from the same study: "the professor said Jesus faced two trials, one relating to blasphemy and the other to the crime of insulting a monarch or head of state."
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/jesus-trial-crucifixion-legal-study-article-1.1513910

Why copy and paste?

NP
There is a link, so it isn’t only copy and paste.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To elaborate on 22:07, there was some sort of law where the Jewish people could save someone (like get a pardon) and Pilate was trying to offer that so he could have a way out and spare him. The people in the crowd picked Barabbas (some bad dude) instead. I recall Pilate was surprised at this.

OP, if you go read the story rather than rely on DCUM (including me, who is going off memory) it should answer your question

"The story" is deeply antisemitic. I think/hope OP is looking for actual historical information and not a regurgitation of "the Jews killed Jesus" that can be found in "the story."

I don't think it is. I think antisemites have used the story as an excuse to be antisemitic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Under Jewish law he was convicted for blasphemy under Roman law it was treason, because he said that he was king

but he didn't say that. people said that about him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The earthly reason Jesus was crucified: mankind is evil. Wicked men conspired against Him, falsely accused Him, and murdered Him. The leaders of Israel had several reasons they wanted Jesus to be executed. They were envious of His following (Matthew 27:18). They were afraid that Jesus would gather too large a following, which might bring the Roman authorities down on the nation, causing them to lose their positions (John 11:48). They hated the fact that Jesus called out their sin publicly (Matthew 23). And they thought He was blaspheming when He claimed to be the Son of God (Luke 22:66–71). But all these reasons were simply symptoms of their underlying unbelief (John 5:46).

Jesus was crucified, rather than stoned, hanged, drowned, etc., because His execution was carried out by the Romans. Crucifixion was the method of execution employed by the Roman Empire to make an example of someone and to deter others from committing the same offense. It was normal to post the charges against the condemned on the cross. Pilate posted the charge “King of the Jews” on Jesus’ cross (Matthew 27:37). The Jewish leaders had made this accusation to goad the Roman governor into executing Jesus. John 19:12 reports, “From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jewish leaders kept shouting, ‘If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar.’” Pilate could not afford to be seen as tolerating a rival to Caesar.

https://www.gotquestions.org/why-was-Jesus-crucified.html

The above site answers questions about Christian history, beliefs, the Bible, etc, very accurately.

"Very accurately" within Christian theology. Not "very accurately" to the historical record.

The crucifixion and death of Jesus occurred in 1st-century Judea, most likely in 30 CE or 33 CE. It is described in the four canonical gospels, referred to in the New Testament epistles, attested to by other ancient sources, and considered an established historical event.

An early non-Christian reference to the crucifixion of Jesus is likely to be Mara Bar-Serapion's letter to his son, written some time after AD 73 but before the 3rd century AD. The letter includes no Christian themes and the author is presumed to be neither Jewish nor Christian. The letter refers to the retributions that followed the unjust treatment of three wise men: Socrates, Pythagoras, and "the wise king" of the Jews.

In the Antiquities of the Jews (written about 93 AD) Jewish historian Josephus stated (Ant 18.3) that Jesus was crucified by Pilate, writing that:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, ... He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles ... And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross ...


Early in the second century another reference to the crucifixion of Jesus was made by Tacitus, generally considered one of the greatest Roman historians. Writing in The Annals (c. 116 AD), Tacitus described the persecution of Christians by Nero and stated (Annals 15.44) that Pilate ordered the execution of Jesus:

Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.
Scholars generally consider the Tacitus reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate to be genuine, and of historical value as an independent Roman source. Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.

Another possible reference to the crucifixion ("hanging", cf. Luke 23:39; Galatians 3:13) is found in the Babylonian Talmud:

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover.

— Sanhedrin 43a, Babylonian Talmud (Soncino Edition)

The baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion are considered to be two historically certain facts about Jesus. James Dunn states that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent" and "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical facts" that they are often the starting points for the study of the historical Jesus. Bart Ehrman states that the crucifixion of Jesus on the orders of Pontius Pilate is the most certain element about him.[78] John Dominic Crossan states that the crucifixion of Jesus is as certain as any historical fact can be. Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that there is non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus. Craig Blomberg states that most scholars in the third quest for the historical Jesus consider the crucifixion indisputable. Christopher M. Tuckett states that, although the exact reasons for the death of Jesus are hard to determine, one of the indisputable facts about him is that he was crucified.

John P. Meier views the crucifixion of Jesus as historical fact and states that Christians would not have invented the painful death of their leader, invoking the criterion of embarrassment principle in historical research. Meier states that a number of other criteria, e.g., the criterion of multiple attestation (i.e., confirmation by more than one source) and the criterion of coherence (i.e., that it fits with other historical elements) help establish the crucifixion of Jesus as a historical event.

While scholars agree on the historicity of the crucifixion, they differ on the reason and context for it. For example, both E. P. Sanders and Paula Fredriksen support the historicity of the crucifixion but contend that Jesus did not foretell his own crucifixion and that his prediction of the crucifixion is a "church creation".   Geza Vermes also views the crucifixion as a historical event but provides his own explanation and background for it.

Although almost all ancient sources relating to crucifixion are literary, in 1968, an archeological discovery just northeast of Jerusalem uncovered the body of a crucified man dated to the 1st century, which provided good confirmatory evidence that crucifixions occurred during the Roman period roughly according to the manner in which the crucifixion of Jesus is described in the gospels. The crucified man was identified as Yehohanan ben Hagkol and probably died about AD 70, around the time of the Jewish revolt against Rome. The analyses at the Hadassah Medical School estimated that he died in his late 20s. Another relevant archaeological find, which also dates to the 1st century AD, is an unidentified heel bone with a spike discovered in a Jerusalem gravesite, now held by the Israel Antiquities Authority and displayed in the Israel Museum.

Here is the historical record.

Oh, good (/s), the copy-paste poster is back.

You don’t like actual facts?

You want what to explain the historical facts concerning and surrounding the death of Jesus?

Historical record is what explains it- you want it paraphrased or made into a meme? Maybe a tik tok?

I mean, you just copy and pasted Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus) and most of the sources (not all, but most) there appear to be Christian in nature. Besides which, OP's question was not about the historicity of whether Jesus was crucified, which seems to be the focus of this Wikipedia article, but why? So, your whole post boils down to this one quote you copied that actually speaks to OP's question:

While scholars agree on the historicity of the crucifixion, they differ on the reason and context for it.

Yes, I told op to research and read for themselves and several posters made it seem like reading and researching on your own was too hard, so a few simple copy and pastes fulfilled the asked question. Op said thank you, so I guess instead of googling it, people ask here for others to google and link.

Where did the "thank you" poster identify themselves as OP? Also, again, all your info didn't actually answer the WHY behind the crucifixion, so it didn't really answer OP's question.

Are going to criticize and not attempt an answer yourself? You must have better information and sources and can get op their answer properly.

This source says "Ribas Alba says that the charges against Jesus were both religious and political crimes, and that crucifixion was a standard punishment for such crimes."
https://world.time.com/2013/11/13/study-jesus-crucifixion-was-legal/

And from the same study: "the professor said Jesus faced two trials, one relating to blasphemy and the other to the crime of insulting a monarch or head of state."
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/jesus-trial-crucifixion-legal-study-article-1.1513910

Why copy and paste?

Because I'm not a Jesus crucifixion scholar, so speaking in my own words wouldn't get us anywhere. Note how I pulled out the relevant parts, rather than pasting the whole article here. Also, provided links to cite my sources for people to read more fully if interested. And finally, I'm not just going to copy and paste it over and over again throughout this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To elaborate on 22:07, there was some sort of law where the Jewish people could save someone (like get a pardon) and Pilate was trying to offer that so he could have a way out and spare him. The people in the crowd picked Barabbas (some bad dude) instead. I recall Pilate was surprised at this.

OP, if you go read the story rather than rely on DCUM (including me, who is going off memory) it should answer your question

I recall this story well. It is quite different if you imagine Pilate's tone of voice being more like Donald Trump: "Don't you want me to SAVE him?!" as the crowd demands death. Unfortunately the text in English doesn't give us a clear sense of whether this is a possible reading.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Under Jewish law he was convicted for blasphemy under Roman law it was treason, because he said that he was king

but he didn't say that. people said that about him.

Yes, but he didn’t refute the claim during interrogations .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The earthly reason Jesus was crucified: mankind is evil. Wicked men conspired against Him, falsely accused Him, and murdered Him. The leaders of Israel had several reasons they wanted Jesus to be executed. They were envious of His following (Matthew 27:18). They were afraid that Jesus would gather too large a following, which might bring the Roman authorities down on the nation, causing them to lose their positions (John 11:48). They hated the fact that Jesus called out their sin publicly (Matthew 23). And they thought He was blaspheming when He claimed to be the Son of God (Luke 22:66–71). But all these reasons were simply symptoms of their underlying unbelief (John 5:46).

Jesus was crucified, rather than stoned, hanged, drowned, etc., because His execution was carried out by the Romans. Crucifixion was the method of execution employed by the Roman Empire to make an example of someone and to deter others from committing the same offense. It was normal to post the charges against the condemned on the cross. Pilate posted the charge “King of the Jews” on Jesus’ cross (Matthew 27:37). The Jewish leaders had made this accusation to goad the Roman governor into executing Jesus. John 19:12 reports, “From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jewish leaders kept shouting, ‘If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar.’” Pilate could not afford to be seen as tolerating a rival to Caesar.

https://www.gotquestions.org/why-was-Jesus-crucified.html

The above site answers questions about Christian history, beliefs, the Bible, etc, very accurately.

"Very accurately" within Christian theology. Not "very accurately" to the historical record.

The crucifixion and death of Jesus occurred in 1st-century Judea, most likely in 30 CE or 33 CE. It is described in the four canonical gospels, referred to in the New Testament epistles, attested to by other ancient sources, and considered an established historical event.

An early non-Christian reference to the crucifixion of Jesus is likely to be Mara Bar-Serapion's letter to his son, written some time after AD 73 but before the 3rd century AD. The letter includes no Christian themes and the author is presumed to be neither Jewish nor Christian. The letter refers to the retributions that followed the unjust treatment of three wise men: Socrates, Pythagoras, and "the wise king" of the Jews.

In the Antiquities of the Jews (written about 93 AD) Jewish historian Josephus stated (Ant 18.3) that Jesus was crucified by Pilate, writing that:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, ... He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles ... And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross ...


Early in the second century another reference to the crucifixion of Jesus was made by Tacitus, generally considered one of the greatest Roman historians. Writing in The Annals (c. 116 AD), Tacitus described the persecution of Christians by Nero and stated (Annals 15.44) that Pilate ordered the execution of Jesus:

Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.
Scholars generally consider the Tacitus reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate to be genuine, and of historical value as an independent Roman source. Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.

Another possible reference to the crucifixion ("hanging", cf. Luke 23:39; Galatians 3:13) is found in the Babylonian Talmud:

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover.

— Sanhedrin 43a, Babylonian Talmud (Soncino Edition)

The baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion are considered to be two historically certain facts about Jesus. James Dunn states that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent" and "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical facts" that they are often the starting points for the study of the historical Jesus. Bart Ehrman states that the crucifixion of Jesus on the orders of Pontius Pilate is the most certain element about him.[78] John Dominic Crossan states that the crucifixion of Jesus is as certain as any historical fact can be. Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that there is non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus. Craig Blomberg states that most scholars in the third quest for the historical Jesus consider the crucifixion indisputable. Christopher M. Tuckett states that, although the exact reasons for the death of Jesus are hard to determine, one of the indisputable facts about him is that he was crucified.

John P. Meier views the crucifixion of Jesus as historical fact and states that Christians would not have invented the painful death of their leader, invoking the criterion of embarrassment principle in historical research. Meier states that a number of other criteria, e.g., the criterion of multiple attestation (i.e., confirmation by more than one source) and the criterion of coherence (i.e., that it fits with other historical elements) help establish the crucifixion of Jesus as a historical event.

While scholars agree on the historicity of the crucifixion, they differ on the reason and context for it. For example, both E. P. Sanders and Paula Fredriksen support the historicity of the crucifixion but contend that Jesus did not foretell his own crucifixion and that his prediction of the crucifixion is a "church creation".   Geza Vermes also views the crucifixion as a historical event but provides his own explanation and background for it.

Although almost all ancient sources relating to crucifixion are literary, in 1968, an archeological discovery just northeast of Jerusalem uncovered the body of a crucified man dated to the 1st century, which provided good confirmatory evidence that crucifixions occurred during the Roman period roughly according to the manner in which the crucifixion of Jesus is described in the gospels. The crucified man was identified as Yehohanan ben Hagkol and probably died about AD 70, around the time of the Jewish revolt against Rome. The analyses at the Hadassah Medical School estimated that he died in his late 20s. Another relevant archaeological find, which also dates to the 1st century AD, is an unidentified heel bone with a spike discovered in a Jerusalem gravesite, now held by the Israel Antiquities Authority and displayed in the Israel Museum.

Here is the historical record.

Oh, good (/s), the copy-paste poster is back.

You don’t like actual facts?

You want what to explain the historical facts concerning and surrounding the death of Jesus?

Historical record is what explains it- you want it paraphrased or made into a meme? Maybe a tik tok?

I mean, you just copy and pasted Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus) and most of the sources (not all, but most) there appear to be Christian in nature. Besides which, OP's question was not about the historicity of whether Jesus was crucified, which seems to be the focus of this Wikipedia article, but why? So, your whole post boils down to this one quote you copied that actually speaks to OP's question:

While scholars agree on the historicity of the crucifixion, they differ on the reason and context for it.

Yes, I told op to research and read for themselves and several posters made it seem like reading and researching on your own was too hard, so a few simple copy and pastes fulfilled the asked question. Op said thank you, so I guess instead of googling it, people ask here for others to google and link.

Where did the "thank you" poster identify themselves as OP? Also, again, all your info didn't actually answer the WHY behind the crucifixion, so it didn't really answer OP's question.

Are going to criticize and not attempt an answer yourself? You must have better information and sources and can get op their answer properly.

This source says "Ribas Alba says that the charges against Jesus were both religious and political crimes, and that crucifixion was a standard punishment for such crimes."
https://world.time.com/2013/11/13/study-jesus-crucifixion-was-legal/

And from the same study: "the professor said Jesus faced two trials, one relating to blasphemy and the other to the crime of insulting a monarch or head of state."
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/jesus-trial-crucifixion-legal-study-article-1.1513910

Why copy and paste?

NP. Do you not understand how simple citations work? As long as she gave a link, she’s credited the original source adequately. If you think anybody has time to craft essays in response to your petulant criticisms, you have a really inflated sense of your atheist self.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To elaborate on 22:07, there was some sort of law where the Jewish people could save someone (like get a pardon) and Pilate was trying to offer that so he could have a way out and spare him. The people in the crowd picked Barabbas (some bad dude) instead. I recall Pilate was surprised at this.

OP, if you go read the story rather than rely on DCUM (including me, who is going off memory) it should answer your question

"The story" is deeply antisemitic. I think/hope OP is looking for actual historical information and not a regurgitation of "the Jews killed Jesus" that can be found in "the story."

I don't think it is. I think antisemites have used the story as an excuse to be antisemitic

The story itself paints Jews as a mob that calls for Jesus' death; I think that's antisemitic in its own right. From the US Holocaust Museum: "For centuries the Church taught that Jews were responsible for Jesus' death, not recognizing, as most historians do today, that Jesus was executed by the Roman government because officials viewed him as a political threat to their rule." https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/antisemitism-in-history-from-the-early-church-to-1400
Antisemites don't need much of an excuse to be terrible, but the story provides them a good one and that's a problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To elaborate on 22:07, there was some sort of law where the Jewish people could save someone (like get a pardon) and Pilate was trying to offer that so he could have a way out and spare him. The people in the crowd picked Barabbas (some bad dude) instead. I recall Pilate was surprised at this.

OP, if you go read the story rather than rely on DCUM (including me, who is going off memory) it should answer your question

"The story" is deeply antisemitic. I think/hope OP is looking for actual historical information and not a regurgitation of "the Jews killed Jesus" that can be found in "the story."

I don't think it is. I think antisemites have used the story as an excuse to be antisemitic

The story itself paints Jews as a mob that calls for Jesus' death; I think that's antisemitic in its own right. From the US Holocaust Museum: "For centuries the Church taught that Jews were responsible for Jesus' death, not recognizing, as most historians do today, that Jesus was executed by the Roman government because officials viewed him as a political threat to their rule." https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/antisemitism-in-history-from-the-early-church-to-1400
Antisemites don't need much of an excuse to be terrible, but the story provides them a good one and that's a problem.

I agree with PP that the story itself is not anti-semitic, although it has been used as an excuse by antisemites, who as you point out don’t need much of an excuse.

Keep in mind that Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and the apostles were all Jewish.

The story seems to be blaming those more concerned with their personal power than justice. I wouldn’t say that January 6 is a reason to hate Americans, although those who stormed the capitol were American. It’s also a story of how those in power stirred up a mob for their own selfish interests. I think those who are inclined to hate Americans anyway may point to it as an excuse, overlooking the Americans who made sure the mob didn’t get their way.

Every group has its good and bad members. There are always those looking for a reason to hate others and they’ll make it up if they have to. This doesn’t mean that acknowledging some people within a group acted badly justifies hating the entire group. The key to opposing hate (of anyone) isn’t to stop telling stories that reflect badly on individuals, but to remember that groups are not faceless monoliths, but are made up of individual humans who should be judged for all their individual virtues and flaws as individuals, just like our (flawed) selves.

[Anonymous]

The Romans would crucify you for lots of things and I think they got Jesus for basically preaching without a license.