Why was Jesus crucified ? ( Legally speaking )

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd say, realistically, and based on the available facts, the crucifiction can be blamed 40% on the Jews and 60% on the Romans. We can argue a bit on that, but I am particularly influenced in this conclusion by the offer Pilate made to free one of the prisoners after their condemnation, and the crowd picked Barabbas, a murderer, to be freed and not Jesus.

"Facts" by which you mean Scripture.

well, yeah, but that's all we got.
And if you quote a Bible verse, it's a fact that was written in the Bible.

The Scripture, which was written with the agenda to get people to believe in the divinity of Jesus, does two things here that are problematic:

1. It paints Pontius Pilate in a sympathetic light, as if he wouldn't have crucified Jesus if not for the insistence of the Jewish mob. But "non-Biblical sources portray [Pilate] as a barbarous leader who willfully defied the traditions of the Jewish people he oversaw." https://www.history.com/news/why-pontius-pilate-executed-jesus

2. It demonizes the Jews by turning them as a whole into a mob that would rather free a murderer than Jesus, as you put it above.

Taking Scripture as fact leads you to say that "based on the available facts, the crucifixion can be blamed 40% on Jews." There are so many other things from antiquity and the Bible that we are ok with not really knowing for sure (the Flood and the Exodus, for example). We conclude they are complicated by other historical records and we are largely ok with taking them on faith as important stories about morality, regardless of the "facts" behind them. So to take the scripture of the crucifixion as "fact" because "that's all we got" when we are willing to put so many other things in the realm of we-don't-know-for-sure is just so incredibly problematic.

That was just my personal rough estimate. Of course, the percentages can be argued about. And it is of course problematic since we don't know for sure. Probably a billion Christians believe this though.

NP
You should correct it to 40% of the the crowd at that time, not the % of the population as a whole.

who knows, but I think it was more like 90% of the crowd at the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd say, realistically, and based on the available facts, the crucifiction can be blamed 40% on the Jews and 60% on the Romans. We can argue a bit on that, but I am particularly influenced in this conclusion by the offer Pilate made to free one of the prisoners after their condemnation, and the crowd picked Barabbas, a murderer, to be freed and not Jesus.

"Facts" by which you mean Scripture.

well, yeah, but that's all we got.
And if you quote a Bible verse, it's a fact that was written in the Bible.

The Scripture, which was written with the agenda to get people to believe in the divinity of Jesus, does two things here that are problematic:

1. It paints Pontius Pilate in a sympathetic light, as if he wouldn't have crucified Jesus if not for the insistence of the Jewish mob. But "non-Biblical sources portray [Pilate] as a barbarous leader who willfully defied the traditions of the Jewish people he oversaw." https://www.history.com/news/why-pontius-pilate-executed-jesus

2. It demonizes the Jews by turning them as a whole into a mob that would rather free a murderer than Jesus, as you put it above.

Taking Scripture as fact leads you to say that "based on the available facts, the crucifixion can be blamed 40% on Jews." There are so many other things from antiquity and the Bible that we are ok with not really knowing for sure (the Flood and the Exodus, for example). We conclude they are complicated by other historical records and we are largely ok with taking them on faith as important stories about morality, regardless of the "facts" behind them. So to take the scripture of the crucifixion as "fact" because "that's all we got" when we are willing to put so many other things in the realm of we-don't-know-for-sure is just so incredibly problematic.

That was just my personal rough estimate. Of course, the percentages can be argued about. And it is of course problematic since we don't know for sure. Probably a billion Christians believe this though.

NP
You should correct it to 40% of the the crowd at that time, not the % of the population as a whole.

who knows, but I think it was more like 90% of the crowd at the time.

or 90% of the crowd in churches when they do the Good Friday reenactment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd say, realistically, and based on the available facts, the crucifiction can be blamed 40% on the Jews and 60% on the Romans. We can argue a bit on that, but I am particularly influenced in this conclusion by the offer Pilate made to free one of the prisoners after their condemnation, and the crowd picked Barabbas, a murderer, to be freed and not Jesus.

"Facts" by which you mean Scripture.

well, yeah, but that's all we got.
And if you quote a Bible verse, it's a fact that was written in the Bible.

The Scripture, which was written with the agenda to get people to believe in the divinity of Jesus, does two things here that are problematic:

1. It paints Pontius Pilate in a sympathetic light, as if he wouldn't have crucified Jesus if not for the insistence of the Jewish mob. But "non-Biblical sources portray [Pilate] as a barbarous leader who willfully defied the traditions of the Jewish people he oversaw." https://www.history.com/news/why-pontius-pilate-executed-jesus

2. It demonizes the Jews by turning them as a whole into a mob that would rather free a murderer than Jesus, as you put it above.

Taking Scripture as fact leads you to say that "based on the available facts, the crucifixion can be blamed 40% on Jews." There are so many other things from antiquity and the Bible that we are ok with not really knowing for sure (the Flood and the Exodus, for example). We conclude they are complicated by other historical records and we are largely ok with taking them on faith as important stories about morality, regardless of the "facts" behind them. So to take the scripture of the crucifixion as "fact" because "that's all we got" when we are willing to put so many other things in the realm of we-don't-know-for-sure is just so incredibly problematic.

That was just my personal rough estimate. Of course, the percentages can be argued about. And it is of course problematic since we don't know for sure. Probably a billion Christians believe this though.

I think you missed my point? Let me try again. I'm not interested in arguing percentages and I don't think "that's all we got" and "a billion Christians believe this" are good reasons to perpetuate the idea of scripture as "fact." OP asked why Jesus was crucified under Roman law. Laying "blame" (of any percentage) at anyone's feet was not the question. It's a legal and historical question, which has been answered by a few people (blasphemy and treason or insulting the head of state) without citing scripture which scapegoats Jews and washes Roman (Pilate's) hands of his death.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd say, realistically, and based on the available facts, the crucifiction can be blamed 40% on the Jews and 60% on the Romans. We can argue a bit on that, but I am particularly influenced in this conclusion by the offer Pilate made to free one of the prisoners after their condemnation, and the crowd picked Barabbas, a murderer, to be freed and not Jesus.

"Facts" by which you mean Scripture.

well, yeah, but that's all we got.
And if you quote a Bible verse, it's a fact that was written in the Bible.

The Scripture, which was written with the agenda to get people to believe in the divinity of Jesus, does two things here that are problematic:

1. It paints Pontius Pilate in a sympathetic light, as if he wouldn't have crucified Jesus if not for the insistence of the Jewish mob. But "non-Biblical sources portray [Pilate] as a barbarous leader who willfully defied the traditions of the Jewish people he oversaw." https://www.history.com/news/why-pontius-pilate-executed-jesus

2. It demonizes the Jews by turning them as a whole into a mob that would rather free a murderer than Jesus, as you put it above.

Taking Scripture as fact leads you to say that "based on the available facts, the crucifixion can be blamed 40% on Jews." There are so many other things from antiquity and the Bible that we are ok with not really knowing for sure (the Flood and the Exodus, for example). We conclude they are complicated by other historical records and we are largely ok with taking them on faith as important stories about morality, regardless of the "facts" behind them. So to take the scripture of the crucifixion as "fact" because "that's all we got" when we are willing to put so many other things in the realm of we-don't-know-for-sure is just so incredibly problematic.

That was just my personal rough estimate. Of course, the percentages can be argued about. And it is of course problematic since we don't know for sure. Probably a billion Christians believe this though.

I think you missed my point? Let me try again. I'm not interested in arguing percentages and I don't think "that's all we got" and "a billion Christians believe this" are good reasons to perpetuate the idea of scripture as "fact." OP asked why Jesus was crucified under Roman law. Laying "blame" (of any percentage) at anyone's feet was not the question. It's a legal and historical question, which has been answered by a few people (blasphemy and treason or insulting the head of state) without citing scripture which scapegoats Jews and washes Roman (Pilate's) hands of his death.

But still, missing your point presents an opportunity to blame pp for laying blame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd say, realistically, and based on the available facts, the crucifiction can be blamed 40% on the Jews and 60% on the Romans. We can argue a bit on that, but I am particularly influenced in this conclusion by the offer Pilate made to free one of the prisoners after their condemnation, and the crowd picked Barabbas, a murderer, to be freed and not Jesus.

"Facts" by which you mean Scripture.

well, yeah, but that's all we got.
And if you quote a Bible verse, it's a fact that was written in the Bible.

The Scripture, which was written with the agenda to get people to believe in the divinity of Jesus, does two things here that are problematic:

1. It paints Pontius Pilate in a sympathetic light, as if he wouldn't have crucified Jesus if not for the insistence of the Jewish mob. But "non-Biblical sources portray [Pilate] as a barbarous leader who willfully defied the traditions of the Jewish people he oversaw." https://www.history.com/news/why-pontius-pilate-executed-jesus

2. It demonizes the Jews by turning them as a whole into a mob that would rather free a murderer than Jesus, as you put it above.

Taking Scripture as fact leads you to say that "based on the available facts, the crucifixion can be blamed 40% on Jews." There are so many other things from antiquity and the Bible that we are ok with not really knowing for sure (the Flood and the Exodus, for example). We conclude they are complicated by other historical records and we are largely ok with taking them on faith as important stories about morality, regardless of the "facts" behind them. So to take the scripture of the crucifixion as "fact" because "that's all we got" when we are willing to put so many other things in the realm of we-don't-know-for-sure is just so incredibly problematic.

That was just my personal rough estimate. Of course, the percentages can be argued about. And it is of course problematic since we don't know for sure. Probably a billion Christians believe this though.

I think you missed my point? Let me try again. I'm not interested in arguing percentages and I don't think "that's all we got" and "a billion Christians believe this" are good reasons to perpetuate the idea of scripture as "fact." OP asked why Jesus was crucified under Roman law. Laying "blame" (of any percentage) at anyone's feet was not the question. It's a legal and historical question, which has been answered by a few people (blasphemy and treason or insulting the head of state) without citing scripture which scapegoats Jews and washes Roman (Pilate's) hands of his death.

But still, missing your point presents an opportunity to blame pp for laying blame.

What? Honest question; I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd say, realistically, and based on the available facts, the crucifiction can be blamed 40% on the Jews and 60% on the Romans. We can argue a bit on that, but I am particularly influenced in this conclusion by the offer Pilate made to free one of the prisoners after their condemnation, and the crowd picked Barabbas, a murderer, to be freed and not Jesus.

"Facts" by which you mean Scripture.

well, yeah, but that's all we got.
And if you quote a Bible verse, it's a fact that was written in the Bible.

The Scripture, which was written with the agenda to get people to believe in the divinity of Jesus, does two things here that are problematic:

1. It paints Pontius Pilate in a sympathetic light, as if he wouldn't have crucified Jesus if not for the insistence of the Jewish mob. But "non-Biblical sources portray [Pilate] as a barbarous leader who willfully defied the traditions of the Jewish people he oversaw." https://www.history.com/news/why-pontius-pilate-executed-jesus

2. It demonizes the Jews by turning them as a whole into a mob that would rather free a murderer than Jesus, as you put it above.

Taking Scripture as fact leads you to say that "based on the available facts, the crucifixion can be blamed 40% on Jews." There are so many other things from antiquity and the Bible that we are ok with not really knowing for sure (the Flood and the Exodus, for example). We conclude they are complicated by other historical records and we are largely ok with taking them on faith as important stories about morality, regardless of the "facts" behind them. So to take the scripture of the crucifixion as "fact" because "that's all we got" when we are willing to put so many other things in the realm of we-don't-know-for-sure is just so incredibly problematic.

That was just my personal rough estimate. Of course, the percentages can be argued about. And it is of course problematic since we don't know for sure. Probably a billion Christians believe this though.

I think you missed my point? Let me try again. I'm not interested in arguing percentages and I don't think "that's all we got" and "a billion Christians believe this" are good reasons to perpetuate the idea of scripture as "fact." OP asked why Jesus was crucified under Roman law. Laying "blame" (of any percentage) at anyone's feet was not the question. It's a legal and historical question, which has been answered by a few people (blasphemy and treason or insulting the head of state) without citing scripture which scapegoats Jews and washes Roman (Pilate's) hands of his death.

fair enough. The religious authorities arrested him and charged him with blasphemy.
Pilate apparently found his answer to the question "are you king of the Jews" (silence) to be a threat to Roman authority. One person above said "sedition," and that probably comes pretty close to being what he was charged with.
I apportioned "blame" and I agree that's not really what the OP asked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd say, realistically, and based on the available facts, the crucifiction can be blamed 40% on the Jews and 60% on the Romans. We can argue a bit on that, but I am particularly influenced in this conclusion by the offer Pilate made to free one of the prisoners after their condemnation, and the crowd picked Barabbas, a murderer, to be freed and not Jesus.

"Facts" by which you mean Scripture.

well, yeah, but that's all we got.
And if you quote a Bible verse, it's a fact that was written in the Bible.

The Scripture, which was written with the agenda to get people to believe in the divinity of Jesus, does two things here that are problematic:

1. It paints Pontius Pilate in a sympathetic light, as if he wouldn't have crucified Jesus if not for the insistence of the Jewish mob. But "non-Biblical sources portray [Pilate] as a barbarous leader who willfully defied the traditions of the Jewish people he oversaw." https://www.history.com/news/why-pontius-pilate-executed-jesus

2. It demonizes the Jews by turning them as a whole into a mob that would rather free a murderer than Jesus, as you put it above.

Taking Scripture as fact leads you to say that "based on the available facts, the crucifixion can be blamed 40% on Jews." There are so many other things from antiquity and the Bible that we are ok with not really knowing for sure (the Flood and the Exodus, for example). We conclude they are complicated by other historical records and we are largely ok with taking them on faith as important stories about morality, regardless of the "facts" behind them. So to take the scripture of the crucifixion as "fact" because "that's all we got" when we are willing to put so many other things in the realm of we-don't-know-for-sure is just so incredibly problematic.

That was just my personal rough estimate. Of course, the percentages can be argued about. And it is of course problematic since we don't know for sure. Probably a billion Christians believe this though.

I think you missed my point? Let me try again. I'm not interested in arguing percentages and I don't think "that's all we got" and "a billion Christians believe this" are good reasons to perpetuate the idea of scripture as "fact." OP asked why Jesus was crucified under Roman law. Laying "blame" (of any percentage) at anyone's feet was not the question. It's a legal and historical question, which has been answered by a few people (blasphemy and treason or insulting the head of state) without citing scripture which scapegoats Jews and washes Roman (Pilate's) hands of his death.

Well it might not be fact, because there's not a scintilla of evidence that any of this ever happened. So the scriptures are all we got. Either you believe their stories or you don't, but they are what they are.

[Anonymous]

So nice to see all these posts matter-of-factly blaming Jews for the death of Jesus! Not even the Catholic Church officially teaches that anymore, but go on!

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pope-jews/pope-book-says-jews-not-guilty-of-christs-death-idUSTRE7214U420110302

And for the posters who think "the story" isn't antisemitic but it's been used by antisemites to justify antisemitism, sure, I guess, except I wonder if you think it might also be possible that the antisemites got their ideas about perfidious Jews from the fact that mainstream Christian culture spent nearly 2,000 years teaching that we killed Christ? This is, like, the ur-antisemitism that's baked into the Western worldview at this point. Seems sort of ridiculous to quibble with the idea that it's the text itself that is problematic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So nice to see all these posts matter-of-factly blaming Jews for the death of Jesus! Not even the Catholic Church officially teaches that anymore, but go on!

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pope-jews/pope-book-says-jews-not-guilty-of-christs-death-idUSTRE7214U420110302

And for the posters who think "the story" isn't antisemitic but it's been used by antisemites to justify antisemitism, sure, I guess, except I wonder if you think it might also be possible that the antisemites got their ideas about perfidious Jews from the fact that mainstream Christian culture spent nearly 2,000 years teaching that we killed Christ? This is, like, the ur-antisemitism that's baked into the Western worldview at this point. Seems sort of ridiculous to quibble with the idea that it's the text itself that is problematic.

Well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So nice to see all these posts matter-of-factly blaming Jews for the death of Jesus! Not even the Catholic Church officially teaches that anymore, but go on!

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pope-jews/pope-book-says-jews-not-guilty-of-christs-death-idUSTRE7214U420110302

And for the posters who think "the story" isn't antisemitic but it's been used by antisemites to justify antisemitism, sure, I guess, except I wonder if you think it might also be possible that the antisemites got their ideas about perfidious Jews from the fact that mainstream Christian culture spent nearly 2,000 years teaching that we killed Christ? This is, like, the ur-antisemitism that's baked into the Western worldview at this point. Seems sort of ridiculous to quibble with the idea that it's the text itself that is problematic.

Ok, so the temple aristocracy were his real enemies. But what about the crowd who said "crucify him," what do you make of that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So nice to see all these posts matter-of-factly blaming Jews for the death of Jesus! Not even the Catholic Church officially teaches that anymore, but go on!

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pope-jews/pope-book-says-jews-not-guilty-of-christs-death-idUSTRE7214U420110302

And for the posters who think "the story" isn't antisemitic but it's been used by antisemites to justify antisemitism, sure, I guess, except I wonder if you think it might also be possible that the antisemites got their ideas about perfidious Jews from the fact that mainstream Christian culture spent nearly 2,000 years teaching that we killed Christ? This is, like, the ur-antisemitism that's baked into the Western worldview at this point. Seems sort of ridiculous to quibble with the idea that it's the text itself that is problematic.

Ok, so the temple aristocracy were his real enemies. But what about the crowd who said "crucify him," what do you make of that?

NP
That’s mob or heard mentality recent example will be January 6 Capital attack.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So nice to see all these posts matter-of-factly blaming Jews for the death of Jesus! Not even the Catholic Church officially teaches that anymore, but go on!

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pope-jews/pope-book-says-jews-not-guilty-of-christs-death-idUSTRE7214U420110302

And for the posters who think "the story" isn't antisemitic but it's been used by antisemites to justify antisemitism, sure, I guess, except I wonder if you think it might also be possible that the antisemites got their ideas about perfidious Jews from the fact that mainstream Christian culture spent nearly 2,000 years teaching that we killed Christ? This is, like, the ur-antisemitism that's baked into the Western worldview at this point. Seems sort of ridiculous to quibble with the idea that it's the text itself that is problematic.

Ok, so the temple aristocracy were his real enemies. But what about the crowd who said "crucify him," what do you make of that?

NP
That’s mob or heard mentality recent example will be January 6 Capital attack.

but why? Pilate was willing to him go

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So nice to see all these posts matter-of-factly blaming Jews for the death of Jesus! Not even the Catholic Church officially teaches that anymore, but go on!

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pope-jews/pope-book-says-jews-not-guilty-of-christs-death-idUSTRE7214U420110302

And for the posters who think "the story" isn't antisemitic but it's been used by antisemites to justify antisemitism, sure, I guess, except I wonder if you think it might also be possible that the antisemites got their ideas about perfidious Jews from the fact that mainstream Christian culture spent nearly 2,000 years teaching that we killed Christ? This is, like, the ur-antisemitism that's baked into the Western worldview at this point. Seems sort of ridiculous to quibble with the idea that it's the text itself that is problematic.

Ok, so the temple aristocracy were his real enemies. But what about the crowd who said "crucify him," what do you make of that?

Well, I am Jewish, so I don't take anything in the New Testament as being literally true (nor in the Old Testament, for that matter).

Did the crowd definitely say "crucify him," or did later authors add that so a growing new religion could have an easy foil (i.e., the Jews) for adherents to differentiate themselves from? Even saying "the temple aristocracy were his real enemies" draws on a fundamental assumption that the Jewish establishment is to blame in some form for Jesus's death. This is not just me being sensitive, either; literally generations of attacks on Jews around Europe were justified by simply pointing to this Bible narrative (and/or by extrapolating that the people who killed Christ were also capable of doing whatever other terrible things).

I'm also not trying to say you or any specific posters here are deliberately being antisemitic -- my point is that this whole question is rooted in very, very deep, subconscious biases against Jews that are, by now, simply a part of Western culture. However! That doesn't mean it's ideal when people decide to wallow in those attitudes over the course of this thread...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So nice to see all these posts matter-of-factly blaming Jews for the death of Jesus! Not even the Catholic Church officially teaches that anymore, but go on!

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pope-jews/pope-book-says-jews-not-guilty-of-christs-death-idUSTRE7214U420110302

And for the posters who think "the story" isn't antisemitic but it's been used by antisemites to justify antisemitism, sure, I guess, except I wonder if you think it might also be possible that the antisemites got their ideas about perfidious Jews from the fact that mainstream Christian culture spent nearly 2,000 years teaching that we killed Christ? This is, like, the ur-antisemitism that's baked into the Western worldview at this point. Seems sort of ridiculous to quibble with the idea that it's the text itself that is problematic.

Ok, so the temple aristocracy were his real enemies. But what about the crowd who said "crucify him," what do you make of that?

Well, I am Jewish, so I don't take anything in the New Testament as being literally true (nor in the Old Testament, for that matter).

Did the crowd definitely say "crucify him," or did later authors add that so a growing new religion could have an easy foil (i.e., the Jews) for adherents to differentiate themselves from? Even saying "the temple aristocracy were his real enemies" draws on a fundamental assumption that the Jewish establishment is to blame in some form for Jesus's death. This is not just me being sensitive, either; literally generations of attacks on Jews around Europe were justified by simply pointing to this Bible narrative (and/or by extrapolating that the people who killed Christ were also capable of doing whatever other terrible things).

I'm also not trying to say you or any specific posters here are deliberately being antisemitic -- my point is that this whole question is rooted in very, very deep, subconscious biases against Jews that are, by now, simply a part of Western culture. However! That doesn't mean it's ideal when people decide to wallow in those attitudes over the course of this thread...

Absolutely all of this. Scripture is not historical fact. We don't have to "make" anything of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So nice to see all these posts matter-of-factly blaming Jews for the death of Jesus! Not even the Catholic Church officially teaches that anymore, but go on!

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pope-jews/pope-book-says-jews-not-guilty-of-christs-death-idUSTRE7214U420110302

And for the posters who think "the story" isn't antisemitic but it's been used by antisemites to justify antisemitism, sure, I guess, except I wonder if you think it might also be possible that the antisemites got their ideas about perfidious Jews from the fact that mainstream Christian culture spent nearly 2,000 years teaching that we killed Christ? This is, like, the ur-antisemitism that's baked into the Western worldview at this point. Seems sort of ridiculous to quibble with the idea that it's the text itself that is problematic.

Ok, so the temple aristocracy were his real enemies. But what about the crowd who said "crucify him," what do you make of that?

Well, I am Jewish, so I don't take anything in the New Testament as being literally true (nor in the Old Testament, for that matter).

Did the crowd definitely say "crucify him," or did later authors add that so a growing new religion could have an easy foil (i.e., the Jews) for adherents to differentiate themselves from? Even saying "the temple aristocracy were his real enemies" draws on a fundamental assumption that the Jewish establishment is to blame in some form for Jesus's death. This is not just me being sensitive, either; literally generations of attacks on Jews around Europe were justified by simply pointing to this Bible narrative (and/or by extrapolating that the people who killed Christ were also capable of doing whatever other terrible things).

I'm also not trying to say you or any specific posters here are deliberately being antisemitic -- my point is that this whole question is rooted in very, very deep, subconscious biases against Jews that are, by now, simply a part of Western culture. However! That doesn't mean it's ideal when people decide to wallow in those attitudes over the course of this thread...

Absolutely all of this. Scripture is not historical fact. We don't have to "make" anything of it.

Ok, fair enough. But do you believe anything in the OT?