Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He healed the sick on the Sabbath.

uh huh. And this is apropos of exactly what?

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

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

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

Fortunately, the straightforward question was answered by multiple people.

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

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He healed the sick on the Sabbath.

uh huh. And this is apropos of exactly what?

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

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

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

Fortunately, the straightforward question was answered by multiple people.

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He healed the sick on the Sabbath.

uh huh. And this is apropos of exactly what?

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

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

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

Fortunately, the straightforward question was answered by multiple people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He healed the sick on the Sabbath.

uh huh. And this is apropos of exactly what?

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

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

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He healed the sick on the Sabbath.

uh huh. And this is apropos of exactly what?

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

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

If you want an answer, read the ending of the 4 gospels
Truthfully, why he was crucified is just part of the story, not the main doctrine
The big thing is that he rose from the dead, if you take that away, then there is nothing for Christians to believe in

So you are focusing on a very small narrative. His words were forgive them before he died, so why is that even an issue?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He healed the sick on the Sabbath.

uh huh. And this is apropos of exactly what?

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

The blasphemy is Jesus claiming he is the “son of God”.
I don’t know if he was talking literally or figuratively.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He healed the sick on the Sabbath.

uh huh. And this is apropos of exactly what?

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

There's a book called Pontius Pilate by Ann Wroe that is interesting

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would assume that the OP was trolling to trying to dredge up antisemitic tropes. I'm surprised to find this thread allowed on DCUM.

I believe Jeff generally means well, and I've addressed my concerns to him when reporting at least one thread getting really antiJewish in the past. But my conclusion over the last couple of years has been that a) he doesn't really understand the way hints and whispers demonizing Jews have historically paved the way for violence and/or b) doesn't believe antiJewish violence is a real risk to Jews today.

I'm guessing Jeff doesn't really know how to thread the needle between quashing antisemitism and disallowing discussion of huge parts of Christianity, like the crucifixion), which has antisemitism so baked into it. So he only deletes overtly antisemitic posts, while leaving the baked in stuff alone to fester here and do the damage it's always done.

so you think the crucifixion story is inherently anti-semitic? Hmmm.... If so, there's just no way around that I guess. It really is part and parcel of Christianity

If we can't have a conversation about the crucifixion without blaming the Jews in part or in whole for it (as it seems we can't based on this thread), then, yes, the story is antisemitic. I don't think that means that Christianity has to be wholesale antisemitic today, but it's something Christians would need to devote time and energy to counteracting in their religion. I think you can even still talk about the crucifixion; just try focusing on the salvation aspect of why Jesus died, rather than looking to place blame for his death. Christians pick and choose parts of the Bible to ignore/downplay, so why not this part too?

As for how the narrative of the crucifixion still harms Jews today, I'll share an anecdote. I worked at the reception desk of a Jewish Community Center and one day a man came in wanting to visit our library. He started asking me questions about what the best books might be to learn about Judaism and Jewish history. He went on to say that he was specifically interested in books about why the Jews killed Jesus and got agitated when I tried to correct him on that point. "Yes, they did," he insisted heatedly, "it says so in the Bible." Thankfully, one of our maintenance staff happened to be passing by and saw this man's body language and overheard him say "Jesus," so he came to check on me and then escorted the man out. It was, apparently, a frequent enough occurrence (not this specific man, but Jews killed Jesus people in general stopping by to harass staff) that the maintenance team knew to have their ears open for mention of Jesus and a protocol for how to deal with it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Believe in the sense that I have faith and use the texts to guide my life? Yes.

Believe in the sense that I think it's historically True? Personally, I don't think it matters if it's True (capital T). Faith is a balancing act between the texts and our modern lives. Also, Judaism has a rich history of interpreting the text and those interpretations (Mishnah, Talmud) are part of our religion and theology as much as the Torah is.

I would like to believe that Christians could still believe in Jesus and his message of love and divine salvation without taking the crucifixion story and its harmful "Jews killed Jesus" message literally and continuing to perpetuate it as a Fact we all have to make something of.

This answer is exactly right. (And I will note that one thing medieval Christians specifically persecuted Jews for, besides of course the “fact” that we killed Jesus, was for treating the Talmud and Mishnah as roughly equivalent theologically to the Torah.)

Anonymous wrote:He healed the sick on the Sabbath.

uh huh. And this is apropos of exactly what?

He healed the sick on the Sabbath.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Believe in the sense that I have faith and use the texts to guide my life? Yes.

Believe in the sense that I think it's historically True? Personally, I don't think it matters if it's True (capital T). Faith is a balancing act between the texts and our modern lives. Also, Judaism has a rich history of interpreting the text and those interpretations (Mishnah, Talmud) are part of our religion and theology as much as the Torah is.

I would like to believe that Christians could still believe in Jesus and his message of love and divine salvation without taking the crucifixion story and its harmful "Jews killed Jesus" message literally and continuing to perpetuate it as a Fact we all have to make something of.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I ask this because some posters on these various religion threads have stated they really do believe the Bible scriptures are truth, or pick and chose the ones they like to support whatever point they are making. So there is a split of opinion on that. And while I assume these comments were mostly by Christians, some probably were by Jewish people too.