It has always baffled me that so many people teach that Jesus was killed by the Romans, yet they never mention the Romans motivation. From all I know, from reading the gospels, Jesus was betrayed by the Jewish people (including Judas) and handed off to the Romans for crucifixion. In fact when the people were asked who should be executed between Jesus and the murderer Barabbas, they preferred that a sinner be pardoned so Jesus could die instead. I don't know about anyone else, but I think more blame should go to the person (or people) that puts out a contract, than the person that executes it. Many argue that there were only a handful of Jews involved in this process, but there were multitudes celebrating and cruelly mocking him as he slowly died on the cross. Mel Gibson's "The Passion" gets a lot of criticism for how Jews are portrayed in said scenes, but from what I have read, it seems very accurate. What do you think?
127522
I think that whoever is to be blamed, it makes no difference, because Jesus HAD to die somehow in order for everyone to be saved.  If Jesus didn't die, we would all be condemned to Hell.  It so happens that the Jews did it.  Perhaps they did not get the brunt of the blame.  But does it matter?\n\nTo some of the above posters, yes, there have been many injustices that have occurred at the hands of Christians as well as many other religious folks.  But that does not change the basic fact that Jesus died for our sins and that we are human.  We make mistakes.  But God does not make mistakes.  Everything happens for a reason.  And God knows infinitely more than you or I, whether you like it or not, whether you believe it or not.\n\nTo another poster--Heron By The Sea...your logic is good but some of your facts are wrong.  Yes, Rome did control the land where the Jews lived.  But they knew little about Jesus.  They were the most powerful civilization in the world...and do you really think they feared anyone?  Much less one man (Jesus) and his movement that polarized Jews of His day?  I don't think they really gave much of a d@mn about Jesus, OR the Jews, for that matter.  Pilate basically did not care anything about the trial until the Sanhedrin and the Pharisees said that Jesus claimed to be "King of the Jews."  Once he heard that, if Jesus was really a threat to Rome, do you think he would offer to release Jesus?  I don't think he would.  At that point, the Jews wanted Barabbas released.  So yes, it was the JEWS who wanted Jesus dead.\n\nSecondly, the Bible was NOT altered by Rome or Romans.  The Bible is a collection of books that were selected for the truth and sincerity and accuracy of the faith.  Yes through time there are many different translations today, but I would say the major translations have not been altered to the point where such central ideas have been warped and distorted beyond their original meaning and truth.  I see that you are a religious studies major, so I am not going to fully dismiss everything you say, but based on our Christian faith, God would not allow such things to be distorted (that's where the Holy Spirit comes in).
96182
Actually if you read bible then you would see that it were Jew scholars who said that the blame will be on us and our children as they thought that it was a noble task they were going to perform. And still Jews think that what they did was right as they still do not believe that Jesus was the one promised in their scriptures.\n\nOn the other hand the teachings of Christians do not allow them to harm Jews or take revenge of the death of Jesus as he did not die on the cross. If he did die on the cross then why the ointment was put on his wounds? Surely he did not die on the cross. If they think that he died on cross then they should accept that he died a cursed death and hence do not blame Jews for that as Bible itself says that whoever dies on cross dies a cursed death. This also proves that he was not the Promised Messiah and whatever Jews did to him was right. But since Jesus survived from cross he did not die a cursed death.\n\nIt is Koran which tells us that he was neither crucified nor murdered. That means he died a normal death and hence was a noble prophet of God.
119214
The basic beliefs of Christianity about Jesus are against what the Bible says, and so Real Jews cannot believe in Jesus at all.\n\nThe Christian understanding is that the Messiah, Jesus, died for the sins of the people. The messiah is supposed to be a human sacrifice that is the blood sacrifice necessary for the forgiveness of sin.\n\nBut we are taught in our Torah that no one can die for the sins of another. In Deuteronomy 24:16 it specifically says this:\n\nDeuteronomy 24:16 The fathers shall not \nbe put to death for the children, neither \nshall the children be put to death for\nthe fathers: \nevery man shall be put to death for his \nown sin (eesh b’chet-o yumatu).\n\nIn Exodus 32:30-35, Moses tries to offer himself to atone for the sins of the people. To be written out of Gd's book, means to be written out of the Book of Life, which means Moses was asking to die for the sins of the People. Gd's response is No, it does not work that way, each man dies for his own sin:\n\nExodus 32:30-35 And it came to pass on the \nmorrow, that Moses said unto the people, \nYe have sinned a great sin: and now I will \ngo up unto the Etrnl; perhaps I shall make \nan atonement for your sin. And Moses \nreturned unto the Etrnl, and said, Oh, \nthis people have sinned a great sin, and \nhave made them gods of gold. Yet now, if \nthou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, \nblot me, I pray thee, out of thy book \nwhich thou hast written. And the Etrnl \nsaid unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned \nagainst me, him will I blot out of my \nbook. \n\nThe whole of chapter 18 of the book of Ezekiel is about this idea, that no one can die for someone else's sin. Further, this chapter of Ezekiel teaches us that all we have to do for Gd's forgiveness is to stop doing the Bad and start doing the Good, and Gd will forgive us:::\n\nEzekiel 18:1-4; 20-24; 26-27 .....Behold, all \nsouls are mine; as the soul of the father, so \nalso the soul of the son is mine: the soul \nthat sinneth, it shall die. Eze 18:20 The soul \nthat sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not \nbear the iniquity of the father, neither shall \nthe father bear the iniquity of the son: the \nrighteousness of the righteous shall be upon \nhim, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be \nupon him. But if the wicked will turn from all \nhis sins that he hath committed, and keep all \nmy statutes, and do that which is lawful and \nright, he shall surely live, he shall not die. \nAll his transgressions that he hath committed, \nthey shall not be mentioned unto him: in his \nrighteousness that he hath done he shall live. \nHave I any pleasure at all that the wicked \nshould die? saith the Etrnl Gd: and not that \nhe should return from his ways, and live?.... \nEze 18:26 When a righteous man turneth away \nfrom his righteousness, and committeth \niniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity \nthat he hath done shall he die. Again, when \nthe wicked man turneth away from his \nwickedness that he hath committed, and doeth \nthat which is lawful and right, he shall save \nhis soul alive. \n\nSo, the Bible is clear, no one can die for the sins of another, and this means that Jesus cannot die for anyone else's sins.\n\nChristians also believe that one needs a blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin, that one who does not have such a blood sacrifice will die in their sins, and go to hell, except for the sacrifice of Jesus.\n\nThis, too, is UnBiblical. The Bible describes blood sacrifices for the forgiveness of sin in the Book of Leviticus. But it is in Leviticus itself, in the middle of the discussion of the sin sacrifices, that we are taught that we do not need a blood sacrifice to be forgiven for our sins. Offering a blood sacrifice was an expensive thing to do for the family offering the animal. Was forgiveness then, to be only for the rich? No, because if one could not afford a blood sacrifice then one who sins could bring flour, which has no blood and no life as their sacri
386781
You should continue reading the book. But I thought your question was sincere. You are saying that the martyrs were twisted and un-enlightened. That is your opinion.\nThe same people that killed the Martyrs were saying "Where is your God to save you". They said that to Jesus too. \nThe Martyrs weren't necessarily "willing" to be killed. But they were very very aware that they would be with the Lord in heaven. \nMartyrdom was a way to proove how strongly they believed.\nIn the Roman Empire everyone was pressured to worship the Ceasar. Nobody really believed he was a god, but they all went along with that to avoid getting killed. How much more convincing would it be that Jesus is real, and that what the Christians believed is real if they were willing to die for what they believe in?\nIf they weren't willing to die, then Christianity was just like any other fad religion that was happening. At that time in history it was crucial that Christians show the importance of what they believe. That's why Paul was willing to appeal to Ceasar in Rome knowing that he would be killed by Caeser. He had an opportunity to escape, but he felt his whole purpose in appealing was to see Nero at any cost. He was beheaded. How strong of a message is that that someone is willing to die for it?\nIf they didn't really believe, they wouldn'd die for it.  \nAnd to the Christians death meant nothing, because they knew that they would be ressurected. You are seeing the picture from your own world view. God doesn't see it that way. He has a plan that has to do with eternity, not our short lived lives. We only live just a short time compared to eternity. Which is more important? Eternity, or just a number of years which are uncertain?\nWhy would God need to save them? He already did save them.
583530
Okay, this is my understanding of it from all I've read here on Y!A and elsewhere... Please correct me if I've made any mistakes...\n\nIn the beginning, God made a bunch of rules. Those who followed them went to heaven and those who broke them went to hell.\n\nBut they were really difficult rules, so God decided to send Jesus to the world. Jesus was God's son, but he was God Himself, too. Plus the Holy Spirit. And the "Word made Flesh". And many other things too.\n\nJesus's mission was to spread the word of God, his Father (i.e. Himself), but he was also our Saviour. This he accomplished by dying. You see, everyone is a sinner, and no-one can live up to God's rules. God seems to have realised that in due course. He could have, say, changed the rules or just absolved us all by fiat, but this whole kill-My-son (i.e. Myself) thing seemed easier.\n\nJesus was predestined to die for our sins. It was his calling. This is why he hid from the Romans like a fugitive, and why Pilate, Judas and the Jews are all condemned for their complicity - because they wanted to kill a man who wanted to die and was preordained to die. Their crucial role in carrying out God's plan to redeem us all is why we should hate them today.\n\nWhen Jesus, who willingly died and could have prevented it if he had wanted, was on the cross, he called out 'Father, why have you betrayed me?' This means, 'Father (i.e. myself), why have You (i.e. I) abandoned me (i.e. Yourself) when I'm carrying out the mission that you (i.e. I) decided to undertake in the first place?' This is because God, who is omnipotent, could not bear to look sin in the face, and Jesus (i.e. God) had become sin at that moment. Then Jesus died.\n\nExcept he didn't die. He spent a long weekend somewhere and then he was resurrected. So Jesus died for our sins, but he didn't die. He was raised again and now sits at the right hand of God. Except that he is God. But anyway, we can all go to heaven now, where we couldn't before Jesus died/didn't die for us.\n\nOf course, we can still go to hell. Jesus died for our sins, but it doesn't count unless you accept him as your Saviour. Plus, if you're Catholic, you also have to confess and repent and atone. And if you're Protestant, it doesn't much matter anyway, because God decided where you were going before you were born. Plus there's something about wine and thin little wafers.\n\nSo then... what have we learnt? Well, God's law is eternal, but God's law is really harsh so He gave us a hand by sending His son/Himself to die. Except that he didn't die. Because he died/didn't die, people can go to heaven. But they still have to follow God's law, or else they'll go to hell. Just like it was before God sent His son/Himself to die/not die on the cross in order to absolve/not absolve us of our sins.\n\nI hope this clears up any misunderstandings... It's all very clear and logical when you approach it the right way.
7070
This is a big one. People have argued it back and forth. I would say Jesus did not HAVE to die on the cross, but it is the reality of what sin does. It removes us completly from God. Jesus' message was actually intended to be heard and recieved, but human sin interfiered putting Jesus on the cross. What is the main point here is, not that Jesus died, but that he is risen. God's love is so powerful it can overcome the worse case senario. In this case Jesus being murdered on the cross.\nJesus' message is that God loves you and to love God back you need to love others. He died on the cross because he taught this, and yet God's love alone is enought to overcome that evil.
412383
Hi, there was a time span between the Ascension of the Lord into heaven and the Roman murdering of the Christians in the coliseum so these Christians may not have seen Jesus directly, but how powerful was their faith in the Teaching of the Apostles to have gone so willingly to their death, and don`t forget that the Apostles willingly gave their lives too for Jesus and still modern people doubt the reality of the living Christ.
502578
It sounds like it was written by a new zealous believer who is immature in the faith.  We should use love and not condemnation to win the lost.  Condemning a person for there sin only makes them mad.  Besides we are all sinners in need of a savior.  Also no one could kill Jesus, he gave his life because he loved us.
71806
I love when people say "read the bible!" after the guy just posted the verses he wants to discuss.\n\nIf the example he gives shows moses killing CHILDREN!!  How can you possibly say he did it b/c he had to or it was justified?  If god told you to go kill children you would do it?  You are sick.  Does that mean that the woman in texas or wherever who drowned her kids b/c she thought they were demons did the right thing?
470153
The Jewish leaders didn't care.What they wanted was for Jesus to break the Mosaic Law by not condemning her,so they could accuse Him of blasphemy,and excommunicate or even kill Him.But of course it's not possible to out fox God the Son.He was going to give His life when He was ready,and not before.He said "I have the power to lie down my life and the power to take it back up,no one takes it from me."
358076
He laid down his life AND he was killed.  It would not have been right for him to commit suicide in order to save us.  Because that would have been committing a murder.\n\nWhen voluntarily laid down his life, he was allowing the Jews, through the Romans (yes, I know there's controversy on this...no hate mail please) to take his life or to kill him.  He was not forced to die.
637008
many people in authority in the us are jews. they use their positions to look after themselves\n\nThe jews DID kill Jesus. The romans left the decision to the mob
296262
You've got it mixed up. This is the actual scripture:\n\nFor God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.\n\nNowhere does it say God killed Jesus.\n\nGod gave his Son to the people to show His eternal Love for us. \n\nThe misguided people killed Jesus.
155083
So you think maybe the Sanhedrin had a few black guys in there? Maybe Pontius Pilate was a brudda? Palestinians are not black. Romans were not black. The Bible mentions black people. The first convert from outside the world of mainstream Jewry, mentioned in Acts, was a black man "an Ethiopian eunuch, a high officr at the court of Candace, Queen of Sheba" but he was regarded as sufficiently unusual to be mentioned specifically.As for not portraying anything good, well there are very few comedy sequences during a crucifixion. It's generally a messy and unpleasant business. Kinda depends on whether you think the Salvation of mankind qualifies as "good."
448818
The sign was the "titulus". It was an inscription which had to be carried before the condemned man to identify him and the cause for his execution. The sign would then be affixed to the cross. It was written with gypsum on a wooden board. It was spelled out in Latin, Hebrew, and Greek so that nearly everybody would be able to read it.\n\nPilate was following standard Roman protocol. Certainly his reply "what i have written, I have written" indicates his displeasure with the Jews and his desire to let his subtle insult stand.
162520
I watched it.  I doubt it will stir up any thoughts among the people who most need the thoughts.  The Pope left it off the list of the New Testament so no one uses it.  Since I accept papal authority and the authority of the episcopate, it isn't an issue for me.  It is an interesting view into early Christianity but none of the thoughts are new.  I think there are profound implications for Protestants, but I don't think they will notice them.  By brushing it off as outside the canon, they are ignoring the issue of how the canon was determined.  They do not have a formal mechanism of rejecting it, but why do they stick with the Catholic NT.  I don't understand that.  I could see not accepting Judas, by why not Hermas or Barnabas or I Clement?\n\nThat is something I don't get, there is no reason for Protestants to not use them except an appeal to apostolic tradition which they reject.\n\nI would like to see the entire translation when it is done, to the extent it is recovered.  Should make for an interesting view into that early period of ideas.  From my viewpoint reading Judas is like reading Calvin, they hold the same weight and correctness and so are interesting because they are, from an ideas point of view, valid ideas just not valid teaching.
567826
I think the Jews didn't want a whole lot of help from Jesus.\n\n"When Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult was rising, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, "I am innocent of the blood of this just Person.  You see to it."  And all the people answered and said, "His blood be on us and on our children." (Matthew 27:24 - 25 NKJV)\n\nI guess they got what they wanted.