So I was wondering why all you fucking cry babies....

[JOHNIE DIZOE]

No they didn't you dolt, they were pushed out. You're just making shit up now.

 

2) What I said is correct. The exodus of European Jews is what created "Israel".

The reason why your friends look part Arab is probably because his parents or grandparents fucked Arabs.

Real Israelis back in the day were basically Arabs, but modern day Israel is a bunch of European refugees from after WW2.

 

Ok, the original Jews were dark haired and brown eyed Arabs but the only reason why my friends are dark haired and brown eyed is because they fucked an Arab.

 

 

You realise how fucking stupid that is?

 

 

 

 

Yeah, all the original Arab/Semitic jews just magically disappeared off the face of the earth, did they?

 

 

3) The fact that they've been there for centuries.

And no, the Native Americans gave up that fight centuries ago.

so the native americans gave up that fight centuries ago but you still support their right to violent resistance but the Israelis were chased out of Israel centuries ago but you say they can't be violent, right?

 

 

 

Yep, didn't see that.

 

 

What?! No it wasn't dude, seriously, where the fuck do you get that from?

 

 

1) Yes they did. That's historical fact, and the fact that you're even trying to argue it makes me wonder what your motive is. Are you Jewish?

 

2) Must be, being as they fled the Middle East centuries ago.

Jesus probably looked Arab, but that's because he actually lived in the middle east during that time period.

 

You of all people having your kind of job have to have some type of grasp on world history. So again I ask you, why are you lying? Are you a Jew?

 

3) I answered that clearly a post or two ago. Why are you desperately trying to twist my words, are you a Jew?

 

4) yeah.

 

5) Yes it was and you know this. If my hunch is right, you wouldn't even be alive today if it weren't for my grandpops generation.

 

 

And on that note, I'm out.

Argue with you again tomorrow sometime LOL!

[christo-f]

They came back in force in 1948 and claimed it was their country with our backing.

Um, no, it was Great Britain with the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate for Palestine. Then there was the French and even the Czechs were supporting ISrael before the US. The US had next to no interest in Israel until the Cold War.

 

 

Argue all you want, but that's exactly what happened.

Actually, no it is not.

 

 

That's what started all the shit that's been going on in the middle east ever since

And you of all people know this, and are still trying to argue to the contrary.

Why is that?

.

 

Because what you are saying so fucking wrong it's ridiculous. The war over that patch of land has been going on for thousands of years. You've heard of the bible, right? What the fuck do you think the whole fist testament is about??!!

 

Here, this is really, quick, really simple and will explain the last three centuries to you and show that the trouble stated waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay before 1948......., FFS.

 

 

 

Israel has manifested itself three times in history. The first manifestation began with the invasion led by Joshua and lasted through its division into two kingdoms, the Babylonian conquest of the Kingdom of Judah and the deportation to Babylon early in the sixth century B.C. The second manifestation began when Israel was recreated in 540 B.C. by the Persians, who had defeated the Babylonians. The nature of this second manifestation changed in the fourth century B.C., when Greece overran the Persian Empire and Israel, and again in the first century B.C., when the Romans conquered the region.

 

The second manifestation saw Israel as a small actor within the framework of larger imperial powers, a situation that lasted until the destruction of the Jewish vassal state by the Romans.

 

Israel’s third manifestation began in 1948, following (as in the other cases) an ingathering of at least some of the Jews who had been dispersed after conquests. Israel’s founding takes place in the context of the decline and fall of the British Empire and must, at least in part, be understood as part of British imperial history.

[christo-f]

You think that the troubles only started in 1948

 

 

You think all Israelis are blonde haired and blue eyed Europeans

 

 

You think the US went in to the Second World War to save the Jews

 

 

You think Hezbollah has the Palestinian's backs even when Hez is Shiite and the Pals are Sunni.

 

 

 

 

I don't even know where to go with this... other than to say that no I am not Jewish and no one in my whole family lineage has ever been Jewish. And no I do not support Israel and no I don't support the Arabs. If you will notice I have never said that either one of them is right or wrong. I don't even believe in right or wrong, I only believe in is and isn't.

 

And the facts are that people are willing to accept all kinds of shit from the Arabs because they are losing. I would guess that 2-3000 years ago you would have been supporting the Jews as they were losing back then.

 

I argue against bias, not against people/nations.

 

 

However your bias is so strong that you cannot see that I am not actually supporting either side, I'm arguing against double standards when viewing the competition of power in global politics.

[Spitfire15]

Quit while you're ahead. You arguing with someone who LITERALLY has the education of an 8th grader.

[Realism]

DAO tries Crossfire, hilarity ensues.

[lord_casek]

Casek, if a foreign nation (or people) invaded us and decided to turn America int their own shit while rounding you and your family up and telling you that you have to live in some hood, are you saying that you wouldn't join a militia and fight for America?

Because that's exactly what's going on in Palestine.

 

 

It's way more complicated than that. Read what Christo is telling you. This is his job and

you're telling him that he's not doing his job right.

 

Analogy time:

 

It's like a gas station attendant telling a nuclear scientist he's not doing his job right.

[stopdeletingmyaccountoner]

the middle eastern jews are mizrachim. they make up the jews in the middle east and north africa. i read somewhere that israel is about half mizrachim and half ashkenazic (eastern european). the mizrachim have been there for a while.

[JOHNIE DIZOE]

Israel has manifested itself three times in history. The first manifestation began with the invasion led by Joshua and lasted through its division into two kingdoms, the Babylonian conquest of the Kingdom of Judah and the deportation to Babylon early in the sixth century B.C. The second manifestation began when Israel was recreated in 540 B.C. by the Persians, who had defeated the Babylonians. The nature of this second manifestation changed in the fourth century B.C., when Greece overran the Persian Empire and Israel, and again in the first century B.C., when the Romans conquered the region.

 

The second manifestation saw Israel as a small actor within the framework of larger imperial powers, a situation that lasted until the destruction of the Jewish vassal state by the Romans.

 

Israel’s third manifestation began in 1948, following (as in the other cases) an ingathering of at least some of the Jews who had been dispersed after conquests. Israel’s founding takes place in the context of the decline and fall of the British Empire and must, at least in part, be understood as part of British imperial history.

 

 

 

So in other words even when Israel first came to be, it was due to them being invading outsiders?

Sounds about right being as that's exactly what they are today. :lol:

 

And I was obviously referring to the modern day shit that's been going on there since 1948.

So tell me now, how much Arab/Jew beef was going on in the middle east between the time that they left and when they decided to come back in 1948?

[JOHNIE DIZOE]

You think that the troubles only started in 1948

 

 

You think all Israelis are blonde haired and blue eyed Europeans

 

 

You think the US went in to the Second World War to save the Jews

 

 

You think Hezbollah has the Palestinian's backs even when Hez is Shiite and the Pals are Sunni.

 

 

 

 

The modern day bullshit that's been going on there started when the Jews decided they were going to come invade Palestine and put all the locals into ghettos.

 

 

I can honestly say that I don't think I've ever seen a blond haired blue eyed Jew in my life.

 

 

I clearly said that it was ONE of the reasons. Obviously the fact that they were sinking our ships and annihilating our allies on top of the fact that they actually declared war on us had more to do with it, but the holocaust was also a major selling point.

 

Muslims hate Israel more than they hate eachother. Fact.

[JOHNIE DIZOE]

It is ancient Roman propaganda that the Jews killed Jesus. On the contrary the Jews LOVED Jesus, they were even going to possibly make him their priest or king

 

 

 

The Jews deny that Jesus was even legit to this day.

And they didn't literally kill him, but their leaders had the Romans put him down because they saw him as a threat.

 

Whether any of that even happened at all is even up for debate for the most part, but that's the history as it's always been told up until this recent unholy union between Christian America and Israel where Christians all of a sudden forget that they've always hated the Jews.

[christo-f]

The modern day bullshit that's been going on there started when the Jews decided they were going to come invade Palestine and put all the locals into ghettos.

 

Yeah the modern day stuff has started since the Pogroms in Russia and other Eastern European countries in the early 1900s and it was solidified with the Mandate for Palestine and so on after the Second World War. But it is a mistake to only consider the modern day shit as the only important part of the story. IT would be like only looking at the Native Americans since they got land title for reserves or Indian history since partition. Viewing only a portion of history without the preceding elements will give a slanted understanding of what is really going on.

 

 

 

I clearly said that it was ONE of the reasons. Obviously the fact that they were sinking our ships and annihilating our allies on top of the fact that they actually declared war on us had more to do with it, but the holocaust was also a major selling point.

 

Yeah, so were WMDs in Iraq. It was about the US not wanting the Nazis to rule Europe and become too powerful. The rest was fluff.

 

 

Muslims hate Israel more than they hate eachother. Fact.

 

Don't be too quick to believe that. You know that Jordan killed 10,000 Palestinians not so long ago, Egypt helps Israel blockade the Gaza strip (Egypt and Jordan have peace treaties with ISrael and treat the Palestinians like shit).

 

Hamas is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Mubarak has been imprisoning, torturing and killing them for decades, that's why they won't let Gaza become a state because then their ideology will bleed in to Egypt and undermine the government (a large part of Al Qaeda came from the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt starting with Qutb and Zawahiri).

 

The Palestinians see that they actually own part of Jordan and Jordan doesn't want Palestine to become a state because then their attention will be turned towards undermining the Jordanian govt. Lebanon killed and kicked the Palestinians from Lebanon under Arafat not so long ago as well.

 

A lot of the Arabs may be no fans of Israel but tribal, sectarian and political fissures in the Arab lands run very deep and pretty much all of them dislike the Palestinians. They're like the Irish of white people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

jks.

[lord_casek]

That has got to be one of the most foolish things I've read in a while.

 

Joshua (Jesus) was a Jew. Did you forget that?

 

His teaching addressed the Jews first.

 

"

Jews believe that Jesus was a Jew who was born in Bethlehem, raised in Galilee, and killed in Jerusalem. Like other Jews in his day, Jesus spoke and wrote the Aramaic language. His own Aramaic name was Yeshua.

 

Like other educated Jews in his day, he was faithful to the law of Moses, learned in Jewish scriptures and oral law, steeped in the spirit of the Pharisees (the leading religious teachers of his day), and expectant of the coming of the Messianic Era (which he called the "Kingdom of God"). In his day, many people called Jesus "rabbi."

 

Like other religious, nationalistic Jews before and after him, Jesus angered the Roman government. The Romans considered the ideas preached by Jesus to be dangerous. As a result, the Romans arrested Jesus during his Passover trip to Jerusalem. Then the Romans, upon the order of the Roman procurator, executed Jesus."

 

^Yeshua translates to Joshua, hence me calling him Joshua.

 

 

 

 

Who killed Jesus?

June 16, 2002

 

Dear Straight Dope:

 

Can you give me the straight dope on who in fact was formally and/or morally responsible for the decision to execute Jesus? There's the traditional "blame the Jews" reading of the New Testament, which has fostered centuries of anti-Semitism, and there's the modern interpretation that says the version of the story given in the Gospels was a whitewash of the Roman authorities. How strong is the "blame the Romans" argument? This is a horrendously touchy subject, but I feel I can trust the Straight Dope to handle it objectively yet sensitively.

 

— Margaret Levin Phillips, assistant professor, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center

 

Don't let it be said that we avoid the big questions.

 

We ran this by our experts representing Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant perspectives--Zev Steinhardt, tomndebb, and Pastor Allan, respectively--and thank them for their input and suggestions. We wanted to get the perspective of imperial Rome as well, but there weren't any ancient Romans around.

 

We need to make three important points before we begin.

 

First, who killed Jesus is irrelevant. If you're a devout Christian, Jesus would tell you not to blame but to forgive. If Jesus hadn't died on the cross, you'd have no route to salvation. So in a way you should be thanking those who executed him, not blaming them.

 

Second, as you say, the question is politically sensitive, to say the least. The accusation of "Christ-killer" was used as justification for isolating, robbing, torturing, and murdering Jews. It's only in recent times--the last fifty years, perhaps not that long--that leading Christian authorities have reviewed the circumstances and acknowledged the injustices of the past 2,000 years.

 

Third, there is no historical record of the condemnation of Jesus other than the New Testament. The different books of the New Testament give five slightly different accounts. Although the versions agree on the main points, the emphasis and details vary. Each author had his own biases and agenda. The authors of the gospels weren't writing objective history; they were trying to convert a particular audience, and their words reflect that.

 

The first Christians were Jews who appealed to other Jews to accept Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. Their preaching thus did not condemn the Jews too harshly, laying most of the blame on the Romans. When the Jews rejected conversion, many early Christians turned against the Jews and looked for converts in the vast Roman Empire outside Judea. Their preaching therefore was careful not to condemn the Romans too harshly, but it was OK to blame Jews.

 

For example, John's Gospel, which was written around 60 years after the death of Jesus, primarily addressed a Gentile community in Asia Minor. His audience almost certainly had no idea of the theological differences between Pharisees and Sadducees, or of the political tensions between the Hasmonean kings and the priests of the Temple. Therefore, John's Gospel often refers to those who were involved with the death of Jesus as simply "the Jews"--an expression that was to have tragic consequences as later Christians took that phrase as "gospel" and began to refer to Jews as "Christ-killers."

 

John Dominic Crossan wrote, "As long as Christians were the marginalized and disenfranchised ones, such passion fiction about Jewish responsibility and Roman innocence did nobody much harm. But once the Roman Empire became Christian, that fiction turned lethal."

 

Joseph C. Hough, Jr., a Christian theologian, writing in the June 2002 issue of Bible Review, comments, "By the end of the second century, anti-Judaism and the Christ-killer myth had become prominent in the teachings of church leaders. The early church fathers perpetuated [this] . . . with even greater vehemence than John did in his gospel. By the fourth century, Augustine and John Chrysostom were among those who gave credence to the awful depiction of Jews as the enemies of God who crucified Christ. Although a long series of papal pronouncements tried to protect Jews against overt violence, the power of the 'Christ-killer' myth created a cultural climate in which hatred and killing of Jews occurred with impunity. What emerged was a relentless and continuing persecution of Jews . . ."

 

OK, with that as an introduction, let's expand on the problem of non-Biblical historic sources for a bit.

 

EXTERNAL SOURCES

 

Jesus looms so large in world history that it may come as a shock to realize his unimportance during his lifetime. The little surviving first-century literature was mostly written by members of the small, literate Roman elite. To them, Jesus (if they heard of him at all) was merely a troublesome rabble-rouser, perhaps a magician, in a very small, backward part of the world. Jesus' trial was not news in Rome. If there ever were archives there, they have not survived. If records were kept in Jerusalem, they were lost in the wars of 66-70 AD when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Roman army.

 

Suetonius, a second-century historian writing about the reign of the emperor Claudius (41-54 AD), tells us someone named "Chrestus" had been causing tumult among the Jews in Rome. Chrestus is presumably a misspelling of Christos, the Greek translation of the Hebrew word for Messiah.

 

Tacitus, writing around the year 100 AD, reports that during the reign of Nero (54-68 AD) Christians in Rome were viewed as dangerous enough to be persecuted. Romans knew about the strange "superstitions" of Christians and of their devotion to a man who had "suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus" (Annals, 15:44). (We'll mention this again later.) But knowledge of Jesus was limited to knowledge of Christianity. Tacitus and other non-Christian writers offer no evidence about Jesus, his life, or his death--only about the religion of his followers.

 

The primary non-biblical resource concerning Israel at that time is Josephus. Josephus was born in 37 AD, a few years after Jesus' death, and wrote Antiquities of the Jews in the 90s. (I get a kick out of writing "the 90s," meaning not the 1890s or 1990s, but the just plain 90s.) But Josephus is of dubious reliability. During the Jewish revolts against Rome in 66 AD, he switched sides to join the Romans, sucking up shamelessly to his new Roman patrons. By the standards of his day, Josephus was a good historian, but he was also a sycophant, flattering Roman generals and politicians at the expense of historical accuracy.

 

Another problem is that we have no originals of Josephus' work. We have copies preserved (and edited) by Christian scribes. Thus, passages in Josephus proclaiming that Jesus "was the Messiah" who "taught the truth" and was "restored to life" after his death are viewed by almost all scholars as later edits. Josephus never converted to Christianity and would not have described Jesus in that way. Barring some miraculous future discovery (similar to the Dead Sea Scrolls), we will never know what Josephus really wrote. Nonetheless, flawed though our copies of his work may be, Josephus is our only outside evidence of Jesus' life and death.

 

THE POLITICAL STRUCTURE OF JUDEA AT THE TIME OF JESUS' DEATH

 

Now that we're clear on sources, let's start with the political and judicial structure of Judea, around 30 AD, specifically focused on Jerusalem. Our work here is largely taken from The Historical Figure of Jesus, by E.P. Sanders.

 

Judea, including Jerusalem, had been under Roman rule since Pompey conquered the area around 67 BC. Judea and Galilee were remote outposts, of minimal concern to Rome. Rome ruled indirectly through client (puppet) kings like Herod, and then through resident governors who, in turn, utilized local aristocrats, especially the high priest.

 

The resident governor was called a "prefect" from about 6 AD to about 41 AD, and later called a "procurator." He was appointed from the equestrian class (lower aristocracy) and lived in Caesarea, on the Mediterranean coast, in one of the luxurious palaces built by Herod the Great. (ASIDE: If you visit Israel today, don't miss the excavated ruins at Caesarea.) The prefect commanded roughly 3,000 troops, a small police force rather than a major presence. There were also some small Roman garrisons at several fortresses around the country.

 

The prefect reported to the legate of Syria, who did have large military forces at his command to control any significant disturbances in the region. The main goals of Roman rule in the boonies seem to have been to collect taxes and to put down revolts.

 

Except during major festivals the prefect stayed away from Jerusalem, because the Jews were very sensitive about offenses against their religion in their holy city. At festival time the prefect usually brought additional troops to Jerusalem to control the crowds. Festivals in Jerusalem were considered risky and the Romans kept a close eye on them. In the century or so before Jesus' death, we know of at least four major riots that began during a festival, even though both Jewish and Roman rulers were prepared for trouble.

 

Very little of the famous Roman "justice" made its way to Judea. The prefect had the exclusive and absolute right to sentence anyone to death. (ASIDE: There was one minor exception to this: the priests could summarily execute anyone who transgressed Temple grounds, in violation of posted warnings.) He could even execute a Roman citizen, without regard for the formal charges that would have been needed in a court in Rome.

 

Most prefects were reasonably judicious and did not wantonly sentence people to death. However, if a prefect condemned you, there was little means of appeal. You could beg the prefect for lenience. You could petition the Roman legate in Syria, who could intervene and send the prefect to Rome to answer for his actions. Or you could send a delegation directly to Rome, probably with the legate's permission, as a sort of grievance committee.

 

Complaining to Rome was surprisingly effective. The Roman emperors wanted peace and quiet and the unimpeded collection of taxes, not riots or rebellions. The emperors (well, the sane ones) knew unrest was the consequence of overly harsh local rulers. During the forty years or so under discussion, Rome dismissed two native rulers (Archelaus and Antipas) and two Roman governors, including Pilate, after popular delegations complained about them.

 

Which brings us to Pontius Pilate. The New Testament describes him as prefect over Judea at the time of Jesus' death, and we have outside corroboration for this from several sources. As noted, Tacitus mentions Pilate but only incidentally, saying nothing about his character. However, the major Jewish historians of the period, Josephus and Philo, discuss Pilate at length. Philo, who was Pilate's contemporary, wrote an appeal to the emperor Caligula that included a description of Pilate. Philo wrote of "the briberies, the insults, the robberies, the outrages and wanton injustices, the executions without trial constantly repeated, the endless and supremely grievous cruelty" of Pilate's rule. Pilate was eventually dismissed from office because of complaints of his widespread and injudicious executions. We'll return to Pilate's role later.

 

Although the prefect was responsible for the region, the towns and villages were run as they had been for centuries, by small groups of elders. Religious leaders played an important and often dominant role. In Jerusalem, local government was headed by the Jewish high priest and his council, sometimes consulting with "the powerful" or "the elders"--that is, the local Jewish elite. Rome relied heavily on the high priest, because the Jews respected the office.

 

There was also a Jewish council (called the Sanhedrin), but there is considerable debate amongst scholars as to how much governing power rested with the Sanhedrin.

 

The high priest in Jesus' time was Joseph Caiaphas. He ruled for 17 years, longer than any other high priest under Roman rule. Most scholars take this as an indication that he was capable and acceptable to both Rome and the Jews. For ten of those years, Pilate was prefect, so presumably the two worked well together, co-operating in the interest of preserving the peace.

 

The high priest had a delicate task. He was responsible for keeping order in Jerusalem. If he failed, the Roman prefect would intervene militarily. Riots and revolts were dealt with harshly by Roman authorities. To keep his job and protect his people, the high priest had to keep things under control. He also needed to represent the Jews before the prefect, and to stand up for Jewish customs and traditions. He was the man in the middle.

 

The Temple guards, acting on the high priest's orders, arrested troublemakers. The high priest judged their cases, although he could not sentence them to death. His goal was to see that traditional Jewish law was followed, at least superficially, to keep the population happy.

 

The Jews were frequently at odds with their Roman overseers, although most protests were non-violent. We have already noted the letters of Philo to Rome, complaining about Pilate's brutality. One other story may be indicative. When Pilate marched Roman standards through Jerusalem, the Jews considered this an offensive display of "graven images." A large number of people went to Caesarea to protest. Pilate ordered his troops to surround them. The Jews reportedly bared their necks and said they preferred death to a violation of God's Law. Pilate backed down.

 

A bit after our story, the emperor Caligula ordered a statue of himself (well, OK, of Zeus with Caligula's face) erected in the Temple in Jerusalem. The Jews threatened revolt, including a farmers' strike, and a large delegation pleaded with the Roman legate in Syria, again preferring death to idolatry. The legate delayed carrying out the orders, and the situation was resolved to everyone's satisfaction (except Caligula's) when Caligula was assassinated.

 

SO MUCH FOR THE POLITICAL BACKGROUND. ON WITH THE STORY

 

Around 30 AD, Jesus and many of his followers came to Jerusalem for Passover. This was the biggest holiday of the year, when Jewish families traveled to Jerusalem from all around the country to celebrate. As usual, the Roman prefect also came to Jerusalem with extra troops to keep a lid on the crowds.

 

The bare bones story, according to the gospels, goes like this: Jesus entered Jerusalem and was welcomed by his followers as "son of David" or "king." In the course of his preaching he prophesied that the Temple would be destroyed. He went to the Temple and scourged the moneychangers. The high priest Caiaphas ordered Jesus' arrest. Witnesses accused Jesus of having threatened to destroy the Temple, but their testimony did not agree, and he was not convicted. Caiaphas questioned Jesus and sent him to Pilate, who interrogated him and ordered that he be crucified for claiming to be "king of the Jews."

 

A number of questions need to be answered:

 

1. Why did the high priest have Jesus arrested?

 

We don't know exactly; we can only speculate. First let's deal with two common theories.

 

a) The high priest thought Jesus was preaching armed revolt against the Romans. This view derives from John 18:33-38, a discussion about what kind of "king" Jesus claimed to be. From a historical perspective, however, it seems unlikely. If Caiaphas and Pilate thought that Jesus was trying to lead an armed revolt, they would also have arrested and executed all his followers and co-conspirators. We have evidence that they did this with at least two other threatened armed rebellions, those of Theudas and "the Egyptian," mentioned in both Josephus and Acts. Since Jesus' followers were not executed, it is unlikely that the high priest thought Jesus was urging armed rebellion.

 

(b) Jesus had theological differences with the Pharisees. This popular view is based on a misunderstanding of the beliefs of the Pharisees. Without going into the Pharisaic sect, however, the very notion of a theological dispute leading to execution is silly. Jews certainly did sometimes kill each other, but not over legalistic disagreements. The disputes between Jesus and the Pharisees were within the bounds of normal debates, such as happened frequently during Talmudic and rabbinic times. Jesus opposed the Pharisees' views of what foods should be tithed. Such criticisms are not matters of life and death.

 

As additional indication is that the last chapters of the gospels do not even mention the Pharisees. They are conspicuously absent from the stories of Jesus' arrest and trial. If the reason for Jesus' arrest was the dispute with the Pharisees, surely they would have appeared at the trial. The conclusion of most scholars is that the Pharisees had nothing to do with Jesus' arrest and execution.

 

Now that we've excluded the most commonly held rationales for Jesus' arrest, what's left?

 

Remember, an important part of the high priest's job was to keep the peace. Passover was a prime time for troublemakers to incite the crowds, and both the high priest and Roman prefect were alert to any sign of danger. From the perspective of the high priest, then:

 

1. When Jesus entered Jerusalem, there was a large crowd who called him "king." The high priest would have viewed this as politically inflammatory.

 

In support of this idea, Mark, Matthew, and Luke all record that, at the trial, Caiaphas asked Jesus whether he was the Messiah. The three gospels each report a different response by Jesus. Regardless of Jesus' response, the fact that Caiaphas asked the question in the first place indicates he knew claims or at least of the shouts of his followers as he entered the city.

 

Solomon Zeitlin remarks, "It is quite clear that Jesus was arrested and brought before Pilate as a political offender against the Roman state. The accusation made against him was that he claimed himself king of the Jews."

 

2. Jesus threatened the Temple, both by his words and by his actions against the moneychangers.

 

The gospels imply that this was a false accusation; that Jesus had merely predicted that sometime or other God would destroy the Temple, and that Jesus' enemies swore falsely about what Jesus said. These enemies thus agreed to lie about Jesus' words, but didn't agree on what lie they would tell. This seems pretty stupid of them. A more likely interpretation is that Jesus said something that onlookers honestly perceived to be a threat, and were genuinely alarmed. A prophet or preacher saying that God would overthrow the Temple could certainly be viewed, by many listeners, as threatening. They reported it to the authorities, but when they were examined in court, they gave slightly different accounts, like eyewitnesses even today.

 

Regardless of his exact words, certainly Jesus' actions in the Temple would have aroused suspicion on the part of the high priest.

 

Let's look at this from the point of view of the high priest. It's Passover, a time when he is particularly concerned that there be no riots or disruptions. Onto the scene comes a man hailed by his followers as "king" who threatens the Temple--ample grounds, in light of the times, for the high priest to take action.

 

For comparison, we can find a few other examples of justice in Josephus. About the year 62 AD, Jeshua the son of Ananias went to the Temple and began to shout that destruction was at hand. He was arrested by the Jewish authorities and taken before the Roman procurator. During interrogation, he kept repeating the same mantra over and over. He was finally released as a madman.

 

The comparison is telling. Jeshua stood alone, while Jesus had a following--a small one, but a following nonetheless. Jeshua merely shouted in the Temple, while Jesus had attacked the money changers. Jeshua was a madman, who responded incoherently under interrogation, while Jesus was not mad and responded calmly to questions. Jesus would have thus been viewed as politically far more dangerous than Jeshua. If Jeshua was arrested for merely shouting, surely Jesus would have been arrested for overturning the tables. And if Jeshua were flogged, more severe action would have been needed for Jesus.

 

In summary, the gospels' descriptions of the actions of the high priest and his council in arresting Jesus agree with Josephus' description of how Jerusalem was governed at the time. The evidence is consistent with the interpretation that Caiaphas had Jesus arrested because he was a troublemaker. Jesus alarmed some people because of his attack on the Temple and his remark about its pending destruction. Caiaphas was concerned that Jesus would incite a riot, and so sent armed guards to arrest him, gave him a hearing, and then recommended execution to Pilate, who promptly complied. This is the way the synoptic gospels describe the event, and this is the way things happened in other cases as several stories by Josephus show.

 

Caiaphas' actions were political. He had the official and moral responsibility to preserve the peace and to prevent riots and bloodshed. If he even thought about it as a choice, he was obliged to choose between having Jesus killed or letting Jesus live and preach, inciting riot and leading to massacre of the population and of Jesus' followers by Roman troops. So he decided that the best political move was to preserve the peace by arresting Jesus and having him executed.

 

But Caiaphas could not order the execution himself. The high priest could recommend executions but could not order them. Only the prefect could do that.

 

Crucifixion was not a punishment permitted under Jewish law. Jewish law permitted capital punishment, but the legal requirements were extremely stringent, so that the death penalty was very rarely (if ever) enforced during Second Temple times. Jewish Law allowed only four kinds of execution, and none involved anything as lingering and tortuous as crucifixion. On the other hand, the Romans executed people for minor infractions, and crucifixion as a method of execution was a popular Roman entertainment.

 

So Caiaphas followed the rules of the Roman governmental system, and the requirements of his position, and sent Jesus to Pilate.

 

2. Why did Pilate order Jesus' execution?

 

This is pretty straightforward. First, because the high priest recommended it, and second, because the accusation was serious. Jesus was being called king of the Jews, an intolerable political offense. Pilate presumably understood that Jesus was a would-be king with no army, and therefore made no effort to arrest and execute Jesus' followers. He may have regarded Jesus as a religious fanatic, a dangerous extremist, but the title "king" he understood in a political context as a threat to the Roman state. The notion of freedom of speech was still 1700-some years in the future.

 

The gospels, especially Matthew and John, want Jesus to have been condemned by Jewish mobs, against Pilate's better judgment. These gospels were being written at a time when the early Christians were trying to get along with Rome, so we find a little whitewashing of Roman authorities. Thus, the gospels report that Pilate was worried, that his wife told him to take no action, that he consulted the (mostly Jewish) mob and pleaded on Jesus' behalf, and finally, that he caved in to public pressure and ordered Jesus' execution.

 

This seems unlikely. The gospels' portrayal of Pilate as wishy-washy, reluctant, and weak-willed is incompatible with the descriptions of him in Josephus and Philo. He had served as prefect of Judea for over a decade; he would not have survived long in that political climate if he were as indecisive as the gospels depict. We can probably best explain this as Christian propaganda a few decades later--an excuse for Pilate's action to reduce tension between the growing Christian movement and Roman authority.

 

Weddig Fricke says, "Despite all the efforts to make the Jews look primarily responsible and to cast the Roman procurator in the role of an unwitting instrument . . . the biblical accounts make it quite clear that Pontius Pilate pronounced the death sentence . . . which was carried out by his legionnaires."

 

The most likely story is that Jesus was sent to Pilate by Caiaphas, flogged and briefly interrogated. Then, when Jesus' answers were not completely satisfactory, Pilate had him crucified without a second thought.

 

SO, WHO KILLED JESUS, ALREADY?

 

In summary, Jesus was killed because the Roman empire mercilessly put down any possible source of rebellion or riot. The empire's agents included the Roman prefect Pilate who ordered the execution, and the Jewish high priest Caiaphus and his council who initiated the process. Assigning responsibility to an entire group of people, whether the Jews or the Romans, is stereotyping, oversimplifying, and false.

 

REFERENCES:

 

There are lots, but we found these most helpful:

 

Crossan, John Dominic, Who Killed Jesus? San Francisco, Harper Press, 1995

 

Fricke, Weddig, The Court Martial of Jesus, NY, Grove Weinfield Press, 1990

 

Meier, John P., Rethinking the Historical Jesus, NY, Doubleday, 1994

 

Sanders, E.P., The Historical Figure of Jesus, England, Penguin Books, 1993

 

Zeitlin, Solomon, Who Crucified Jesus? NY, Bloch Publishing Company, 1964.

 

— Dex

 

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2011/who-killed-jesus

[lord_casek]

Christo: Wasn't there a point in recent history where the Arabs and Jews were living pretty peacefully together? I recall reading that, but am unsure of the reference or validity.

I also recall that the Arabs would help the Jews escape _________ (someone who was persecuting them) by hiding them in their houses.

 

Forgive the sketchy details. I read too much.

[JOHNIE DIZOE]

 

jks.

 

 

 

Oh...

I was all ready to bring up the 6 day war as well as the beef between Lebanon and Israel in 06,

but then I saw this.

[JOHNIE DIZOE]

That has got to be one of the most foolish things I've read in a while.

 

Joshua (Jesus) was a Jew. Did you forget that?

 

His teaching addressed the Jews first.

 

 

 

No shit Jesus was a Jew. The Jewish leaders had him put down for claiming to be the king of the Jews.

 

And what is this "Joshua (Jesus)" shit?

Joshua and Jesus didn't even live in the same time period.

I'm not even a Christian and I know this.

And you're talking about "That has got to be one of the most foolish things I've read in a while." :lol:

 

Also if you think I'm even going to attempt to embark upon that great wall of text then you greatly overestimate me.

[christo-f]

Only the bit about the Irish is a joke, the rest is true.

 

Yeah, there have been a number of wars but as I said, Israel now has relations with Egypt (their intelligence agencies work very closely together) and Jordan. They are currently going backwards and forwards in negotiations with Syria and up until recently they have been very close with Turkey (shit, the Turks and Israel have been allies for years, they hold military exercises together).

 

The Beef between Leb and Israel is actually a beef between Iran and ISrael. Iran uses Hezbollah as a proxy force, the Leb govt MUCH prefers to have good relations with Israel and is working to undermine Hezbollah.

[JOHNIE DIZOE]

MAR I see you lurking. What's your input on the relationship between Jesus and the Jews?

[MAR]

Show me proof he existed as the new testament says he did.

 

The modern day bullshit that's been going on there started when the Jews decided they were going to come invade Palestine and put all the locals into ghettos.

There has always been a Jewish presence in Israel, and there are British and Turkish census papers to prove it. No one "invaded". Read a book. The first major emigration began in 1880, the second in 1904. News flash: That's pre-WW2, so you can stop with the Holocaust pity argument.

 

Since we're on the subject of invasion though, I thought that it might be poignant to bring up the Arab invasion of Israel in 1948. After Israel was neatly divided into Jewish and Arab territory (on the day of Israel's creation) Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria attacked Israel with intention to wipe them off the map. That didn't happen and Israel got a little larger when they captured certain territory. They tried again two more times, and Israel became about the size it is today. With the exception of half of Syria and the Egyptian Sinai peninsula.

 

I want to clue you in, this ghetto business came about from the peace talks interestingly enough. The Palestinian-Arabs negotiated for land they could control; enter the west bank and gaza. Post-agreements shit pops off and Israel takes extreme measures to safeguard its citizens.

 

 

I can honestly say that I don't think I've ever seen a blond haired blue eyed Jew in my life.

Jews come in all different flavors.

 

 

I clearly said that it was ONE of the reasons. Obviously the fact that they were sinking our ships and annihilating our allies on top of the fact that they actually declared war on us had more to do with it, but the holocaust was also a major selling point.

Actually, the Holocaust was very low on the list, and that's embarrassing for the US to admit. They constantly ignored the fact that Jews were being slaughtered until some people in the US Treasury forced them to respond in 1944. America entered the war in 1941.

 

Muslims hate Israel more than they hate each other. Fact.

The middle east has been a war torn area for a long time. There are old grudges that still run deep but Israel seems to pose a threat to certain (syria, lebanon, iran) Middle Eastern countries. Iran, however, is doing a great job of making itself the most hated in the Middle East at the moment. They want to be international players but have the finesse and stability of a three legged drunken elephant.

[JOHNIE DIZOE]

Only the bit about the Irish is a joke, the rest is true.

 

Yeah, there have been a number of wars but as I said, Israel now has relations with Egypt (their intelligence agencies work very closely together) and Jordan. They are currently going backwards and forwards in negotiations with Syria and up until recently they have been very close with Turkey (shit, the Turks and Israel have been allies for years, they hold military exercises together).

 

The Beef between Leb and Israel is actually a beef between Iran and ISrael. Iran uses Hezbollah as a proxy force, the Leb govt MUCH prefers to have good relations with Israel and is working to undermine Hezbollah.

 

 

 

Either way, you have to admit that there would be a lot more peace in the middle east if all them Jews would have just stayed in Europe or came to the states or whatever after WW2.

I know that there's always been small pockets of Jews there even before 1948, but the shit wasn't popping off like it has been since the creation of Israel.

[JOHNIE DIZOE]

Show me proof he existed as the new testament says he did.

 

 

^Like I said... thank you.

 

 

There has always been a Jewish presence in Israel, and there are British and Turkish census papers to prove it. No one "invaded". Read a book. The first major emigration began in 1880, the second in 1904. News flash: That's pre-WW2, so you can stop with the Holocaust pity argument.

 

^No shit, but there wasn't an ISRAEL in what used to be Palestinian territory.

And they weren't putting anybody into ghettos.

 

 

Since we're on the subject of invasion though, I thought that it might be poignant to bring up the Arab invasion of Israel in 1948. After Israel was neatly divided into Jewish and Arab territory (on the day of Israel's creation) Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria attacked Israel with intention to wipe them off the map.

 

 

^As they arguably should have. Yall were an invading outside force just snatching up Palestinian territory right in their back yards. You's always had beef dating back to biblical times, and that's the whole reason why most of you's fled to Europe centuries ago. What would you expect, a welcome home party?

 

 

I want to clue you in, this ghetto business came about from the peace talks interestingly enough. The Palestinian-Arabs negotiated for land they could control; enter the west bank and gaza. Post-agreements shit pops off and Israel takes extreme measures to safeguard its citizens.

 

^So then Israel basically politically strong armed them into the ghettos through "peace talks".

Either way, they're still basically forcefully put into ghettos.

[lord_casek]

No shit Jesus was a Jew. The Jewish leaders had him put down for claiming to be the king of the Jews.

 

And what is this "Joshua (Jesus)" shit?

Joshua and Jesus didn't even live in the same time period.

I'm not even a Christian and I know this.

And you're talking about "That has got to be one of the most foolish things I've read in a while." :lol:

 

Also if you think I'm even going to attempt to embark upon that great wall of text then you greatly overestimate me.

 

"Jesus" isn't his name. It's Yeshua which translates to Joshua.

[MAR]

Only the bit about the Irish is a joke, the rest is true.

 

Yeah, there have been a number of wars but as I said, Israel now has relations with Egypt (their intelligence agencies work very closely together) and Jordan. They are currently going backwards and forwards in negotiations with Syria and up until recently they have been very close with Turkey (shit, the Turks and Israel have been allies for years, they hold military exercises together).

 

The Beef between Leb and Israel is actually a beef between Iran and ISrael. Iran uses Hezbollah as a proxy force, the Leb govt MUCH prefers to have good relations with Israel and is working to undermine Hezbollah.

 

Kiiiiinnnda....

 

On Egypt/Jordan, I agree.

 

Lebanon, has internal stability issues which are connected to Hezbollah/Iran. More so, Israel can't negotiate with a government that doesn't have control over more than half of its country.

 

Syria is still bitter about Eli Cohen, and are Hezbollah controlled as well. It's doubtful anything will come of that.

 

Turkey's a mess, you can tell they know they fucked up big time. Israeli tourism just dropped completely out. Israelis are going to Egypt now for vacation. Go downnn Moses....!

[MAR]

^No shit, but there wasn't an ISRAEL in what used to be Palestinian territory.

And they weren't putting anybody into ghettos.

 

That's debatable, but there definitely wasn't a Palestinian territory. It was created in 1948 with Israel.

 

Reverse time line of people controlling modern day Israel:

Great Britain

Turkey

Egypt

Crusaders

Byzantine

Romans

Romans/Jews

Greeks/Jews

Greeks

Persian

Jews

 

^As they arguably should have. Yall were an invading outside force just snatching up Palestinian territory right in their back yards. You's always had beef dating back to biblical times, and that's the whole reason why most of you's fled to Europe centries ago. What would you expect, a welcome home party?

Jews didnt flee, they were kicked out by the Romans. Also, they went to more than just Europe.

 

"Invading" is wildly inaccurate. The Jews that emigrated under the Turks and Brits. Saying Jews invaded Israel would be like saying the Irish invaded America.

 

^So then Israel basically politically strong armed them into the ghettos through "peace talks".Either way, they're still basically forcefully put into ghettos.

No, you missed the point. Palestinians wanted self governed territories, they negotiated for certain areas, and subsequently funded terrorist attacks on Israel. Israel feeling threatened secured these areas and the Gazan Palestinians lacking resources and funding are now finding themselves to be in trying times. The West Bank Palestinian areas are much more quiet and as a result they have much more freedom. Granted there still is a barrier wall running around 50% of the area.

 

In my opinion, if the Palestinians want sovereignty they should be able to take care of themselves.

[JOHNIE DIZOE]

"Jesus" isn't his name. It's Yeshua which translates to Joshua.

 

http://reformedanswers.org/answer.asp/file/99736.qna/category/nt/page/questions/site/

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua

 

 

/nochristian

[christo-f]

Kiiiiinnnda....

 

On Egypt/Jordan, I agree.

 

Lebanon, has internal stability issues which are connected to Hezbollah/Iran. Israel can't negotiate with a government that doesn't have control over more than half of its country.

Oh absolutely, couldn't agree more. However the March 14 coalitions or in segments alone there is much greater tendency to work with ISrael than against them.

 

Syria is still bitter about Eli Cohen, and are Hezbollah controlled as well. It's doubtful anything will come of that.

 

This is changing hour by hour, literally. If I could flesh it out more I would but I would prefer to point towards the Hariri tribunal, what Hariri said yesterday about blaming Syria for killing Rafik and the death of Haidar and his very quiet burial after the shoot out with Al Ahbash. Also look at the recent visit to Beirut by King Abdullah and Assad.

 

The ground is shifting and I believe I even said that this would happen in a thread two years ago. Do not put too much faith in the recent claims to support Hamas and Hez, pay closer attention negotiating positions.

 

 

Turkey's a mess, you can tell they know they fucked up big time. Israeli tourism just dropped completely out. Israelis are going to Egypt now for vacation. Go downnn Moses....!

 

Yeah, AKP and Gulen are looking to shift away from the secularists and reinvigorate the empire. Their path forward is pan-arabism and Israel is an easy target there. But that won't last, AKP needs Israel's assistance with PKK.

[JOHNIE DIZOE]

That's debatable, but there definitely wasn't a Palestinian territory. It was created in 1948 with Israel.

 

Reverse time line of people controlling modern day Israel:

Great Britain

Turkey

Egypt

Crusaders

Byzantine

Romans

Romans/Jews

Greeks/Jews

Greeks

Persian

Jews

 

It was Palestinian territory when it was invaded and turned into Israel.

Some people try to debate that it wasn't a politically recognized country, but it was still their land none the less.

Try again.

[JOHNIE DIZOE]

That's enough crossfire for me right now though.

Maybe I'll be back tomorrow.

[christo-f]

You gotta stop using this term invaded. The Jews were purchasing land off the locals for decades before there were any wars of violence.

 

there was no invasion, be really clear on that. It is a reality that has evolved/occurred through migration since late 1800s/early 1900s.

[lord_casek]

http://reformedanswers.org/answer.asp/file/99736.qna/category/nt/page/questions/site/

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua

 

 

/nochristian

 

The English name Jesus derives from the Late Latin name Iesus, which transliterates the Koine Greek name Ἰησοῦς Iēsoûs.

In the Septuagint and other Greek-language Jewish texts, such as the writings of Josephus and Philo of Alexandria, Ἰησοῦς Iēsoûs is the standard Koine Greek form used to translate both of the Hebrew names: Yehoshua and Yeshua. Greek Ἰησοῦς or Iēsoûs is also used to represent the name of Joshua son of Nun in the New Testament passages Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8. (It was even used in the Septuagint to translate the name Hoshea in one of the three verses where this referred to Joshua the son of Nun—Deut. 32:44.)

During the second Temple period (beginning 538 BC – 70 AD), Yeshua first became a known form of the name Yehoshua. All occurrences of Yeshua in the Hebrew Bible are in I Chron. 24:11, II Chron. 31:15, Ezra, and Nehemiah where it is transliterated into English as Jeshua. Two of these men (Joshua the son of Nun and Joshua the High Priest) are mentioned in other books of the Hebrew Bible where they are instead called Yehoshua [18] (transliterated into English as Joshua).

The earlier form Yehoshua did not disappear, however, and remained in use as well. In the post-exilic books, Joshua the son of Nun is called both Yeshua bin-Nun (Nehemiah 8:17) and Yehoshua (I Chronicles 7:27). The short form Yeshua was used for Jesus son of Sirach in Hebrew fragments of the Book of Sirach. (Some concern remains over whether these fragments faithfully represent the original Hebrew text or are instead a later translation back into Hebrew.[19]) The earlier form Yehoshua saw revived usage from the Hasmonean period onwards, although the name Yeshua is still found in letters from the time of the Bar Kokhba Revolt (132-135 AD).

In the context of the documentary entitled The Lost Tomb of Jesus, archeologist Amos Kloner stated that the name Yeshua was then a popular form of the name Yehoshua and was "one of the common names in the time of the Second Temple."[20] In discussing whether it was remarkable to find a tomb with the name of Jesus (the particular ossuary in question bears the inscription "Yehuda bar Yeshua"), he pointed out that the name had been found 71 times in burial caves from that time period.[21]

Thus, both forms, Yehoshua and Yeshua, were in use during the Gospel period.

In the Talmud, only one reference is made to Yeshua, in verbatim quotation from the Hebrew Bible regarding Jeshua son of Jozadak (elsewhere called Joshua son of Josedech). The Talmud does refer to several people named Yehoshua from before (e.g. Joshua ben Perachyah) and after Jesus (e.g. Joshua ben Hananiah).

Clement of Alexandria and St. Cyril of Jerusalem considered the Greek form Iesous to be the original, even going so far as to interpret it as a true Greek name and not simply a transliteration of Hebrew.[3] (A similar situation is seen in the use of the true Greek name Simon as a translation of the Hebrew name Shim'on in texts such as Sirach.) Eusebius related it to the Greek root meaning "to heal" thus making it a variant of Jason meaning healer.

However, the New Testament describes Jesus as part of a Jewish milieu, reading the Hebrew Bible and debating with Pharisees over interpretations of the Jewish legal tradition. The Gospels record several Hebrew and Aramaic words or expressions spoken by him. Moreover, Eusebius reports that Jesus's student Matthew wrote a gospel "in the Hebrew language". (Note, scholars typically argue the word "Hebrew" in the New Testament refers to Aramaic.[22])

An argument in favor of the Hebrew reduced form ישוע Yeshua, as opposed to Yehoshua, is the Old Syriac Bible (c. 200 AD) and the Peshitta preserve this same spelling but using the equivalent Aramaic letters ܝܫܘܥ. Yeshu /jeʃuˁ/ (Syriac does not use a 'furtive' pathach so extra /a/ vowel is not used) is still the pronunciation used in the West Syriac dialect, whereas East Syriac has rendered the pronunciation of these same letters as Išô‘ /iʃoˀ/. These texts were translated from the Greek, but the name is not a simple transliteration of the Greek form because its "sh" /ʃ/ sound is not expressed in the Greek (although the Greek has a letter sounding like "s"), and ends with the pharyngeal ‘ayin sound /ˁ/, also not found in Greek. It can be argued that the Aramaic speakers who used this name had a continual connection to the Aramaic-speakers in communities founded by the apostles and other students of Jesus, thus independently preserved his historical name. Alternatively, Aramaic references to the Hebrew Bible had long used Yeshu for Hebrew names such as Yehoshua Ben Nun.[23] So the possibility of Jesus having been Yehoshua remains.

Yeshua was used as the name for Jesus in late additions to the Yosippon; however, its usage here is a translation back into the Hebrew Yeshua from the Greek. The Toledot Yeshu narratives combine the person or persons designated Yeshu in the Talmud with Jesus, but relate that his original name was Yehoshua.

[MAR]

Some people try to debate that it wasn't a politically recognized country, but it was still their land none the less.

Try again.

Prove it.