News0 min ago
Who killed Jesus?
22 Answers
I was watching a television programme last night that investigated this question. Bible accounts tell us that following Jesus's arrest and trial, Pontius Pilate found him innocent. However, the Jewish people were given a choice either to save Barabbas, or to save Jesus - and they chose to save Barabbas. For the past 2000 years the Jews have been demonised for making that choice, but the programme concluded that the gospel accounts were manufactured, and that Pontius Pilate in fact bore sole responsibility for the crucifixion. So, who do you think killed Jesus, why was he killed, and if the biblical accounts were indeed, manufactured, why?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
I am an atheist, but as i understand it, all of Jesus' time on earth was pre-determined, with the end result that He would die for the sins of mankind.
It therefore follows that everything through His life, including the trial and the choice by the mob to save Barabas, was decfided in advance as part of God's plan.
If Christian faith is to be believed, God decided to send his Son to die on earth, so the outcome was already decided.
The Devil - as they say - is in the detail.
It therefore follows that everything through His life, including the trial and the choice by the mob to save Barabas, was decfided in advance as part of God's plan.
If Christian faith is to be believed, God decided to send his Son to die on earth, so the outcome was already decided.
The Devil - as they say - is in the detail.
Hi Guys, if you look at it from a Christian perspective, both Waldo and Andy are right, and from a non-Christian perspective there's a good chance that Wiz is right too. However, in asking the question I was hypothesizing that, historically, Jesus existed, but that history has been tampered with - to say the very least.
-- answer removed --
The Christian message is that Christ died for all our sins and for the sins of each and every one of us. Who authorised his trial and crucifixion is therefore irrelevant. He was killed by the greatest military and political power of hs day with the knowledge and approval of the very religious leaders who had the best opportunity to understand his message and the God who sent him. The message of the Bible is that he could have come at any time, in any country, and his fate would have been just as certain. We are all guilty.
The whole question of predestination, of God foreseeing what will happen is a vexed one. God exists 'outside' time. He is unaffected by it. He is 'then' and 'now' and 'to be' simultaneously. He can no more deny himself the knowledge of that future than he can override the free will he has given us.
We all make the world, bit by little bit. We dirty it and neglect it and use it up and destroy it. We get the governments and the world we deserve. One of Jesus' sayings was ' before you start removing the splinter out of the other fellow's eye, take the plank out of your own'. Good advice. If everyone lived as Christ wanted them to (not necessarily as the modern Church tells them to!) perhaps the poor and the destitute, the oppressed and the homeless might not be so numerous, nor so much in need.
The whole question of predestination, of God foreseeing what will happen is a vexed one. God exists 'outside' time. He is unaffected by it. He is 'then' and 'now' and 'to be' simultaneously. He can no more deny himself the knowledge of that future than he can override the free will he has given us.
We all make the world, bit by little bit. We dirty it and neglect it and use it up and destroy it. We get the governments and the world we deserve. One of Jesus' sayings was ' before you start removing the splinter out of the other fellow's eye, take the plank out of your own'. Good advice. If everyone lived as Christ wanted them to (not necessarily as the modern Church tells them to!) perhaps the poor and the destitute, the oppressed and the homeless might not be so numerous, nor so much in need.
IAP, I would love to have the opportunity to ask him.
Mibs, that's AWFUL!
Dundurn, I agree with your last sentence, but that's about it. The question of historical accuracy may be irrelevant to you, but it's important to anyone who seeks historical truth. Amongst other things, you say we are all guilty, and whilst I understand your belief leads you to say what you've said, I don't have that faith so I have to disagree. Looking at it from my faithless point of view, none of us were there to witness what really happened - hence the question.
Mibs, that's AWFUL!
Dundurn, I agree with your last sentence, but that's about it. The question of historical accuracy may be irrelevant to you, but it's important to anyone who seeks historical truth. Amongst other things, you say we are all guilty, and whilst I understand your belief leads you to say what you've said, I don't have that faith so I have to disagree. Looking at it from my faithless point of view, none of us were there to witness what really happened - hence the question.
Hi naomi, as I understand it, Jesus was the Messiah, in those days, the Jews were looking for a Messiah to deliver them from the Roman yoke, much as Judas Maccabee (the Lion of Judah) and the Seleucid Empire, he was also known as a Messiah, so If Jesus was also a Messiah, the Romans would have been fearful of a Judean revolt led by him,
My money, if Jesus existed, is on the Romans doing the deed.
My money, if Jesus existed, is on the Romans doing the deed.
Pilate had the ability to spare him, but he washed his hands of him.
The Lebanese have a saying "who benefits?" who benefited most from the execution of Jesus?
The Romans, the fact that it appeased the Jews was a bonus.
Historical truth is a very curious animal to capture, Herodotus is often cited in ancient historical narratives. But according to him it was the Greeks who introduced homosexuality to Persia, surely not?
The Lebanese have a saying "who benefits?" who benefited most from the execution of Jesus?
The Romans, the fact that it appeased the Jews was a bonus.
Historical truth is a very curious animal to capture, Herodotus is often cited in ancient historical narratives. But according to him it was the Greeks who introduced homosexuality to Persia, surely not?
Pilate had the ability to spare him, but he washed his hands of him.
That's according to the gospels - but the programme concluded that Pilate found Jesus guilty of sedition and condemned him to death, and that the story was manufactured in order to show Rome as the benefactor, and to demonise the Jews.
It occurred to me, if the story is to be believed, that less than a week before the execution, the people of Jerusalem lauded Jesus's arrival into the city with palm leaves, and yet a few days later wanted him dead. Very odd. It makes no sense.
That's according to the gospels - but the programme concluded that Pilate found Jesus guilty of sedition and condemned him to death, and that the story was manufactured in order to show Rome as the benefactor, and to demonise the Jews.
It occurred to me, if the story is to be believed, that less than a week before the execution, the people of Jerusalem lauded Jesus's arrival into the city with palm leaves, and yet a few days later wanted him dead. Very odd. It makes no sense.
Come on
Pilate wahed his hands?
Then why was he crucified and not stoned?
If Pilate had truely washed his hands of the matter as we understand it he'd have handed Jesus back to the Jews to do with as they wanted.
And of course when Constantine hijacked Christianity for Rome it was a good idea to play heavilly on the Jewish angle.
Pilate wahed his hands?
Then why was he crucified and not stoned?
If Pilate had truely washed his hands of the matter as we understand it he'd have handed Jesus back to the Jews to do with as they wanted.
And of course when Constantine hijacked Christianity for Rome it was a good idea to play heavilly on the Jewish angle.
Jesus the Christ was apparently crucified to spare Jesus Barabbas (literally Jesus = Joshua, Bar = 'Son of', Abba = "god the Father"). I'll leave you to make your own conclusions on that one.
Further, that the sanhedrin would meet at night during passover would be anathema, so again that's open to question.
Further, that the sanhedrin would meet at night during passover would be anathema, so again that's open to question.
There are many indications that the story is not true. And this is not chakka the atheist talking but chakka the student of the origins of Christianity.
There was no tradition that said that the Jews were allowed the release of one prisoner. It is not mentioned anywhere else in any writings.
The idea that Pilate would debate with a Jewish crowd and finally give in to them is laughable. His normal treatment of Jewish mobs is well documented: he would slaughter them, often having planted his soldiers in amongst them dressed as civilians.
The Sanhedrin could not have met as described. The meeting and the procedures conflict with those laws which the Jews strictly adhered to. Had the Sanhedrin found Jesus guilty of any sort of blasphemy they had their own punishments for such crimes.
In any case, how do we know any of this? The gospel writers weren't there and they quote no sources.
When the new religion was trying (and ultimately triumphantly succeeding) to spread through the Roman Empire it was an embarrassment for its missionaries to tell the Romans that they had killed the very man they were now being asked to worship. Yet crucifixion was very much a Roman form of execution. So they got round it by saying that it was the Jews who egged on the Romans. This has been called The Greatest Libel of All Time.
There is no historical basis for any of the Jesus story anyway but I'm happy to hypothesize as naomi asks.
There was no tradition that said that the Jews were allowed the release of one prisoner. It is not mentioned anywhere else in any writings.
The idea that Pilate would debate with a Jewish crowd and finally give in to them is laughable. His normal treatment of Jewish mobs is well documented: he would slaughter them, often having planted his soldiers in amongst them dressed as civilians.
The Sanhedrin could not have met as described. The meeting and the procedures conflict with those laws which the Jews strictly adhered to. Had the Sanhedrin found Jesus guilty of any sort of blasphemy they had their own punishments for such crimes.
In any case, how do we know any of this? The gospel writers weren't there and they quote no sources.
When the new religion was trying (and ultimately triumphantly succeeding) to spread through the Roman Empire it was an embarrassment for its missionaries to tell the Romans that they had killed the very man they were now being asked to worship. Yet crucifixion was very much a Roman form of execution. So they got round it by saying that it was the Jews who egged on the Romans. This has been called The Greatest Libel of All Time.
There is no historical basis for any of the Jesus story anyway but I'm happy to hypothesize as naomi asks.
