GOSPEL SLANDER DEBUNKED: JEWS DID NOT CAMPAIGN FOR JESUS' CRUCIFIXION
How Jews felt safe in Easter week when the Christians were rabidly anti-Jew is a mystery. The ceremonies demonising their ancestors continue today. So much for innocent until proven guilty.
The gospels say that a miracle healing man called Jesus Christ lived. They say
he died by crucifixion and three days later he rose again. The tomb he was
placed in was found wide open with the stone that had been across the entrance
moved back and the tomb was mysteriously empty. His body was gone. Certain
witnesses claimed that Jesus appeared to them as a resurrected being.
The four gospels are said to be the word of God by the Church. These Gospels lie
that Jesus was crucified by Pilate who was forced to do this by the Jewish
people. Some gospels say that Pilate gave Jesus to the Jews to be crucified. The
notion that a tyrannical and ruthless procurator would clear Jesus of any guilt
for crime and then have him crucified because he was afraid of the Jewish crowd
is a far-fetched though biblical one.
Matthew 27:25 tells us the Jews when told that Jesus was innocent nevertheless
pleaded for him to be executed as a criminal and they called the blood of Jesus
on themselves and on their children. The Jews are inviting the death penalty on
themselves and their children if they are wrong to have Jesus killed.
The purpose of that story was so that if the Jews were persecuted by believers
in Christ the believers could say they asked for it. Even if they thought
persecuting was wrong its wrongness would have been ameliorated.
THE JEWS DID NOT KILL JESUS
The New Testament blames the Jews and not the Romans for Jesus’ horrific death
by crucifixion. It says the Jewish leadership got the people on their side and
together they made sure Pilate, the Roman governor, would kill Jesus by
crucifixion. All the gospels say that Pilate was keen to save Jesus and only
crucified him because he was bullied into it. Pilate even proposed that Barabbas
or Jesus could be released even though Barabbas was an insurrectionist in the
hope that the people would pick Jesus. The plan was to put the blame on the Jews
so that the Roman audiences would be more susceptible to Christian charms and
accept the “gospel”.
Because Jewish tradition stated that a Messiah would die
in a brutal way the Jews would have arranged a discreet assassination or
execution for Jesus if they preferred not to exile him. And even more so if
Jesus had miracle powers. They understood that Jesus would use a public death to
advertise his gospel by dying like a martyr.
It is supposed that the Jews abominated crucifixion for
the Law said that the hanged person defiles the land (Deuteronomy 21:23). But
the Law said it was only sinful if the man hung overnight. The Gospels say that
it was arranged for Jesus to be taken down before night and if he was not dead
for his legs to be broken to finish him off.
The Law said that a hanged man was cursed by God. Did the
Jews surmise that if Jesus was hanged on the cross it would prove he was not
God’s Son for God could not curse him if he was? But the curse was promised for
men who were not the immaculate Son of God but who were sinners. God could not
curse his Son. He would have been an exception so the curse proved nothing. If
only the deserving could be cursed then the curse could not curb Jesus’ good
standing with God or with the people for there was no curse. And if God curses
only for a good reason perhaps he could curse his Son. The text seems to mean
that God curses the dead body which is not the same as cursing the person. Dead
bodies are not nice so they are cursed in that sense and in the sense that they
are doomed to destruction. However, the vast majority of Jews did not see things
this way and neither did their leaders. They did believe that crucifixion was a
desecration of the land and an insult to Jews and their faith and their country.
That being the case they would not have handed Jesus over to Pilate unless
Pilate forced them. They would not have wanted to risk Jesus being crucified.
It is doubtful that the Jews would have schemed to get
Jesus crucified. They detested the Romans and would not have collaborated with
them.
The Jews believed in vicarious suffering so they knew
that there was a chance that the followers of Christ could turn his death to
their advantage by making out it was for sinners (page 23, The Metaphor of God
Incarnate). To make a martyr of Jesus was to give him greater esteem for Judaism
did approve of martyrdom (page 26, ibid).
The Jews only made themselves unclean for the Passover if
they schemed to get Jesus crucified and we read that they would not even enter
Pilate’s house to keep themselves clean. Inconsistent. Yet we are told they took
people away from their spiritual preparation for the feast just to destroy Jesus
and mix with unclean Gentiles and to stand around an unclean area of death all
of which made them unclean. They made themselves morally unclean as well. They
knew that Jesus should have been allowed to live past the Passover and the
Sabbath to give him time to repent. They would only have dirtied themselves all
these ways in fiction and not in fact. Rome killed Jesus and the Jews were
unjustly blamed.
The idea of Jewish leaders being desperate to have Jesus
crucified when he could not be left on the cross long enough because of a sacred
Sabbath which had to be respected by getting him killed and taken down before it
started is mad. Death by crucifixion could take days. The Romans did not care
about Jewish feasts and the Jews could not risk forcing a Jew to work on the
cross to fight for his life on the Sabbath which was a day of strict rest.
The suggestion of conservative Christians that since the
Jews could not execute themselves they had to do all they could to keep their
law that apostates like Jesus should be killed and then strung up as a warning
to others is abominable and a mark of desperation. These people are saying that
the nearest the Jews could get to keeping the law was to have Jesus crucified by
the Romans and hung up for display on the cross. They could have had Jesus taken
out of the country and executed elsewhere. They could have persuaded Pilate to
let them execute Jesus themselves which would be a lot better than forcing him
to kill Jesus which the gospels say they did.
The Jewish law prescribed a cruel punishment for false
Messiahs as a deterrent. And Jesus dying on the cross would remove the deterrent
part of the law which was what the savagery of the law was all about because
Rome was not killing Jesus because he was a false Messiah but or for religious
grounds. They killed him for other reasons. Also deterrence had nothing to do
with it for the apostate disciples of Jesus were not crucified. Deterrence then
was not the Jewish motive. So we have no reason to believe the Jews wanted Jesus
to die that way for deterrence.
The Jews could not expect to be able to force Pilate to
kill again when they had done it the once. Jesus was an unusual case and why
would the Jews want to make an example of apostates of him for the Romans were
not interested in deterring apostates for they wanted the Jewish religion to die
out?
That is the worst thing about Christianity is the silly
lies that look believable until you take a moment to think that are continually
being issued especially from Christian quarters that want to keep the world in
the dark ages.
JEWS WERE SLANDERED AS CHRIST-KILLERS BY BIBLE
Acts 5 gives clear evidence that the Jewish leaders were innocent but slandered
by the apostles as the killers of Christ. Though the authority of the Jews
forbade it, the apostles preached the gospel of Jesus in Jerusalem. Now given
that to attack authority like that is a recipe for social disorder and unrest
and St Paul says the authorities must be obeyed for God put them in their office
to keep society right (Romans 13) it is clear that the apostles should have gone
to another country that was tolerant and preached there. There is no excuse for
their breaking the law.
Acts says an angel told them to preach in the Temple but
no apparition could have the right to do that. Many people see angels telling
them to do all kinds of bizarre things today. Angel Therapy is meant to induce
visions. Does seeing angels then give you the right to break the law? Of course
not. This apparition is no more credible than the ones to Lucia of Fatima who
even the Vatican admits got her own desires and illusions mixed up with the
apparitions as if God would not protect her from such error and give her the
discernment. Things like that only happen to deceivers so errors like hers or
the apostles should not be rationalised as anything other than deliberate
deceptions. Apparitions never seem to understand that there are so many
conflicting apparitions in the world that you cannot stray from commonsense for
any apparition. When commonsense is what you really need what use the apparition
except as something to make you feel good? But you can train yourself to feel
good without it and so you should for you are stronger that way so they are not
really doing you any favours.
It is impossible to believe that the apostles really had
the freedom to preach their Jesus message. When Rome killed Jesus for claiming
to have royal blood and threatening their totalitarian set-up, there was no way
they would have wanted people going about saying that Rome’s treatment of Jesus
was against the will of God who can destroy Rome in the twinkling of an eye.
It is a lie that the apostles were allowed into the
Jewish Temple. They could not have been when the Jews did not approve of Jesus
any more and considered him a fake Messiah. The apostles were heretics and
heretics were not welcome in the Temple.
The Sanhedrin and the High Priest who had supposedly
engineered the execution of Jesus, had the apostles brought before them. They
chastised them for preaching about Jesus though they had told them before not
to. But when they had had the apostles before them previously and forbade them
to mention Jesus the apostles must have promised to do what they asked when they
were granted their freedom. Otherwise, they would have been jailed or exiled.
The High Priest and Sanhedrin also chastised the apostles
for saying they were to blame for the death of Jesus. Now if this was common
knowledge as the gospels claim, it had to have been then, they would not have
chastised the apostles for that. The apostles were being accused of slander. And
obviously the charge must have been true.
The Sanhedrin member, Gamaliel, is presented as pleading
with the Sanhedrin not to kill the apostles for if the movement they have is not
from God it will die just like the movements led by other false Messiahs which
died soon faded away and that it might be fighting God to fight the apostles.
This was a foolish argument and yet we are told the Sanhedrin bought it.
Gamaliel knew that the false gods of Rome had their followers and their cult was
growing and it didn’t mean they were supported by God. The Sanhedrin would not
have listened to Gamaliel at all. Gamaliel would not have said such a stupid
thing so Acts is lying. Yet we are told contradictorily that the Sanhedrin again
commanded the apostles to say nothing after that so they did not believe that to
work against the apostles would mean working against God. Strangely they did not
bar them from the Temple for we read that the apostles went there after that to
spread the word about Jesus.
None of this makes any sense. But the apostles must have
lied to the Sanhedrin that they would not mention Jesus again when they let them
return to the Temple. The apostles had told the Sanhedrin that they were the
witnesses to the risen Jesus. They were untrustworthy knaves. Why believe them?
It is totally certain that it is most unjust to the Jews
to have their ancestors accused of the crime of killing the Son of God even if
the gospels do it. Accusations like that are very serious and we need proof
before we can make them but we have none. Nobody can prove who wrote the gospels
which are anonymous. And it is not fair to condemn the Jews without having their
side of the story. Fundamentalist Christians like the pope don’t believe in
innocent until proven guilty when it comes to defending their religion.
The Jews, according to the gospels, arrested Jesus
secretly for they feared the people. Then why didn’t they dispose of him
themselves? If they were so corrupt this should not have been a problem. The
Romans alone were to blame. The gospels shifted the blame on to the Jews because
they wanted to make the faith they professed attractive to Romans.
Jesus himself plainly said that the Sabbath was made for
man and not man for the Sabbath meaning that true Christianity does not advocate
harming others in the name of faith. The gospels are very offensive for implying
that he consciously refused to avoid his own execution thereby putting faith
before himself and his mother and friends. But regardless, the gospels forbid
what they themselves did. They spin-doctored and distorted and slandered all in
the name of promoting Christ.
The apostle Paul wrote that the Jews were to blame for
the crucifixion and never mentioned the Romans. The Romans were the ones who
were really responsible. Crucifixion was not a Jewish method of execution. We
read that Paul was a Roman citizen. Paul's central message was that Jesus Christ
died a tragic death for sinners and rose again from the dead. Would then he have
been a Roman citizen had Jesus really existed just a few years before and
executed as a criminal by the Romans which would make them killers of the
saviour and pure evil? It makes more sense to believe that Rome did not find
Paul's message offensive for the Jesus he proclaimed lived centuries before and
was killed by Jews.
Something should be done about these gospels which
promote anti-Semitism. The Jews are a decent minority in our society and society
tends to despise them and anything that encourages that should be opposed.
CONCLUSION
The Jews were slandered by the gospels and this caused much abuse of the Jewish
people by Christians. Do not honour anti-Semitism by honouring the gospels. They
are not the word of God. Why are Holocaust Deniers dealt with so severely
when the Church by promoting the gospels sows the seeds of what led to the
Holocaust? The Deniers are a symptom of the disease not the disease and
the disease is the sectarian pathological lies told by the Church through its
Bible.