HOME   People do good because they are human, not because they are religious! 

Do not give God any credit for the good they do, they did it!

 

GOSPEL SLANDER DEBUNKED: JEWS DID NOT CAMPAIGN FOR JESUS' CRUCIFIXION

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.

JEWS COULD HAVE EXECUTED JESUS THEMSELVES
 
The Talmud says that Jesus was sentenced to death and the Jewish people were given forty days to change the mind of the leaders and spare him and this didn’t happen so he was executed by the leaders.


In some cities, it is certain that the people could execute without expressly appealing to the Roman authorities. Christians state that the permission was limited to these and was not extended to Palestine. That is unlikely and unprovable. Some say it is likely because Palestine had a murderous religion, Judaism had scriptures commanding the killing of sinners by stoning, that made it differ from the rest which killed on political grounds. But most of the countries put people to death for very little. They were religious countries so even if they had no Bibles to tell them to commit these crimes, religion still had a part to play. According to unimpeachable sources, Pilate was a butcher of Jews so Rome did not mind if Jews stoned one another to death over the Mosiac Law. It wanted rid of them in case they would overthrow Roman rule for their Bible told them that the land belonged to nobody else so their patriotism was stronger than that of others nations.

 

The ancient book, The Golden Ass, says that Rome did let nations execute without its permission. Despite some of its historical content being questionable it should be taken as correct in this because other things support what it says and the Law would have been too well-known for a mistake to have been made.

 

Pilate would not have told the Jews to put Jesus to death themselves unless they could. He could not have been joking or sarcastic when the Jews answered him as if he wasn’t being. And no hint of sarcasm exists. What he said could have been used against him if he didn’t mean it if it were against Roman policy to let a person be executed without permission. Also, he was empowering them to execute Jesus themselves. So why didn’t they?  The scandal of Jews being granted the power to stone Jesus to death or execute him and insisting the hated Romans should do it would have generated the greatest Jewish scandal of all time had it happened. There was no explosion of uproar recorded in the world at the time over it so it didn’t happen.

WAS PILATE FORCED?

The gospel story that the Jews forced Pilate to kill Jesus by crucifixion is incredible. It cannot be true. Even if Pilate wanted to he could not have avoided sentencing Christ to death.

 

When Pilate told the Jews to judge Jesus by their own law and put him to death (John 18:31) they replied that they could not put any man to death. Did they mean at that time of year? No for they could have waited until after the feast and then they would be free and there would be no danger of a riot among the visitors. The Jews would not have threatened to riot over when Jesus would be killed as long as it would happen.

 

Pilate knew they wanted Jesus dead when they accused him of capital crimes. His telling them to judge him by their own law received the reply that they couldn’t execute reveals that the Jews knew he was saying they could kill him. They had Pilate’s permission to kill and Rome allowed them to kill when permitted. Their refusing to kill Jesus themselves is totally improbable. If Pilate’s arm was successfully twisted over something so immaterial as who has to kill a holy man when that is his legal fate then he would have been sacked for he was not doing his job. The emperor would not have had that.

 

In John 19, Pilate tells the Jews to take Jesus and crucify him themselves. They answer back that their Law needs him dead meaning that they want Pilate to kill him though they can do it themselves. We are told both that this answer scared Pilate who was afraid of violence in the crowd and that he killed Jesus against his will. This is absurd. The Jews would not have rioted when they could kill Jesus themselves by stoning and string him up nor would Pilate have expected them to. The gospeller is lying.

 

Jesus was claimed to have had been carrying royal blood and to have been King David’s real heir to the throne. Had Pilate been keen to save Jesus he would not have said so in public despite the gospel report that he did. He would not have told the world that King Jesus was innocent when royal blood and Messiahs were just not tolerated in the Roman regime. Pilate would have known that arguing with the Jews was nonsense so there was no point in him standing up for a Messiah. Caesar would have been furious and would have fired him for a man who approves one Messiah is giving the wrong message to other would-be Christs who could hide their political aspirations behind a spiritual façade.
 
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 ACCUSED OF NAILING JESUS
 
Luke says that Pilate reluctantly surrendered Jesus to the will of the Jews (Luke 23:25).  Luke 24:20 states that the Jews handed Jesus over for sentencing and then they crucified him. John 19:16 does the same thing as Luke. It says Pilate handed Jesus over to be crucified. And when we ask to whom we have to go to the previous verse which mentions only the Jews. This evidently accuses the Jews of crucifying Jesus. This is a very serious slander.

 

Luke and John must have been written very late when it was able to make statements like that. The Jews were not to blame for Jesus’ death. The gospel evidence that they were is dubious.

 

The New American Bible, Living Word Edition, note for John 19:16 confesses that out of the desire to blacken the Jews John like Luke was deliberately ambiguous to give the impression that the Jews were the killers of Christ and that he was handed over to the Jews for crucifixion.
  
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.
 
WORKS CONSULTED
 
Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, John W Haley, Whitaker House, Pennsylvania, undated
Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Vol 1, Josh McDowell, Alpha Scripture Press Foundation, Bucks, 1995
Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, Monarch, East Sussex, 1995
In Defence of the Faith, Dave Hunt, Harvest House, Eugene, Oregon, 1996
In Search of Certainty, John Guest Regal Books, Ventura, California, 1983
Jesus and Early Christianity in the Gospels, Daniel J Grolin, George Ronald, Oxford, 2002
Jesus and the Four Gospels, John Drane, Lion Books, Herts, 1984
Jesus Lived in India, Holger Kersten, Element, Dorset, 1994
Jesus the Evidence, Ian Wilson Pan, London 1985
The Bible Fact or Fantasy? John Drane, Lion Books, Oxford, 1989
The Encyclopaedia of Bible Difficulties, Gleason W Archer, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1982
The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh & Henry Lincoln, Corgi, London, 1982
The Jesus Conspiracy, Holger Kersten and Elmar R Gruber, Element, Dorset, 1995
The Messianic Legacy, Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh & Henry Lincoln, Corgi, London, 1987
The Metaphor of God Incarnate, John Hick, SCM Press Ltd, London, 1993
The Passover Plot, Hugh Schonfield, Element Books, Dorset, 1996
The Resurrection Factor, Josh McDowell, Alpha Scripture Press Foundation, Bucks, 1993
The Resurrection of Jesus, Pinchas Lapide, SPCK, London, 1984
The Truth of Christianity, WH Turton, Wells Gardner, Darton & Co Ltd, London, 1905
The Turin Shroud is Genuine, Rodney Hoare, Souvenir Press, London, 1998HoarHo
The Unauthorised Version, Robin Lane Fox, Penguin, Middlesex, 1992
The Vatican Papers, Nino Lo Bello, New English Library, Sevenoaks, Kent, 1982
The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Raymond E Brown Paulist Press, New York, 1973
The Womb and the Tomb, Hugh Montefiore, Fount – HarperCollins, London, 1992
Verdict on the Empty Tomb, Val Grieve, Falcon, London, 1976
Who Moved the Stone? Frank Morison, OM Publishing Cumbria, 1997
Why People believe Weird Things, Michael Shermer, Freeman, New York, 1997