Anti-Semitism and the Execution of Jesus

[praxis1966]

Many have made reference around here to the historical Jesus, without really knowing too much of what they're talking about. I've found this little ditty (well, pretty long actually; long enough I know most of you won't read it) which actually debunks not only the Christian religious basis for anti-Semetism, but also the Resurrection and The Passion of the Christ all at the same time. I implore all of you to read it, especially those of you who seem to think 'Jesus died for our sins' (which seems a tad arrogant of him if you ask me).

Who Really Killed Jesus?--by Tim Callahan (http://www.skeptic.com/PassionOfChrist.html)

[Mr Flibble]

they should do a "cold case " show on him.....who dunnit??? probly a butler

[deathpasser]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 04:58 AM
Many have made reference around here to the historical Jesus, without really knowing too much of what they're talking about. I've found this little ditty (well, pretty long actually; long enough I know most of you won't read it) which actually debunks not only the Christian religious basis for anti-Semetism, but also the Resurrection and The Passion of the Christ all at the same time. I implore all of you to read it, especially those of you who seem to think 'Jesus died for our sins' (which seems a tad arrogant of him if you ask me).

Who Really Killed Jesus?--by Tim Callahan (http://www.skeptic.com/PassionOfChrist.html)
It's an interesting read, but his arguement against Jewish claims to Jesus' blood are entirely based on probability (see point 5) His method of "debunking" Jewish claim to the guy on the cross' blood is simply saying that "...the claim to having put Jesus to death was considered a righteous defense of Jewish orthodoxy." That doesn't debunk anything.

It reads further and uses Roman literature of the time, seemingly contradictory to Jewish literature, to also say the Jews weren't at all responsible. Somehow the author completely changes his mind about Jewish writings to argue point 5 and has a completely different take on Jewish writings in 2-4. What amazing consistancy.

A different view on who killed Jesus (http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/jews_killed.htm)

A more biased Christian look at who and why killed the man on the cross (http://www.truthinhistory.org/jews.htm)

[praxis1966]

Well, and I know this might not be a welcome sentiment, but probability generally is much stronger than the supposition and inferential reasoning commonly found in the "Bible" as far as I'm concerned.

At any rate, the point of the article is that though evidence speaking to the contrary of the "Bible" may be thin on a good day, quantifiable facts supporting the biblical accounts are equally (if not more so) thin. As a matter of fact, they are incontrovertibly absent in many cases. In this eventuality, a scientific historian is forced to consider all the other evidence available describing the situation.

Consequently, there must remain among rational people a fair amount of debate over the circumstances of Jesus's death. To do any less would be, dare I say, un-Christian.

In the meantime, don't expect to convert any non/semi-believers with such hogwash. It just doesn't hold up to any kind of scrutiny. *Sigh* I guess that's why you guys invented the word 'faith'.