Opinion Did ‘the Jews’ Kill Jesus? - As the Catechism says, 'the historical complexity of Jesus' trial is apparent in the Gospel accounts.'

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
L | A
By Trent Horn

On May 2, 2024, the House of Representatives passed the “Antisemitism Awareness Act,” partly in response to an uptick in antisemitic displays at U.S. college campuses in recent years. The act could help students file civil complaints if they feel they have been victims of antisemitic discrimination.

The Catholic Church condemns all unjust discrimination, and Pope Francis even said this past February that the Church “rejects every form of anti-Judaism and antisemitism, unequivocally condemning manifestations of hatred towards Jews and Judaism as a sin against God.”

Some critics are concerned that the bill’s definition of antisemitism, which is drawn from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, is too broad and would make basic Catholic doctrine antisemitic. They focus on one part that says it is antisemitic to “[use] the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.” In response, they say that the Bible and many Church Fathers speak about “the Jews” killing Jesus.

So is it accurate to say “the Jews killed Jesus”? Is it antisemitic?

The Second Vatican Council taught that “the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ; still, what happened in his passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today” (Nostra Aetate 4). Some Catholics, however, argue that all the unconverted Jews in the time of Christ (thus exempting the Blessed Virgin and the apostles) were responsible for Jesus’ crucifixion. Some even claim that all unconverted Jews in history since the Crucifixion carry a unique guilt for Christ’s death that other sinners do not share.

It is obviously false that all non-Christian Jews at the time of Christ’s death were responsible for his crucifixion, for the simple reason that not all of them were consulted! Only a tiny portion of the Jewish population called for his death. Further, many Jews who did not formally become Christian still had a positive attitude toward Jesus and his movement (see Acts 2:47) and almost certainly would not have approved of Jesus’ death.

When it comes to later Jews being responsible, this idea comes from an interpretation of Matthew’s Gospel, which describes Pilate washing his hands, saying, “I am innocent of this righteous man’s blood; see to it yourselves.” Matthew then says the crowd answered, “His blood be on us and on our children!” (27:25).

What do we make of this “blood curse”? To start, the biblical text never says God honored it. Nor would such a curse, even if it was honored, apply to every future Jew, since nearly all of them are not descended from the small crowd present at Jesus’ sentencing.

In the second volume of his work Jesus of Nazareth, Pope Benedict XVI writes:
When in Matthew’s account the “whole people” say, “His blood be upon us and on our children” (27:25), the Christian will remember that Jesus’ blood speaks a different language from the blood of Abel (Heb. 12:24): it does not cry out for vengeance and punishment; it brings reconciliation. It is not poured out against anyone; it is poured out for many, for all. . . . Read in the light of faith, it means that we all stand in need of the purifying power of love which is his blood. These words are not a curse, but rather redemption, salvation (187).
For another interpretation, the crowd’s exclamation in Matthew 27:25 may refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 as being part of a divinely appointed punishment upon those who rejected Jesus. It was not uncommon in Israel’s history for future generations to be afflicted because of the sinful actions of Israel’s rulers, such as Solomon’s idolatry (1 Kings 11) being the catalyst for the division of the kingdom and the Jews’ subsequent exile into Babylon.

Historically, some Catholics, including through medieval regional councils and in papal documents, did argue that Jewish hardships throughout history represented a similar kind of punishment for Jewish involvement in the Crucifixion. However, these assertions did not rise to the level of definitive magisterial teaching. In fact, the sixteenth-century Catechism of the Council of Trent rejects the idea that Jews bear more guilt for Jesus’ crucifixion than non-Jews:
In this guilt are involved all those who fall frequently into sin; for, as our sins consigned Christ the Lord to the death of the cross, most certainly those who wallow in sin and iniquity crucify to themselves again the Son of God, as far as in them lies, and make a mockery of him.
This guilt seems more enormous in us than in the Jews, since according to the testimony of the same apostle: If they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory; while we, on the contrary, professing to know him, yet denying him by our actions, seem in some sort to lay violent hands on him.
But even if Jews throughout history are not uniquely responsible for the death of Jesus, what about “the Jews” of Jesus’ time?

The Catechism of the Council of Trent refers to “the Jews” killing Jesus, and several Scripture passages (John 5:18, Acts 10:39) use similar language. In 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15, St. Paul says, “For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus which are in Judea; for you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all men.”

Paul’s phrase “the Jews” is a reference not to all Jews, but to a particular group of Jews in Palestine who were persecuting the Church. Other scholars have proposed that the Greek word Ioudaiōn in the New Testament can also be translated Judeans and that in some verses, this context makes more sense than the broader term “Jews.”

John 7:1 says, “After this Jesus went about in Galilee; he would not go about in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill him.” But there were plenty of Jews in Galilee, so what is meant in this passage is not “Jews”—i.e., non-Christian followers of Yahweh—but rather Judeans, and specifically the Jews loyal to political leadership in Jerusalem. This interpretation also makes sense of Paul’s exhortation to imitate the Christians in Judea who withstood persecution at the hands of the persecutors in that area, the Judeans (a role Paul once held before his conversion).

The Catechism also gives this insight into how we ought to understand Jewish responsibility for Christ’s death:
The historical complexity of Jesus’ trial is apparent in the Gospel accounts. The personal sin of the participants (Judas, the Sanhedrin, Pilate) is known to God alone. Hence we cannot lay responsibility for the trial on the Jews in Jerusalem as a whole, despite the outcry of a manipulated crowd and the global reproaches contained in the apostles’ calls to conversion after Pentecost. Jesus himself, in forgiving them on the cross, and Peter in following suit, both accept “the ignorance” of the Jews of Jerusalem and even of their leaders (597).
It is inaccurate to say, as some critical scholars might allege, that the Romans were completely responsible for Christ’s crucifixion. Scripture clearly teaches that some members of the Jewish leadership saw Jesus as being such a grave threat to the social order that he needed to be killed (John 11:50). However, as we saw in the teaching of the Second Vatican Council quoted earlier, this guilt cannot be laid upon all unconverted Jews at that time, and much less so on Jewish people throughout history. Indeed, we must remember humanity’s collective involvement, through our sins, in Christ’s death on the cross. This is why the Catechism states that
in her magisterial teaching of the Faith and in the witness of her saints, the Church has never forgotten that “sinners were the authors and the ministers of all the sufferings that the divine Redeemer endured.” Taking into account the fact that our sins affect Christ himself, the Church does not hesitate to impute to Christians the gravest responsibility for the torments inflicted upon Jesus, a responsibility with which they have all too often burdened the Jews alone (598).
 
My biggest issue with "the Jews killed Christ" is the same issue I have with "Judas is the most evil person ever" - it was all predetermined, as Jesus liked to point out at every possible opportunity, even when it was inappropriate and he was freaking out his mum. Jesus needed the Jews to turn on him or else he couldn't die for our sins, and I always got the impression the people had no choice but to turn on him. The power of Christ compelled them.
It wasn't actually fully predetermined. Jesus was going to die for humanity's sin, how he died and was going to be killed by is not predetermined that would undermine free will.

In other words had the Jews not done it someone else will but that doesn't deprive responsibility of Judas's actions or the Jews in this case.

This is why Jesus himself and God states multiple times they are responsible for his death. Otherwise why would he also mention a greater sin, and why would the Jews say "His blood be upon us and our children." They didn't just work to have him killed, they went above and beyond the job description even fi you want to maintain that line of reasoning.

If I say you will shoot me and then you screw my wife, shoot me and piss on my grave, you didn't just do the predetermined shooting right?

edit: When Jesus confronted Peter about denying him three times, it's likely Jesus never took control of Peter's actions. He just foresaw what he would do and called him out on his false dedication. This way Peter still had free will and played right into denying Jesus three times without violating his free will.
I never understood how people justify "the Jews did it" when Jesus was killed by Roman hands under Roman law.
Do you find people who hire hitmen to be blameless or those who use other people to kill their enemies spotless of action? In other words if I hire someone to kill you am I innocent of your death? Of course not, the hitman is responsible for the killing but without me funding them you never would have had a hit man kill you. Sure this wasn't a hit, but the concept there in of using someone else to carry out the execution is the same.
 
I dunno, I kinda doubt it. God is omnipotent, he could've just absolved people from their sins without requiring these theatrics.
Then what takeaway would have man gotten from it? That he simply doesn't have sin within him period? The sacrifice was necessary because of the laws that God Himself chose for the Jews, which one of the most important among them was the one of animal sacrifice, which had been a way to atone for one's sins since the times of Adam. The thing is that those sacrifices could not atone for the original sin, as it was a sacrifice made by sinful people using sinful objects to atone, and thus, a sinless sacrifice was needed to make man sinless. That sinless sacrifice was and could only be Christ, and because of that, the sacrifice was necessary
 
Jesus died for our sins. Which was gods plan. So if the Jews killed Jesus it was to implement a divine desire(which makes god a really shitty dad). Ergo the Jews were doing gods will.

So it’s no longer antisemitism; it’s a compliment. Jews were the chosen people to kill Christ so that he could die for our sins.
 
I dunno, I kinda doubt it. God is omnipotent, he could've just absolved people from their sins without requiring these theatrics.
If I may make everyone angry for a second.
God isn't omnipotent like your average Christian would have you believe, or at the very least there are limits to his omnipotence. As God can and has made mistakes.
For example God originally acted under the same principles as kiwifarms "only watch and observe." Its only when lucifer went cow tipping that God is forced to taking action. (And if you consider Enoch 1 canon, God is taken completely offguard and it's only because Michael arbitrarily checked up on Azazel that he found out about it.)
 
Pontius Pilate felt that Jesus did not deserve crucifixion. He gave the Jews a choice: to crucify a murderer (Brabbas) or to crucify Jesus. The Jews demanded that Jesus be crucified and that Brabbas be freed. That is why they are responsible. They were adamant about killing Jesus even though he did nothing wrong because he was a threat to the Jewish institutions that existed.
I'll be honest, it really sounds like a shitty literary retcon to make something the fault of an unconnected party. The Romans were pretty famous for not taking shit from anybody and surrendering to the locals would be worse than any riot. The "freeing a murderer" just adds to how fake it sounds.
 
Posting here to mention that the jewish coping and seething in this thread amuses me greatly

suck it up clipcocks it's been a couple millennia i think it's safe to say that the goyim are not going to retire this particular trope anytime soon
 
Then what takeaway would have man gotten from it?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
laws that God Himself chose for the Jews
He can always change the laws, he's omnipotent.
as it was a sacrifice made by sinful people using sinful objects to atone
I think that Jesus was killed by sinful people and animals are sinless in general, so that's not the reason.
God isn't omnipotent like your average Christian would have you believe, or at the very least there are limits to his omnipotence. As God can and has made mistakes.
If your God isn't omnipotent and makes mistakes, it's clearly not the christian God.
Its only when lucifer went cow tipping that God is forced to taking action.
God is omniscient, so he knew what Lucifer would be up to, but decided not to do anything about it cause it was his plan all along.
 
Suppose a person X takes a stroll through the ghetto and gets stabbed. Is the person who stabbed him considered innocent because person X should of known better than to take a walk in nigger town?
That's a poor analogy. Here's a better one: Suppose a person goes for a stroll through a suburb and sees you, a stranger, and befriends you and then spends the next year telling you that they want you to call the Feds on them, they need you to call the Feds on them - seriously, they've got a plan they've put a lot of work into it, it's guaranteed to make everyone's lives infinitely better, but it all hinges on you calling the Feds on them and if you don't call the Feds on them everything is completely and utterly fucked. Then the FBI comes up to you and offers you 100 grand for the location of that guy. Are you the most evil person in the world if you give it to them?

And that's before we get into the devil possessing him at the last supper.

When Jesus confronted Peter about denying him three times, it's likely Jesus never took control of Peter's actions. He just foresaw what he would do and called him out on his false dedication. This way Peter still had free will and played right into denying Jesus three times without violating his free will.
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree, because free will is an illusion for everyone, not just Peter. More than that though I get the impression we both (and Sulla) think certain parts of the gospel are human interpretations of divine plans and actions, but we aren't going to agree on which parts.
 
because free will is an illusion for everyone
Suppose a person goes for a stroll through a suburb and sees you, a stranger, and befriends you and then spends the next year telling you that they want you to call the Feds on them, they need you to call the Feds on them - seriously, they've got a plan they've put a lot of work into it, it's guaranteed to make everyone's lives infinitely better, but it all hinges on you calling the Feds on them and if you don't call the Feds on them everything is completely and utterly fucked. Then the FBI comes up to you and offers you 100 grand for the location of that guy. Are you the most evil person in the world if you give it to them?
You say free will is an illusion, but then you also give an example of a choice that would require free will to make before saying it is? Bizarre logic at play here.
 
Xtianity is so retarded. What a waste of time and resources. Arguing over this nonsense for centuries. Imagine paying faggot nerd monks who are too afraid to talk to women for hundreds of years to hide out in mountains and spend all day arguing about fairy tales and writing letters back and forth. All for the privilege of being threatened with eternal torture if you don't worship the foreskin slurping jew god correctly.
I kneel, king.
 
I'll be honest, it really sounds like a shitty literary retcon to make something the fault of an unconnected party. The Romans were pretty famous for not taking shit from anybody and surrendering to the locals would be worse than any riot. The "freeing a murderer" just adds to how fake it sounds.
We have records besides the New Testament about Pilate's reaction, many of them Jewish. Him mostly caring about keeping the peace and not being brought in front of Tiberius to answer for another attempted uprising in Judea is pretty well established.
I mean, as much as anything from 2000 years ago can be "well established".
 
If I may make everyone angry for a second.
God isn't omnipotent like your average Christian would have you believe, or at the very least there are limits to his omnipotence. As God can and has made mistakes.
For example God originally acted under the same principles as kiwifarms "only watch and observe." Its only when lucifer went cow tipping that God is forced to taking action. (And if you consider Enoch 1 canon, God is taken completely offguard and it's only because Michael arbitrarily checked up on Azazel that he found out about it.)
God doesn't have limits in the way that He's incapable of doing something out of a lack of strenght, but He has limits in the way that they go contrary to His nature, or the nature of the laws that He has set for the universe, as that would be illogical. For example, God can't be evil because that isn't part of His nature, and God can't be sinful because His nature is sinless, God can't make a square circle because that is nonsense, and God can't make a rock too heavy for Him to lift because that's an inherent contradiction to His omnipotence.

I'll be honest, it really sounds like a shitty literary retcon to make something the fault of an unconnected party. The Romans were pretty famous for not taking shit from anybody and surrendering to the locals would be worse than any riot. The "freeing a murderer" just adds to how fake it sounds.
Not all romans in all periods of time were the same, and knowing that the Jews were able to defeat the seleucids just a few decades prior, they would have been extra careful with their actions in the region
 
It's funny how "Jews killed Jesus" was part and parcel of Christian doctrine since the very beginning like the Bible and the writings of the Church Fathers but somehow in the past century, all the mainstream theologians just up and discovered that Jews dindu nuffin.
 
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree, because free will is an illusion for everyone, not just Peter. More than that though I get the impression we both (and Sulla) think certain parts of the gospel are human interpretations of divine plans and actions, but we aren't going to agree on which parts
To a degree, but I wouldn't say it's an illusion more than risk assessment, your stomach can rumble that doesn't mean you instantly eat. May seem silly but presents how I see free will I can eat as it grumbles or I can wait operating on choice, I can't go without food or I'll die altogether though I guess I could chose to starve...

In regards to Peter my mere point is it seems that God in this metric didn't control him otherwise Peter wouldn't have learned any humbleness from something that wasn't his fault. It's like this if Jesus says you'll trip, then he forces your body to trip, it wasn't because you lack poise or equilibrium, it wasn't human error in essence. Same reason Jesus spoke of his army of angels at his beckon to some not as a threat but to put in perspective he could undo any of the events at any time should he so chose.

If Jesus or God took control of the situation, then the affected parties can't be blamed for those aspects, they aren't in control. If they do have free will then it would make sense why responsibility is foisted upon them.

In regards to the last part I agree, though I'd say it's more there are mechanisms of certain aspects that are more complex than face value in the bible that aren't directly stated, I agree it does lead to argumentation though on those aspects and how they operate.
 
I never understood how people justify "the Jews did it" when Jesus was killed by Roman hands under Roman law.
I think it comes from the medieval understanding of heresy, the romans were retards who believe in incest rape gods, they didn't know better.
But the jews knew, they knew the truth, it was revealed to them, and even then they choose to deny Christ and wanted to kill him.
 
I'll be honest, it really sounds like a shitty literary retcon to make something the fault of an unconnected party. The Romans were pretty famous for not taking shit from anybody and surrendering to the locals would be worse than any riot. The "freeing a murderer" just adds to how fake it sounds.
I mean, literally the entire point of Jesus was God making a course correction by disowning the Jewish church and its teachings because they were legit fucking everything up to the point even God couldn't be bothered to continue working with them. The whole sacrifice and messiah thing was secondary to just lend more credibility to what Jesus had been teaching.
If your God isn't omnipotent and makes mistakes, it's clearly not the christian God.
God doesn't have limits in the way that He's incapable of doing something out of a lack of strenght, but He has limits in the way that they go contrary to His nature, or the nature of the laws that He has set for the universe, as that would be illogical. For example, God can't be evil because that isn't part of His nature, and God can't be sinful because His nature is sinless, God can't make a square circle because that is nonsense, and God can't make a rock too heavy for Him to lift because that's an inherent contradiction to His omnipotence.
I can counter this. First off omniscience =/= omnipotence.
Second off, during the Israelite flight from Egypt God blatantly and outright kills the entirety of the Egyptian calvary, so thousands of people.

I would argue that God isn't truly omnipotent as Christians will say, because killing them (along with that whole plague thing) was necessary to guarantee the Israelites escape. If he was omnipotent there would be no need to interfere to the extent that he did.
 
I mean, literally the entire point of Jesus was God making a course correction by disowning the Jewish church and its teachings because they were legit fucking everything up to the point even God couldn't be bothered to continue working with them. The whole sacrifice and messiah thing was secondary to just lend more credibility to what Jesus had been teaching.
Yeah, one of the biggest overarching themes of the gospels is Jewish religious leaders of the time being too focused on following the letter, but not the spirit, of God's law and constantly trying to rules lawyer their way about it. That attitude remains to this day. Look at what Orthodox communities do in places like NYC to make it technically ok for them to be out of their house on the Sabbath.
Like God meant it as a day of rest as some totally autistic absolute and not "hey man, make sure each week you rest like I did, reflect on how things are going, take care of your mentals, you know the drill."
 
Back
Top Bottom