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).
 
And thank G-d that millions of our bravest Xtian young men were willing to sacrifice their gentile lives to make sure that jewish international finance and the USSR could prevail. Hail FDR and hail Churchill!
Millions died because Hitler couldn't accept that Aryan Socialism was just as retarded as Jewish Socialism and had to take over territory to export the depression from his failing economy. The soviets didn't have to lift a finger to initiate the war Hitler was basically forcing to happen with his system.

And of course the government who exported Lenin to Russia and allowed the USSR to happen was the notoriously pro-jew pro-democracy pro-socialist Ludendorff + Wilhelm regime.
 
I get this from prominent Christian thinkers like C.S. Lewis or Doctors of theChurch like Agustine of Hippo
Did Narnia all happen too or somehow it's less believable or what?
Millions died because Hitler couldn't accept that Aryan Socialism was just as retarded as Jewish Socialism and had to take over territory to export the depression from his failing economy. The soviets didn't have to lift a finger to initiate the war Hitler was basically forcing to happen with his system.

And of course the government who exported Lenin to Russia and allowed the USSR to happen was the notoriously pro-jew pro-democracy pro-socialist Ludendorff + Wilhelm regime.
Hey newfag why don't you try staying on topic instead of trying to drag people into whatever bullshit you're rolling in.
 
The Romans would normally have just crucified him to maintain peace but Pilate's wife had a bad feeling about it and he wanted to be done with it
For Pilate I think it was an issue, not just of his wife, but of maintaining the peace (remember this First Jewish Revolt was less than forty years away). On one hand he had some of the top level Pharisees who had an angry mob ready to kill Jesus, on the other hand he also had to weigh Jesus's large number followers who, for all he knew, would have rioted if their leader was killed, and it certainly didn't help Jesus hadn't committed a crime he could he killed for. The big concern, I think, would be keeping either group from Rioting. I think by flogging Jesus and then offering the alternative of Barabbas he was trying to walk the tight rope of being centrist on the issue and not offending either group, before giving into the demands of the pro-crucifixion crowd.
 
Speaking as a non christian, they generally believe that their God loves them so much that he sent down his own Son to die for the sins of humanity. That's incredibly powerful and while I do not agree with christians on much, reducing that sacrifice to "worshipping a dead Jew" is stupid.
Specially because he's not dead. Thinking we worship a "dead Jew" is an absolute lack of understanding of the religion they want to shame.
 
Okay groypers
That implication is an bad insult to Christians. At this point I'm pretty sure groypers praise their idol Faguentes more than Jesus. You really think groypers are even actual Christians? In the year of our Lord, 2024? Maybe that would've worked back in 2019 but now.

The Groyper Holy Trinity includes neither the Father, nor the Son, and not even the Holy Spirit but rather Pedophillia, Brown People and Faguentes himself.
 
Last edited:
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.
For a non-believer, replacing Christ with X as to not evoke his name makes you look like an impotent faggot
 
The amount of retarded Protestants, Catholics, and "orthodox" "Christians" who completely ignore whole sections of the bible is baffling to me. The Jews are evil, it lays it out pretty clearly in the bible. Worshipping the golden calf to the point God abandons them and would rather send his own son to die for our sins. John the revelator repeatedly calling out the synagogue of satan. Even if you don't trust the bible Jews literally suck blood from baby dicks and torture animals. There's really no excuse for Judaism, same applies to Mohammadans.
 
Fixed that for you sir. No need to thank me.

Enjoy your day.
But it was a random thing to say. If you believe in God, you should've said something like:
Why yes, God never makes mistakes! He could've done something else about all the sinners living on Earth in the times of Noah, but he chose to kill them all instead, and that's a good thing! Don't question God, fedora child, enjoy hell, fedora child.
 
For a non-believer, replacing Christ with X as to not evoke his name makes you look like an impotent faggot
It's also not the insult he thinks it is. "X" has been used as shorthand for "Christ" for about 2000 years. The Greek word for the Hebrew "Messiah" is "Christos", from which we get "Christ", and "Χριστός" is how you write "Christos" in Greek.

It's also where the Christian Chi-Rho sign (☧) comes from, as the first two letters in Χριστός are "Chi" and "Rho" and look like X and P. ☧ is one of the oldest and most common symbols in Catholicism, specifically as an abbreviation for Christ.

Anyway, the Bible doesn't say the Jews killed Jesus, it's very specific that Jesus is killed due to the leadership of the Pharisees, a sect that eventually became the basis of Rabbinical Judaism. It was basically a youth movement, popular with common Jews and totally obsessed with purity laws. Then Jesus appears and starts drawing support from their support base, many of his more prominent followers were previously Pharisees. This is why the Pharisee leadership had to get rid of him.

That's why early Christians continued to consider themselves a sect of Judaism until the Rabbinical Jews took over around the 2nd Century AD, and afterwards Christians divorced themselves from Judaism entirely. Most of the rules-lawyer aspect of modern Jews comes from the Pharisees.
 
That's why early Christians continued to consider themselves a sect of Judaism until the Rabbinical Jews took over around the 2nd Century AD, and afterwards Christians divorced themselves from Judaism entirely. Most of the rules-lawyer aspect of modern Jews comes from the Pharisees.
Right, it was a little earlier though. We know for certain it was at latest in 96 AD, that was when the Romans redefined the tax on Jews and exempted Christians as a separate religion. This also made them legally subject to persecution.

You can see this development in the Gospels. John was written around 100 AD after this separation was complete, and as a result has a much more developed Christian theology in its recounting of the life and ministry of Jesus than what is written in the Synoptic Gospels. The intended audience for John is Christians whereas the original Gospels were written with non-Christian audiences in mind.
 
For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of God’s churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to everyone
-1 Thessalonians 2:14-15
 
Back
Top Bottom