why did they kill jesus ?

First of all to Lovely Brwn, if you would read the first 2/3 of your Bible in context ..even the Christian adaptation of Tanakh, their Old Testament could show you that while the Jewish Bible was written largely for and about the Jewish people, Gentiles were not omitted..and not omitted from direct connection available to God from the very beginnings. Gentiles even prayed at the Temple. It is foreign to Jewish thinking that gentiles could not know God or be blessed by God directly. Now to the question:

This question has been asked many times in Y/A..and over the centuries. Open the New Testament sometime and read all the passages that demonize Jews..that's why "so many think" that..the New Testament wishes to demonize the people who adhere to the faith that it's concepts of faith are designed to replace.

Jews refused then to abandon the eternal covenant of Torah and Jews still refuse to do so. The New Testament claims in more than one passage the covenant of Israel was done away with. Daily, Christians tell Jews in Yahoo our faith was "nailed to the cross"..despite the continued existence of this covenant and faith 2,000 years after it's claimed to have been done away with.

The story of Jesus trial and crucifixion has many problems in its portrayal of Jewish belief.

The story of Barabbas was fabricated to demonize Jews. The circular reasoning of this story and some of the elements in it are hard to palate if one is at all familiar with Hebrew or Jewish history or Roman history for that matter. I assert it was fabricated since there has NEVER been any other mention of the non-existent "custom" of pardoning a prisoner for Passover anywhere else outside this story designed to claim that the Jews could have 'saved' the "savior" ..and instead chose the criminal who had a literal name of the "son of the father" rather than the son of God. Hmmm..

Since the VERY first appearance of that story, Jews have asserted that it was ridiculous. In fact, Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman, used this argument of the falsehood of such a custom in his famous debate with Pablo Christiani, a converted Jew, before King James I of Spain in 1263. Then as now, not one bit of evidence to ever support the existence of such a custom has ever appeared.1) No such custom associated with Passover existed..no reason for it to exist..it did not fit with any known Jewish law.

2) No Roman record of there ever being any pardons for Passover in the entire time of their occupation of Judea exist...and there ARE archaeologic records of much of their goings on in Judea when it came to edicts and proceedings.

3) The Romans were crucifying and persecuting Jews. If there HAD been such a bizarre custom...WHY would the persecutors honor that custom when they honored no other customs, and in fact sought to violate them to offend Jews to assert dominance.

They also place a catch 22 onto the Jew.

was it murder or willing self sacrifice?

was it a human or was it a deity who died?

It made no sense, and in fact, Christians can’t seem to make up their mind whether he was murdered or sacrificed. It all depends on what they’re trying to blame on Jews at the moment.

I think that the ONLY WAY that people can overcome these aspects of their dogma is to recognize the historic perspective and the reason those passages were put there..

AND I thank GOD that not all Christians follow what those passages lead to in practice

and that they recognize that it is our brotherhood as humans, and as children of one God to live more as an example of a walk with justice and mercy and compassion...the SERMON on the MOUNT and the Lord's Prayer are the core essence of what Jesus taught..and much has to be sifted out of the New Testament to gain that.

The New Testament writers are TRUSTING to the ignorance of their readers about Jewish law and about the established procedures of the Sanhedrin that were taken EXTREMELY seriously , so that they don't get caught in those embellishments. For the most part..because most people are not interested in learning about the ancient Jewish system..they've been successful.

For instance, they do not know that a preliminary hearing of any kind, such as they allege to have taken place at the residence of Annas, or Caiphas( for even on that point there is no congruence in the Gospel accounts) could not possibly have been held. It violated their procedure and law they were swon to uphold. The whole court simply threw out their vows? Absurd.

They do not know that for a session of the Sanhedrin, it could NOT convene until the morning service at the Temple was completed. They also were apparently unaware that the Sanhedrin NEVER met on a Friday, nor on the eve of a Pesach ( Passover) Those were unalterable traditions..as well as the fact that for the charge of a crime that was capable of being sentenced to capital punishment, one had to have a mandatory appeals process and there could be FIVE such appeals before sentence was carried out. IN addition..NO sentence was to be passed on the same day as the trail was held.

The Sanhedrin was comprised of members of exceptional learning and character. No man could be a member of the Sanheddrin who had not previously filed three offices of "gradually increasing dignity" who was also not learned in sacred law, be free from "haughtiness" and never have been occupied in a trade or profession for the sake of finanacial gain or profit, he must be married and could not be a gambler, slave dealer or usurer, ..the list goes on to indicate that the members of the Sanhedrin were the most respected and given the task of upholding the Torah..to claim they behaved in such a manner as the New Testament depicted..is more absurd than to claim the United States Supreme Court( for which there exist none of the strictly enforced prerequisites of character) would hold a capital murder trial in secret and have witnesses act out in the manner of a kangaroo court with people screaming and acting out with no decorum whatsoever.

To the "objective" observer who knows these facts of Jewish history about the proceedings of the Sanhedrin..the story claimed about it does not ring true at all. The picture of a confused and wild scene at the crack of dawn at the High Priests residence where they throw all Torah law they are sworn to uphold and have spent their lives defending sounds utterly ridiculous. Not only do they not follow any procedure of testimony of character witness for the defense first , but they allow witnesses to barge in and shout, they tie Jesus hands during interrogation and he is spat upon!

The High Priest is shown rending his clothes in a place and at a time when he is forbidden by Torah to do so! So it is obvious that the Sanhedrin trial of Jesus simply did not take place as it is depicted at all. Jesus did not appear before the Sanhedrin.

It was ONLY the Romans that a messiah hopeful or pretender would even threaten.

The Jewish idea of a Jewish republic with God as the master authority and the Torah as the law of the land would only threaten the Roman overlords. Pilate would not look upon the leader of a band of Galilean rebels as a harmless teller of religious tales..yet because the Romans even knew that the messiah must be an anointed KING They hung a sign that mocked him as " king of the Jews"..

Pilate and the Romans were not placating Jewish wishes because what the Christian New Testament depicts as being done by the Jews flies in the face of any Jewish belief whatsoever. One day they’re said to be giving him hosannas and the next they’re handing him over to the Romans. And from the VERY first appearance of those stories IN the New Testament..Jews have known that it was simply NOT TRUE that the Jews were the people who either sought or killed their savior deity ( sacrificed human for sin ) whichever it is they believe ( as I recognize not all Christians agree on whether he was man or deity) Pilate would have been remiss in his duty to Rome if he had not halted this rebel. And to make Pilate, .a man whose own record reveals his cruel streak, the innocent victim of the wishes of the Jewish mob, paints a picture of him to be a weak and ineffective leader of Roman rule. That doesn't fit Roman history in the writings his contemporaries left.

So now that you have a little more background into the Jewish history..do you see why it's not so objective to think that the Romans were appeasing the Jewish COURT?

Messiah hopefuls have lived both before and after Jesus and the Jews never sought to kill any of them.

In fact, .look up about the life of Simeon Bar Kochba who lived after the time of Jesus. He actually was an anointed king of Israel for a time,but also failed at the job. Jews didn‘t worship him or deify him after he was killed at the hands of the Romans.

http://www.messiahtruth.com/anti.html This page lists all the passages in the New Testament that are defamatory or hateful to Jews.

http://www.whatjewsbelieve.org/ has about was it a man or a deity on the cross?

Crucifixion was a Roman punishment reserved for political offenses. Jesus was executed by the Roman colonial administration of Judea because they saw him as a threat to public order and to their rule because of his preaching of the "kingdom of G-d." The Romans thought the only legitimate kingdom was theirs. If his followers had thought Jesus to be the messiah that would have been an additional reason for the Romans to execute him - that would have meant that the followers saw Jesus as the king or king-to-be of Judea, which would have made him in Roman eyes a political rebel.

Jesus lived and died an observant practicing Jew. If he had preached any blasphemy, that would not have been punished by crucifixion, The Pharisees were not involved in turning him over to Pontius Pilate. The high priests were Roman appointees whose job it as to maintain order; they were not very popular with the Jewish population. The high priests recognized that the Romans would see Jesus as a potential or actual rebel and would want him apprehended, so they handed him over to Pilate, whom we know from other contemporary sources was a rather brutal governor.

The Romans did not object to religion as such, but they were in power and brooked no nonsense from rabble rousers. Both the King and the High Priest were appointed by the Romans. When the followers of Jesus claimed that Jesus was King of the Jews, he knew that crucifixion was in store for him. He was left rotting on one of the thousands of crosses lining the streets of Jerusalem together with thousands of other Jews.

The answer to your question is that God sent His son to suffer an excrutiatingly painful death on the cross. Why else do you think he was crucified. Do you really think that the Romans had more power than God himself? Perhaps Jesus wasn't God after all....

.

I have to correct the person who said she 'learned' the right answer at Mass. Apparently you didn't - because Jews don't believe in the 'devil'. The word 'satan' in Hebrew means 'adversary' and HaSatan, as in the book of Job, is NOT equal to G-d in power. He functions like a prosecuting attorney. So what you've been told in Church is simply not true.

TO THE ASKER

The Jews did not kill Jesus. The Romans killed Jesus because he was irritating the hell out of them. He claimed to be more powerful than any man in Rome and he was seen as an agitator.

The Jews were the ones BEING crucified. They had no power to kill anyone, nor request that anyone be killed.

Also, even if the Jews had wanted to kill Jesus, their own strict religious laws meant:

- they would have stoned him to death, not crucified him

- first Jesus would have had to appear before the Sanhedrin, and he clearly never did.

He was executed by the Romans for claiming that he had more power than the Emperor . In that place and time , that called for the death penalty . he was tried and executed just like any others who made the claim .

His powers were not that great , since he overestimated how far he could go with his claims .

His healing , walking on water , etc , are religious beliefs . They are not accepted outside of religion . In other words , they're a believe it or not .

They killed Jesus because they had no choice. If you follow the Bible then you have to understand that it was God's plan that Jesus die. So the reaction of the Jews and Romans to Jesus was exactly as God planned it. (Though he could just as easily sent a lightning bolt and not dragged a bunch of innocent people into it.)

But, if Jesus is the son of God, then he could have called down Angels to save him or struck down the Romans with a single word. Therefore, he had to have been in on it. Which means that Jesus' death was actually a "suicide by fire" meaning, he put himself in a position where someone would HAVE to kill him.

And if Jesus knew he was going to come back to life, can we truly say it was a "sacrifice?" I mean, what did he actually sacrifice. Not his life...he didn't die.

The only records we have of Prophets being killed in Israel was at the time of King Ahab, but because of his pagan wife Jezebel who ordered and instigated the execution of several of the Prophets. Jesus himself was arrested and killed by the Romans. At that time, coincidentally, a Jewish custom was in shock with a Roman policy. The Jewish custom was that Rabbis would gather around them groups of 12 disciples to hang around in the study of Torah. The Roman policy was to arrest the head of any private group hanging around under the suspicion of subversion against the Roman Government and crucify him. Now, at that time, there was a class of religious Jews called Sadducees, whom the Romans had chosen the most affluent to be in charge of the Temple and serve in the Priesthood. They were free to exploit the people and collect taxes freely, under the Roman protection. The Sadducees had become rich and would do anything not to lose their job. Being pressed and threatened by the Roman Procurator they had no choice but to cooperate with the Roman authorities in the arrest of trouble makers. Jesus was not the only victim of the Romans with the help of the Sadducees. Thousands of Jews were likewise crucified almost for the same reason. But the truth is that the Jews as a people had nothing to do with the death of Jesus.

The Pharisees & religious leaders of the day handed Yahshua over to Pilate to be killed for blasphemy, saying that

He was the Son Of YHWH. A sin they considered worthy of

death. See Deut 21:22-23 Sentence was to be hung on a tree

that is what happened to Yahshua, only He died for our sin not His own. He did not blaspheme.Daniel 9:26 And after 62

weeks, Messiah shall be cut off, but not for himself. Isa 53: 1-

12

he didnt climb a scky scraper, but yes. He was killed because He called Himself the Son of God. God already knew this had to be done so we might all have a chance at eternal life. He knew we would need a savior.

For Jesus to say to the high Jewish priests that he was the son of God was considered Blasphemy and punishable by death. When he was presented to Pontias Pilot he was asked are you the king of the jews which is what they told Pilot and by Roman law anyone claiming to be a ruler in a Roman occupied land was punishable by death. But ultimately Pilot washed his hands of it and the Jewish priests made the decision to crucify him which at the time was the most painful and humiliating death a person could have.

Jesus came to destroy the kingdom of Satan and by His death and resurrection set us free from bondage to sin.

The Temple authorities saw Jesus as a threat to their comfortable way of life,they had complete control over the peoples lives and as Jesus said, they placed burdens on the poor.

Another reason was that the Jews expected the Messiah to be a warrior who would defeat all Israels enemies and give them authority over the pagans, but Jesus was not this kind of Savior and so they refused to accept Him as He was.

Because many had claimed to be the Messiah before Jesus and had been proved false the Chief Priests and the elders decided that Jesus was an imposter too and wanted rid of Him as soon as possible.

The easy way to do this was for them to complain to Pilate that Jesus was proclaiming Himself as King and that this was treason against the Emperor Caeser,and if not stopped there would be a mighty rebellion against the Romans.*