If you do some research, I believe you will want to reconsider that statement. What you're saying could be twisted into arguments that have caused anti-semitism and wholesale persecution of Jews for hundreds of years.

Here is an excerpt of one article I found refuting this, and many biblical scholars and historians agree:

In the Book of Matthew (27: 25-26) the Jews accept responsibility for the execution. When the Roman governor Pontius Pilate hesitates over deciding Jesus' fate, the Jews assembled before Pilate demand that Jesus be crucified, proclaiming "His blood be on us, and on our children."

But are the Gospels accurate? Recent biblical scholarship has challenged them in light of the context in which they were composed. Most scholars agree that the Gospels were written some 40 to 70 years after the crucifixion (which occurred around 30 C.E.). At that time, the nascent Christian sect was trying to distinguish itself from its Jewish roots for two reasons. First, the Christians wanted to attract gentile converts. Second, because the Jews were rebelling against the Romans, a repudiation of Christian kinship with the Jews could be politically advantageous. It is for these reasons, the scholars argue, that the Gospels 1) assign primary blame to the Jews, not the Romans; and 2) sympathetically portray Pilate, who is described in other ancient texts as a cruel despot. Additionally, many scholars have stressed Jesus' identity as a political subversive, which would explain why the Romans chose a means of execution, crucifixion, usually reserved for insurrectionists.

The small clique of Jewish authorities who were in league with the Romans does share responsibility for killing Jesus. But these authorities were distinct from the majority of the Jewish people, who had rallied around the charismatic figure.

I refuse to vilify an entire race of people for the actions of a very few. As a Christian woman, I look to those of the Jewish faith as our older brothers and sisters. They have something important and relevant to teach all of us.

I wonder if all of us Christians can agree that Jesus died for all of our sins...


Back to your regularly scheduled thread ;)

Ahhhh.... someone has been using their brains to look deeper :cool:

You have touched on another important point - the politcal climate in which the Gospels where written down... a climate where the Chirstians would have been eager to seperate themselves from the Jewish faith because of the then recent rebellion of the Jews in Palestine (Destruction of the Temple) - and after the Great Fire that destroyed Rome... so some might argue that the Gospels "may" have been framed in a language meant to demonstrate that Jesus was killed by Jews perverting "good" Roman law.

I refuse to vilify an entire race of people for the actions of a very few. As a Christian woman, I look to those of the Jewish faith as our older brothers and sisters. They have something important and relevant to teach all of us.

Please don't misinterpret me here, I do not vilify the Jewish race because of the crucifixtion. They are still "God's chosen people" and I am thankful that the Gentiles were eventually sought after and evangelized.

I am sure that you don't, and I thank you for clarifying. :)

Quite true, although these are probably not properly called "rapture" movements -- certainly not as that idea presently understood.

The idea of the Rapture is not a "sell all your posessions and wait with me on the mountaintop" teaching. Rather, it is the idea that, when the Rapture occurs, the elect will simply suddenly be gone, leaving everyone else to face the Great Tribulation. (Perhaps you've seen the bumbersticker -- "In the Event of the Rapture, This Car Will be Driverless"?)

Those who teach a Pre-Trib, Pre-Millennial Rapture (and that teaching -- not just waiting for the end of the world -- on anything approaching a large or accepted scale is what I was saying really dates back only a few centuries) usually do not advocate selling everything to wait for the end of the world. On the contrary, they usually advocate continuing to "labor in the fields," because the Rapture could occur at any moment.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. I do get so tired of the "who killed Jesus" debates.

The words of the old chorale put it quite well:

Who was the guilty?
Who brought this upon thee?
Alas, my treason, Jesus, hath undone thee.
I was the guilty,
I it was denied thee.
I crucified thee.

I dont' know if all Christians truly believe this. I think it's easy for people to say "Christ died for our sins" but it's hard for many to make that personal.

Good point. It's personal for me though.

The first thing that came to mind with what blue GBI said was this...

"But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."
Romans 5:8

To me, that makes it personal to everyone really - from believers to non-believers. Now whether some truly accept the meaning of that scripture, well.........

But anyway, I won't get technical, because I really do hope this discussion turns into something fruitful. :)

What I mean by "making it personal" is like if you ever talk to someone about Christ and they say, "Yea I know that he died for the sins of the world." But then you ask them, "But did you know that He died for YOU?" and some people are truly blown away by that fact. Like the entire world doesn't include them. :)

Before I start, I am not trying being a jerk at all, so don't read into this, I'm trying to respond but I do feel strongly. I am not attacking you personally, so please no personal hard feelings!! But no I will not want to reconsider this and NO there are not discrepencies in the gospels. They are four accounts by four different men of the same story. The bible is not put in chronological order, so when you read in James that "faith without works is dead" that looks like a contradiction until you realize that he died in Acts 12. He wrote his episitle way before Paul wrote his epistles, and before Paul had his revelations about faith only. (As in Romans 5:8-9 which Honeykiss quoted). I do not trust "BIBLE SCHOLARS" who are trying to disprove the bible, or find error. Honestly, I don't care what "biblical scholars" say because I don't believe you have to have had 6 years of seminary training and understand 3 languages to read the bible. I think those people have been persuaded by what man has told them, and not by what they have read in the scriptures. The order is to "rightly divide the word of truth" and to "study to show THYSELF approved" not to "Go see what a bunch of men have to say about what they have been told to think by a bunch of other men." Anyway, true there was the majority who had rallied around Jesus, but bottom line is, they turned on him. Not one of those people, not even his own disciples, were willing to stand up for him! And totally agreeing with what you said, those of the Jewish faith, are in a way our brothers and sisters. Judaism is the forerunner to Christianity and Christian tradition should be recognized that way. Also, about Pilate and the other Roman rulers.... if you study out the lineage of Herod, he was a Pagan, from the Edomite tribe. I in no way try to sympathize with what they did because I think they were a bunch of pansies if they had the power to stop the crucifixtion and didn't because they were scared of the masses. Anyway, fortunately for us, he did die and we got in on the greatest gift of all time.
Breathing now, and I'm done!

There actually are discrepancies in the gospels, particularly between John and the three synoptic gospels. There are also differences, some minute, some not, between the synoptic gospels.

This is a really great book that shows the parallels that I used in my New Testament class junior year.

You don't have to reconsider, and I respect the fact that you read the Bible literally as the divine word of God. But we have a honest difference of opinion.

First of all, there are many biblical scholars out there who are Christians. They're not trying to disprove or find error in the Bible: they're trying to shed light and get a better understanding on the events in them.

Again, I am a devout Christian woman. I've read the New Testament in New Testament Greek and in several English versions. I've studied early Christian movements and history for years because it interests me. God gave me a brain to THINK with, and I don't think that studying the Bible objectively or critically interferes with my faith. If anything, its given me a deeper appreciation of my religion.

I'm not offended that you don't want to reconsider, but I am offended if you think that your opinion is the only opinion. And I'm sorry, but again, I refuse to vilify an entire race for the actions of a few--which is what you're implying.

My opinion is certainly not the only opinion and as mentioned before I AM NOT vilifying the entire race for the actions of a few. I still believe that the Jews are God's chosen people. I certainly respect your opinion and your right to voice it. I like differences in opinion, it helps me, believe it or not, strengthen my own faith. I didn't say you were stupid for doing something different from me, and I'm glad you are a Christian. You sound like a very intelligent woman and I highly respect your opinons.
I have answered all questions from a Fundamentalist Christian viewpoint, as RACooper was asking.

GeekyPenguin, as far as the discrepencies, I, again, do not believe that. My preacher regularly points out what many view to be discrpencies and shows us how they are not. But, I fall into the category of people who believe that there is one right translation of the bible, if that sheds more light on my strong opinions.