It's kind of controversial, because one of the Jews, Judas, turned Jesus into the Roman government to be crucified.

@Isaac...In fact Judas turned him over to the Temple guards where he was brought before the Roman appointed High Priest Caiaphas. To kill Jesus he had to give him over to the Romans and accused him of sedition since the Romans could only execute enemies of the state.

@Lyle
So therefore it is a controversial statement. If Judas turned him over to the Temple guards of the Romans, then therefore Judas too can also be accused of helping "kill Christ."

@Isaac...Judas turned him over to the Temple guards who reported to the Jewish Temple High Priest. Judas is recognized by Christians as a traitor. During the same incident Simon Peter denied Jesus three times in order to save himself. The other disciples disappeared. Seems like you need to read up on your own bible.

Also this one guy Judas, about whom we know nothing (he certainly was not any kind of Jewish leader) is not "the Jews." He was one Jew. "The Jews" did not, in fact kill the man in question.

Thank you, Lyle. And this is not a right-left issue. I have many born again friends who I am sure would be labeled "reactionary right" but would not repeat the canard that "the Jews" killed the man in question, even quoting a question. They would either change the question, or immediately interrupt to rebut the charge. It is true that most Christians believe theologically that all people killed him, but that is a theological understanding. The accusation has been that despite that, those that physically killed him were the Jews, which is obviously not true. Take it out on the Romans who caused the entire situation that made the Jews want to rebel against their oppressive rule to begin with and pit Jew against Jew in a civil war over how to best survive the occupation.

Mr. Ruble, you are absolutely right. Jews had no authority to kill Jesus. Their country was ruled by Rome at that time. By the way, Nazi in Europe during WW!! used that excuse- that jews were the killers- to be brutal and kill 6million jews.W e all should be careful in blaming people or nations not to spread hate.

As children we were taught that sin killed Jesus.

@J.B. Schmidt....You damn right I am sensitive to it. For nearly two millennia the Jews have been accused of being "Christ killers". Jesus was turned over to Pilate by the Roman appointed High Priest Caiaphas.

We Jews have suffered for the false statements made by the early Pauline Christians. I hope you set the person straight about who actually killed Jesus. How would you feel if your children had to endure their peers asking why they killed Jesus. If you're the religious man you claim to be, then I would expect you to be sensitive to the truth.

@Lyle -- If the Jews had killed Jesus, he would have died by stoning. Crucifixion was the Roman method of capital punishment for sedition.

As for Original Sin and Redemption, that's a matter of personal faith.

What an incredibly deep and thoughtful comment....

Hoffa was personally shaking from how in awe he was after reading the infinite wisdom contained within such comment. This might just be the Patch 'comment of the year' winner right here!

Who cares who was responsible or who is to blame for his death? I can't believe you people waste your lives debating this stuff.

One can't argue matters of faith. If you believe in the Christian tenet that Jesus died for the sins of Humankind, well, good for you. Some of us don't, but to argue it with someone who does verges on the blasphemous. However, J.B. did not need to start the piece with an old slur, even if it was a slur uttered by someone else.

As an outsider, I now have to ask you -- where would Humanity be if that crowd had yelled, "Give us Jesus," and Jesus had gone on to live a long and peaceful life?

It seems to me that everyone in that scenario was doing God's work by playing their part.

@Randy
God was rejected when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. From that point forward the human race has rejected God. In order for the crowd to chant for Jesus, there would have needed to be an absence of sin. If sin were not present the planet, not just that scenario, would have been drastically different at that point.

Keep in mind also the political landscape of Roman-occupied Jerusalem. How motivated was Pilate to pander to the professional jealousies of a minority of the oppressed citizenry under his jurisdiction? Pilate chose Barabbas possibly because he was disinclined to empower that minority by appearing to bend to their demands. On the other hand, how motivated was the populace to assist their oppressor? If Barabbas was a manipulated choice by Pilate to save Jesus, and the crowd didn't care much about the outcome either way, couldn't it be construed as an opportunity to defy the oppressor? Some believe politics are a necessary evil, and if it is, it is even more evidence that "sin" killed Jesus and no one person or population.

We were also taught as children that the Roman people no longer exist as they did because of their role in the death of Christ. It's a simplistic concept, based on other socio-political aspects leading to the empire's decline. However, it is ironic that the political force ultimately responsible for Christ's martyrdom ultimately embraced Christianity.

I don't think that's the sort of question they encourage you to ask in parochial school.

How about this -- where would we be if Adam had chosen not to partake of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? No need for Jesus to make that sacrifice, for sure. But where would we be?

@Randy
Patch would not require the "Flag as inappropriate" button.

@J.B. -- I doubt we'd have the internet. We'd be grazing naked in Eden like those 'humans' in the first Planet of the Apes movie. And if we did do something inappropriate, we wouldn't know the difference.

In the words of the legendary William Shatner, I offer this to the converstion:

"About what? That I've made the wrong choices in my life? That I turned left when I should've turned right? I know what my weaknesses are. I don't need Sybok to take me on a tour of them.

***

Damnit, Bones, you're a doctor. You know that pain and guilt can't be taken away with a wave of a magic wand. They're things we carry with us - the things that make us who we are. If we lost them, we lose ourselves. I don't want my pain taken away. I need my pain."

Shatner, as usual, is right!

I believe we must have exhausted our teachers. We would live on earth as we would in Heaven if not for sin.

Sorry folks but I don't see any biblical scholars on this thread. Any serious scholar of the bible and the history of 1st century C.E. understands that much wound up in the New Testament was politically motivated. Many of the claims made are to have unlikely happened. In the case of Barabbas, it is highly unlikely that it occurred since it was not the practice of the time to release any prisoners or criminals as a good faith measure, especially during the period of Passover.

The early Christians were motivated to change the narrative during the time of the Jewish Rebellion and distance themselves from the Jews in Palestine or get caught up in the reaction to the Jews. Even the earliest gospels were written decades after the time of Jesus with the final ones written a century and a half. The New Testament was not even canonized until the 4th century C.E.. Even the Torah and Tenach ( the Old Testament ) was not canonized until early in the 3rd century C.E..
This is why many biblical scholars refer to the mythology of the bible, including myself.

We Jews understand that there are many interpretations to the Torah. The narrative is filled with metaphor and analogizes. Genesis, when read in the original Hebrew and Aramaic takes on a whole new set of meanings. Just like "original sin"; it doesn't represent an actual sin but marks a transition of humanity from non-cognitive to cognitive. It also marks a transition from living as hunter-gatherers to agriculturalists.

@J.B. Schmidt....You need to do some more study on the early movement of Christianity. The early church was failing in Palestine, but was being accepted in Egypt, Turkey, Greece and Syria. The rapid growth didn't occur until the requirement to go through Jewish conversion was dropped. There was a major crisis between Paul and Steven over the issue. Peter sided with Paul and the rest is history. This was the first of a major break with the mother religion of Judaism. They also dropped the dietary restrictions.

My point is that Christianity was not particularly attractive to Jews Living in Palestine. For Jews he didn't fulfill the requirements to be considered the messiah. For the Jews that did join the movement it was treated just like any of the other unique groups of Jews. At the time there were a number of apocalyptic Jews and this early group was considered to be just another one.

@Lyle
I don't deny that, but that is not what you said. Nor does it change what I said. Both Jews and Christians have had off shoots over time. You called out Christians as the group who altered history to fit an agenda.

A proper reading of Paul's letters also states that the dietary restrictions were not 'dropped' they instead to be used in accordance with ones own conscience. If you were a converted Jew and felt that the old law was required in order to follow Christ, then Paul said it should be observed. However, if you were a Gentile, Christ's fulfillment of old testament law meant we were no longer subject to them. Either way you needed to accept Christ as your Savior above all.

@J.B. Schmidt...Fulfillment of what Old Testament law?

@Lyle
Since Christ lived a perfect life. All of it.

@J.B. Schmidt....You didn't answer the question. How did living a perfect life fulfill anything?

@Lyle
In Genesis, God tells A&E not to eat of the Tree O Knowledge or they will die. He is speaking of eternal, not physical death. The act of disobedience to God's laws is punishable by hell. Hence, God would only accept perfect people into heaven We are all offspring of A&E and were all born with original sin. Therefore, humans had no chance to gain access to heaven as no one was able to fulfill God's laws perfectly. God in his mercy sent Christ in our place to live a perfect life. Having lived a perfect life, Christ was sacrificed and bore the punishment that we all deserve. Had he not been able to fulfill the perfection the law demands for heaven, his death would have meant nothing.
Isaiah 53 (specifically vs 6, but the whole chapter is beautiful)

So, would Jesus have vacationed in the Catskills or the Poconos?

@JRH...He wouldn't go to either, he is working 16 hour days in the garment district.

Well then - no stop at the Red Apple Rest for him!

@Lyle
The Bible has been interpreted six ways from Sunday. The issue that I always stumble on is why a person would accept the Bible has mythology or a story book and yet buy into a religion that is built around it. If Genesis 1-4 are interpretations then what about 5-50 or Genesis through Chronicles. If one part isn't what it says, then how is the rest. Therefore, I could easily question how you got the idea of archetypes.

I believe over time some religions have taken liberties with the Bible in order to make it man's work. The story of Christianity is one where a person is saved by grace, through no work of his/her own. The pride and selfishness of man has a difficult time accepting that. We feel we deserve our name in lights also. Not just God. It starts with things like your A&E who now represent a point in evolution, taking the glory away from God and bestowing it on nature or on humanities ability to evolve with out God. This provides us with ability to claim that we did something without God and lends credibility to the concept that we don't need God. This falls in line with most stories of wayward souls in the Bible. Such as Moses hitting the rock with his staff to produce water rather then talking to it as God commanded.

As for Isaiah, I don't think our interpretations will ever match up.

@J.B. Schmidt....Most myths have an element of truth that created the myth in the first place. The more one studies the deeper the understanding. It's like peeling an onion, one layer at a time. The reading and understanding is done through the mind. If you want to accept the inerrancy of the bible that's is your choice, but it is not functional to gain a deeper understanding.

Accepting other interpretations does not mean one is rejecting G-d or that one is following false religious principles. Just like the interpretation introduced first by Martin Luther and followed up by Jon Calvin, the idea of a state of grace. This smacks of predestination, especially Calvin's statements that only those that were pre selected will be attracted to the truth, proving they are already in a state of grace.

In Judaism, there is strong support for recognizing our place with G-d as co-creators. In understanding our role it is our responsibility to create a society without social injustice. If a just society is created through G-d's direction with mankind as the agents of action, then there is no need for a redeemer.

Actions that are designed to get one into heaven or avoid hell, is something foreign to most Jews. Most of us don't accept the concept of hell and we are divided over the question of an afterlife. There is nothing found in our bible that supports either concept.

@Lyle
Hell, while not specifically mentioned by name, is referred to in numerous areas as a place of torment where those who do not believe in God end up. Malachi 3:18 – 4:3 gives a good distinction between the experiences of those who follow God and those that don’t. However, as we are approaching the book from different perspectives, we won’t see eye to eye.

Inerrancy is the only option. If bible has doctrinal/story errors/myths, then God must have errors or be a myth as well. If God has errors or is a myth then he is not God. If he is not God, both of our religions are dead.

If you truly believe that man is “with G-d as co-creators”, then explain to me your assistance in your own creation? Explain to me how you allow yourself to wake every morning? I could go on; however, I assume you get my point. I have yet to witness or read of a single instance where a man, through depth of knowledge or open mind or enlightenment has been able to add a single day to his life. If you and God are co-creators and enlightenment of the text is how one reaches that point, why has this never happened? Man’s meager existence can’t even control the day and time he dies. How can a ‘co-creator’ title be given? This just reflects what I was saying. Man’s pride is contrary to a relationship with God.

@J.B. Schmidt....You are functioning under a logical fallacy. Just because the written bible is incorrect, it doesn't necessarily follow that G-d is a fallacy. The bible is written by humans who are subject to error and limited understanding.

To be a co-creator does not mean to take on G-d like qualities. When referencing to co-creation we are talking of creating social order, serving to assure social justice, and creating things to help mankind. Mankind has created a number of things to extend life beyond an additional day and beyond. Through abilities that G-d endowed us with we carry on His creation each and every day.

This is a problem for people who hold such simple values as to not allow for different explanations that are equally satisfying and have a closer grounding within human experience.

@Lyle
That is the difference between Christians and Jews. You search for your enlightened understanding of God (which has eluded Jews for thousands of years) and I will trust in the saving faith of Christ.

@J.B.Schmidt....How dare you make the statement "That is the difference between Christians and Jews. You search for your enlightened understanding of God (which has eluded Jews for thousands of years) and I will trust in the saving faith of Christ." You have no idea what we understand, We are aware of things that your doctrine and dogma will never be able to answer. You have the audacity of telling us what our book means. We have been a monotheistic people for over 4000 years. You have been around less than half that time. If it wasn't for Judaism, you would still be sacrificing to stone and wooden idols.

@Lyle
You began this thread by accusing me of using my blog as some anti-semitic tool. That was false claim and was only used by you to discredit my faith.

You then made the the claim that the New Testament was politically motivated. There is no proof of that and is strictly speculation used to discredit Christians.

You then claimed my views (those of most Christians) as simple. That reference has no actual bearing in reality and purely subjective in order to bully me into acknowledging your superiority.

So in response I give you want you want. I give you the superior thought and quest for enlightenment, while at the same time stating the simplistic view that guides my faith. In response, you lash out. It is you who has minimized your faith to mythology. It is you who says that errors exist in your theological writing and doctrines. It is you who has stated that errors actually assist in a deeper understanding. If in turn I accept this minimization and find it ironic that is has parallels stories of Israel falling away from God in the OT, don't become angry at me. I am sure there is dogma that could stretch a scroll for miles. That doesn't impress me nor does Jewish dogma make any difference to my faith. To claim that Jews created this is slightly heretical, God created this and would have found another vehicle had the Jews failed to bring forth Christ.

@J.B. Schmidt...Why is it so hard to admit that you started the blog off with an untrue statement without a caveat that the statement no longer holds force in Christianity. First of all there is no Jewish dogma or doctrine. We constantly study and discuss. We have no one dictating to us that this is the correct view.

You accuse Jews of falling away from G-d, which is something you have no right to do. Because of the myths and anti-Semitic views advanced by Christian authorities, we have suffered and have come close to being completely wiped out. What I know of the teachings of Jesus, there are few who follow his direct example or make serious attempts to do so. Don't forget that he was a Jew, living as a Jew and giving his message only to Jews. Much of the teachings attributed to him had been around for centuries being taught by the Jewish sages.

I keep my mind open to all possibilities and reject closed mindedness, which you seem to suffer from.

@Lyle
Open-mindedness, the blessing of all educated liberals and their ability to truly understand the world around us. The ability to accept all. That is a false statement, considering in order to accept some, you must reject others. Again, keep your intellectual nonsense. If being open-minded requires me to sacrifice my faith, I have lost and not gained.

I addressed the quote I used. The fact of the matter is Christ was rejected by his own people and still is today. Odd how that appears to be an act of narrow mindedness.

@J.B. Schmidt....No one is challenging your faith, that is your choice and if you resist any further intellectual pursuits because of the possibility that it might bring doubt to what you believe, gives me serious pause as to your belief system. It is intellectually dishonest to investigate something when you already have a preconceived answer. How did you come to believe what you believe and how do you know what you know? There is always room for further understanding that will enrich what you believe and force you to search for more.

Your statement that Jesus was rejected by the Jews of his time and continue to reject him as a messiah is a true enough statement. However, have you seriously questioned why he would have been rejected? He did not convince the majority that he fulfilled the expectations of a messiah. There were serious questions surrounding his birth. There is no clear evidence, just claims that he was a direct descendent of the line of David. The messiah would have been a political figure to take up leadership and expel the Roman occupiers. If you are looking for one set of criteria and someone claims to be something that doesn't meet the criteria, then it would be illogical to accept such.

Concerning today, would you accept Christianity if for 2000 years we have suffered under the hand of Christianity, including the founder of you denominational movement of Lutheranism. Martin Luther was an anti-Semite.

@Lyle
I have researched my faith every since college. I was raised Lutheran, but never wanted that to be the reason I was Lutheran. I take every challenge seriously and diligently ensure it fits in with my faith. This has grounded me to my faith and over the years only made it stronger. Believing my faith is the sole/soul way to heaven, does not make me close minded, it makes me faithful. My studying has only proven my faithfulness to be justified. If I thought I might be wrong, my faith is dead. If I allowed myself to believe that other religions also provide a path to heaven, my faith us useless. Therefore, I believe in Christianity as the path to God, via faith in Christ. I do not believe that only Lutherans are saved. I subscribe to Lutheranism, because I believe it holds most firmly to Biblical teachings; however, the Bible says that faith in Christ saves. Hence, all Christians (Lutheran, Baptist, Catholic, ect.) have equal opportunity to be saved based on their faith.

Oh, right, my anti-Semitic founder. First, let me say that I do not condone the statements made by Martin Luther and no one has ever called him a perfect man. However, they are taken out of context when implied to the standards of current cultural acceptance. Let me explain: 1) He spent the majority of his reformed life reaching out to Jews. He thought they remained Jews because of the sins of the Papacy.
(cont)

@Lyle (cont)
Jews of his day were sympathetic to him and there are records of his writing be passed through Jewish groups from Germany to Palestine. 2) The writing style of the time was much more harsh then today. He also wrote graphic statements about monks, Germans and the papacy; however, he is never called out on those. It is akin to our political culture over time. In the late 1700’s, early 1800’s politicians were much more vicious then today. 3) Culturally, everyone hated the Jews. This is not right, nor acceptable, but it was how he was raised. 4) The Jews were attacking Luther. They were infiltrating reformed congregations and telling them they weren’t Christians unless they practiced Jewish law (ie circumcision). The Jews also circulated a statement in "Der gantz Juedisch glaub” in which it said, "Jesus is a whore's son, his mother Mary was a whore, who conceived him in adultery with a blacksmith."

Martin Luther’s tone with the Jews changed from one of Gospel to one of the Law. I would point out the treaties most quoted contained largely scriptural references in defense of Christianity over Judaism and ended with a prayer for the Jews. In frustration, sin allowed him to write what he did. However, it was not done to take Natzi-like actions against the Jews. It was to keep them from distorting the Christians faith. Again, wrong approach and I disagree with what he wrote. Yet, culturally speaking the explanation is valid.

@J.B. Schmidt....Since the Second World War most Lutheran Synods have rejected the antisemitism of Martin Luther and including his later writings. Those who follow contemporary Lutheranism don't display the same hatred and antisemitism of the past. However, his works are still often quoted by the Neo-Nazis and the KKK as justification for inferiority of the Jews.

When I taught the philosophy of religion, my initial question was always how do you know what you know. The question is not just relevant to religion but any number of things that we believe and place value on. Two processes are at work to form our belief system; one is a predetermined potential and attributes and the other is what we are taught and directly experience. These two processes working together create our explanation of order and reality. To get beyond our preconceived reality, we must deconstruct our belief system and examine it and reconstruct it, retaining what is valid and rejecting that which is invalid. It is a process of values clarification. It works with any system including political beliefs.

@Jason
My core set of beliefs, just like the core principals of everyone, has an influence on how I vote. However, my religion does not. I was not sure who I would vote for as I entered the voting booth. In the end, I realized that the current 2 front runners for the GOP are both equally capable of beating Obama. Therefore, I voted for the person who is more likely to continue with his conservative principals after he was elected. Based on your post, you know who that would be.

The petitions are of public record. I only agree with the calling out of elected officials. I have found politicians and contacted then to have them explain to me why they signed and I believe that is the right of citizens to hold their politicians accountable. I refuse to forward that information to Belling or use it in my blog, because the officials I spoke with were forthright and honest. If public officials are so confident that the recall is correct, then they should be willing to step forward. I cannot agree with the public calling out of non-elected officials. The non-elected officials Mark has called out are journalist who have work policy that forbids political actions like this. It should be handled with the company.

As for Mormons. I don't vote on the basis of the candidates religious beliefs. If I did I would not be able to vote, because to my knowledge there has never been a Lutheran nominated for president.

I think that your book is wrong Jason. Signing a petition isn't the equivalent of casting a vote, it would be closer to being the equivalent of a protest.

The 'other side' isn't signing petitions to keep Walker in office--it isn't a situation where the 'most signatures' wins, so it isn't at all like casting a vote.

Petitions are also circulated in public--anyone signing can see the names of everyone else on the sheet. Doesn't sound like the petition process is very private at all. The petition process is purposefully open and public...

@Jason
The law on petitions is what it is and it has been that way for a while. I would argue that in our system of justice, the accused always gets to meet his accusers. I think that should apply to petitions also.

I am 99% sure our kids attend the same school. No, I am not stalking you, I am pretty sure I saw you walking away from the school when I was dropping off my kids and based on the discussion surrounding the Winter Concert we were at the same one. I have always kept an eye open for you at school events in an attempt to introduce myself. I will gladly tell you what you want to know then; however, I refuse to open up my family to the public.

@JayZee...Highly unlikely that the Barabbas story ever happened. No tradition has been found for releasing prisoners during the Passover celebration. It is a story that is attributed to Mark and is a devise to place the blame on the Jews and placate the Romans.

@Me in the Falls
Thanks for the video. It was good. He packed a lot of info into 20mins and kept it incredibly entertaining.

J.B. He has many more in YouTube. Enjoy! And have a blessed Easter.

@Brian Carlson....All myth has a foundation of truth. Most of the narrative is designed as a means of teaching deeper truths of how to live together. As Joseph Campbell so eloquently proclaimed that myth represents the story of our life.

@Brian
When determining how to understand the passages of the bible, you must allow scripture to interpret scripture. Since after eating the fruit (as a point of accuracy, the bible never mentions apple) A&E did not immediately die and their life in the garden was sustained by the Tree of Life (which is why they were cast out); hence, your question must be interpreted as a spiritual death. As for Revelation, one must also look at context. Having just spent the better part of the last 6 months studying Revelation, I can tell you that much of what is assumed about Revelation is people reading to deeply into the passages. Much of Revelation is symbolic because much is the vision of John; that however, has no impact on the what else is written with the bible.

Your lobotomy reference is typical of one that understands little of Christianity other the surface understanding. It is not unlike one claiming Islam is a religion of hate. It is easier to dismiss what is written in the bible as myth and poetry then come face to face with its examination of ones soul.

@Brian Carlson...Just as the hand of Abraham was stayed from sacrificing his son, it is inconceivable that G-d would sacrifice, since there was a prohibition of human sacrifice. Although there is a historical Jesus, he said very little and didn't write anything. All that has been written was by others and what do we really know some two millennia later. For example, how could Jesus be a direct descendent of the house of David through Joseph's line when by this time heredity was matrilineal. There are one issue after another that brings many, if not most, narratives into question.

@Lyle
Why could Mary not be a descendent of king David?

@J.B. Schmidt...If she was, why isn't her genealogy listed? If you go by the Christian scriptures, Joseph wasn't even his real father. Therefore, how can he be of the House of David even through Joseph. Jews used matrilineal, but Greeks and Romans used Patrilineal. Another piece of trivia; there are two Bethlehems, one located in the Galilee and the other southeast of Jerusalem. Even if Jesus was born in Bethlehem, most likely it was in the north in Galilee and not the city of David.