/christ/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

We only have a detailed account from the faithful as far as I know, so obviously they hype it up/ give a "more dramatic" story. The Roman account might be something like "random Pharisee killed, no one cares". Be wary of the rationalizations of 8chan that might just be all to put the blame on Jews almost exclusively due to their own anti-semitism.

>>9301

>If that's the case why did they go through with all the ugliness of torturing him instead of just stabbing him in the heart and nailing the corpse to a cross?

Why do several American states execute by poison instead of just stabbing them in the heart?

There's rules, bud. And the Romans were nothing if not orderly. After all, they were bringing civilisation to the wild anarchy of these tribals.

Crucifixion was considered the most cruel and humiliating way to kill someone, and was reserved exclusively for non-citizens, and was pretty-much the only method of execution for non-citizens, especially if they wanted it to be public. Arena executions happened really only in the capital and only later when the Emperors needed to distract the people of Rome with spectacles. Citizens, meanwhile, usually just got beheaded unless their crime was particularly egregious, like patricide.

So, your question really is, "Why execute Jesus in public?" Because the Jews were demanding it? And though Rome was certainly in-charge in Judaea at the time, governors feared mobs, because mobs implied a loss of control. After all, a few thousand legionaries facing down a couple o' million locals isn't exactly a fair fight. And no Governor wanted to go cap-in-hand back to the Emperor requesting troops to squash a rebellion. So, he acquiesced to their demand. No skin off his nose.

But, that said, anon here >>9303 is kinda right, the Romans wouldn't have given many fucks about killing Jesus. In the gospels, Pilate is recorded washing his hands of the execution, I suspect that was more his way of saying "fuck it, fine, I'll kill him for you, but you owe me" and doubt he gave it more than a moment's thought. It's unlikely it was much recorded in the Governor's annals beyond, "Some trouble stirred with the Jews; I handled it".

I say this, however, not at all caring to "blame Jews" as Jew-anon thinks

Maybe they got tired of having messianic people popping up everywhere.

>Romans

The Jews killed Christ, they threatened to riot and/or denounce Pilate to the Emperor if he didn't execute him

>>9519

Did they like, drive the nails through him though? They did physically kill him? Also it feels weird to say "The Jews" rather than "the pharisees,publicans. roman-sympathizers, gov't officials" whatever, since all his followers were Jews too. Let's not get into post-Temple Talmudic Judaism and the Rabbinical movement or anything like that please. You know what I mean by "Jew".

>>9523

I don't necessarily know what you mean by Jew. Everyone who's a "Jew" now is a Talmudist, so generally Jew refers to Talmudist, a religion that has its origins in exactly the people that killed Christ. I consider the religion of the Old Testament faithful to be Christianity, not "Judaism", since it was Christianity, just the pre-Christ incomplete version of it.

>>9527

I don't know that you can track that to that exact moment. People denied him in life and accepted him after his resurrection. All ethnic Jews (OT type), like the Apostles. I'd call the destruction of the Temple the birth of Talmudic Judaism. So I mean, do you mean that proto-Talmudic Jews physically killed Jesus?

>>9523

>Did they like, drive the nails through him though?

thats how people got crucified

>>9530

I call the Resurrection the birth of Judaism.

Christianity its a straight line from Abraham, it was the jews who rejected Christ that formed the sect now called judaism,

>>9531

This is what I mean. Where can I find this? Source, I mean.

>I call the Resurrection the birth of Judaism.

I'm contesting that, but its probably more of a non-partisan historical distinction rather than theological/spiritual. The Pharisees, the rabbis, didn't even begin to gain a foothold or a key role in the religion of, let's call them Jews, until well after the destruction of the Temple. None of its distinctive texts can be proven to exist, meaning the texts that make up the Talmud, any earlier than the 3rd century. Needless to say, from their end, its the Christians who are a divergent line from Abraham, even though the religion of the OT looks very different to post-diaspora hebrew religion.

>>9532

> Needless to say, from their end, its the Christians who are a divergent line from Abraham

Not at all.

Since the beginning it was Gods plan to spread the message to the nations. Jews in their pride rejected that part and truly became a reclusive exclusivist elitist sect.

By Jews I dont mean semite people with big noses, but those that are in the sect of Judaism.

Its liek the NT verse that says something like "of what worth its being from the seed of abarham… God can make new ones from stones!"

The romans made a example out of every person they punished. Thats why you have public execution plazas, to warn everyone of braking the law.

All people that where crucified where crucified at the city gates and main roads. Jesus was crucified with 2 other criminals that day.

>>9537

The Jews obviously don't see themselves as being wrong. They believe God's plan is going the way it was always meant to go, with them living their lives in the best manner they see fit, following the commandments and awaiting for the true Messiah to come. The upstart magician and false David from Bethlehem doesn't enter into it at all.