The Bible Is Not a Public Policy Manual

[Stevil]

technically the Jews aren't a race, they're a religion.

From Wiki

The Jews (Hebrew: יְהוּדִים‎‎ ISO 259-3 Yhudim Israeli pronunciation [jehuˈdim]), also known as the Jewish people, are a nation and an ethnoreligious group

The Jewish ethnicity, nationality, and religion are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation

[Too Few Lions]

technically the Jews aren't a race, they're a religion.

From Wiki

The Jews (Hebrew: יְהוּדִים‎‎ ISO 259-3 Yhudim Israeli pronunciation [jehuˈdim]), also known as the Jewish people, are a nation and an ethnoreligious group

The Jewish ethnicity, nationality, and religion are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation

maybe it just depends where you look on the internet or what you're looking for or how you interpret the word 'Jew' or the word 'race'. Many Jews are of European origin, some from eastern Europe, some from the western Mediterranean, whereas others are from the Middle East, to say they're the same race is like saying Catholics or Muslims are the same race. This is from about.com

Judaism is not a race because Jews do not share one common ancestry. For instance, Ashkenazi Jews and Sephardic Jews are both "Jewish." However, whereas Ashkenazi Jews often hail from Europe, Sephardic Jews often hail from the Middle East. People of many different races have become Jewish over the centuries.

I guess maybe you interpret the words 'Jew' and 'race' differently to me.

[Too Few Lions]

If you believe that to be the case, what crime had Jesus committed by Roman law to deserve crucifixion? I'm not sure there is one.

Do I have to have a specific alternative in order to disprove the option provided?
I am merely stating that the option provided has some serious inconsistencies thus I believe cannot be trusted as fact.

Plus the Roman Empire wasn't as centralised as you're imagining, Judaea was a fairly autonomous province, it was of little importance to the Romans, and so long as taxes were paid they had little interest in its internal affairs.

So why was it that the Romans performed the crucification? I am red raw with the inconsistencies that are slapping across my face here.

I agree with inconsistencies of Jesus' crucifixion, it's one of the many reasons why I suspect it's mythology and not history. I don't see why the Romans would have got involved in a Jewish blasphemy trial, and it's highly unlikely Jesus would have been tried by the Jews at the Passover anyway.

You do also seem to be wanting to have things both ways here though. You've suggested that fourth century Romans may have edited the gospels to try blame the Jews for Jesus' death, yet somehow they left in the bit where they were actually the ones who crucified Jesus. That was a poor bit of editing by Constantine and his cronies, they could have just rewritten the gospels with the Jews killing Jesus without Roman involvement.

[Sandra Craft]

Ahh...but it is.  When all is said and done the Atheist puts faith in his/her own knowledge (which includes that of other men) whether you want to call it "honesty" or whatever, it boils down to pride.

A knowledge which is generally acknowledged by atheists to be incomplete and possibly wrong and in any case nothing more than our best guess.  A strange sort of pride.

[Stevil]

You do also seem to be wanting to have things both ways here though. You've suggested that fourth century Romans may have edited the gospels to try blame the Jews for Jesus' death, yet somehow they left in the bit where they were actually the ones who crucified Jesus. That was a poor bit of editing by Constantine and his cronies, they could have just rewritten the gospels with the Jews killing Jesus without Roman involvement.

I don't know, I'm obviously just speculating in order to offer an alternative that is semi plausible.

Possibly the Romans liked the idea that they were in control of society, that they were judge, jury and executioner.
But saw dangers in being linked as the reason why the Jesus bible hero was martyred.
Maybe they wanted to show the people that the Romans were working with the people rather than against them. That they could join forces with the Jews and exact a common justice, but of course showing that the Romans were ultimately in the power seat.
Maybe they wanted to keep changes to the bible stories to a minimum and the result is just enough change required to suit the purpose.

I think there are many plausible possibilities, we will never know because the real truth was not documented and hence has been lost.
But what we can reasonably surmise is that the depiction in the bible is lacking much credibility.

[Too Few Lions]

I don't know, I'm obviously just speculating in order to offer an alternative that is semi plausible.

Possibly the Romans liked the idea that they were in control of society, that they were judge, jury and executioner.
But saw dangers in being linked as the reason why the Jesus bible hero was martyred.
Maybe they wanted to show the people that the Romans were working with the people rather than against them. That they could join forces with the Jews and exact a common justice, but of course showing that the Romans were ultimately in the power seat.
Maybe they wanted to keep changes to the bible stories to a minimum and the result is just enough change required to suit the purpose.

I think there are many plausible possibilities, we will never know because the real truth was not documented and hence has been lost.
But what we can reasonably surmise is that the depiction in the bible is lacking much credibility.

That's very true, but the Jews were blamed for killing Jesus by Christians centuries before Constantine or the adoption of Christianity as the Roman state religion. I've just been reading some Justin Martyr (103–165), one of the earliest known Christian writers. He wholeheartedly blames the Jews for killing Jesus, if you want to read any of his writings (it's painfully dull stuff) they're here;

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/justin.html

In his first apology he writes,

'but now, by the will of God, having become man for the human race, He endured all the sufferings which the devils instigated the senseless Jews to inflict upon Him.' (LXIII)

and in his Dialogue with Trypho (a Jew) he writes

'For the circumcision according to the flesh, which is from Abraham, was given for a sign; that you may be separated from other nations, and from us; and that you alone may suffer that which you now justly suffer; and that your land may be desolate, and your cities burned with fire...Accordingly, these things have happened to you in fairness and justice, for you have slain the Just One, and His prophets before Him.' (XVI)

'For other nations have not inflicted on us and on Christ this wrong to such an extent as you have, who in very deed are the authors of the wicked prejudice against the Just One, and us who hold by Him. For after that you had crucified Him, the only blameless and righteous Man' (XVII)

'But you were never shown to be possessed of friendship or love either towards God, or towards the prophets, or towards yourselves, but, as is evident, you are ever found to be idolaters and murderers of righteous men, so that you laid hands even on Christ Himself; and to this very day you abide in your wickedness, execrating those who prove that this man who was crucified by you is the Christ' (XCIII)

'But the highest pitch of your wickedness lies in this, that you hate the Righteous One, and slew Him.' (CXXXVI)

Justin wholly blamed the Jews for killing Jesus in the mid-second century.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Anyway, there is enough doubt to suggest that we ought not be casting any stones of blame.
Also, it is never an honest thing to condem a whole race of people.

I get told off as being condescending for telling a Christian to reread the bible.
How do think the Jews would feel for being blamed, as a race, for Jesus death?

Yes, even from a believer's stanpoint, there is no reason to blame anyone.  Even Jesus is reported to have said from the cross "forgive them, Father, for they don't know what they are doing."  Since Jesus forgave those responsible for his own death, there's no reason for us to condemn them.

[Stevil]

Justin wholly blamed the Jews for killing Jesus in the mid-second century.

OK, well it wasn't Constantine then.

Thanks for pulling that up.

Wasn't Jesus a Jew? Wasn't Mary and Joseph and John the Baptist all Jews?

I really don't like this theme in the bible of blaming people for what someone of the same gender/race/nation/religion or even species had done in the past.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Wasn't Jesus a Jew? Wasn't Mary and Joseph and John the Baptist all Jews?

I really don't like this theme in the bible of blaming people for what someone of the same gender/race/nation/religion or even species had done in the past.

Yes, Jesus, Mary, Joseph, the apostles and most all of the original several thousand Christians were all Jews.  The Bible doesn't really blame the whole of Jewry for the death of Jesus.  Paul criticizes the Judeans who were actually involved, but not all Jews. The game of blame-the-Jews was mainly started later.

[Too Few Lions]

Justin wholly blamed the Jews for killing Jesus in the mid-second century.

OK, well it wasn't Constantine then.

Thanks for pulling that up.

Wasn't Jesus a Jew? Wasn't Mary and Joseph and John the Baptist all Jews?

I really don't like this theme in the bible of blaming people for what someone of the same gender/race/nation/religion or even species had done in the past.

Me neither. But yeah, if they were historical people they would have been Jews. I guess people like Justin were writing in the second century, and from their early Christian standpoint they believed that the son of Yahweh/their god had come to Earth, taught his ministry in Judaea / Jerusalem and been put to death, but Yahweh's chosen people the Jews hadn't even recognised the son of their own god. Even worse they rejected him and may even have put him to death. I think that really pissed off the early Christians.