|Originally posted by dado
a crowd in Jerusalem, in the middle of Passover, is going to be read as overwhelmingly Jewish.
Yes, and maybe that's why Matthew took the pains to put that line in the mouths of "all the people," to clear up any misunderstanding that he meant just the Jews. He wasn't shy elsewhere about saying "the Jews" when that's who he meant.
|thessalonians also proceeds to specifically single out Jews as having killed Jesus.
(You mean 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16.) Yes, that's exactly what Paul is doing, singling out Jews, with an emphasis on singling
. He is not imputing blame for killing Jesus on those Jews who did not, in fact, have a hand in killing Him, only on the "Jews who killed the Lord Jesus." Paul is reminiscing about the persecution the Church faced early on from the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem, the very people you just agreed probably had some sort of culpability in His death. Interestingly enough, the NAB note for this verse says
|Paul is speaking of historical opposition on the part of Palestinian Jews in particular and does so only some twenty years after Jesus' crucifixion. Even so, he quickly proceeds to depict the persecutors typologically, in apocalyptic terms. His remarks give no grounds for anti-Semitism to those willing to understand him, especially in view of Paul's pride in his own ethnic and religious background...
But apparently you aren't so willing to give credence to the NAB editors here.
|then there are millenia of papal bulls confirming - and in some cases, ie Gregory 13 - extending the blame/guilt.
Sorry, I am unfamiliar with any papal pronouncement that assigns any particular blame for Christ's death to Jews who weren't even alive at the time of His death. I would be very interested in reading such a text. I looked at http://www.papalencyclicals.net/
but I can't find anything on the topic, and nothing at all by Gregory XIII, so maybe I'm missing it. Do you know where I could find some of these texts?
My understanding of Christian belief on this is, since all sinners are responsible for the necessity of Christ's saving mission, those Jews who are sinners would have to bear their share of the blame, but no more than Christians who are sinners (i.e., all of them).
|not to single out catholicism, the same interpretations have come from all corners of c'ian leadership from eastern orthodox to david koresh.
I'd take a bullet for the Pope, but I can't answer for David Koresh or anyone else. We were talking about what the Bible
|before it can be argued that the Sanhedrin could make an incorrect decision in this case, it first needs to be established this was, in fact, a Sanhedrin.
No, I'm arguing that doesn't matter whether it was a licit meeting of the Sanhedrin or not. (I mean, it's a facinating question and the answer may well be important, but not to the end of disproving the truth of the Gospel, which I don't think it does.)
Look: if some members of that body met, there are only two possibilities: either it was a lawful convention of the Sanhedrin, or it wasn't.
If it wasn't (and you've given many good reasons to suppose it wasn't), then they couldn't lawfully execute Jesus, but they could have delivered him to the Romans, like the Gospels say.
If it was, then they shouldn't
have found him guilty of blasphemy (because, as you noted, he was innocent of this charge), but still might have done so. And whatever their verdict was, guilty or innocent, they still
could have delivered him to Pilate, where He was charged under Roman law with treason, not blasphemy. He was convicted of being a "King," not the Messiah. His crime, written on a placard on the cross, was that He was the "King of the Jews."
As for why the evangelists bothered to mention the Sanhedrin trial at all, when it was the Romans who convicted and executed Him, maybe they didn't have an ulterior motive; maybe they just wrote what happened.
These speculations as to the symbolic significance of this or that character in the story only become necessary when you proceed from an a priori
assumption that the story is fictional. (It's perfectly right to wonder why Shakespeare put Tybalt in Romeo and Juliet
, but it makes no sense to wonder why McCollough put Abigail in John Adams
. That's just how it happened is all.)
I know you think that assumption is warranted. I know you think you've proven the Gospel fictional. But I don't think you've proven that. Keep trying though, I'm enjoying your posts.