On 04-24-09, MIMI GALLANDT said to TOM WALKER:

MG>TOM WALKER -> JEFF SNYDER wrote:
JS>> As you probably already know, in our modern day, there have been some
JS>> serious attempts at historical revisionism when it comes to who was
TW> actually
JS>> responsible for the murder of Jesus Christ. While efforts have been
TW> made to
JS>> pin the blame on the Romans


MG>This is one of the cases where actual historic records exist which
MG>disprove the story told by supposed Christians a few hundred years after
MG>Yeshua died. It is said that Herod sent Yeshua because (according to
MG>Christians) Herod had no power to try and execute him. That pure and
MG>simply is BS. Herod tried and executed John the Baptist If he could kill
MG>one pesky Jew he could kill another. That historical fact throws the
MG>entire event as related by KJV into doubt and confusion. Romans *DID* kill
MG>Yeshua and even the pope admits it now --


You're just a bit skewed here;


It was the Romans who actually performed the execution. However....it was at
the behest of the Jews; namely Herod and the High Priest and his coterie.


The fact is.....even though the Jews enjoyed a great deal of autonomy under
the Romans, there were limits. One of which was only the Romans themselves
were the authority that put someone to death on an official level.


Take John the Baptist, for instance. Where the Roman authority would probably
go along with Herod's wishes to have John executed. it was no doubt the
Roman's themselves who performed the actual execution.


And cutting off someone's head to raise on the point of a spear or `pike', was
not an uncommon practice among the Romans.


John the Baptist was seen as a strong influence among the common people, a
rabble rouser, and not hesitant to point out some of King Herod's own evil
ways. Not to mention the oft-times criminal practices of the priesthood
itself.


The Sanhedrin would have been angered at some of the things John was doing
among the people, and it is not unlikely they too were adamant that he die.


Herod presenting John's severed head to the dancer (whatever her name
was...Salome?), would not have been a difficult accomplishment, being he and
the Roman authorities were fairly cooperative with one another.


As for Jesus himself......Pilate, the Roman Prefect, had no issue with what
Jesus was doing as long as it wasn't rousing sedition against Roman rule.


He couldn't see anything Jesus had done wrong, so sent him to Herod. Herod,
seeing a `loaded' situation....sent him back to Pilate. Herod was `damned' if
he did....and `damned' if he didn't:


If he condemned Jesus to death himself, he ran the high risk of creating a
martyr (`Martyrs', as you well know, cannot be `killed'....they are forever!).


On the other hand....if he passed no judgement against Jesus, he ran the risk
of the Sanhedrin going behind his back to the Roman autrhorities and having
him removed. Or, failing that, possibly the Romans would decide the autonomy
the Jews enjoyed was not worth the trouble it caused (a not-uncommon situation
when dealing with Jews), and just completely take over the region, doing away
with any Jewish authority whatever.


It was a touchy situation on both sides. Herod `punted' by sending Jesus back
to Pilate again.


Pilate was now faced with a tacky problem. If he outright condemned Jesus it
would be `Romans' creating the martyr. If he `didn't' condemn Jesus....he ran
the risk of Herod and the Sanhedrin going over his head to Rome itself.


Pilate put the question to the crowds of Jews who were calling for a
crucifixion. The crowd of Jews screamed for Jesus to be crucified. Pilate told
them Jesus blood was `on your heads'....cerimoniously `washed his hands' of
the whole affair, and Jesus was crucified. By the romans. At the insistance of
the Jews. No doubt the loudest ones in the crowd of Jews screaming for Jesus
to be crucified were there at the behest of the Sanhedrin and Herod, so it
would look like a `spontaineous uproar of `the Jewish people'! Looks good to
the Roman authorities, posterity, and has the advantage of both the Sanhedrin
and Herod being able to claim that it was `the righteous indignation of the
Jewish people' that was responsible for it, just in case any problems came up
afterward. And anyway.......`the `Romans' killed him, not us'!






---
*Durango b301 #PE*