Why did the Jews lie about Jesus?

[Jehanne]

Here's what really happened:

[Vicki Q]

You're right. It's time for the OPey dokey to finish this topic by giving the answer.
<snip>

So according to "Matthew" Jews hated Jesus, they killed Jesus and they knew they would be cursed for that so they wanted to erase his resurrection from existence. Which is another reason to regard Christianity as a conspiracy, because one of the telltale signs something is a conspiracy is when they blame the Jews for everything, as do David Icke with reptilian aliens, Flat Earthers, Moon landings etc.

And that's why Koran is actually more peaceful book that New Testament because it doesn't blame Jews, it even says that Jesus didn't die on a cross but an imposter.

This is quite wrong. Brittanica says of Matthew 'Numerous textual indications point to an author who was a Jewish Christian writing for Christians of similar background'. Matthew is jam packed with references showing Christians to be so defined by their belief in Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, and puts Israel at the very centre of the Bible.

'Jews hated Jesus'- which Jews? The ones who organised Jesus death, the majority who ignored him, or the ones who followed him sometimes to their deaths? A subset wanted him dead, but not all. Matthew was writing at a time when churches had a high proportion of Jews, so there can be no question of a blanket attack on Jews.

As for Matt 27:25, what's going on is likely a statement of the legal position of witnesses 'in capital cases the witness is responsible for the blood of him [that is wrongfully condemned] and the blood of his posterity [that should have been born]', much like swearing on a Bible before taking the stand. source, MSanh scroll for English

Matthew is not here condemning a race for perpetuity, but running a number of constant themes together. The shedding of innocent blood, leading to destruction and restoration is the underlying meaning. The OT runs a permanent theme in which judgement/exile comes from sin, but will be followed by forgiveness/restoration The vast majority of commentators agree the reference is to the events of AD 70, with the destruction of the Temple a key concept.

A doctoral thesis with more detail here.

[Fake Messiah]

so there can be no question of a blanket attack on Jews

Antisemitism is very clear in "Matthew" to anyone who has a sober head and doesn't indulge in doublethink and stupid mental gymnastics

Matthew 12:34  You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of.

Matthew 9:4 Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts?

Matthew 13:19 When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in their heart. This is the seed sown along the path.

Matthew 3:7  But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?

And I could go on like this and go even further than "Matthew" because antisemitism continues in John

John 5:16 So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him.
John 5:18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
John 7:1 He did not want to go about in Judea because the Jewish leaders there were looking for a way to kill him.
John 8:52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil.
John 18:35  “Am I a Jew?” Pilate replied. “Your own people and chief priests handed you over to me. What is it you have done?”

And so on, and then antisemitism continues in Paul and Acts

1 Thessalonians 2:14-15
For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of God’s churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out.

Matthew is not here condemning a race for perpetuity, but running a number of constant themes together. The shedding of innocent blood, leading to destruction and restoration is the underlying meaning. The OT runs a permanent theme in which judgement/exile comes from sin, but will be followed by forgiveness/restoration The vast majority of commentators agree the reference is to the events of AD 70, with the destruction of the Temple a key concept.

A doctoral thesis with more detail here.

Hey, sure we all know that most Christians changed their theology in the last couple of decades. That's why we don't see Christians and Jews killing each-other anymore. I mean heck in 1965 even the Second Vatican Council voted to absolve Jews of responsibility for the death of Jesus, a responsibility placed upon them for 760 years. Now they claim, as you say, that Matt 27:25 was some sort of "irony" BUT keep in mind that this is only very recent interpretation of Matt 27:25 that certainly more conservative Christians like Mel Gibson don't hold and to be honest it does look only as a facade, cuz if you go out and ask your regular Christians who the Bible said killed Christians you'd probably get more of that "old" theology.

As theologian Mark Allan Powell explains in his textbook on New Testament

he portrays the people of Israel as a whole as taking responsibility for the murder of Christ, calling out, “His blood be on us and on our children!” (27:25). It is likely that Matthew meant this last verse to be read ironically: the blood of Christ brings forgiveness of sins (26:28), so the Jewish people are not evoking a curse upon themselves but instead are unwittingly praying for salvation (probably with words taken from the Christian liturgy). Nevertheless, the verse has not usually been read this way, and anti-Semitic people throughout history have used it and other texts from Matthew’s Gospel to justify hatred and abuse of Jews, characterizing them as “Christ-killers” and as people accursed by God.

Here's what really happened:

What really happened is that some people made up some ridiculous stories and when even the gullible people of old times couldn't believe it they just blamed it on Jews for the lack of evidence. As do alien reptile people blame Jewish bankers for there not being evidence for their claims; flat earthers blaming Jews for there not being evidence for flat Earth; 9/11 conspiracists blaming Jews for 9/11 truth being buried; UFO people for alien evidence...

[Jehanne]

Here's what really happened:

What really happened is that some people made up some ridiculous stories and when even the gullible people of old times couldn't believe it they just blamed it on Jews for the lack of evidence. As do alien reptile people blame Jewish bankers for there not being evidence for their claims; flat earthers blaming Jews for there not being evidence for flat Earth; 9/11 conspiracists blaming Jews for 9/11 truth being buried; UFO people for alien evidence...

They had a religious ax to grind, and saw what they wanted to see.  The author(s) of John had no problem placing Jesus' crucifixion on a Thursday, the Day of Passover, when the lambs were being slaughtered in the Temple, because, such suited their theology, the historical evidence be damned.  For them, Jesus was the "perfect lamb"; as such, it made sense for them that he be killed on Passover, the same day as the other lambs.

[fredd bear]

It was Pope John Paul 2 who so graciously absolved the Jews (as a people) from the death of Jesus.

This absolution came after the better part of 2000 years of Christian antisemitism, partly caused by the belief and teaching that Jews were 'Christ killers' .I was certainly taught that at the Catholic school I attended. That was over 50 years ago, so I can only remember a bit of it;

Pilate is addressing the mob. The mob call for Barabbas to be released.

Pilate asks what about Jesus---the reply is something like "let his blood be upon our heads and those of our children" I just checked:


"King James Bible
Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children."

I just remembered an odd snippet. Pilate is aware Jesus is innocent, but says will scourge him and let him go. Context; Pilate is prefect of Judaea. Why on earth is he allowing a mob to dictate to him?


That set Christian thinking for nearly 2 thousand years. In truth I suspect that was a convenient excuse for say massacres of Jews by Crusaders setting out on crusade ( they were murdering their creditors) and for centuries of pogroms in Eastern Europe.

Another recent major change was the final admission that Mary Magdalene was not only not a prostitute, but probably a disciple... the crackpot fringe goes a lot further, claiming Mary and Jesus were married. From what I understand is that an argument can be made from scripture that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were close, but that does not necessarily mean 'lovers'

[Aliza]

As we all probably know the book of "Matthew" ends that the Jews to "this very day" are spreading a lie that Jesus did not resurrect but that apostles stole the body:

When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.” So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.

I mean they seem very determined that they're even ready to pay large sums of money to keep the "lie" afloat.

Why don't Jews want people to be saved and happy?

I do not know the book of Matthew per say, but I know the general story of Christianity. Are you asking the question about the Christian or the Jewish perspective on the Jewish view of Jesus?