Christians Tortured, Humiliated, and Murdered Jesus?

[Christianbookworm]

I've heard one theory that the mob was a bunch of temple servants who were told to say the stuff they said by the religious leaders. I guess the Sanhedrin/Sadducees?Pharisees/et all had blinded themselves to the truth about Jesus?

[whag]

I dunno. I see it as one of those moments when mob mentality took over. (the IQ of a mob is the IQ of the least intelligent member divided by the number of participants)
Even today how often do people turn on someone simply because the rest of the mob is baying for their blood?

Certainly that's a feature of humanity, but a foreign one to many. I submit if you don't know if you'd be persuaded by religious bloodlust or not, you don't know yourself. I know I wouldn't be hypnotized by a mob that called for someone's torture and hanging.

I like to think that I would have tried to intervene, but who's to say I wouldn't have been swayed by the mob? Heck Jesus closest disciples almost were (Peter's denial of Jesus).

Again, if you can't determine how you'd react in a crowd like this, you don't know who you are. The context of my statement presumed it would be me in my current mental form, not a 1st century Jewish version of me. Obviously, that culture might have shaped me into an easily swayed fiend, but at present I am not such a person.

Re: Peter, he denied Jesus because he feared for his life. He was nowhere near being persuaded by a mob to call for Jesus' execution.

[simplicio]

Certainly that's a feature of humanity, but a foreign one to many. I submit if you don't know if you'd be persuaded by religious bloodlust or not, you don't know yourself. I know I wouldn't be hypnotized by a mob that called for someone's torture and hanging.



Again, if you can't determine how you'd react in a crowd like this, you don't know who you are. The context of my statement presumed it would be me in my current mental form, not a 1st century Jewish version of me. Obviously, that culture might have shaped me into an easily swayed fiend, but at present I am not such a person.

Re: Peter, he denied Jesus because he feared for his life. He was nowhere near being persuaded by a mob to call for Jesus' execution.

Maybe it is just a matter of degree, the difference between Peter and the others. Peter's reaction was a radical change, one moment threatening to use the sword, the next denying he knew Jesus. One moment he could not fathom NOT laying down his life, the next setting aside his love to preserve himself, in the face of a mob.

I suppose a contemporary example of rational folks getting caught up in a groupthink or mob mentality is political rhetoric, hyperbole is the norm in politics, but many still behave as if the hyperbole is literal. And a it is still within our lifetime that lynching and school closings were both used to preserve a political and social order that we reject today. So whether legal or extralegal means are used, people will be caught up in the heat of the moment.

People do react strongly when their worldview is threatened. Jesus failed to meet most everyone's expectations. If Jesus played the role of a military Messiah and led an army, many would have followed (messiahs were a dime a dozen in the first century). And a god who fails to stone sinners (especially other sinners) is disappointing to others. When a prominent figure fails to live up to expectations, fickle people will react and sometimes with fury; whether that fury is expressed with violence is the question. I think it is the exceptional person who is unaffected by the thinking of the mob, the reaction is a matter of degree; some will join in on the violence, others will stand aside.

[Adrift]

that culture might have shaped me into an easily swayed fiend, but at present I am not such a person.

Yes you are. You've spent years on a Christian forum haranguing believers and trying as hard as you can to sow seeds of doubt and division. It's been your modus operandi since day one. Along with whatever personal anger and indignation that you hold against the church, someone, somewhere influenced you to spend so much time against a God you don't believe exists. You're part of some mob mentality that thinks this is an appropriate use of time. Maybe it's Paine, or Hitchens, or whatever internet skeptic website or books that turned you on. Modern you might not throw Jesus on the cross personally. Might not stand in the crowd and jeer, but with your persistent attempts at provoking and being an obstacle to people from accepting Christ, and the eternal life that he offers, you might as well.

"Modern me wouldn't do something so horrible back in a 1st century collectivist society". You know why modern you wouldn't do something like that in the 1st century? Because of 1600 years of deep Christian impact on society and cultural conventions. The same Jesus that you spend so much time shaking your fist at on this forum is the same Jesus who imbued you with your sense of moral indignation, only now pride has got you thinking you're better than your maker.

[37818]

You've twice quote scriptures that don't advance the discussion at all. Please don't participate unless you have ideas to express.

If they had known Who He was, they would not have killed him. I think Paul wrote something along those lines. I don't think anyone who knew that Jesus of Nazareth was the incarnate Son of God would willingly crucify Him!

Yes. But it was God's plan to have His Son die for the sins of the world (John 3:16; 1 Corinthians 2:8; Matthew 16:21-22; 1 John 3:8).

[Christianbookworm]

Yes. But it was God's plan to have His Son die for the sins of the world (John 3:16; 1 Corinthians 2:8; Matthew 16:21-22; 1 John 3:8).

Indeed. All the stuff happened just as He planned. Jesus laid His life down for us, it couldn't be taken from Him against His will.

[Sparko]

Been thinking. If we were back there at the crucifixion, knowing the gospel as we do now, we would NOT have intervened to stop the crucifixion. Because we know it was needed to save mankind. It was horrible, but it was a voluntary sacrifice to save us.

[Cow Poke]

Been thinking. If we were back there at the crucifixion, knowing the gospel as we do now, we would NOT have intervened to stop the crucifixion. Because we know it was needed to save mankind. It was horrible, but it was a voluntary sacrifice to save us.

I think, even if we did NOT know the gospel as we do now, we'd be too stunned to act. Jesus had told them things were going to happen, but they didn't get it. I honestly believe at the last supper, as Jesus broke the bread and said that was His body, and shared the cup telling them it was His blood - I don't think they got it. After 3 years of a phenomenal time with Jesus, and their aspirations that the "Kingdom was coming", it was all over. Jesus was arrested, beaten, tried.... I think we would be so devastated we would be unable to act. We have the benefit of 2000 years of History knowing that Jesus rose from the dead. They didn't. For all they knew, this was the end.

[Cow Poke]

In fact, if you think about it -- who was the most likely person to resist or intervene? Peter, right? He even bragged that he would die with Jesus.

So, what happened when he DID intervene?

They came to arrest Jesus, and peter drew his sword and cut off the ear of Malchus, the servant of the High Priest.

This resulted in yet another stinging rebuke from Jesus to Peter...

I can imagine (because my mind is really weird) in any subsequent time when one of the disciples may have made a move to intervene, or talked about it, that Peter would say "no, that's not what He wants".

[One Bad Pig]

I dunno. I see it as one of those moments when mob mentality took over. (the IQ of a mob is the IQ of the least intelligent member divided by the number of participants)
Even today how often do people turn on someone simply because the rest of the mob is baying for their blood?


I like to think that I would have tried to intervene, but who's to say I wouldn't have been swayed by the mob? Heck Jesus closest disciples almost were (Peter's denial of Jesus).

On the other hand, when Peter tried to intervene, Jesus rebuked him for doing so.

I'm not sure that attempting to intervene before Pilate would have been productive; it would've taken intervention by a leader like Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea to accomplish anything. Attempting to head off the mob by a group of nobodies would have likely just started a riot, making Jesus' followers appear dangerous and giving Pilate further reason to execute him.

[Cow Poke]

On the other hand, when Peter tried to intervene, Jesus rebuked him for doing so.

I wish I had thought of that!

This resulted in yet another stinging rebuke from Jesus to Peter...

[One Bad Pig]

I can imagine (because my mind is really weird) in any subsequent time when one of the disciples may have made a move to intervene, or talked about it, that Peter would say "no, that's not what He wants".

After Peter's denial of Jesus and his recollection of Jesus' prediction concerning that denial, I doubt Peter was in a state of mind to contribute anything to a course of action.

[One Bad Pig]

I wish I had thought of that!

I was composing my reply when you posted that.

[Cow Poke]

After Peter's denial of Jesus and his recollection of Jesus' prediction concerning that denial, I doubt Peter was in a state of mind to contribute anything to a course of action.

Could well be, but he certainly wasn't going to try to intercede again.

[Cow Poke]

I was composing my reply when you posted that.

Spiritual confirmation, brother. It's a good thing!