Explain why Jews legally could not kill Jesus, but could kill James?

[Hannibal Flavius]

Originally Posted by O.C. Ogilvy

The Jews did not kill Jesus and neither did the Romans.

Jesus could have prevented his own death. He chose not to.

We have to do the same in dying daily because the death of Jesus is no good unless we also die, and we choose death also.

[O.C. Ogilvy]

It could be argued that it was likewise not lawful for Pilate to sentence Jesus to death with no evidence of him being guilty of a capital crime. Pilate "washed his hands" of his decision. His actions were out of fear that a riot would ensue unless Jesus was put on the cross.

[O.C. Ogilvy]

Originally Posted by Richard1965

ALL historians or just the ones that YOU agree with?...

You can hardly name an historical account with which there is not disagreement among historians, so why is this one any different?

[Hannibal Flavius]

Originally Posted by O.C. Ogilvy

It could be argued that it was likewise not lawful for Pilate to sentence Jesus to death with no evidence of him being guilty of a capital crime. Pilate "washed his hands" of his decision. His actions were out of fear that a riot would ensue unless Jesus was put on the cross.

But wasn't he guilty of a Capitol crime?

This is the debate.

Was Jesus and all his disciples guilty of teaching people to not keep the laws of Moses?

Liars were paid to tell the lie against Stephen and Paul had to jump through circles to prove his innocence and still a debate rages on where the majority claim that Jesus and all his followers were speaking against the laws of Moses, against the Temple, and against Jerusalem.

It depends whether or not you follow a Jewish Messiah who came teaching secrets of Torah, or you follow a Lawless Messiah who was not Jewish and his ways are of Babylon.


One is lawless, and if his ways are to teach against the laws of Moses than they all deserve death by the law.

The other is not lawless, and not deserving death because he and his followers came walking in the law.

[O.C. Ogilvy]

Originally Posted by Snowball7

No, not that I'm aware of, would Josephus be wrong. Why ? Josephus used no language
other than the Gospel's same concerning the brethren of Jesus. James the Righteous as
son of Joseph, or son of Mary's older sister, or both, would have been referred to as a
brother. This misunderstanding is a Protestant one, and it's recent. It wasn't until the
Bible was widely distributed among the uneducated English-speaking world that it was
claimed by ignoramuses that James the Righteous was an actual blood sibling of Jesus.

That is a good point. I always thought that James was Jesus's half brother, since Joseph was not actually Jesus's blood father. If he was, then why would he want to quietly divorce Mary before their marriage had been consummated?