Jesus Christ Is Lord

That every knee should bow and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father!

Did The Jews Kill Christ or was Jesus a Victim of Identity Theft?

Posted by Job on September 12, 2007

From Randy Weiss of, who can be reached at and

Did The Jews Kill Christ or was Jesus a Victim of Identity Theft?

Consider the facts:

* The Jews did not kill Christ because the Jews could not kill Christ.
They did not have legal authority in matters of capital crimes under
Roman law at that time.

* The Jews were a diverse group of 4,500,000 people spread out over
many nations of the world. They could not collectively make a single
matzah ball or take any solitary decisive action for which all could take
credit or all share blame.

* The Jews did not have power over God. The death of Christ was
according to God’s sovereign will according to the Scriptures.

*The Jews did not have control over a decision that belonged to Jesus.
Jesus laid His life down. Nobody took it from Him. It would be wrong
to depreciate His love by suggesting that the Jewish people, or other
groups of people were responsible for our eternal salvation. After all,
that is what Christ purchased through His death.

It seems to me that the folks who confuse these matters misunderstand
the real character and true identity of Jesus. Actually, many people
reinterpret the life and purpose of Jesus to fit their own agendas.
They recreate Jesus to fit a pattern they prefer. Perhaps that is what
happened in Mr. Gibson’s film.

The producers substituted bread for matzah in the Feast of Unleavened
Bread. Whether intentional or not, this error moved Jesus to a place
outside the flow of Judaism. It is well known that Jews were forbidden
to eat leavened bread during the time of Passover. To ignore this lowest
common denominator that Jesus shared with the Jews of His community
is to ignore that He was a faithful member of the Jewish community.
If He can be extricated from His situation in life as a Jewish man in the
first century, He can be recreated and recast in anyway that anyone
chooses. In essence, He could be molded to fit the need anyone wished
for Jesus to fill. But Jesus does not change at our insistence; we change
at His. God does not change; He is perfect. We must change because
we are imperfect. This may seem like an abstract philosophical concern,
but it is not. It is a fundamental truth and we must let Jesus be Jesus.
If we are permitted to modify Him to suit our fancy then we become God
and He becomes our servant. That is why I refuse to ignore that the Last
Supper was a traditional Jewish Passover. To make it less is to rob Jesus
of His heritage on this earth. Of course that is the pattern for many
Christian traditions. Leonardo Da Vinci had the same problem when he
was commissioned to create The Last Supper for the Convent of Dominican
friars at Santa Maria delle Grazie in Milan. If one looks carefully at this
most famous religious painting, the traditional Gentile dinner rolls will
become evident.

Jesus was born into the line of Jewish kings. Christians believe He is King
eternal. Had He been born into a non-Jewish home, He would have been
discredited from inheriting this throne. The prophetic mantle would have
remained unfulfilled. Had He sinned in His dietary regimen eating food
not kosher for Passover, He would have been disqualified as a perfect
sacrifice and the Cross would have been pointless in the Father’s plan of
salvation. If we ignore the small details of the food Jesus ate at His final
Pesach seder, it becomes easier to ignore other details, such as the clothing
Jesus wore.

Consider what the poor woman with the issue of blood would have done
if the wardrobe designer from Mr. Gibson’s film had outfitted our Savior?
She touched the ?hem? of His garment and was healed according to
Matthew 9:20. To the uninitiated reader, it might seem that Jesus wore
Levi Docker slacks and the woman grabbed the neatly turned, starched
hem of His pleated trousers gently draping over His penny loafers.
Of course that would be quite ludicrous to suggest because everyone
knows Jesus did not wear slacks. Would dressing Jesus in slacks be
anymore foolish than presuming He disobeyed the commands of
Numbers 15:38 and disregarded wearing His tallith with the proper
long tsithith?fringes in the corners? According to Jewish practice and
the best scholarship, it is these fringes that the women touched. It was
not the hem of His trousers, it was the borders (corners or wings) where
the tsithith hung.

If we can quietly allow Mr. Gibson to separate Jesus from His Jewish
food and His Jewish dress, we can begin to disentangle Him from His
other Jewish characteristics. That is why the subtitle of this book asks
the question, Did the Jews Kill Christ or Has Someone Stolen His Identity?
The Jews are not to blame for His death. I believe He lives! There is no
body. The accusation of murder is a moot point in light of the Resurrection.
The crime is in how Jesus is usually represented. Many groups have stolen
His identity.

That is how the founder of The Great Passion Play of Eureka Springs,
Arkansas, promoted Jesus. He presented images of a blond-haired,
blue-eyed, WASP Savior. Jesus was the victim of identity theft.
He stole the true identity of Jesus and created a fairy tale Christ invented
in his vain imagination. The Bible commands us not to worship false
gods, yet that is what happens when we worship an idea of God that is a
fabrication. This can happen quite easily if we become distracted from
worshipping the God of the Bible and begin to serve an illusion about God
presented by false teachers.


3 Responses to “Did The Jews Kill Christ or was Jesus a Victim of Identity Theft?”

  1. Steven said

    Well Sir, I am a bit confused by your post. How can you assert that the Jews did not kill Jesus considering such passages as Acts 2:36, Acts 4:10 and I Th 2:14? It certainly is true that the Romans had removed the Jews ability to execute people (though that didn’t stop them from Stoning Stephen) and they insisted on his death to which Pilate gave in.

    That is not to say that individual persons from Isreal are responsible for His death today or even then if they were not there. However, Peter spoke to the whole group in Acts 2 and in Acts 4 to the leaders.

    It is obvious to me that one can say the Jews killed Jesus w/o being Anti-Semitic, just as we say the Nazi’s commited atroucities against the Jews in the 1940’s doesn’t make us Anti-German. Facts are facts and the scriptures place the blame on the Jewish people.

    Perhaps I am misunderstanding the point you are trying to make. If so, feel free to clarify

  2. Steven:

    That would be a question for the author of this post, Randy Weiss of, a Messianic Jew who was part of the original “Jesus movement” that has been a minister of Jesus Christ for decades and produces a TV show that comes on the NRB Network on Sunday afternoons. Dr. Weiss can be reached at, and he does promptly answer emails.

    As to me personally, I believe the Bible’s account of the crucifixion and the events leading up to it to be literally true and accurate. So does Weiss, incidentally. Weiss is merely speaking against professed Christians like Mel Gibson who claim that the Jewish role and actions in the death of Christ go beyond what the Bible actually says. For instance, 80% of “The Passion Of The Christ” is abiblical, stuff that is either not in the Bible and at times even contradicts the biblical account. Instead, it is based on Catholic “tradition” and the special revelations of a 19th century mystic Catholic nun named Anne Catherine Emmerich. Of course her revelations were false and she either lied concerning them or they were demonic in origin, because she claimed to have spoken with souls in purgatory, and the Catholic purgatory doctrine is in direct contradiction with the Bible. Emmerich, as did many Catholics of her day, adhered to teachings that went far beyond what the Bible says concerning the actions of Jews in the crucifixion, including depicting them as being personally involved in the crucifixion act and process itself: Emmerich had members of the Sanhedrin Council actually hammering in the nails as something that she received in her “vision.”

    Incidentally, the scriptures DO NOT place the blame on the Jewish people for the death of Christ. Instead, the Bible specifically blames only the Sanhedrin Council and the mob that was present before Pilate, and even then the Sanhedrin Council was divided until Caiaphas stated that Jesus Christ “die for the people”, and that the mob had to be incited by the Sanhedrin or else they would have freed Jesus Christ and condemned Barabbas. Further, how could “the Jewish people” be blamed when the very reason why the Sanhedrin needed Judas Iscariot to lead them to where they could arrest Jesus Christ secretly by night was because they feared the riot that would break out among those very same Jews if they arrested Him openly? And what … the hundreds of thousands of Jews living in Rome, Alexandria, etc. and were nowhere near Jerusalem when Christ was arrested, falsely condemned, and executed were responsible? And how, pray tell, is that possible?

    The Bible is true, and it is NOT contradictory. You know this for yourself even as you quote Acts 2:36, Acts 4:10, and 1 Thessalonians 2:14 out of their intended RHETORICAL context. After all, if you are going to take Acts 2:36 out of its context, what about Acts 2:38? Do you baptize in the Name of “Jesus Only” like those oneness pentecostal heretics that deny Trinity? Or do you recognize that Paul spoke and Luke recorded those words to suit the RHETORICAL purpose, acknowledge that RHETORICAL context, and baptize in the Names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ told you to in Matthew 28:19?

  3. Steven said

    I will write to Weiss and see what he has to say, thank you for the referral. You are correct that there was a lot of Catholic tradition tied into the Mel’s Movie.

    As to your comments, I am not sure of the difference between ‘rethorical context” and simply “context”. If you care to explain, I would like to know what you mean, but I don’t think the context is being distorted.

    when Peter was talking to the Isaelites in Acts 2, he was talking to people who had been there at the Passover as well. I have been taught, if it is not so, let me know, that many of the Jews traveled to Jerusalem for the Passover and remained until Pentecost or shortly thereafter.

    I would agree that is not likely every single person there as Peter preached would have been present as Jesus stood before Pilate, I would also agree that there were many who did not make that journey who would not have known of what had transpired for awhile to come. I would also agree that the Jewish leaders were the ones the stirred up the crowd. Likewise not every JEW (Joeseph, Lazarus, etc.) and not every LEADER of the Jews (Niccodemus) consented to crucify Jesus.

    Still when Peter tells the listeners on Pentecost, (sojourners from all over; 2:9-11) that God had made Jesus, Lord and Christ, “this Jesus whom you crucified.”, who is the “you” in that verse? If it is not the people to whom he is talking, then who? Why were they pricked in their hearts if Peter’s words were not directed to them? v. 37

    A passage I failed to mention last time is Acts 3. v 13 says ‘you delivered up and disowned’ Jesus, v14, ‘you disowned the Holy and Righteous One’ v15 “put to death” Jesus, and v17 you acted in ignorance and so did your leaders. The blame goes to all as a nation, but I would agree not to all as individual members of that nation. Paul’s statements in I th 2, indicate not just Jesus but all the prophets were killed by the Jews, his own countrymen.

    When I say that the Jews killed Jesus, I am only refering to those of that time and not even to ALL of the Jews of that time, nor of all time. I think I use it in the same context Paul does. Equally, when I say that the Germans killed the Jews, I don’t necessarily indict all the German’s.

    When the people in front of Pilate shouted that the blood of Jesus should be on their heads and when the Nation as a whole did not recognize their King, God did bring judgement on them, my thought was in 70 AD with the destruction of Jerusalem.

    As to you other question about Acts 2:38, I don’t read the word ‘only’ in that verse. The listeners were told to be baptized in the name of Jesus and it is equivalent to Jesus’ statement to baptized disciples ‘in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit’. It means by the authority of, in submission to the authority of. If the two passages are not equivilent I think there would be a serious problem.

    Acts 8:16 those of Samaria had been baptized in the name of Jesus, In Acts 10:48, again ‘in the Name of Jesus’

    I don’t know HTL, do you think that these are words to SAY? “I baptize you in the name of Jesus”, or “I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit”? We don’t seem to have any examples of words being said. Can we not baptize time someone in the name of Jesus and have that person also be added to the church and be put into Christ? I really don’t think it is the ‘words’

    Still, I say them LEST someone think I am doing something in my own name or by my own authority. Acknowledging God in what you do, can never be a bad thing.

    And if there is any confusion, though I know you weren’t suggesting that I personally do: I don’t beleive in the ‘oneness’ doctrine, I don’t deny the Diety of the Father, Son or Holy Spirit.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: