Then you should know that some Jews participated in the death of Jesus; but not "The Jews". Unless of course you can't tell the difference between the two concepts, which would be sad.
And generations after generations have concluded along with me that it was "the Jews" who turned Jesus over to Pilate and it was "the Jews" who chose to have him crucified.
That's true. And those same generations proceeded to persecute "The Jews" for it. Which is why the error is worth correcting. (And why I can understand modern-day Jews being testy about interpretation of Mel Gibson's movie.)
Some Jews, not "The Jews". Do you understand the difference or not?
When the high priests or elders "pursuaded" the crowd I assume it was a Jewish crowd. You assume there were "others" present.
Well, of course the vast majority of the people in that crowd were probably Jews, yes. I'm not claiming otherwise.
But we're STILL only talking about a few hundred Jews, at most. Some Jews, not "The Jews". Get it yet?
No, sir, the crowds were there for the feast, their holiday, a holiday celebrated by the Jews. Their leaders sent a group of them for Jesus. That group turned him over to the high priests where they falsely accused him. They then turn him over to the governor and he gave them a choice. The simple fact is the Jews killed Jesus.
Argh. Even if everything you say in these first four sentences is 100% true, that means that SOME Jews killed Jesus. NOT "THE" JEWS!!!
Why can't you tell the difference between "some Jews" and "the Jews"? Why is that so difficult for you?
I'll assume you're an American. So was Jeffrey Dahmer. Jeffrey Dahmer killed and ate several people. If I say "The Americans" killed and ate those people, would you get annoyed? If so, why? Jeffrey Dahmer was an American!!
Do you see the logical problem here or don't you?
The Jews who walked with Christ did it.
Huh? What about his disciples. They didn't do it (except Judas of course). What about some random Jews in some faraway town. They didn't do it. How about his mother Mary?
You're way off.
SOME Jews, not THE Jews.
So, I ask you a simple question: Who killed Christ, the Romans or the Jews?
Neither. Some Romans crucified him, with at least some prompting from some Jews. Most of "The Romans" and most of "The Jews" presumably had nothing to do with it.
Who killed Custer? Will your answer be "Some Indians".
Yes, of course. Those Sioux he fought at Little Bighorn, in particular, killed him.
Ask me and I'll say "The Jews" and "The Indians".
I know, and you'll be wrong. Jesus's own mother was a Jew and she didn't kill him. As for Custer, I'm sure there'd have been many Indians (like say some Seminoles in Florida or whatever) who would have been surprised to learn that even though they were nowhere near the place, they actually helped kill Custer at Little Bighorn; and the Sioux who actually *did* fight him there would probably resent you trying to give other Indians credit :)
And there's one other question: Who killed "The Jews" during the holocaust?
The Nazis and any who helped them TRIED to kill "The Jews" (but "only" killed some lesser number of them). The Nazis actually were trying to kill ALL Jews, you see, which is why a phrasing like "The Jews" here actually makes sense.
Or do you think I should ask it: Who killed "some" Jews during the holocaust since not all of them were killed.
Well, I wouldn't use the word "some", I'd use the word "many", since six million represented a huge chunk of European Jews... but otherwise, yeah, you have the right idea here. Although he tried his best, Hitler didn't kill "The Jews" during the Holocaust, technically, because if he had, there'd be no more Jews left today. He "only" killed lots of 'em.