Obviously you like to argue. I have never said all Jews are responsible for the death of Christ. You either know what I'm saying or you can't read. Again, when asked, "Who killed Custer?" the only generic answer that most people would give is "The Indians." It wasn't his own men. It wasn't the Buffalo Soldiers. It wasn't French fur trappers. It was "The Indians". Only an idiot would blame the modern day American Indian. If asked who killed the Indians at Wounded Knee the only possible answer is "The U.S. Army." Only and idiot would blame the 4th I.D. now serving in the war on terror. And bringing Jeffrey Dalmer into this is assinine.
And I'll say it one more time then put you on ignore. Nobody had a choice in the matter. He could turn water into wine and raise the dead. I don't think He would have had a problem avoiding His own execution. The problem the Rabbis have that I see on TV everyday is simple. They don't believe the New Testament to begin with so, naturally, they're not going to like this movie.
Again, when asked, "Who killed Custer?" the only generic answer that most people would give is "The Indians." It wasn't his own men. [etc...] What's interesting is that, even if I accept your loose language usage, you *should* be saying "The Jews AND The Romans killed Jesus". After all, it's a bit ridiculous to leave the role of "The Romans" out of it entirely.
Crucifixion was a Roman method of execution, The Romans were occupying this land, and nothing like this would have occurred without the say-so (and, in this case, active efforts - according to the Biblical accounts themselves) of The Romans.
So why is it you say "the Jews killed Jesus" [post #178] and not "The Jews and The Romans killed Jesus", if this is all just a matter of speaking in "generic" language? Generic language is one thing but accuracy is another.
Didn't The Romans have anything to do with it?