text:
- Employer
- Extreme Education & Career Fair
- Location
- Kootenays BC
- Salary
- To be determined
- Posted
- October 30, 2018
- Closes
- November 29, 2018
- Ref
- 1031824
- Sector
- Construction and Trades
- Function
- Skilled Trades and Labour
- Contract Type
- Permanent
- Hours
- Flexible
Job Fair - November 15, 2018
Are you looking for a new job or interested in a career change? Or maybe you're interested in post-secondary education opportunities?
We've got what you're looking for, and it's located right here in Cranbrook!
We are hosting a Job & Education Fair…your one stop shop for job opportunities and more in the Kootenay area, across British Columbia and Canada.
Event Details:
Black Press Extreme Education & Career Fair
Thursday, November 15, 2018 from 11:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
Location: KTUNAXA NATIONS, GOVERNMENT BUILDING
The event will feature over 45 exhibitors from various industries including hospitality, government, retail, construction, trades, health, education, forestry, pulp & paper, coal and more!
We will also be hosting workshops throughout the day.
Please continue to check our website & Facebook page for event updates:
F: https://www.facebook.com/bpeeducationcareerfairs/
If you have any questions, feel free to contact our events department at: email@example.com


text:
- By City
- All Deals
- Most Popular
- Community Giving
- Explore More
Prince William County (VA) Free Events & Activities
We're sorry, there aren't any recent deals in the Washington, DC area for Prince William County (VA) in FREE.
Please keep checking back, new deals are added every day.
More FREE deals in Washington, DC
Filter by Location:
- All FREE in the Washington, DC area
- Montgomery County (MD)
- Alexandria & Arlington (VA)
- Fairfax County (VA)
- Loudoun County (VA)
- Prince William County (VA)
- Washington, DC Proper
- Prince George's County (MD)
- Howard County (MD)
- Shenandoah Valley (VA)
- Stafford County (VA)
- Frederick County
- Anne Arundel County
- Other
Feature Your Business
Learn More about how CertifiKID can make your business boom.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Question about Kodak EasyShare C330 Digital Camera
Posted by poozaquex on
Here are the steps:
1. Make sure you will install a new or fully charged battery/batteries into your camera. Please use lithium batteries Ni-Mh or rechargeable Batteries (2000 M.Amp or higher).
2. Clean the battery contacts.
a. Remove the battery/batteries and the memory card from your camera, then wipe the battery contacts with a soft, clean cloth.
b. Reinstall the battery/batteries into your camera
3. Turn on your camera without the memory card.
Posted on Mar 13, 2010
Hi there,
Save hours of searching online or wasting money on unnecessary repairs by talking to a 6YA Expert who can help you resolve this issue over the phone in a minute or two.
Best thing about this new service is that you are never placed on hold and get to talk to real repairmen in the US.
Here's a link to this great service
Good luck!
Posted on Jan 02, 2017
Tips for a great answer:
Sep 30, 2011 | Computers & Internet
Solution one: Make sure the electrical outlet works
Unplug the power cord from the electrical outlet.
Plug another appliance into the electrical outlet to make sure the outlet works.
If the electrical outlet does not work , plug the product into another outlet that does work.
If the electrical outlet works, but the product still does not turn on , continue to the next step.
Solution two: Make sure the power supply is compatible with the HP product
The term power supply refers to both the power module and the power cord.
NOTE: To make sure that your product and power supply are compatible, HP suggests you use the original power supply shipped with your product.
Example of a power module Example of a power cord
NOTE: The power module might have a permanently attached power cord, or the power cord might detach from the power module.
Make sure the voltage and amperage specifications printed on the power supply match the voltage and amperage specifications printed on the HP product.
Voltage and amperage specifications printed on the power supply Voltage and amperage requirements printed on the HP product
If the voltage and amperage specifications between the product and the power supply are compatible, make sure the connector on the power cord is the same shape and color as the connector on the HP product.
WARNING: Do not force a power cord into an HP product that is incompatible with the HP product (different shape or size).
If the power cord is not compatible with the product, replace the power cord with a compatible cord. To buy a compatible cord, right-click the following link, How to Buy HP , and then click Open in New Window .
If the power cord is compatible with the product, but the products still does not turn on, continue to the next step.
Solution three: Reset the power module and test the power
Step one: Reset the power module
The power module has a safety feature inside that protects the product during a power surge. If you experienced a recent power surge, the power module might need to be reset. Use the following steps to reset the power module.
Unplug the power supply from the rear of the product.
Unplug the power cord from the electrical outlet, power strip, or surge protector.
If the product uses a power module with a detachable power cord, disconnect the cord from the power module.
Wait 15 seconds.
Reconnect the power cord to the power module.
Plug the power cord back into the electrical outlet. Do not use a power strip or surge protector.
Check to see if the power module has an LED.
If the power module does not have an LED, continue to the next step.
If the power module has an LED, check to see if the LED lights up.
If the LED does not light up, contact HP to replace the power module. To buy a compatible power module, right-click the following link, How to Buy HP , and then click Open in New Window .
If the LED lights up, continue to the next step.
Step two: Test the power on the All-in-One
Follow these steps to test the power on the product.
Reconnect the power supply to the rear of the product.
Press and quickly release the Power button to start a Power On/Off cycle. Do not hold the button down.
Figure 1: Press and quickly release the Power button
If you press and hold the Power button too long, the product might turn on and then off without restarting. If this happens, press and quickly release the Power button again.
If these steps resolved the issue , there is no need to continue troubleshooting.
If the issue persists , see the next step.
Solution four: Test the power with a compatible power cord from a different product
If you have another available power cord that is compatible with your product, use the alternate cord to repeat the steps in Solution three: Reset the power module and test the power .
If the product turns on with the alternate power cord, the original power cord caused the issue. Contact HP to replace the power cord. Right-click the following link, How to Buy HP , to buy a compatible power cord.
If the product does not turn on with the alternate power cord, continue to the next step.
Solution five: Service the HP product
If you have completed all the preceding steps and are still experiencing a problem, service the product.
Mar 26, 2011 | HP PSC 750 All-In-One InkJet Printer
Mar 24, 2011 | 2006 Pontiac Grand Prix
Mar 01, 2011 | Enhance Technology ATX-1123B, Enhance...
Nov 28, 2010 | Car Audio & Video
Apr 07, 2010 | HP Photosmart 3210 Printer
Nov 26, 2009 | 2003 Pontiac Grand Am
Sep 07, 2009 | 2004 Pontiac Grand Prix
Apr 29, 2009 | HP Photosmart D5160 InkJet Printer
74 people viewed this question
Usually answered in minutes!
Level 3 Expert
13434 Answers
Level 3 Expert
1645 Answers
Level 1 Expert
239 Answers
Step 2: Please assign your manual to a product:


text:
1 Thessalonians 5:9-11 For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us, so that whether we are awake or asleep, we will live together with Him. Therefore encourage one another and build up one another, just as you also are doing.
There are currently 24 users browsing this forum. (0 members & 24 guests)


text:
Asian American Studies After Critical Mass
Asian American Studies After Critical Mass
ISBN: 978-1-405-14680-7 April 2008 Wiley-Blackwell 224 Pages
Download Product Flyer
This book can be used in conjunction with the Blackwell Companion to Asian American Studies.
Table of contents
Asian American Studies in Its Second Phase: Kent A. Ono (University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign).
PART I: Representations.
1 What is the Political? American Culture and the Example of Viet Nam: Viet Nguyen (University of Southern California).
2 Ethnography, the Cinematic Apparatus, and Asian American Film Studies: Peter Feng (University of Delaware).
3 Culinary Fictions: Immigrant Foodways and Race in Indian American Literature: Anita Mannur (Wesleyan University).
PART II: Identities.
4 Foregrounding Native Nationalisms: A Critique of Anti-Nationalist Sentiment in Asian American Studies: Candace Fujikane (University of Hawaii).
5 A World Make-Over? An Asian American Queer Critique: Martin Manalansan IV (University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign).
6 Asian American Studies Through (Somewhat) Asian Eyes: Integrating "Mixed Race" into the Asian American Discourse: Cynthia Nakashima (University of California at Berkeley).
PART III: Disciplines and Methodologies.
7 Asian American Studies and the "Pacific Question": J. Kehaulani Kauanui (Wesleyan University).
8 Planet Youth: Asian American Youth Cultures, Citizenship, and Globalization: Sunaina Maira (University of California, Davis).
9 The Problematics of History and Location of Filipino American Studies within Asian American Studies: Helen Toribio (San Francisco State University).
10 Rethinking Asian American Victimhood: Understanding the Complexity of Race and Citizenship in America: Taro Iwata (University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign).
- Contains ten original essays pointing to new directions in Asian American Studies
- Contributors are drawn from an expert group of international scholars
- Includes coverage of film, popular culture, globalization, citizenship, and queer studies
- Features a useful introduction by the editor reviewing the origins of the subject, and outlines future possibilities for the field
- Can be used alongside A Companion to Asian American Studies, edited by Kent A. Ono, for a complete reference to Asian American Studies.


text:
Started by Paul Pratt, a long-time coffee professional known for his long relationship with the espresso machine company La Marzocco, Cafelat was created to produce coffee related products and accessories that are progressive in functionality and design. With this goal at the forefront, Cafelat has developed a full range of products that are distinguished by their modern design and practical application for both home and professional baristas. Their products have become some of the most popular accessories in the specialty coffee world, and we have no doubt they'll continue innovating for the good of the coffee community.
- Cafelat Corner Tamping MatSKU:cfl068$20.00
- Cafelat Micro Fiber ClothsSKU:cfl078$19.60


text:
Enter the world of La Concha – A Renaissance Resort. Hip and cool, retro and chic, stylish and sophisticated – this is the quintessential San Juan beach hotel, and the place to be at. Selected as one of the Top 21 Hottest Caribbean Escapes by The Travel Channel, recognized as one of Architectural Digest's Top Ten Hotels and chosen by Condé Nast Traveler as one of Puerto Rico's hottest luxury hotel destination.
La Concha Beach Resort is situated on a breathtaking, sun-splashed corner of prime Caribbean beachfront in Condado, San Juan's most elegant district. Fifteen minutes or less from Old San Juan and close to the most popular tourist destinations and the financial center, La Concha Resort is not only conveniently located, but also has everything the business and leisure traveler could possibly desire within the hotel itself.
A retro urban showcase and architectural landmark, La Concha Resort was originally built in 1958 and has now been completely re-imagined for the 21st century, after years of painstaking work and a $220 million investment. Puerto Rico's premier resort and hotel destination projects a cool, edgy, Latino chic lifestyle with soulful hospitality and impeccable service – all presented in a truly playful and innovative environment.
With five on-site restaurants (including Perla, in the signature floating seashell), a state-of-the-art casino and 483 guest room accommodations boasting majestic views.
Even though we're in the Caribbean, the temperature can drop one or two degrees in the winter so we keep our pools at a constant 85 degrees so that you're comfortable no matter what time of year you stay with us.


text: Man Sues Froot Loops for Not Being Frooty at AllMan files suit in San Francisco court alleging he was deceived by frooty moniker By Sajid FarooqPublished Sep 29, 2009 at 3:56 PM | Updated at 7:08 AM CDT on Sep 30, 2009 NEWSLETTERS Receive the latest weird updates in your inboxEmailPrivacy policy | More Newslettershttp://www.flickr.com/photos/kl_paige/ / Is froot the same as fruit?Roy Werbel thought the two words meant the same thing and now he is mad as hell at Toucan Sam for his treasure chest of deceit. The man filed a lawsuit against Kellog's Froot Loops cereal in San Francisco federal court for allegedly intentionally misleading breakfast eaters into believing those delicious colorful loops were actually made from fruit.Werbel says in his court filing that he mistakenly ate the frooty cereal believing it was healthy for him. Now he is demanding unspecified punitive and actual damages to be paid to everyone else who was taken by the cunning Toucan Sam's friendly smile.And the fruity plaintiff does not stop there. Werbel filed a separate suit against Pepsico, the maker of Cap'n Crunch Crunch Berries cereal, because again he thought there was real fruit in the box. NewsWeatherInvestigationsEntertainmentTrafficContact UsConnect With UsKXAS Public Inspection FileEmploymentSend FeedbackTerms of servicePrivacy policy © 2019 NBCUniversal Media, LLC. All rights reserved. AdChoices


text:
In losing your neighbour's confidence, risk is of being gobbled up by Big Brother
"A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people."—John F Kennedy.
For the past decade, the Indian establishment has been scrupulously adopting market mantras of the land of Kennedy. India's economy is now more open than that of the mother of all open economies—the US. Both, however, have one thing in common. They are afraid to let people know the truth behind the establishment's shady decisions. America wants to snoop on every global citizen. The Indian government is going out of its way to conceal the truth from the people. Defence Minister A K Antony's statement last week followed this example. Within a few hours of Pakistani soldiers killing five jawans at the LoC, Antony was forced to say terrorists in Pakistan Army uniform were responsible. Who hypnotised him to try market the imaginary innocence of the Pakistan Army is a mystery. He finally accepted that it was indeed an act aided and sponsored by the Pakistan military. While the credibility of India's defence establishment suffered damage, the incident raised questions about India's dubitable diplomacy. A series of decisions by a cabal of diplomats have left none in doubt that they would go to any extent to promote their personal ambitions at the cost of India's clout. Their success is evident in the PM's unwillingness to call off the sham of a peace dialogue with Pakistan. Neither the bodies on the border nor the bombing of innocent citizens stands in the way. The similarity in statements made by both countries on the killings seemed to emanate from the same source. When Pakistan-based terrorists and ISI henchmen murder Indians, our rulers disturbingly don't even catch a cold. In spite of a nationwide consensus in favour of teaching Pakistan a lesson by isolating it in the international community, the UPA is determined to host Nawaz Sharif at a friendly rendezvous in New York next month. India's fixation for talks with Pakistan became more pronounced after UPA's return in 2009. It was reflected in the joint statement issued after a meeting between PM Manmohan Singh and former Pak president Asif Zardari at Sharm el-Sheikh in July 2009. In a deviation from past policy, India delinked Pakistan-sponsored terror from composite dialogue. India accepted the inclusion of the Baluchistan issue in the statement, which had never happened before. Since then, the PM and his advisers on Pakistan have stuck to their resolve of pandering to our untrustworthy neighbour.
Obviously, South Block has adopted the Nehruvian principle of dictating the international agenda and become a power centre in itself. India's diplomats lack long-term perspective; their horizons shrinking from a global overview to being camp followers of American diplomacy. Now we are neither a drop in the diplomatic ocean nor an invitee at the global high table. Pakistan, with its nuclear bombs and terrorists, is more acceptable to liberal Western nations than a secular and open democracy like India.
No neighbour takes us seriously. There was a time when nothing would move in Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Maldives and Sri Lanka without India's involvement. Now, they ignore us and also threaten to join hands with China and Pakistan. The new Maldives dispensation cocked a snook at us by cancelling the building contract of an Indian company. Bhutan chose to open a dialogue with China after India's short-sighted move to withdraw oil subsidies. First, India revised the 63-year-old Indo-Bhutan friendship treaty in 2007, which gave Bhutan the freedom to devise an independent foreign policy. But our diplomats were busy cozying up to the US, and ignored Bhutan.
In the case of Sri Lanka, India's top leadership reversed its policy on human rights, which led to not only DMK's exit from the UPA but also to the island nation turning hostile to India. Now it is creating more trouble by arresting Tamil fishermen on a daily basis. It has invited China to take over strategic port construction activities. India's Bangladesh policy is worrying. Dhaka has acted decisively against fundamentalists and terrorists. President Sheikh Hasina wanted concessions in a revised treaty Teesta River treaty and the exchange of territory along the Assam border. The agreement could not be signed because of Mamata Banerjee's veto; the UPA failed to resolve the boundary issue because the BJP was uncooperative, even though it would help India to get rid of terrorists infiltrating through Bangladesh. Ever since Hasina acquired power, she did not allow top jihadis from Pakistan to hide in the country; she even extradited some to India. She ensured judicial punishment to fundamentalists and invited top Indian entrepreneurs to set up businesses. But our diplomats do nothing to ensure the stability of a genuinely democratic and modern political leadership because Dhaka is not an attractive posting.
Our diplomats are busy playing golf and smoking cigars in Nepal, a playground for extremists from China and Pakistan. Despite having a massive Indian-origin population, Nepal is not an ally. Like other neighbours, it perceives India not as a dependable friend but a ferocious foe. South Block, it seems, has forgotten the saying that once you lose your neighbour's confidence, you run the risk of being gobbled up by Big Brother and losing your identity acquired at a huge cost and through hard work by leaders like Nehru, Indira Gandhi and Atal Bihari Vajpayee.
firstname.lastname@example.com; Follow me on Twitter @PrabhuChawla


text:
WAG Premium Membership Program Gives Access to Arts and Culture Across North America
The Winnipeg Art Gallery is introducing a Premium Membership that offers WAG members free/discounted admission to over 535 museums across North America. The WAG now has the gold NARM designation (North American Reciprocal Museum) which offers travelers opportunities to experience art and culture beyond Manitoba's borders.
Travelers can rest easy knowing they can visit the best museums and galleries in North America with the same member benefits, such as admission discounts at gift shops and restaurants, and special pricing on blockbuster or limited-time exhibitions.
"We were surprised at how easy it was to use our Premium Membership," says Pat McCullough, an artist and long-time WAG member. "It gave us free entry and discounts to the museums we visited... We would highly recommend a Premium Membership; we had a wonderful trip visiting art museums and it saved us a lot of money when we travelled to the U.S. over the winter holidays."
For those travelling anywhere in North America, a WAG Premium membership is a passport to world-class museums like The Frick Collection in New York City, the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles, the Walker Art Center in Minneapolis, the Canadian Museum of Civilization in Ottawa, and the Art Gallery of Ontario in Toronto.
Premium Membership is available in two categories: Premium Individual ($100) and Premium Family ($150), and is valid for one year from the month of purchase. For a listing of all the benefits of Premium membership visit wag.ca/member-benefits, which includes a link to the NARM list.
Celebrating its centenary from September 2012 to August 2013, the Winnipeg Art Gallery is Canada's oldest civic art gallery and Manitoba's leading visual arts institution. With a collection of over 25,000 objects spanning over ten centuries—including the world's largest collection of contemporary Inuit art—the WAG constantly moves between the historical and the contemporary, engaging a growing public with the power of art in our lives.
- 30 -
For information, please contact:
Catherine Maksymiuk
Manager, Communications and Marketing
Winnipeg Art Gallery
- Recent
- 2019 (24)
- 2018 (34)
- 2017 (44)
- 2016 (49)
- 2015 (57)
- 2014 (61)
- 2013 (59)
- 2012 (72)
- 2011 (70)
- 2010 (51)
- 2009 (24)


text:
- Fujitsu Forum 2015 : Fujitsu Suisse
Arriving by car
The ICM is located directly on the freeway A94. Exit the freeway at either Feldkirchen-West (Exit No. 6) or München-Riem (Exit No. 5).
Road Map
On the event center grounds, a dynamic traffic control system regulates the flow of traffic. It directs you to the free parking spaces closest to the event center.
Road signs in the outskirt of town and throughout the entire city indicate the way to Messe München and the ICM.
Navigation systems
Depending on the type of navigation system, you'll find the ICM in the category "event centers" or "exhibition grounds", or under the keyword "trade fair". Some navigation systems allow you to select between the center's East, West, and North entrances. Please select West.
Parking is most convenient (150 meters walking distance) in
Parkhaus West
Paul-Henri-Spaak-Str. 6
81829 München
Share this page


text:
Why Did Jesus Have to Die?
Roman, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives
Click here for an updated and complete version of this series.
by Rev. Dr. Mark D. Roberts
Copyright © 2010 by Mark D. Roberts and Beliefnet
Note: You may download this resource at no cost, for personal use, for use in a Christian ministry, or for use in an educational venture, as long as you are not publishing it for sale. All I ask is that you give credit to this website: //www.beliefnet.com/columnists//markdroberts/. For all other uses, please contact me at firstname.lastname@example.com. Thank you.
As we approach the season of Lent, and then Holy Week and Easter, I propose to consider the question: "Why did Jesus have to die?" At the outset, I must say that this isn't an easy question to answer for several reasons. Let me mention three.
First, when it comes to the death of Jesus, we're dealing with an historical event concerning which we have limited historical sources. We don't have some of the sources that would make our task much easier, the diary of Pontius Pilate, for example, or notes from the proceedings of the Jewish council that examined Jesus prior to his crucifixion. Therefore, when I try to explain why Pilate or certain Jewish leaders believed that Jesus had to die, I'll have to extrapolate from the evidence that is available to us. I do believe, however, that this evidence, both in the New Testament Gospels and in other ancient sources, is strong enough to allow us to formulate likely hypotheses concerning Roman and Jewish motivations for the crucifixion of Jesus.
Second, the question of why Jesus was put to death is a matter of considerable scholarly disagreement. For centuries it was common to put all the blame on "the Jews." But the horror of the Holocaust combined with new historical insights has led scholars in almost completely the opposite direction. Many claim that "the Jews," even Jewish leaders, had little or nothing to do with the death of Jesus. In my opinion, as you'll see, the pendulum that had once swung way too far in the direction of "the Jews" has now swung too far back in the opposite "Romans only" direction. I'll have more to say about this later.
I should add at this point that I am aware of the shameful history of anti-Semitism and the danger of anti-Semitism that is very much alive today. This does make it tricky to deal with the historical evidence in a straightforward way, because if one concludes that some Jews were somewhat responsible for the death of Jesus, this might fuel anti-Semitic attitudes and actions. So, I will say at the outset that nothing in the historical record justifies hatred of or mistreat of Jews, or any other people, for that matter.
Third, there is not one, simple, obvious answer to the question of why Jesus had to die. From a historical point of view, we have to deal with at least two perspectives, Roman and Jewish. In fact, I'll show that there was more than one Jewish point of view on Jesus' death. So it is really too simple to speak of "the Jewish perspective" on the necessity of Jesus' death.
Furthermore, historical explanation doesn't exhaust the realm of discourse when it comes to the reason for Jesus' death. We also need to deal with the whole area of theology. We'll want to know why, in light of his understanding of God, Jesus himself believed that he needed to die. Moreover, we must also examine early Christian thinking concerning why Jesus' death was necessary for the salvation of the world. In the end, therefore, the answer to the simple question "Why did Jesus have to die?" will be anything but simple. It will have multiple layers and nuances.
Nevertheless, this is a task well worth the effort, both in the writing and in the reading. No matter what you think about Jesus, you will help yourself and your world if you're able to discuss his death intelligently. This is especially true given the tendency of this conversation to become terribly anti-Semitic. In a world where hatred of Jews is on the increase, all thoughtful, compassionate human beings need to be informed about just who was responsible for the death of Jesus and why.
Finally, if, like me, you believe that the crucifixion of Jesus stands at the very center of history, then knowing why Jesus had to die is just about the most important bit of knowledge you can have.
In my next post I'll lay out some basic parameters for the rest of this series: how I'm going to structure the series and some of the foundational facts upon which I'll build the structure.
Where Do We Start When Considering the Death of Jesus? Some Basic Facts
Where should we start in our effort to discover why Jesus had to die? I propose to begin with some basic historical facts, facts that are affirmed by almost every historian and biblical scholar, even those who approach this question from a highly critical and skeptical starting point. So what are these facts:
Jesus was crucified. There were many ways in the first-century for a criminal to be put to death, including stoning, beheading, being torn apart by beasts, etc. Yet all the earliest sources attest to the crucifixion of Jesus. These sources include, in addition to the New Testament writings, the Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities 18.3.3, A.D. 95) and the Roman historian Tacitus (Annals 15.44, A.D. 109)(Photo: Painting by El Greco, "The Crucifixion," 1596-1600)Jesus was crucified during the governorship and under the authority of Pontius Pilate. Once again, this basic fact is confirmed in Josephus and Tacitus in addition to the New Testament.
Pilate placed a sign on Jesus' cross that read "The King of the Jews." This fact is found in all four New Testament Gospels and in some later non-canonical gospels as well. This "title" helps to explain the nature of the charges against Jesus.
Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem on or near the Jewish feast of Passover. Again, all New Testament Gospels agree on these basic facts, and there is every reason to believe that they are accurate (though the precise timing of Jesus' death in relationship to Passover is hard to pin down).
These basic facts, though apparently obvious and unspectacular, will actually prove to be very helpful as we try to figure out the reasons for Jesus' death.
As I mentioned in my previous post, the question "Why did Jesus have to die?" doesn't have a simple answer. I propose to address this question from four different perspectives:
• Roman: Why did Pontius Pilate think Jesus had to die?• Jewish: Why did some Jewish leaders think Jesus had to die?
• Jesus: Why did Jesus himself think that he had to die?
• Early Christian: Why did early Christians think Jesus had to die?
In my next post I'll begin with the Roman perspective.
Click here for an updated and complete version of this series.
The fact that Jesus was crucified rather than stoned, hanged, or killed in some other way means that the Romans were ultimately responsible for his death. Of course this is clear in the biblical gospels. But even if we lacked such primary sources, the simple fact that a man was crucified in Jerusalem around A.D. 30 implies that, for some reason or other, he was condemned by Roman authorities. Jews in the first-century A.D. didn't crucify people. This horrible means of execution was the prerogative of the Romans, who used it with chilling effect.
The Roman Practice of Crucifixion
If we want to know why a Roman authority, in this case, the prefect Pontius Pilate, would choose to crucify someone, we might look first at the Roman practice of crucifixion in general. Although Rome didn't invent this means of execution, the nation perfected it as one of the most horrible means of putting criminals to death. In fact, not all Roman convicts sentenced to death were crucified. Crucifixion was reserved for the lowest of the low, and most of all for those who openly opposed Roman power. Commit a serious crime and Rome might cut off your head; rebel against Roman rule or upset Roman peace and you might be headed to a cross. I say "might be" because Roman citizens were protected from crucifixion, unless they happened to be treasonous soldiers. (Photo: The Via Appia in Rome. When the slave Spartacus led a rebellion against Rome in 73-71 B.C., the Romans finally prevailed. They crucified 6,000 men, stringing them along the Via Appia for 120 miles, from Rome to Capua.)
Why was crucifixion so horrible? For one thing, the victim experienced some of the most extreme pain that a person can experience and the duration of suffering often lasted several days. But, even beyond personal suffering, the crucified person experienced extreme shame in a world that valued honor supremely. Contrary to most portrayals of Jesus' death, those sentenced to crucifixion were naked when attached to the cross, in full view of the masses.
The Romans made every effort to crucify people in public places, such as along major thoroughfares. The point was to augment the dishonor and suffering of the one being killed, not to mention his family and colleagues. (It seems, by the way, that the Romans did not crucify women.) As the Roman rhetorician Quintilian explained, "Whenever we crucify the guilty, the most crowded roads are chosen, where most people can see and be moved by this fear. For penalties relate not so much to retribution as to their exemplary effect" (Quintilian, Declamations 274). Thus the point of crucifixion was not only punishment, but also deterrence.
Not surprisingly, the Romans crucified Jews when they rebelled against imperial rule. I'll examine a couple of telling instances in my next post.
In my last post I began to examine the Roman practice of crucifixion, arguing that if we want to understand why a Roman governor had Jesus crucified, we should first understand why Rome used crucifixion in general. What we discovered was that crucifixion, in addition to being an extremely horrific punishment of criminals, was thought to be an effective deterrent against sedition. "Watch someone get crucified for challenging our authority," the Romans believed, "and you'll be unlikely to challenge our authority yourself." If you've seen The Passion of the Christ, you can certainly understand Roman logic here. Crucifixion was cruel beyond cruel.
Roman Crucifixion Among the Jews
Even the threat of crucifixion didn't completely squelch attempts to overthrow Roman rule, however, least of all among the Jews. Shortly after the death of Herod the Great in 4 B.C., thousands of Jews sought to toss the Romans out of Judea. Of course the Romans didn't take kindly to this, sending an army to squash the rebellion. When the rebels fled into the country, the Roman general Varus pursued them. The first-century Jewish historian Josephus describes what happened next:
Upon this, Varus sent a part of his army into the country, to seek out those that had been the authors of the revolt; and when they were discovered, he punished some of them that were most guilty, and some he dismissed: now the number of those that were crucified on this account were two thousand. (Antiquities 17.10.10)
Two thousand rebels crucified at one time! Now that would surely give restless Jews second thoughts before challenging Roman tyranny again. (Photo: The Arch of Titus in Rome, which celebrates the Roman victory over the Jews in A.D. 70.)
Seven decades later, thousands upon thousands of Jews revolted against Roman rule. For a short time they appeared to have prevailed. But, once again, Rome sent a superior military force to Judea. Soon the Jews were trapped in Jerusalem, surrounded by the Roman army besieging the city. Recognizing their hopeless condition, some Jews actually tried to escape, but to no avail. According to Josephus, when they were caught, "they were first whipped, and then tormented with all sorts of tortures before they died, and were then crucified before the wall of the city" (Jewish War, 5.11.1). This happened to at least 500 people daily, according to Josephus. So disgusting was the mass torture of Jewish prisoners that even the Roman General Titus felt pity on them. But he let the brutality continue. Why? Josephus explains: "The main reason why he did not forbid that cruelty was this, that he hoped the Jews might perhaps yield at that sight, out of fear lest they might themselves afterwards be liable to the same cruel treatment" (Jewish War, 5.11.1).
To conclude what we have learned about Romans and crucifixion, Rome reserved crucifixion for the worst of criminals, especially for those who stirred up rebellion against the state. Because the point of crucifixion, beyond punishment, was deterrence, crosses were placed in public places so people would learn to fear the wrath of Rome. When Jews challenged Roman authority, they, like others rebels against Rome, were crucified if caught.
But is this relevant of the case of Jesus? Did Jesus challenge Roman authority such that Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea in the time of Jesus, believed he must be crucified? Does what we have learned about Roman crucifixion help to explain Jesus' own death? To these questions I'll turn in my next post.
Introduction to Pontius Pilate
If we're going to understand the Roman perspective on the death of Jesus, we need to know something of the Roman man who was legally responsible for his crucifixion: Pontius Pilate. Traditionally, Pilate has been seen by Christians in relatively positive terms, as one who really didn't want to crucify Jesus but who did so because he was compelled to by the Jewish leaders and crowds. This image of Pilate, that seems to emerge from the New Testament gospels, doesn't fit with what we know about Pontius Pilate from historical sources, including the gospels themselves. Let me survey this evidence briefly.
Pontius Pilate was the governor of Judea from 26-37 A.D. An inscription discovered in the ruins of a Roman theater in Caesarea reveals that Pilate's official Roman title was "prefect" (Latin, praefectus). In this role he was ultimately responsible for all matters in Judea, including judicial and financial affairs. Pilate governed from the provincial capital of Judea, Caesarea (Maratima), a city on the Mediterranean coast, about 75 miles northwest of Jerusalem. He would make the trip to Jerusalem only when necessary. Pilate was accountable to the governor of Syria, through whom he was ultimately subservient to the Roman Emperor. (Photo: This inscription identifies Pontius Pilate as the [Praef]ectus Iuda[eae]).
Pilate does not figure prominently in first-century Roman histories, a fact that suggests that he was a relatively insignificant leader. Moreover, the assignment to govern Judea was no plum, and some of those who served in Pilate's position were known to complain about it. Not only was it potentially a dead-end job, but also it was fraught with complications.
The complications had largely to do with what the Romans would see as the peculiarities and propensities of the Jews. The peculiarities were, by and large, Jewish religious sensibilities that put them at odds with Roman norms. Jews, for example, did not follow the Roman model in welcoming all sorts of gods into their pantheon. On the contrary, Jews would die for their belief in one and only one God. Jewish propensities had to do with general unrest and fairly regular attempts by some Jews to rebel against Roman rule. When one became prefect of Judea, one could expect trouble.
Pilate's inability (or unwillingness) to respect Jewish sensibilities is seen in an event recorded by the Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities 18.3.1). Unlike previous governors, when Pilate took charge, he brought images of Caesar into Jerusalem in order to display them. This enraged the Jewish population, who took this as a violation of their law and as an insult. Multitudes of people traveled to Caesarea in order to ask Pilate to remove the images. At first he refused and, when the petitioners persisted, he was prepared to kill them. But when they showed themselves willing to die rather than have their laws violated, Pilate finally relented. In another instance when he offended Jewish sensibilities, Pilate did not show mercy, and those who protested were slaughtered by soldiers under Pilate's command (Antiquities, 18.3.2).
The New Testament actually confirms this picture of a cruel Pilate. In Luke 13:1 we read, "At that very time there were some present who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices." We don't know anything else about this incident. But it appears that, for some reason, Pilate killed some Galileans who had come to the Jerusalem temple in order to offer sacrifices to God. Yet, not only did Pilate have them killed, he also had their own blood mingled with the blood of the animals they had sacrificed. Talk about adding insult to injury!
The first-century Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria once wrote a letter to Caesar, in which, among other things, he complained about the harshness of Pontius Pilate. Philo blames Pilate explicitly for: "briberies, insults, robberies, outrages, wanton injustices, constantly repeated executions without trial, and ceaseless and grievous cruelty." (Legatio ad Gaium, 301-302). Even granting Philo's bias against Pilate, this text doesn't reflect well upon Pilate's governorship. In the end, he was removed from office by the Syrian governor, Vitellius, though we don't know exactly why.
But what about the image of Pilate as the reflective leader who is reticent to kill Jesus, and who even converses with Jesus about the nature of truth? I'll address this picture in greater detail later. But for now, I'd simply observe that the gospel accounts of Jesus' trial can be read as confirming the negative image of Pilate.
Pilate's ultimate responsibility was to oversee Judean affairs, to squash outright rebellion, to keep the tax money flowing to Rome, and, in general, to preserve the fragile peace of the region. And it is this, which, above all, seemed to be at risk when Jesus came to Jerusalem around the feast of Passover. In my next post in this series I'll examine the peculiar dynamics of Jerusalem in the time of the festival.
The Roman Perspective, Part 4
As I explained in my last post, Pontius Pilate, the prefect of Judea during the time of Jesus, governed his territory from Caesarea, a city on the Mediterranean sea about 75 miles northwest of Jerusalem. Immediate authority over Jerusalem itself he had delegated to Caiaphas, whom Pilate had appointed high priest of the Jewish temple.
Pilate and the Danger of Passover
But, each year during his tenure in Judea, Pilate journeyed to Jerusalem in the spring. He wanted to be in this city during the Jewish celebration of Passover. It's not that he had any fondness for the Jews and their rituals. Rather, Pilate needed to be in Jerusalem at this time to preserve order. He didn't trust Caiaphas with such an important task at such a volatile time.
The Passover was, after all, a festival in which Jews remembered how God had delivered them from foreign domination. During the celebration of the Passover meal they not only thanked God for his deliverance in the past, but also prayed for him to do so again. Thus the Passover itself could easily inspire anti-Roman feelings, if not outright rebellion.
Moreover, the population of Jerusalem swelled greatly during the festival. Though it's difficult to determine precisely the population of Jerusalem during the time of Roman rule, 35,000 wouldn't be too far off base. During the Passover, however, this number swelled by a figure of ten or more. Josephus reports that 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 people gathered in the city for the festival (Jewish War, 2.14.3, 6.9.3). While most scholars believe that Josephus exaggerated, his estimates testify to the large number of pilgrims who came to Jerusalem for Passover. A more conservative estimate would be in the 300,000-400,000 range. Pilate knew that crowds of Jews jammed together in a small area was a formula for disaster. (Photo: A picture of a crowd in Jerusalem, gathered by the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in 1989.)
Given the themes of Passover and the massive temporary population of Jerusalem, it's easy to see why Pilate felt it necessary to come to the city and why he would have done so with trepidation. Pilate was well aware of the fact that Jerusalem was a powder keg ready to blow during Passover. In fact, Josephus, talking about an earlier ruler who had tyrannized the Jews, mentions that "the nation of the Jews made an insurrection against him at a festival; for at those feasts seditions are generally begun" (Jewish War, 1.4.3, emphasis added).
Pilate didn't come to Jerusalem unprepared. To help keep the peace, he brought with him a few thousand Roman soldiers from Syria. But, even then, the odds would not be in his favor if the Jews decided to stir up rebellion, since the soldiers were outnumbered by a factor of at least one hundred to one.
Given the tenuous peace of Jerusalem, Pilate must have been greatly distressed by early reports about Jesus' actions in Jerusalem. This popular prophet from Nazareth had been welcomed into the city by a crowd of his followers who hailed him as a conquering king. Then, Jesus created a ruckus in the Jewish temple, even prohibiting sacrifices from being offered for several hours. So, while Pilate might have smirked to think of the distress this had given Caiaphas, nevertheless he'd be worried. What was Jesus' agenda? What had he come to Jerusalem to do? Was he seditious? Was he fomenting rebellion against Rome? Pilate's initial strategy was to watch and wait. Maybe, just maybe, he'd be lucky, and the Passover would conclude without incident. Then Jesus would go back to Galilee where he came from, and Pilate would return to Caesarea, where he could govern Judea a safe distance away from the time bomb of Jerusalem.
Pilate's hopes for an uneventful Passover were dashed when, early on Friday morning, the problem posed by Jesus of Nazareth exploded in his face. In my next post, I'll examine more closely Pilate's interaction with Jesus and his accusers.
In my last two posts in this series on the death of Jesus, I offered a picture of Pontius Pilate and described the unique dangers he faced in Jerusalem during the Jewish celebration of Passover. In light of this background, today I'll examine the biblical account of Pilate's interaction with Jewish leaders.
Pilate's Encounter with Jesus and the Jewish Leaders
Early on Friday morning, after Jesus of Nazareth had entered Jerusalem, Pontius Pilate was awakened by a group of Jewish leaders who had brought Jesus to him with the intention of having Jesus crucified. They accused Jesus of "perverting our nation, forbidding us to pay taxes to the emperor, and saying that he himself is the Messiah, a king" (Luke 23:2). When Pilate questioned Jesus, the accused was strangely quiet. Finally the governor cut to the chase. "Are you the king of the Jews?" he asked. "You say so," was all Jesus said in reply (Luke 23:3). When Pilate mentioned to the Jewish leaders that their charges against Jesus weren't persuasive, they added, "He stirs up the people by teaching throughout all Judea, from Galilee where he began even to this place" (Luke 23:5). It's likely that this was not news to Pilate, who had probably been following the unusual exploits of Jesus for some time. Roman governors kept an eye out for Jewish prophets who announced the coming of God's kingdom. (Photo: Mihály Munkácsy, Christ in front of Pilate, 1881.)
Once the Jewish leaders had brought Jesus to Pilate, the question of his fate lay in the governor's hands. Certainly he could follow the recommendation of the leaders, including the high priest, Caiaphas, whom he had appointed. But killing Jesus had a considerable downside. Pilate was surely aware of Jesus' popularity among the people. He might even have known before Friday that the Jewish leaders were trying to do away with Jesus, but were reticent to do so because he was so popular with the people. Killing Jesus might well have incited the people to riot (Mark 14:2), something neither the Jewish officials nor Pilate would have wanted. If Pilate were perceived by the people as the one responsible for the death of their popular prophet, then he might end up causing a ruckus or even a revolt that could very well lead to his own downfall.
Yet Pilate would surely have preferred to get Jesus out of the way somehow. Though he was not seditious in the ordinary sense – Jesus carried no weapons, organized no army, and had not assaulted any Roman authorities – nevertheless the Nazarene was clearly a rabble-rouser from Pilate's point of view. And even if he didn't explicitly espouse the overthrow of Rome, he certainly flirted with the seditious language of kingship.
Two other factors contributed to Pilate's reticence to execute Jesus. First, his interaction with Jesus convinced him that the Galilean was no ordinary insurrectionist. It's hard to reconstruct from the Gospel accounts exactly what Pilate thought of Jesus. If he truly believed him to be innocent and no threat to Rome, then it's unlikely that he would have had Jesus crucified. But, Pilate must have seen that Jesus was in a completely different league from the others he had crucified. (Of course I'm aware that Christian tradition paints Pilate as a truth-seeker who genuinely believes in Jesus' innocence. But this image doesn't fit what we know about Pilate from history, not to mention the indisputable fact that Pilate himself was, in the end, responsible for Jesus' death. It's very hard to imagine that Pilate was bullied, either by Jewish leaders or by the mob, into doing something that he really didn't want to do. I believe that many of the statements in the gospels that seem to reflect the "noble Pilate" were in fact originally spoken by the governor in order to incite the Jews to accept greater responsibility for Jesus' death, thus exonerating Pilate in the eyes of the people. Or, in other cases, I believe Pilate's tone was ironic or sarcastic. When he asked Jesus, "What is truth?" Pilate wasn't beginning a philosophical dialogue, but simply mocking Jesus, who had just spoken of "belonging to the truth" (John 18:37-38).
The second factor that contributed to Pilate's reticence to execute Jesus was a recommendation from his wife that he should "have nothing to do with" Jesus. Pilate's wife claimed to have "suffered a great deal because of a dream about him" (Matthew 27:19). Pilate, like most pagans, was in all likelihood quite superstitious, and his wife's nightmare would have spooked him as well.
From Pilate's perspective, what would have been the best outcome of this whole mess? Somehow get Jesus to stop causing trouble, but without inciting the people to riot. If silencing Jesus required his death, then so be it, but let it be someone else's fault other than Pilate's. If Jesus could be shut down by some other means – like flogging – then this would also be an acceptable option.
In my next post I'll finish explaining the necessity of Jesus' death from the Roman perspective of Pontius Pilate.
The Roman Perspective, Part 6
In my last post I began to describe Pontius Pilate's predicament on the Friday morning after Jesus had entered Jerusalem. The problematic prophet had been brought to Pilate by several Jewish leaders who demanded that he be crucified. But, for reasons I outlined previously, Pilate was reticent. Most of all, he didn't want to incite the crowds who had gathered in Jerusalem for Passover. Silencing Jesus was a fine idea, but, from Pilate's perspective, it had to be done in a why that protected him from the wrath of the Jewish people.
Pilate's Decision to Have Jesus Crucified
Pilate tried passing the buck. He told the Jewish leaders to judge Jesus themselves, but they averred that they couldn't execute him (John 18:31-32). He said, perhaps sarcastically, that they should go ahead and crucify him themselves (John 19:6-7), even though Pilate knew that crucifixion was legal only under Roman authority. At one point during the "trial" of Jesus, Pilate tried to pass the buck to Herod Antipas, who, as Tetrarch over Galilee, had the legal right to put Jesus to death. But Herod didn't grab the bait. Instead, he used his meeting with Jesus as an occasion to mock him (Luke 23:6-12). (Photo: Nicolaes Maes, "Christ Before Pilate," c. 1670.)
When the responsibility for Jesus' fate fell back upon Pilate's shoulders, he preferred to take the course of least resistance: have Jesus flogged, which would surely silence him for a while, and which, Pilate hoped, would keep the people from going on a rampage. But many of the Jewish leaders, combined with a mob that gathered outside of Pilate's headquarters, pressed for Jesus' crucifixion. Three factors seemed to have persuaded Pilate that executing Jesus was the best course of action. First, his reticence to kill Jesus appeared to put his loyalty to the emperor in doubt (John 19:12). Even the slightest appearance of imperial disloyalty could have terminal implications for Pilate. Second, the Jews who had gathered in his courtyard, although a tiny percentage of the current population of Jerusalem, were fervent enough in their desire for Jesus' death that Pilate believed he could convincingly lay the blame on them. Third, his reticence to crucify Jesus was itself starting to cause a riot, which was the very thing Pilate was attempting to avoid by not executing Jesus (Matt 27:24). So his primary motivation for keeping Jesus alive – maintenance of order – was no longer valid. Jesus had to die.
In sentencing Jesus to death, Pilate revealed himself to be devious, if not spineless. He sent Jesus to the cross. The responsibility for this decision was his – at least from a legal-historical point of view. Yet when announcing Jesus' fate, Pilate tried to avoid taking responsibility for his action. Symbolically washing his hands in front of the crowd, he said, "I am innocent of this man's blood" (Matthew 27:24). Of course this wasn't true. No matter now much others might have urged Pilate to take Jesus' life, in the end, he and he alone had the authority to make that fateful decision.
The fact that Pilate had Jesus crucified strongly suggests that he saw Jesus as a threat to Roman order. Though not your ordinary brigand or revolutionary, Jesus proclaimed the kingdom of God (not Caesar) and accepted adulation as a messianic (kingly) figure. Moreover, even if his answers to Pilate were minimal, Jesus didn't reject the charge that he claimed to be king of the Jews. So, even though Jesus wasn't your run-of-the-mill Zealot, he was still the sort of person who was dangerous to Rome, and was therefore worthy of death, at least from the Roman point of view.
Pilate's legal justification for crucifying Jesus appeared on the sign attached to Jesus' cross: "The King of the Jews." The wording and placement of this sign tells us much about Pilate's ultimate motivation for killing Jesus. On the one hand, Jesus was being crucified because he dared to make a claim to kingship. On the other, by identifying the crucified Jesus as "King of the Jews," Pilate was mocking Jesus, the Jewish people, and their kingdom aspirations – all in one ironic statement. In a manner consistent with what we know about Pilate from other sources, he was saying, "Here you go, you Jews. Here is your king – beaten to a pulp, powerless, a victim of superior Roman power." Furthermore, by crucifying Jesus, Pilate also held him up as a persuasive deterrent: "Next time you think about having someone other than Caesar as your king, remember the crucifixion of Jesus, the King of the Jews."
Why Did Jesus Have to Die? The Roman Perspective: Conclusion
From a Roman perspective, why did Jesus have to die?
• Because he disturbed Roman order.
• Because he spoke seditiously of a coming kingdom other than that of Caesar.
• Because he allowed himself to be called "King of the Jews."
• Because he made a nuisance of himself at the wrong time (Passover), in the wrong
place (Jerusalem), in the presence of the wrong people (Pilate and the temple
leadership under his command).
• Because his crucifixion would be a powerful deterrent that might keep other Jews from
following in his footsteps.
In my next post I'll begin to look at the death of Jesus from one Jewish perspective.
One Jewish Perspective, Part 1
Placing This Conversation in Context
Before I proceed to discuss one Jewish perspective on the necessity of Jesus' death, I must say a bit about the contemporary context for this conversation. For centuries, many Christians hated Jews. Part of the Christians' justification for their hatred was their belief that "the Jews killed Christ." Even though Jesus himself had called his followers to love their enemies, somehow the belief that "the Jews killed Christ" justified a very un-Christ-like hatred of all Jews. This sort of twisted reasoning contributed to the unspeakable horror of the Holocaust, in which over six million Jews were murdered by the Nazis.
The ugly history of anti-Semitism makes it difficult to talk objectively about Jewish involvement in the death of Jesus. If one suggests that some Jews were in some way responsible for Jesus' death, this person runs the risk of being labeled anti-Semitic. When I was in graduate school, I was encouraged to ask all sorts of creative and critical questions about early Christian history. But when it came to the death of Jesus, there was an unspoken rule that prohibited even discussing the possibility of some Jewish responsibility for the death of Jesus. The party line was that the Romans killed Jesus for their own reasons and that the early Christians made up the parts of the passion narrative that implicate Jews. The Christians did so, we were told, partly because they weren't getting along with Jews during the latter half of the first-century A.D., and partly because they wanted to improve their relationship with the Roman Empire. This theory – filled with more holes than Swiss cheese – was something my colleagues and I were not welcome to examine critically. It was simply off limits. The painful history of anti-Semitism required that the history of early Christianity be told in a certain way, whether it actually happened that way or not. (Photo: Anti-Semitic graffiti in Lithuania in 2005.)
Therefore, before I discuss Jewish involvement in the death of Jesus, I must say three things quite clearly:
1. Anti-Semitism is wrong. From a Christian perspective, it is a sin. No matter who was actually responsible for the death of Jesus, there is no excuse for anti-Semitism. It's something that Christians and all sensible people should oppose.
2. Even if "the Jews" were completely responsible for Jesus' death (which I've already shown to be false, given the involvement of Pontius Pilate), this would in no way justify anti-Semitism today.
3. Even if a Christian considered "the Jews" to be his or her enemies, that Christian would be compelled by the very words of Jesus to love the Jews, not to hate them.
4. Anti-Semitism is alive and well today (or, alive and sick, perhaps). All moral people, including Christians, should reject and oppose it. Anti-Semitism is morally wrong, unjustifiable, and unchristian.
As you can infer from this introduction, I am going to argue that some Jews were involved in the crucifixion of Jesus, and that they believed that Jesus had to die. But, I think it's historically incorrect to speak of "The Jewish Perspective" on the necessity of Jesus' death. If we wish to be accurate, we must talk in terms of "One Jewish Perspective" on the question: "Why did Jesus have to die?" I'll explain what I mean in my next post.
One Jewish Perspective, Part 2
Why "One" Jewish Perspective?
As a young Christian, I had a clear picture of what happened to Jesus in the last week of his life. This picture resulted from my knowledge of the Gospels, and, to a great extent, from images I had seen in Sunday School booklets and filmstrips. My mind had been impressed with scenes of Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, of his "trial" before Pilate, and of his being assaulted by Jewish leaders. These images led me to believe that Jerusalem in the time of Jesus was a relatively small town inhabited by a relatively small number of Jews, and that the same Jews who had welcomed Jesus into town as a king on Sunday had turned against him on Friday. From my juvenile viewpoint, "the Jews" of Jerusalem had, as a single group, both hailed Jesus and then condemned him. Since only a few close disciples supported Jesus until the bitter end, it would have seemed appropriate to me to speak of "the" Jewish perspective on why Jesus had to die. (Photo: Jesus on Palm Sunday in a classic film version of his life. For the other side of the story, check out this video from Vintage 21 Church.)
I no longer believe that my youthful picture of Jesus' last week was historically accurate, though I do believe that the New Testament Gospels provide historically reliable viewpoints on what really happened that week. For one thing, the actual scale of life in Jerusalem was far greater than anything I had imagined. As I explained earlier in this series, it's likely that the normal population of Jerusalem in the time of Jesus was around 35,000. But during the festival of Passover the population swelled to eight or ten times that number, perhaps even more.
This means, among other things, that a tiny percentage of the overall population of Jerusalem actually welcomed Jesus into the city on Palm Sunday or called for his crucifixion early on Good Friday. Since scholars cannot agree on the precise location of Pilate's headquarters, we cannot say definitively how many people might have gathered in his courtyard to call for Jesus' death. This number is probably less than 500, possibly quite a bit less. What this means, therefore, is that something like .2% of the Jews in Jerusalem were demonstrably eager to have Jesus crucified.
But, one might object, perhaps this tiny percentage represented the majority. This objection is unlikely for three reasons:
First, we know from the Gospels that Jesus was, for the most part, very popular among the masses (for example, Matt 4:25; 8:1; 9:8; 12:15; 13:2; 14:14; 15:30; 20:29; 21:8).Second, we also know that the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem who wanted to have Jesus killed hesitated precisely because Jesus was so popular among the masses there (Matt 21:46). Nothing in the Gospel records suggests that this popularity ended magically by Good Friday.
Third, in fact the Gospel records suggest that large numbers of Jews were deeply distressed by the death of Jesus. For example, as Jesus was walking along the Via Dolorosa, Luke tells us that "A great number of the people followed him, and among them were women who were beating their breasts and wailing for him" (Luke 23:27). Then, after Jesus was crucified, the crowds who "saw what had taken place, . . . returned home, beating their breasts" (Luke 24:48). In other words, vast numbers of Jews were horrified by the death of Jesus.
Thus it's historically accurate to speak, not of "the" Jewish perspective on the necessity of Jesus' death, but of several diverse Jewish perspectives. It's quite likely that the majority of Jews in Jerusalem did not want Jesus killed at all. But the perspective that had greatest impact on the fate of Jesus was that of Caiaphas and other principal leaders of Jerusalem. This is the "one" perspective I'll begin to examine in my next post.
One Jewish Perspective, Part 3
The Perspective of Jewish Leaders in Jerusalem
Although the majority of Jews in Jerusalem may not have wanted Jesus to die, or may have had no opinion either way, some of the most influential Jews did see Jesus' death as necessary. All four New Testament Gospels testify to the key role of the "chief priests" and other Jewish leaders in the effort to have Jesus crucified. The chief priests included the high priest Caiaphas, who was appointed by Pilate, and other priests who provided leadership, not only for the temple, but also for all religious and civic affairs in Jerusalem. Some other learned and powerful Jewish leaders joined with the chief priests in the effort to silence Jesus once and for all.
Although not providing specific names or titles, the first-century Jewish historian Josephus concurs with what we find in the New Testament. In his Jewish Antiquities, Josephus devotes a short section to the antics of Pontius Pilate. In this context the historian writes that Pilate, "at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us," had Jesus "condemned to the cross" (Antiquities 18.3.3). Unfortunately Josephus does not explain why these "principal men," presumably the chief priests and other leaders, had it in for Jesus.
Why did leading Jews in Jerusalem believe it was necessary for Jesus to die? Part of the answer to this question comes from the Gospel of John, in a scene where a group of Jewish leaders was debating the problem of Jesus' problematic popularity. "If we let him go on like this," they said, "everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation" (John 11:48). Jesus was stirring up the people with his message of God's kingdom and with his mighty deeds, and he wasn't the first to walk down this perilous road. Others had done so before him and the result hadn't been good for the Jews. Inevitably the Romans swept into Judea with their armies, slaughtering some, crucifying others, and taking still others into slavery. They had no hesitation about destroying an entire city if only some its residents had challenged Roman authority. So it would be logical for Jewish leaders to fear that Jesus might indeed bring down Roman wrath upon both the temple and the nation. (Photo: The ruins of a theatre in Sepphoris in Galilee. Shortly after Jesus was born, a man named Judas led a makeshift militia in a successful assault against the royal palace. Of course Rome didn't wink at Judas and his gang. Ultimately the Roman army recaptured Sepphoris, taking all of its residents as slaves and burning the city to the ground. (See my book Jesus Revealed, p. 104)
In the midst of this debate about the problem of Jesus, John records the counsel of the high priest, Caiaphas: "You know nothing at all! You do not understand that it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed" (John 11:50). Since Caiaphas did not believe that Jesus fit the job description of God's messiah, and since he shared with his colleagues the fear of Roman reprisals against the Jews, his argument made sense. Better that Jesus should die than the whole nation be destroyed.
When Caiaphas and his cohort finally captured Jesus and brought him to Pilate so that he might be crucified, their accusations touched upon several ways he was endangering the Jewish people. "We found this man perverting our nation," they said, "forbidding us to pay taxes to the emperor, and saying that he himself is the Messiah, a king" (Luke 23:2). When Pilate was underwhelmed, they added, "He stirs up the people by teaching throughout all Judea, from Galilee where he began even to this place" (Luke 23:5). In other words, Jesus was both undermining orderly Roman rule (forbidding taxes, claiming to be king, stirring up the people) and seducing the Jewish people to abandon their religious commitments (keeping the Sabbath, offering sacrifices in the temple, separating themselves from "sinners").
Although we Christians may want to argue that these accusations were false, it's easy to see how, from the perspective of the Jewish leaders, they appeared to be true, dangerously true. Moreover, we find in Jewish sources basic confirmation of what Luke puts upon the lips of the leaders. In the Babylonian Talmud (a fifth-century collection of earlier Jewish oral traditions), we read the following:
There is a tradition: They hanged Yeshu on the Sabbath of the Passover. But for forty days before that a herald went in front of him (crying), "Yeshu is to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and seduced Israel and led them astray from God". (b. Sanhedrin 43a)
Although the details don't fit perfectly with the New Testament accounts, the charges against Jesus confirm what we have already seen. Jesus was said to "practice sorcery," which is how his miracles would have appeared to his opponents, and which explains his ability to arouse the people. He also "seduced Israel and led them astray from God." How similar this is to the charges in Luke 23, where Jesus was said to have perverted the nation and stirred up the people.
The concerns of Jewish leaders and their desire to get rid of him would probably not have come to fruition except for something Jesus did to provoke their concerted effort to have him crucified. I'll examine this action in my next post.
One Jewish Perspective, Part 4
The "Crime" of Jesus
My last post in this series focused on the reasons why some Jewish leaders in Jerusalem believed that it was necessary for Jesus to die. The bottom line? He was a threat to their conception of faith and national life, indeed, to the very existence of the Jewish people. If left unchecked, Jesus would either pervert the Jewish nation with his peculiar notions of the kingdom of God, or he would bring down the wrath of Rome upon Judea, leading to its destruction. Either way, Jesus needed to be taken out of the game – permanently.
The concerns of the Jewish leaders, however pressing they might have been, would probably not have been enough to bring about Jesus' execution except for something Jesus himself did, something shocking, unexpected, and utterly unacceptable from the perspective of the Jewish leaders. I'm speaking of his activity in the temple, that which Christians call "the cleansing of the temple." Here's Mark's account of this scandalous action:
Then they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the moneychangers and the seats of those who sold doves; and he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. He was teaching and saying, "Is it not written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations'? But you have made it a den of robbers." (Mark 11:15-17)
How did the Jewish leaders respond to Jesus' action? "And when the chief priests and the scribes heard it, they kept looking for a way to kill him" (Mark 11:18).
Why was Jesus' behavior in the temple worthy of death?
First of all, he was suggesting that the current state of the temple was unacceptable and that the temple leadership – the chief priests – were unworthy of respect. They were like a bunch of robbers.
Second, Jesus actually prohibited the crucial function of the temple: the offering of sacrifices. From the point of view of the priests, he was keeping the Jewish people from worshipping God in the way God had prescribed – a serious if not a capital offense.
Third, Jesus' activity in the temple was consistent with his earlier actions, whereby he implied that the temple was no longer necessary. If Jesus himself could forgive sins (Mark 2:1-12), then why bother with the temple? Thus Jesus was saying to a temple-centered religion: The very center of your relationship with God is wrong. Such a critique would not be taken lightly by those who embraced a temple-centered Judaism.
But it wasn't only what Jesus did in the temple that provoked a negative response from the leaders, but also what he said. You see, by referring to the temple as a "den of robbers," Jesus was doing far more than insulting the chief priests. He was actually quoting from the prophet Jeremiah. In Jeremiah 7, the prophet condemned the tendency of Israel to put their faith in the existence of the temple. Many in Jeremiah's day believed that they could do all sorts of evil deeds without fear of punishment because God's temple was in their midst. The temple was their spiritual safety net, so to speak. But God was neither fooled nor pleased. So, through Jeremiah the Lord prophesied,
Here you are, trusting in deceptive words to no avail. Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, make offerings to Baal, and go after other gods that you have not known, and then come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, "We are safe!" – only to go on doing all these abominations? Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your sight? . . . And now, because you have done all these things, says the LORD, . . . therefore I will do to the house that is called by my name . . . just what I did to Shiloh. (Jer 7:8-14)
And what did the Lord do to Shiloh? He destroyed it and the tabernacle it once housed (Psalm 78:60).
In the day of Jeremiah, the people had turned the temple into a "den of robbers," a place of supposed safety for those who did evil deeds out in the world. For this reason, God promised to destroy the temple, which he did in 586 B.C. Similarly, by quoting from Jeremiah 7 as he overturned the tables in the temple, Jesus implied that the same judgment applied in his day. Those who took refuge in the temple could not presume to be safe. God was about to destroy the temple because of the sin of the people, even as he had done to Shiloh and to the first temple in Jerusalem.
Thus Jesus' action in the temple, combined with his words, not only insulted and upset the chief priests, but also conveyed God's judgment upon the temple itself. This crime against the temple could not be tolerated, as far as its leaders were concerned. Jesus, the blasphemous criminal, deserved, not only to be silenced, but also to die. In my next post I'll examine two fascinating parallels that will help us to see that the Jewish leaders who condemned Jesus were acting in ways fully consistent with their predecessors and successors. Right or wrong, they were doing exactly what Jewish leaders in their position had done and would do again. They thought they were defending God's temple and, indeed, God himself.
One Jewish Perspective, Part 5
Jewish Leaders Respond to Offenses Against the Temple
In my last post, I suggested that one of the major causes of Jesus' death was his "cleansing" of the temple. By interrupting the sacrificial system and by quoting Jeremiah's own condemnation of the temple, Jesus was threatening the very core of Judaism in his day. In the perspective of the Jewish leaders, this would have been blasphemy – speaking against God himself.
For those whose experience and viewpoint is far removed from that of the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem, it may seem that their intended punishment simply doesn't fit the crime. But, if we look for historical parallels, we find two incidents in which other leaders acted much as did Caiaphas and his associates when dealing with Jesus.
The first example comes from the ministry of Jeremiah, some 600 years before Jesus. The Lord told Jeremiah to stand in the Jerusalem temple and speak the following:
"If you will not listen to me, to walk in my law that I have set before you, and to heed the words of my servants the prophets whom I send to you urgently – though you have not heeded – then I will make this house like Shiloh, and I will make this city a curse for all the nations of the earth" (Jeremiah 26:4-6).
What response did this prophecy spark in the Jewish leaders and others? Sorrow? Repentance? Hardly! In fact, here's what happened:
And when Jeremiah had finished speaking all that the LORD had commanded him to speak to all the people, then the priests and the prophets and all the people laid hold of him, saying, "You shall die!" (Jeremiah 26:8)
There it is, the same pattern we see in the last days of Jesus: Speak judgment on the temple and the leaders will believe that you need to die. In the case of Jeremiah, however, he insisted that he was only passing on God's own message, so the people spared his life (Jer 26:12-16).
Now jump forward in history more than six centuries, to an incident that occurred about thirty years after the death of Jesus. Curiously enough, this incident involved another man named Jesus, son of Ananus (Hananiah), who came to Jerusalem during a feast an began to cry out "against Jerusalem and the holy house." According to the Jewish historian Josephus, Jesus' persistent proclamation of judgment on the temple and city offended "certain of the most eminent among the populace," which is to say, the leaders of Jerusalem. So, at first they beat Jesus severely. But when this didn't shut him up, they brought Jesus to the Roman procurator "where he was whipped [flogged] till his bones were laid bare." When even this didn't silence Jesus, the procurator dismissed this Jesus as a madman and a nuisance. (The story of this Jesus can be found in Josephus's Jewish War, 6.5.3.)
In this case of Jesus ben Hananiah, the Jewish leaders seem not to have pressed for his crucifixion. Of course, this Jesus didn't pose the same threat as Jesus of Nazareth once did, nor did he do anything resembling the cleansing of the temple. Yet, merely by proclaiming God's judgment on the temple, Jesus son of Ananus earned several beatings, including what must have been an almost fatal Roman flogging. And, like Jesus of Nazareth, the Jewish leaders dealt with him, first on their own and then by handing him over to the Roman governor.
The experiences of Jeremiah and Jesus ben Hananiah, though different in detail and time period, nevertheless illustrate how Jewish leaders were apt to deal with those who spoke against the temple. They were worthy of severe punishment, if not death. And when the Jewish leaders no longer had the authority to execute someone, they would turn him over to the Roman governor. Thus the actions of Caiaphas and his associates in response to the problem of Jesus of Nazareth reflect the same commitments and tendencies of similar leaders in similar positions. This greatly increases the likelihood that the historical scenario I have been proposing with respect to Jesus of Nazareth is, in fact, accurate.
In my next post I'll sum up what we have learned about "one" Jewish perspective on the necessity of Jesus' death.
One Jewish Perspective, Part 6
Summing Up One Jewish Perspective
In the last five posts I've been examining "one" Jewish perspective on the necessity of Jesus' death. Let me briefly summarize my findings, adding some observations along the way.
1. It's more accurate to speak of "one" Jewish perspective on the necessity of Jesus' death than to speak of "the" Jewish perspective because not all Jews agreed with the viewpoint of those who conspired to have Jesus crucified. Only a tiny percentage of Jews in Jerusalem were actually involved in the effort to persuade Pilate to execute Jesus. Moreover, the New Testament Gospels attest to the widespread popularity of Jesus among his Jewish contemporaries. "A great number" of those in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus' death were horrified by what had happened to him (Luke 23:27). Thus, if anything, the numerically dominant Jewish perspective would have supported Jesus. But those who held power in Jerusalem we able to do what the masses would not have wanted.
2. Some of the leading Jews in Jerusalem, including Caiaphas, the High Priest, sought to have Jesus crucified. Evidence for this comes not only from all four New Testament Gospels, but also from the Jewish historian Josephus.
3. The Jewish leaders who sought to have Jesus crucified believed that his death was necessary for the following reasons:
a. By stirring up the people, Jesus was threatening the peace and life of the Jewish people, thus increasing the likelihood that Rome would destroy both Jerusalem and the temple. The death of Jesus would be preferable to the destruction of the nation.
b. Jesus "seduced Israel and led them astray from God" (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a). His message and ministry lessened the people's commitment to living out their Judaism in the way approved of by the Jewish leaders (priests, Pharisees).
c. Jesus interrupted the orderly system of sacrifices in the Jerusalem temple, speaking against the temple and its leaders, thus opposing not only the core of Judaism, but God himself. Jesus' quotation from Jeremiah 7 ("den of robbers") combined with other things he had said during his ministry clarified his condemnation of the temple – a blasphemous offense. Moreover, he insisted that God was on his side, thus adding blasphemy to blasphemy.
d. Jesus presented himself as the Messiah, the one anointed by God to bring divine salvation to Israel. But he failed to do what the Messiah was supposed to do, notably, lead a successful revolt against Rome. Instead, Jesus turned his judgment against God's own temple. Thus Jesus was a false messiah. This fact alone might not have warranted his crucifixion. But, when combined with his other offenses, his false claim to messiahship increased further the chances that his actions would bring devastation upon Judea.
4. The efforts of Jewish leaders to silence Jesus by physical violence were consistent with what other Jewish leaders did in similar situations (vs. the prophet Jeremiah in Jer 26 and vs. Jesus ben Hananiah in Josephus, Jewish War, 6.5.3). This consistency greatly increases the probability that the Gospel accounts accurately portray the role of Jewish leaders. Caiaphas and company did exactly what Jewish leaders in their position thought they had to do when someone insulted or threatened the temple.
Implications for the Current Debate
Given this picture of "one" Jewish perspective on the necessity of Jesus' death, I want to draw out two implications.
First, it is historically irresponsible to say, "The Jews killed Christ." Yes, I'm aware that the Gospel of John uses "the Jews" in a way that seems to lay blame for Jesus' death upon "the Jews." But, when read in context, "the Jews" means "some Jewish leaders." Ultimate and legal blame for Jesus' death fell upon the shoulders of Pontius Pilate, no matter how he might have tried to wriggle out of it. Moreover, many, and quite probably the vast majority of Jews in the time of Jesus, did not want him killed, and were horrified when it happened. Given the tragic history of Christian anti-Semitism, we Christians must speak carefully and accurately about Jewish involvement in his death. The truth: some influential Jews believed Jesus had to die and sought to convince Pilate to crucify him.
Second, it is historically irresponsible to deny all Jewish involvement in the death of Jesus. Some scholars, no doubt responding to the horrors of anti-Semitism, have applied their critical scalpels to the New Testament records, cutting from them any implication of Jewish complicity in the death of Jesus. In their surgery, however, they bleed historical probability to death. In fact two ancient Jewish sources, Josephus and the Talmud, indicate that some Jews were involved in the death of Jesus and help us to understand why they would have been. Plus, the picture of Caiaphas and his associates in the Gospels makes historical and logical sense. These leaders were protecting that which they believed to be essential, including both the temple and their own civic/religious position. The actions of other leaders in similar situations confirm the conclusion that the New Testament Gospels paint an historical reliable picture of Jewish involvement in the death of Jesus.
Finally, there was another Jewish perspective on the necessity of Jesus' death, a perspective I haven't yet mentioned. It was the most important Jewish perspective of all, that of Jesus himself. To the question of why Jesus believed he had to die I'll turn in my next post in this series.


text:
Join BoatTest for FREE Now!
Own a boat? Please fill out the following options.
Enter in your email below to view all content
The largest bowrider in Cobalt's fleet has a whole lot of features typically found on a cruiser model. In addition, the 302 features something that the smaller guys can't- twin screw power; up to twin 425's!


text:
Thanks to MindLoveMisery's Menagerie for Friday's music prompt, "I Don't Want To Talk About It" by Rod Stewart. The song is loosely used in part three. Warning Part Three contains Adult Content.
"I Don't Want To Talk About It" – Rod Stewart
Tallia drove back to Fairy Dust as fast as her Vespa would take her without losing the giant fish off the Vespa's back compartment. She was feeling afraid because she knew Teegan would be nearly awake, but felt certain he would be in enough of a fog she would have time to make the potion he required. She prayed the tonic took his darkness away, the shadow that stalked him. But at the same time Tallia knew, the shadow was Teegan.
The presence of darkness lurked as Tallia quietly opened the back door, slipping inside her shop. She set the goldfish in his bag, down on a countertop and stood for a moment blinking tiredly. It was the middle of the afternoon and a wave of fatigue overwhelmed her. She had been up late thinking about Teegan, what he could have possibly done hundreds of years ago to be cursed so wickedly. She was thinking about him in other ways too, Tallia realized blushing.
She wasn't sure what she'd do if Teegan knew she'd drugged him, what he'd say or do. She didn't know how much in control Teegan was of his darkness right now. The wisest thing Tallia could do was make him his potion whenever he needed it, whatever kind of potion it was. She thought about the wisdom Teegan hopefully acquired in his centuries alive. Would it make him extra understanding?
Then again, she could be wrong. Some people never learned their lessons despite experience. Yet Tallia was sure, in Teegan's startling green eyes had been knowledge of dark deeds and lessons learned with difficulty. The blackness in his gaze almost had the affect of repelling Tallia at first.
At the same time, his emerald eyes were seductive and drew her too Teegan. No matter his real age, he appeared to be in his thirties. He was ridiculously good looking in the truest sense. She could smell his particular pleasing scent from where she leaned against the counter in the back of her store. Where she put together potions and caste spells for magical items customer's required.
Perhaps, it was her heightened sense of smell which brought to life Teegan's addictive scent, or maybe her memories were more vivid due to her attraction to him.
Tallia jumped when a voice whispered in her ear.
"Where'd you go? How come my potion's not made? I need it now Tallia," he whispered.
"Yep, I'm awake, thanks for the nap by the way. Did you find out what you needed too? I see you got the giant gold fish. You're worried about me and the shadow around me which makes you sick. You went and talked to Jude. He's been around over a century. Old for most humans, but not as old as me, Tallia."
"I didn't talk to Jude, he's in the hospital because he had a stroke and isn't doing well," Tallia sad with sadness." I talked to his great-grandson Aspen. He run's the store now I guess. He said you were cursed, that you did something terrible. That's why you've so much darkness. How do you make it go away Teegan? What happens if you don't take this potion?"
Tallia felt warm and comfortable and realized Teegan had moved to hold her from behind, his arms crossed against her stomach. Teegan's head suddenly lay against hers and she could feel him sigh as if he could finally relax. Tallia had never been so near to Teegan, she felt dizzy in good way. It felt wonderful to be held so gently, though she wondered if Teegan realized he had moved to comfort her.
Moments later, Tallia felt Teegan's lips firmly on the side of her neck, traveling up under her ear and sucking gently on her earlobe. His lips moved back down her neck to the v-neck of her sweater. He kissed her over her heart and Tallia shivered when his lips traced her neck, went over her chin, and landed on her lips. Her heart was racing, she felt hot and cold all over.
Teegan bit her lip gently, seeking access to her mouth. His tongue met hears with need. Tallia couldn't think, could only feel. Her connection with Teegan was something new to her. This sense of knowing him and recognizing him, beyond the physical sense. In her mind, she could feel him encouraging her to relax.
"I'll take care of you," he whispered.
Teegan kissed Tallia until she was breathless, his hands massaging her stomach, sides, and hips. His hand moved up to squeezing her breast over her sweater and short coat. She moaned when he broke off his the kiss leaving Tallia wanting. He breathed in the crook of her neck, his hand not moving, but not leaving either. It seemed as if hours had passed but it had only been minutes.
Teegan collected himself and moved a distance from Tallia as he spoke: "Tallia, I can't. I want to, but I shouldn't have done that; it confused you. I need you to make my potion now please. You're the only one who can do it. It has to be one of your bloodline. And if you don't I'll turn evil. I'll be a curse myself, a terrible man. I've done such evil because I'm cursed, or was before your gifted ancestor came up with this potion. It's the only way to keep me from turning, Tallia. You and I, we're tied together because of your ancestor. You remind me of her," Teegan remarked.
"You need to tell me the entire story. This isn't fair Teegan. Of course, I'll make the potion. But my Aunt never told me any of this. The cancer took her a way in so little time. I need more answers from you," Tallia pleaded.
"I don't want to talk about it Tallia. Make the potion. You're breaking my heart here," Teegan said rolling his eyes.
"What if I don't?"
"I'll be evil, as I've said and as I'm sure Aspen told you. I'll hurt you, probably kill you, and I don't want to do that. If I kill you, I'll be evil forever — until someone kills me. You're the last in your line. Make the potion, Tallia, we could be happy."
"Tallia, make it now! You know I'm not trying to deceive you. You can feel it."
"Yes, you're right. I do feel you're being genuine. I'll make it as fast I can."
Tallia gathered all the ingredients she had laid out earlier and brought them to an extremely large mixing bowl. She measured all the ingredients into the bowl quickly and accurately, barely thinking. She followed the directions in Aunt Willow's tome and chanted the right words when she needed to say them. Pouring out the water of the giant gold fish's bag in a sink, she slid the giant flopping gold fish into her bowl. With wide eyes she watched the potion simmer and turn scarlet.
Aspen had been right, the goldfish was a sacrifice of life. Although a mouse or anything small would've done the job, but her ancestor's writing said the giant goldfish was preferred. Tallia strained the chunks of ingredients from the mixture; the goldfish had disintegrated.
Tallia pulled a beer stein out of her cupboard to Teegan's surprise. She poured half of the scarlet liquid into the earthen beer stein. Teegan had been watching Tallia create the potion the entire time. He hadn't said anything, only watched her, familiar with her actions. He'd probably watched her Aunt Willow and her Great-Aunt do the same. And many of Tallia's ancestors, if she could believe his story.
She turned around from the giant bowl and found Teegan beside her, leaning against the counter studying her. His hand moved, pushing her light purple-grey hair behind her ear. He was so much taller than her, Tallia thought.
Teegan smiled when she offered him the beer stein."Where's yours?"he asked her.
"Where's my what?"
"Your half of the potion? You have to drink it with me," Teegan told her.
Tallia was about to protest but he was gazing at her in a particular way. She noticed the pain usually hidden in his eyes present. She felt it through her being and it softened her heart; her protests crumbled.
" I wish I wasn't so intuitive, Teegan. You do really need me to drink your tonic with you? Do you promise I'll be okay?"
"I promise. Your Aunt, she was always fine. You'll find it invigorating actually," he said.
Tallia nodded reading what Teegan had told her in the tome beside her on the counter. How did she miss that direction? Peering up she noticed him pouring her a beer stein of the remaining liquid. She took the potion from him, grimacing because she knew the ingredients in it. She tasted a bit of the potion, testing the flavour. It tasted like cinnamon and a woodsy red wine. How could that be?
"Bottoms up?" Teegan said holding up his stein.
Talia clinked her stein with his, "Slainte," she said.
Teegan's potion was easy going down. Tallia could feel a lightness, as if her cares were floating free. She felt energy, Teegan was right. His potion did feel invigorating. Her mind felt intensely perceptive as well. Swallowing the remenants of the liquid she saw Teegan had already finished his.
"Better, huh?" he asked.
"Yeah, it's amazing stuff," she said peering everywhere, everything around her was completely crystal clear. Her early fatigue was gone. Tallia noticed Teegan's dark circles had faded. He appeared younger, his few wrinkles smoothed out. He was gazing at her again in certain way, and she knew from the flicker in his green-eyes what he wanted. Tallia felt almost drunk, except the potion made everything feel real.
She laughed aloud and Teegan frowned,"What?"
"No you're not getting that from me," she said.
"It wasn't difficult to get a kiss and more from you before. You like me. I can tell, I like you too," Teegan said, eyes darkening and meeting her own.
"No," Tallia said laughing again. "You have to earn it. Take me out. Tell me about yourself and my ancestors. Did you sleep with one of my great- great – female relatives?"
"Don't you feel like you're burning up inside? I don't know what I'll do if I can't . . ." he said approaching Tallia, following her as if she were prey. "I slept with the first of your ancestors I knew, she was my . . . my woman, for a while. But she died and we never had a child."
Tallia backed away from Teegan smiling, wary but turned on at the same time. He was irresistible and Tallia found herself trapped against a wall. She laughed more as Teegan stripped off his shirt and unbuckled his belt. Her mouth ran dry seeing his finely sculpted body. He grinned and grabbed both her hands, holding her hands above her head. Tallia whimpered and Teegan chuckled.
"I'm not, I'm not a one night type of girl and you're . . . you smell so good. But you've lived so much longer than me, what could you possibly see in me," she murmured.
"You're not one night Tallia. I was thinking many many and I see you're beautiful and gifted; you're also intelligent.You didn't immediately trust me."
"Okay . . ." Tallia began but Teegan's lips roughly met hers and she gasped as his tongue invaded sliding against hers. His hands were everywhere beneath her shirt and bralette. Then her shirt and bralette were gone and his mouth was there and she couldn't contain her cries. "Oh no . . ."
He removed his mouth breathing hard, "Stop?"
"Oh please no!" Tallia said.
He chuckled and continued loving her with his mouth. "Teegan . . ." she whispered, feeling her body melt into his.
He pulled off the rest of her clothes, kissing her slightly round stomach and turning her around to kiss Tallia all over back and to her surprise, over her hips and bottom. His fingers found her center and rubbed below, circling her sweet spot, his thumb pressing against her.
"Please please. . ."
Teegan kissed her bottom again and turned her around so his head was level with Tallia's belly button. He kissed her stomach before thrusting two fingers into her core, she shook and nearly screamed. It hurt but it was okay because the pleasure of his fingers going in and out of her was intense. She wailed when his fingers took her over the edge.
He kissed her, his lips and tongue centered on her core. The sensations Tallia felt were indescribable. Teegan was teasing her, he knew she need to come again but wasn't letting her; he was making her wait for him. Teegan removed the rest of his clothes and gently lifted Tallia's body onto the counter. He pushed both his fingers inside her again, adding a third.
"I've never . . ." she whispered suddenly shy.
"At your age? I'm flattered, no one values that these days," Teegan whispered.
Tallia flushed, "Well it's complicated. It's gone but, I never had sex."
"What do you mean?" Teegan asked stopping. His voice sounded grim.
"Don't stop, don't," Tallia begged.
"Okay, but I will kill whoever did it to you," he promised.
Tallia believed Teegan, he appeared dead serious even though they were having sex."It's fine," she mumbled. "It was a university party. I was too drunk and fell asleep and he was there sometime. When I woke up he was gone and I hurt," Tallia admitted anxious for Teegan to continue loving her.
"Are you okay, are . . ."
"Please don't, don't stop. Please I need you."
Teegan nodded, understanding. "You've got me," he replied.He guided himself to her entrance and gently pushed inside.
"Good, more." Tallia said gripping his sides until Teegan was completely inside her. It stung and hurt but it was also the best feeling she could imagine when he began to move. She wrapped her legs around his waist and he whispered dirty things in her ear, all the things he wanted to do to her.
She felt his rhythm increase and her own body released again, more powerfully this time. She felt the final pushes of him in her body as he came. Teegan breathed heavily, holding Tallia and kissing her forehead.
Then, Tallia was crying, amazed tears were falling down her face. But Teegan gently hushed her and kissed her tears. It was hard for her to believe Teegan could ever be an evil monster. Tallia needed to know more about his past, when he was ready to tell her; she hoped it was soon.
©Mandibelle16. (2016) All Rights Reserved.


text:
OkTools - Темы, Cтатусы для сайта одноклассники.ру
od autora oktools
Extension for the site odnoklassniki.ru.
Version 4.0.1 changes:
- Added free stickers (sent to the posts and discussions)
- Added cards (sent to the posts and discussions)
- Beautiful formatting in messages sent congratulations unchanged.
- Added ability to send greetings or a postcard to several friends.
- Fixed problem with downloading music.
- Free gift OkTools sent to the user in a message on the home page.
- Many other minor fixes
Function plugin OkTools:
- Works with a short address of the site ok.ru
- Lock all advertising on the site odnoklassniki.ru
- Automatic prostanovka assessments when viewing photos.
- Shows the size and bit rate songs to download.
- Download all the songs from the page
- Search and installation status.
- Search and sending messages of congratulations and themes.
- Remove the "Settings" and "Help" in the main window OkTools
- Ability to turn off unnecessary features to reduce the load on the processor.
- Threads Oktools possible to set the standard selection page so classmates at http://www.odnoklassniki.ru/themes
- Added the function of moderation congratulations, you are charged for moderation balls.
- Added game
- Installation of the design of the site classmates
- Customizing the appearance of the site odnoklassniki.ru (hide different blocks, the visual effect it);
- Attaching and sending files in posts and topics.
- Easy access menu to the "Status", "congratulations", "topics".
- Buttons for quick access to the "Congratulations", "file" input field near the posts (under icons with smiles)
- Buttons conservation status.
- Save button congratulations.
- Rating statuses, greetings, themes.
- Toto rozšíření může přistupovat k vašim datům na některých webech.