[jeffkrol]

Palin's "blood libel" statement has stirred a lot of debate as to it's pro's and cons but one article raised an interesting side note. That of the "responsible party" of who caused the crucifixion of Jesus...
Being raised Catholic the old stories were really what I knew.
the "blame" was always on the Jewish leadership but of course Rome was the be all do all power and had ultimate authority over all in their "occupied territories".
The reason the following article is so troubling is that it seems to be quite a "stretch" and a whitewash of what happened. Granted almost all sources at the time (what few there are) need to be questioned BUT it seems this statement

Had the Jews been guilty of any of these heinous acts, the charge would not have been a libel.

Jews did not kill Jesus.

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach: Sarah Palin Is Right About 'Blood Libel' - WSJ.com
So the WSJ article goes on to say Palin is correct in her use of the term BUT I question the tactic of the author..
Certainly Rome carried out "the act" but to imply the Jewish powers at the time had NOTHING to do with it AT ALL just shows the bald face twisting of the truth that is so common in our current media discourse..
The most scholarly article I could quickly find:
The Trial of Jesus: An Account

The Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, writing in the 80s or early 90s C.E., indicated that both Jewish leaders and the Roman prefect played roles in the crucifixion of Jesus:
About the same time there lived Jesus, a wise man for he was a performer of marvelous feats and a teacher of such men who received the truth with pleasure. He attracted many Jews and many Greeks. He was called the Christ. Pilate sentenced him to die on the cross, having been urged to do so by the noblest of our citizens; but those who loved him at the first did not give up their affection for him. And the tribe of the Christians, who are named after him, have not disappeared to this day.

Josephus would have no reason to attribute a non-existent role to "the noblest of our citizens," so it is probably safe to assume that Jewish leaders did encourage Pilate to crucify Jesus. Questions remain, however, as to what form that encouragement took--and how willingly or unwillingly Pilate responded to their encouragement.

nonchristianaccounts
Though us on the left sometimes have errors in thinking we have yet found a need to rewrite all of history in order to "win" an argument......
It's getting tiring......

[reeftool]

A real Christian will tell you that Jesus paid the penalty for sin of all men, so everybody is responsible. A little reading of the New Testament will tell you that the leaders of the day were mere puppets in a spiritual battle taking place. These arguments are meaningless.

[Nesster]

A real Christian will tell you that Jesus paid the penalty for sin of all men, so everybody is responsible. A little reading of the New Testament will tell you that the leaders of the day were mere puppets in a spiritual battle taking place. These arguments are meaningless.

Personally, even as a kid I felt Judas got a bum deal: without him the whole sacrifice for all our sins thing would not have happened. Shouldn't we be honoring him instead?

[Sparkle]

The only logical philosophical explanation is that everything is predestined. If the so-called father god were here today he would be locked-up for child abuse and likely put to death (as if that were possible). What kind of intelligence is required to create a world with the systems we have. Any idiot would do a better job. That's why the whole thing is simply an accident. "Out of chaos came order." Chaos theory allows for the possibility and it did occur. Amen. (Just read the last comments. Put my two cents in! Worth two cents! )

[Matt Miller]

"I stand, yes I do, for the Christ killing Jew"
- Dewey Cox