Did Jews Kill Jesus? So What?

Vanity | 3/9/2004 | Charles Lipsig (Me)

[Celtjew Libertarian]

A few grists of thought for the mill.

[dennisw]

This film will be shown worldwide. So what will those audiences get from it as far as anti Semitism?

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Bump for an insight.

[anniegetyourgun]

"For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. " John 10:17

The scriptures are replete with the evidence that the death of Jesus was volitional and purposeful. Neither the Jews nor the Romans were even able to lay hands upon Him until the appointed time. He died for the sin of ALL mankind for ALL time in ALL ages.

This fixation on "who killed Jesus" points to our continued belief that somehow we have something to do with the eternal plan of God. How arrogant of little man.

[FITZ]

Maybe Nazis shouldn't be shown as Germans. People might get the wrong idea about Germans.

[R. Scott]

Actually, God killed His Son if you believe in the Judeo-Christian religions.
It was preordained that He would die. He had to die to fulfill the prophecies.
If the Christ had not died a terrible death, Christianity would still be a small sect of Judaism.

[Cold Heat]

This film will be shown worldwide. So what will those audiences get from it as far as anti Semitism?

Pretty simple formula.

What goes in, comes out.

Most foreign countries do not have a problem, for the few that do, I see no change whatsoever.

[Cold Heat]

He had to die to fulfill the prophecies.

This was accented in the film.

[Jim Noble]

God did what He could not, or would not, allow Abraham to do.

[anniegetyourgun]

And that's because any legitimate covenant can't be between sinful man and God. Only when the covenant is struck between the Holy One and God can we trust with surety.

[Salman]

We Jews are understandably touchy on this issue, but I gave Mel Gibson the benefit of the doubt, and so I saw one good movie.

I still have a problem with all the children in the theatre. Reading about it is OK for children, seeing it is quite another thing.

[kcamtx]

The Kenites accused him....the Romans executed him. The true decendants of Judah did not.

[conservativecorner]

Gibson thinks and I agree that we all sent Jesus to the cross by our transgressions and inequities. In the movie Gibson makes a cameo appearance when he nails Jesus to the cross. It's more than just a scene in the movie. It's Mel's public confession that he knows Jesus suffered and died at the hands of not only the jews and romans but all mankind.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Jesus was an anti-Semitic Jew, don'tcha know?

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Take a look at the politics of most of the critics. They're on the political left. And among the views held on the political left is support of affirmative action. Many on the left support slave reparations. Many blame American actions for the acts of 9/11.

In short, most of the left believe in collective guilt. They may not call it that, but penalizing members of certain groups and rewarding others for misdeeds in the past is collective guilt.

Leftism can best be understood as the political implications of the perspective of journalism.

Given a free, competitive journalism whose profits depend critically on circulation (if expenses are 90% of revenue, a 10% increase in revenue would double your profit), journalism should be expected to be dominated by the most facile and demagogic reporting--it's only natural.

And collective guilt is precisely a facile and demagogic excuse for lovingly retelling stories of past evils. A natural topic for cheap excitement. And as the example of reparations for slavery illustrates, the collective to which guilt is assigned need not exclude the target audience; the putatively guilty find it impossible to ignore the accusation.

So naturally, collective guilt is a component of the perspective of journalism--and the politician who sails down the propaganda wind of (so-called "objective") journalism--the leftist--is attracted to collective-guilt mongering. Link to this thread on the leftist perspective of journalism.

[Agnes Heep]

One thing a lot of people don't take into consideration is the political climate of first century Judaea. Jews there tended to see Roman occupation as intolerable, and there was always a radical element of the population or some isolated "prophet" ready to lead an insurrection against Roman rule. The leading political figures among the Jews were pragmatic enough (and probably self-interested enough) to appreciate the disaster that would fall upon the province if any one of those insurrections gained sufficient force to invite Roman retaliation. (Lest anyone doubt this, let him witness what happened between 66 and 70 a.d. when it actually took place--the entire province was overthrown, millions of Jews were either killed or sold into slavery, and Jerusalem was razed to the ground.)

Whatever may be said about the ministry of Jesus, it seems beyond dispute that, at least for a short time, he succeeded in exciting the public imagination, to the point where a popular uprising might well have been fomented. Under the circumstances, can anyone blame the leading Jews (or any Jew at all, for that matter) for wanting him out of the way?

[thoughtomator]

Considering all the pornography, violent images, and Leftist propoganda our kids are already inundated with, I would only worry about the sensitivities of the most sensitive of children.

There's a lot more implied than shown in this movie... except for parts of the flaying scene, most of the violence is off-camera.

Compare this movie to something like, say... Aliens, with creatures exploding peoples' stomachs on-camera - you start to realize that this movie isn't all that violent compared to a LOT of what comes out of our movie industry. I think the "too violent" cries are mostly people who don't realize how much they were fooled by great production and camera work.

[Blood of Tyrants]

As Mel Gibson said, "There were only two groups there. The Romans and the Jews. There weren't any Norweigans, there weren't any French. It had to be one of them."

But that is beside the point. The Old Testement in the Christian Bible is the same book the Jews read, containing the Torah, Chronicles, Kings, the books of Samuel, Psalms, Job, the major and minor prophets, etc. (the Christian bible does not contain the books of the Macabees). All through the Old Testement, there are prophesies that predict that the Jews of 2000 years ago would reject the Messiah that was sent to them.

Since we believe that Jesus WAS the Messiah, i.e. the divine son of God, he willinglly gave himself up. No one killed him without his consent. The Jews gave Jesus over to the Romans for execution, just as was prophesied.

John 19:11, Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above."

The people who would use "The Passion of the Christ" as an excuse to persecute Jews are NOT Christians, probably won't see the movie, and if they do, they won't get it.

If you go see it, do so with an mind open to the possibility that biblical prophesy is right and the Jews chose wrongly 2000 years ago.

http://www.jewsforjesus.com/

[tiamat]

Judea was a rough place. ( Still is) The locals would riot at the drop of a hat.

Before they trashed the joint, the Romans posted THREE Legions at Judea to keep it pacified, and that does not count the auxilae.

[Just mythoughts]

So what?


Interesting question, I suppose the question stems with a lack of knowledge and awareness of the prophecy penned by King David called in modern time Psalms 22. As it is written Christ taught this Psalms while hanging upon that cross.

You don't believe Christ you don't believe the OLD Testament.