Posted on 02/13/2004 11:51:10 AM PST by Mr. Silverback
The cover of the latest NEWSWEEK magazine asks the right question: "Who killed Jesus?" This has been a raging debate for a year, since Mel Gibson started his remarkable film project THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST. He immediately ran into a buzz saw of opposition from the liberal media and Jewish groups who were afraid the film would rekindle anti-Semitism.
Now, Jews have a legitimate concern about this. During the Middle Ages, Christians treated Jews terribly. In Russia there were pogroms against the Jews. And of course some of the maniacs around Hitler professed that they were killing Jews to purify the Christian race.
But is this sensitivity today well-founded? If we would look at history alone, we would have to say that Pontius Pilate certainly was guilty. Legend has it that years after the crucifixion he was frantically washing his hands trying to cleanse himself from the blood of Christ. And, of course, Caiphus the High Priest certainly bears his share of responsibility. So do the crowds who yelled, "Crucify him." So was it the Romans or the Jews, the venality of Pontius Pilate or the passion of the mob?
It was both and neither. The Jews didn't cause the death of Jesus, nor did the Romans. They were merely instruments carrying out what God had decreed. He sent His only begotten Son to die on the cross so that the sins of mankind might be forgiven. And those who take Scripture seriously have always known who killed Jesus: You and I and all other sinful human beings did so.
Mel Gibson understands this. In his movie, THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST, the hand holding the spike being nailed through Christ's wrist is Gibson's. Who killed Jesus? Mel Gibson knows. And he made the very point with his own hand that he was responsible, not the Jews.
Similarly the Dutch painter, Rembrandt painted THE RAISING OF THE CROSS as a self-portrait. As Christ hangs on the cross while it is being lifted into place, the soldier pulling it up is Rembrandt. Who killed Jesus? Rembrandt knew. He did. And I did. And you did. We're the ones who sent Jesus to the cross loaded down with our sins.
So enough of this foolish controversy. My advice to Christians is that you make it abundantly clear to your friends and neighbors that we are the ones responsible and then take them to see the film. Let them experience the passion and explain to them why it was necessary for Jesus to go to the cross. And be ready with a biblical answer for your Jewish friends who hear all of this propaganda, most of it stirred up by professional activists.
Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, says that it is not who is to blame that really has everybody up in arms. The media elite know that if people see this film, the right answer to the haunting question "Who Killed Jesus?" will be clear. What strikes terror into the hearts of the media elite is that people might once again be convicted of sin, repent, and come to faith in Christ.
So, three cheers for Mel Gibson. And thanks to NEWSWEEK for asking the right question, even if it does not have the right answer. But now it is up to us Christians to do our job to educate our neighbors and flood the movie theaters.
By a similar token, films have been made about Greek Gods, Mohammed, Adam & Eve, Hercules, King Arthur, etc etc etc, all based on source materials which are of no greater reliability than this "Bible" thing.
If I make a film version of Beowulf I required to say "any resemblance to any persons living or dead" etc etc at the beginning of it? What about Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon? Did Ang Lee "accuse" the lesbian-witch villain of that film (a "real person") of having done bad stuff? Can he "prove" she really did that stuff?
It seems to me that you're desperately seeking a reason to complain about this film. And, miraculously, finding one. To me the only real question is why?
The book of John?
I read a transcript tonight of the Diane Sawyer interview. It's linked on Drudge.
Nothing can stop this movie, or the effect it will have on those who see it.
What is "the Jews"? What is that supposed to mean?
As far as I understand, even by the most "extreme" account, it was (1) a majority of the members of the Sanhedrin (who turned him over to the Romans), and (2) the members of some crowd on some particular day (who begged for the Romans to spare Barabbas instead of Jesus).
We're talking like a few hundred individual people here, at the most, who share some direct or indirect blame. And they've all been dead for almost 2000 years.
What the hell does their actions have to do with "the Jews"?
The vast majority of "the Jews", even at that time, had no idea that this stuff was even going on.
That's a lie. It is not true that the 1/4 of humanity you refer to (=all Christians) has been taught that since they were very young. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
You, to Agnes Heep:
[The same documents upon which you predicate your belief in the earthly existence of Jesus inform me that certain Jews agitated for his death.] What year do the Gospels claim that the Jews did this?
You misunderstood. The Gospels DON'T claim "the Jews" did this in the first place.
Can you tell the difference between "the Jews" and some number of individual people 2000 years ago who were probably Judean?
If you cannot come up the year it happened, then stop making this accusation.
In what year did the Trojan War take place? If I can't name the year, does that mean that nothing like it happened? And therefore, that I'm not allowed to make a movie or story about it? (I'd hate to be the one to break this to Brad Pitt.) This is a very, very idiotic criterion you've invented. The chronological year in which many historical events took place is under dispute. That's not actually the test of whether they took place, let alone whether one is "allowed" to write/film a story depicting the event.
You to Texas2step:
The accusation was that certain Jews "agitated" for the death of Jesus. Prove it. Present some evidence that would hold up in court.
The "evidence" is in "The Bible", go check it out. But nobody is trying to prosecute anyone, which makes your demand ridiculous. The Bible is a book describing certain events. Believe that they occurred, or don't, I really don't care. But it should not be necessary to prove that events actually occurred in order to write a book describing events and/or film a movie depicting those events. If it were, the novel and 99% of cinema would vanish.
to Agnes Heep again:
Agitating for an innocent man's death, if not technically a crime, is certainly wrongdoing. [..] Do you mean people didn't use to mind being accused of murder without evidence?
It's not clear that Jesus was "innocent" of the charges against him, less clear that his execution was "murder".
Anyway, the people being "accused" of this "wrongdoing" are all CHARACTERS in a BOOK which you don't believe is true (i.e. don't accept as "proof") in the first place. So who cares? None of them actually existed so it doesn't matter, you may as well complain that The Usual Suspects accuses Keyser Soze of murdering lots of people. (You think the Judean characters in that crowd of people described in the Bible actually existed? Prove it!)
That is perhaps the most scurrilous accusation in the entire New Testament. The idea that "one man should die for the people" is entirely contrary to Jewish law. It is a Christian concept, not a Jewish one.
If so, it's a scurrilous accusation being made against FICTIONAL CHARACTERS in a book that (as revealed by your complaints) you don't take as proof of anything. So it doesn't matter!
You have no standing whatsoever to get upset that FICTIONAL CHARACTERS are being accused of something. If you think they aren't fictional, prove it.
You can't have it both ways (believing the Bible that a crowd of Jews assembled on a certain day, but disbelieving the Bible about what it has them saying). Talk about selective interpretation.
You really don't have a leg to stand on.
you to Terry Mross:
Could it be because the Jews are being accused of MURDER???
No, they aren't. At least speaking for myself, I am not accusing "the Jews" of anything (wouldn't even know how; statements of the form "the Jews did X" don't really make logical sense to me). Anyone who is, is wrong. And the Gospels - thus presumably Mel Gibson's movie since (I hear) it's taken from John - don't accuse "the Jews" of anything either. So what are you talking about?
Just wondering....
"...thieves, murderers, and other malefactors are God's instruments, which he uses to execute what he hath decreed in himself' (CaIv. Inst., b. 1, c. 17, sec. 5.)Even Calvin admitted it to be a horrible concept and claimed that it didn't make God the author of sin but in spite of his protestations to the contrary, he said,
"The devil and wicked men are so held in on every side with the hand of God, that they cannot conceive, or contrive, or execute any mischief, any farther than God himself doth not permit only, but command. Nor are they only held in fetters, but compelled also, as with a bridle, to perform obedience to those commands." (Calv. Inst., b. 1, c. 17, sec. 11.)
"God of his own good pleasure ordains that many should be born, who are from the womb devoted to inevitable damnation. If any man pretend that God's foreknowledge lays them under no necessity of being dammed, but rather that he decreed their damnation because he foreknew their wickedness, I grant that God's foreknowledge alone lays no necessity on the creature; but eternal life and death depend on the will rather than the foreknowledge of God. If God only foreknew all things that relate to all men, and did not decree and ordain them also, then might be inquired whether or no his foreknowledge necessitates the thing foreknown. But seeing he therefore foreknows all things that will come to pass, because he has decreed they shall come to pass, it is vain to contend about foreknowledge, since it so plain all things come to pass by God's positive decree."
--Calv. Inst., b. 3, c. 23, sec. 6.)
"I confess it is a horrible decree; yet no one can deny but God foreknew Adam's fall, and therefore foreknew it, because he had ordained it so by his own decree." (Calv. Inst., b. 3, c. 23, sec. 7.)Others attempted by rather Jesuitical reasoning to claim that, although God causes people to commit the action that is sinful, he himself is not the author of sin because he is under no law and, therefore, cannot do anything that is sinful. Fortunately, God's grace surpasses man's weird views of him and can enable someone to build a prison ministry like CC's.
P.S. Oh and by the way, not only can't you substantiate this, but it is vile slander. Ironically, while Mel Gibson isn't accusing "The Jews" of anything, here you are actually accusing "The Christians" of something.
I'm glad you clarified. Because of course "The Jews in that crowd on that day 2000 years ago" is different from "The Jews".
Surely you can see how this can cause confusion. After all, it's what this whole controversy is based on.
The Romans were all there on military duty. So the citizens where the Jews. They called themselves a "nation".
Actually, as another poster pointed out, there's no reason to believe that all the non-Roman-military members of that crowd were "Jews". There may have been many foreign onlookers, guest workers, I've read the Romans actually used Syrian peacekeepers, etc. Also even "Jews" was not some kind of monolithic culture but had different factions.
But you're close enough that I'll not argue the point. The main thing is to differentiate "the Jews IN THAT CROWD" from "The Jews". Some people can't tell the difference, I hope you can.
So, it was the Jewish Nation, or "the Jews", who were given the choice by Pilot.
Not really. Simple logic/geography/geometry/mathematics dictates that most of the Jewish Nation was not there on that day and had no idea that this stuff was taking place. What did those Jews who lived in other towns, for example, know of these events or the choice "they" were supposedly given?
If I was a Jew today ... I would say to those Christians who blame the "Jews", "Don't blame us. According to your beliefs the Father made us do it."
If I was a Jew today, I would say to those Christians who blame the "Jews", "Don't blame 'us'. Everyone who did this thing is DEAD. And even anyone who believes the Father made 'us' do it is spouting an idiocy; 'we' didn't do it, OTHER PEOPLE did, 2000 years ago. Maybe the Father made THEM do it, but not 'us'. I am a different person than those dead people."
Do you understand these concepts? Like the fact that a Jew alive today is actually a DIFFERENT PERSON than any of the Jews in that crowd? It's becoming unclear whether you do.
I don't know about that. Which chapter/verse "implies" this? What was a "Jewish leader", you mean Sanhedrin members? Okay, but why would they show up to this spectacle? They had already remanded him to the Romans and it was clear what his fate would be.
Not that any of this matters to anything.
P.S. Oh and by the way, not only can't you substantiate this, but it is vile slander. Ironically, while Mel Gibson isn't accusing "The Jews" of anything, here you are actually accusing "The Christians" of something.
I have more of an idea of what I talking about than you would like to believe.
I AM willing to admit that things are different now than, say, 50 or 100 years ago - we do, after all, live in a generally more tolerant age. As such, I withdraw the inference that 1/4 of humanity is presently taught, as part of their official religious education, the notion that "the Jews killed/murdered Jesus."
However, you would do yourself and the concept of reasoned debate a great favor by reading a book written by a now deceased Catholic priest on anti-Semitism: The Anguish of the Jews by Edward H. Flannery. In it he details the anti-Jewish teachings of the Catholic Church (and, to a lesser degree, many Protestant denominations) over the course of more than 1,500 years, as well as how many people who were and are venerated as saints were vile (to use your word) anti-Semites. My point (and his) is that such teachings don't go away so easily, that they are passed down from generation to generation even long after they cease to be official doctrine. Flannery - again, a Catholic priest, concludes that while the Holocaust was not caused by the Catholic Church, it would have been impossible for it to have occurred in the absence of the teachings of the Church over many centuries.
Until you recognize that what Flannery (among others-check out the bibliography of his book) wrote is true, and attempt to understand why such a phenomenon still affects the attitude of Jews, discussion between us on this matter is rather pointless. However, if after you have read his book or a similar one by another author, you are willing to discuss this issue in a reasonable manner, I will be very happy to do so in any forum you choose.
Peace and grace.
The key there is "one." In any debate about a subject that easily evokes great passion on both sides, there will be those who are so set in their ways that they will not listen to reason or be able to set aside their view that the other person is always wrong or always to be mistrusted. I, among many other Jews, recognize that in the last generation or so many Christians - both individually and as part of their particular Christian denomination's official theology - have been great and true friends of Jews and Israel. For this we are very thankful, as it represents a 180 degree turn from what our ancestors experienced.
FWIW, my observations over the last several decades have led me to the conclusion that those Jews who are more politically conservative tend to be more aware of this change, whereas those that are political liberals (in the modern, not the classic, sense of that word) are not. Like any generalization, there are many exceptions on both sides.
Peace to you, as well.
The Sanhedrin was: a) not unified on this matter; and b) not composed of ALL Jews. For you to say "the Jews" did anything is a complete misrepresentation of history, as well as a way of blaming all Jews of subsequent generations - whether that is your intention or not. Even if YOU don't blame anyone other than those who actually took part, such a blanket statement only gives aid and comfort to those hateful individuals that DO. Dr. Frank fan is 100% correct in this matter - maybe you ought to re-read his post #132 again.
Again, it's nobody's fault but God did "use" the Jews to get it done. And he used Judas and he used Pilot. None of them had a say in the matter.
What you say is: a) Your opinion, not backed up by a shred of historically proveable fact;
b) even IF true, a it is a reference to people who lived and died roughly 2,000 years ago - that's about 80 generations. I think it completely immoral and improper to blame any person for what their parents did - but your statement implies quite strongly that people can be blamed for what a small portion of their ancestors ALLEGEDLY did some 80 generations ago. You really need to reconsider the logic and the morality of your position;
c) directly contrary to the concept of Free Will. If we are but puppets on strings, existing only for G-d to play with for His amusement, then there is no point whatsoever to existence. Our existence only has a point if we are - each and every one of us - able to choose between Good and Evil...and not just once or twice in a lifetime, but constantly. Since G-d does NOTHING that is pointless, there MUST be Free Will. The lack of Free Will that you seem to think exists would justify every murder, rape, genocide or other act of evil as "G-d's will." That is a concept that any moral person with half an ounce of sense would utterly reject. IF Judas and Pilot did exactly what they are reported to have done, then it was THEIR choice...and the blood they spilled would have been on THEIR hands, and THEIRS ALONE.
Boy does THAT bring back memories...
When I was a young lad and was going to catechism classes, an old nun said as much to us all. The next day when I got to my public school I looked at my classmates who weren't Catholic and thought, wow they're all going to hell - but why? They were all nice. It seemed so unfair. Thank goodness that teaching was changed.
14 For you, brethren, are become followers of the churches of God, which are in Judea, in Christ Jesus: for you also have suffered the same things from your own countrymen, even as they have from the Jews:
15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and the prophets, and have persecuted us, and they please not God, and are adversaries to all men;
16 Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sin alway: for the wrath of God is come upon them to the end.
Witham - The Jews filled up the measure of their iniquities by the opposition they every where manifested to the religion of Christ. The earliest Fathers of the Church testify that they dispersed people into every nation to blaspheme the name of Christ; and hence sprang the evil fame which Christians bore among the pagans. See the apologies of S. Justin, Tertullian, Origen, etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.