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.
Yes they did (or at least, a majority of them, or something like that). Yes they were the historical analogue of what we today call Jews.
I thought you had been implying that the(se same) Jewish leaders were all "there" that day (some time later, Jesus already in custody) when Pilate asked some mob of people whether he should spare Jesus or some other guy, a "thief" called "Jesus Barabbas". Again: I see no reason to believe that they (the Sanhedrin) were there (in that crowd). They had already decided to turn Jesus over to Pilate (like, the previous day perhaps?) and now Jesus was in Roman custody. By the time of the "Barabbas" question most Sanhedrin were probably home relaxing or whatever.
This stuff didn't all happen simultaneously.
Again, it's nobody's fault but God did "use" the Jews to get it done.
No, God used some Jews (if that's what you believe). Not "The Jews".
So, maybe the Christian world should be thanking the Jews. They gave us Jesus of Nazareth and they gave us our Saviour.
In the sense of the cultural legacy they passed on to "the Christian world", there's no "maybe" about it: without Judaism there'd have been no Christianity. Yes Christians should "thank" "the Jews", I suppose.
But not because "they" got Jesus killed. "They" didn't. At most, some of them did!
Fair enough. This is precisely what was under dispute.
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
But this was never under dispute. If this is all you had said, I wouldn't have argued.
Until you recognize that what Flannery (among others-check out the bibliography of his book) wrote is true,
But I do and always did.
Again, since there seems to be confusion, I was only disputing your actual assertion, that some "1/4 of humanity" (a reference to essentially, "all Christians") have been taught since very young that "The Jews" "killed Jesus". Your exact phrasing was, "On the other side you have about 1/4 of humanity who've been taught since...". Note the use of the present tense "have" (not "had"); this seemed to imply that you were talking about the current state of affairs (as opposed to historical).
As you have since withdrawn that aspect of the assertion, we have no further argument. I might add that when accusing others (such as Mel Gibson) of slandering an entire people, one might do well to choose their words more carefully to avoid even the appearance of doing the same. Best,
5 But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.
According to the bible, the Lord God killed Him. Jesus' death was a sacrifice. Up until Christ, man made the sacrifice to God, but in the end, the Lord had to make the ultimate sacrifice. This is why He could ask Abraham to offer Isaac on the mountain.
Isaiah 53
10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.
Since this is what you said and you refuse to back away from it, there's no good reason for anyone to "lighten up" on you.
One can only point out your perpetual error so many times, however, and sheer exhaustion may win the day.
I don't happen to be a Christian (or a Jew). I don't believe in either the inerrancy or the inspiration of the bible. I think the gospels are (in varying degrees from one to the other) slanted against the Jews. I don't believe for a minute that Pilot, by all secular accounts a hard-nosed and no nonsense Roman governor, turned a seditionist against Rome over to the Jews for trial. I think the gospel accounts are cast to make the Christian sect seem less threatening to Romans (saying, in effect, "we don't hold you Romans responsible for killing our God") and avoid association with Jews who had, after all, recently been in open revolt against Rome.
All that being said, the attacks against Gibson have been unfair. From everything I've heard his movie, and he himself, clearly emphasizes the higher theological meaning -- that all humans are responsible for the suffering and death of Jesus -- as described by Colson.
Living in a college town, and one where even the bedroom communities have a surfeit of aging hippies, I come across vicious bigotry against theologically conservative Christians (and ludicrously paranoid views about their control of right-wing politics) with depressing regularity. Even though I'm a nonreligious "philosophical theist," I find myself refuting such nonsense so often that I'm almost ready to claim the status of "honorary evangelical". Anyway, I'll be keeping this Colson article handy. Sadly I'll probably have occasion to use it.
Exactly right!
And Jesus said, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."
- Luke 23: 34
"1 Corinthians 15:
12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain."
Correcting errors is an "attack"?
Again, the idea that "The Jews" killed Jesus, got him killed, made the decision to get him killed, etc., is not just a "belief", it's logically incoherent. "The Jews" CANNOT engage in a specific action which is localized at some particular time; some Jews can, but not "The Jews". It literally makes no sense to say this.
At times you seemed to demonstrate understanding of this by backing away from the phrasing, yet still seemed to feel the need to cling to some statement casting some blame in The Jews' direction. ("but their leaders were there..", which even if true proves WHAT exactly?)
But in your #146 you revert back to the original phrasing: ""The Jews". Yeah, I said THE Jews."
As long as you cling to this asinine error, don't expect not to be corrected on it. (Particularly given the history of Jews being persecuted based on just this illogic.)
I respect genuine good-faith beliefs (like that the Sanhedrin 2000 years ago delivered Jesus to the Romans because God caused them to - that's a belief and I would never "argue" with it). The problem is when someone says something nonsensical like that "The Jews" got Jesus killed, and tries to shield it from criticism by calling it a "belief". I don't have to respect this any more than I'd respect the "belief" that 2+2=5.
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.