Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Who Killed Jesus?: Setting the Record Straight
BreakPoint ^ | 12 Feb 04 | Charles Colson

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.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: charlescolson; crucifixion; thepassion
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-202 next last
To: stuartcr
Only someone that is perfect, that had never sinned, could be allowed into Heaven with God. God also promised, to those that love Him, a place with Him in Heaven. Because of this conflict, He sent His Son to die in my place, and in the place of anyone that accepts the sacrifice.

If it had only been one person saved in this way, He still would have died to fulfill His promise.
41 posted on 02/13/2004 1:02:57 PM PST by Ingtar (Understanding is a three-edged sword : your side, my side, and the truth in between ." -- Kosh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Chris Talk
Interesting, thanks for the clarification re "son of God".

I had read somewhere once that (what is translated as) "son of man" was, in the original Aramaic, a kind of circumlocution which just meant "I" or "me" - somewhat akin to someone saying, today, "yours truly" or something like that. I don't know what's the truth and am still pretty ignorant but am always curious. :) best,

42 posted on 02/13/2004 1:07:27 PM PST by Dr. Frank fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Frank fan
No, it is the Essene eschatological term for the Messiah, which appears in Daniel 7 and elsewhere in Scripture.

As I noted, it is "ben-h'adam" (ben-huh-DAHM), and means "son of the Earthling," translated as "son of man" in the NT...
43 posted on 02/13/2004 1:10:48 PM PST by Chris Talk (What Earth now is, Mars once was. What Mars now is, Earth will become.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Francisco
Even Augustine gets to be wrong once in a while.
44 posted on 02/13/2004 1:16:29 PM PST by Mr. Silverback (Pre-empt the third murder attempt-- Pray for Terry Schiavo!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
During the Middle Ages, Christians treated Jews terribly.

This line is nonsense. Real Christians don't treat anyone terribly. Lots of people claim to be Christians, but aren't.

45 posted on 02/13/2004 1:19:01 PM PST by Protagoras (When they asked me what I thought of freedom in America,,, I said I thought it would be a good idea.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
One could say the roman with the spear killed him.

Actually, He was already dead, the soldier couldn't have killed Him:

John 19:32-24:
So the soldiers came, and broke the legs of the first man and of the other who was crucified with Him; but coming to Jesus, when they saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs. But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out.

46 posted on 02/13/2004 1:21:53 PM PST by lupie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
y'all know, right, that except of the ultra-orthodox catholics, we are all going to hell? Heck, Mel Gibson has publically said that his wife (an episcopalian) is going to hell. just an interesting point, why would you voluntarily give money to someone who thinks you are going to hell?
47 posted on 02/13/2004 1:24:25 PM PST by plastic_positive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MosesKnows
Who asked?

Newsweek, among others. Did you bother to read the article before posting?

48 posted on 02/13/2004 1:25:12 PM PST by Mr. Silverback (Pre-empt the third murder attempt-- Pray for Terry Schiavo!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: azhenfud
Saint John Chrysostom
Since there are some who think of the synagogue as a holy place, I must say a few words to them. Why do you reverence that place? Must you not despise it, hold it in abomination, run away from it? They answer that the Law and the books of the prophets are kept there. What is this? Will any place where these books are be a holy place? By no means! This is the reason above all others why I hate the synagogue and abhor it. They have the prophets but not believe them; they read the sacred writings but reject their witness-and this is a mark of men guilty of the greatest outrage.

Tell me this. If you were to see a venerable man, illustrious and renowned, dragged off into a tavern or den of robbers; if you were to see him outraged, beaten, and subjected there to the worst violence, would you have held that tavern or den in high esteem because that great and esteemed man had been inside it while undergoing that violent treatment? I think not. Rather, for this very reason you would have hated and abhorred the place.

Let that be your judgment about the synagogue, too. For they brought the books of Moses and the prophets along with them into the synagogue, not to honor them but to outrage them with dishonor. When they say that Moses and the prophets knew not Christ and said nothing about his coming, what greater outrage could they do to those holy men than to accuse them of failing to recognize their Master, than to say that those saintly prophets are partners of their impiety? And so it is that we must hate both them and their synagogue all the more because of their offensive treatment of those holy men.

Why do I speak about the books and the synagogues? In time of persecution, the public executioners lay hold of the bodies of the martyrs, they scourge them, and tear them to pieces. Does it make the executioners' hands holy because they lay hold of the body of holy men? Heaven forbid! The hands which grasped and held the bodies of the holy ones still stay unholy. Why? Because those executioners did a wicked thing when they laid their hands upon the holy. And will those who handle and outrage the writings of the holy ones be any more venerable for this than those who executed the martyrs? Would that not be the ultimate foolishness? If the maltreated bodies of the martyrs do not sanctify those who maltreated them but even add to their blood-guilt, much less could the Scriptures, if read without belief, ever help those who read without believing. The very act of deliberately choosing to maltreat the Scriptures convicts them of greater godlessness.

If they did not have the prophets, they would not deserve such punishment; if they had not read the sacred books, they would not be so unclean and so unholy. But, as it is, they have been stripped of all excuse. They do have the heralds of the truth but, with hostile heart, they set themselves against the prophets and the truth they speak. So it is for this reason that they would be all the more profane and blood-guilty: they have the prophets, but they treat them with hostile hearts.

49 posted on 02/13/2004 1:26:30 PM PST by Francisco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
Who killed Jesus?


Word is, the only appearance of Mel Gibson in this movie is the hand that was holding the nails. 'nuff said.
50 posted on 02/13/2004 1:28:32 PM PST by fidelis (fidelis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: plastic_positive
just an interesting point, why would you voluntarily give money to someone who thinks you are going to hell?

Why wouldn't you? Maybe he made an interesting movie that you'd like to see or something. So you'd give him money in exchange for being allowed to see the interesting movie. Both win.

In this transaction, what the heck do you care what the guy who made the movie thinks about whether you're going to hell? No skin off your nose. (Or is the problem that you believe him?)

There's a lot of guys who believe and/or do wacky things that I'd "give money" (in exchange for a good or service) to. Sticking with movies, Roman Polanski is a damn jerk but I thought The Pianist was quite good, not to mention Chinatown, and Rosemary's Baby which I get a kick out of.

More generally, even outside of the world of movies, even when you go down to the local 7/11 and buy a candy bar, you're giving some stranger money, and for all you know, maybe he thinks you're going to hell.

who cares?

51 posted on 02/13/2004 1:30:28 PM PST by Dr. Frank fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
I didn't know He was dead.
52 posted on 02/13/2004 1:30:51 PM PST by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: plastic_positive
y'all know, right, that except of the ultra-orthodox catholics, we are all going to hell?

Anyone who believes that you only go to Heaven if you're a Catholic hasn't read Romans.

Heck, Mel Gibson has publically said that his wife (an episcopalian) is going to hell. just an interesting point, why would you voluntarily give money to someone who thinks you are going to hell?

If I had a buck for every time we've discussed this movie on this forum and somebody said, "Mell Gibson said/believes [fill in misquote/ludicrous bovine effluent charge here]" I would be writing this from the back of my stretch limo. Citation, please?

53 posted on 02/13/2004 1:34:58 PM PST by Mr. Silverback (Pre-empt the third murder attempt-- Pray for Terry Schiavo!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
Who Killed Jesus?: Our sins Killed him yours ,mine , everyones Living and dead justborn and not born its on all of our heads

But the sweetest thing about this is We are forgiven for it through his stipes we are healed and through his blood we are saved

God bless Jesus Christ and God Bless You !

Amen

54 posted on 02/13/2004 1:35:08 PM PST by ATOMIC_PUNK ("If silence is a virtue then why are so many people screaming" ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
I didn't know He was dead

Well, He isn't right now...

55 posted on 02/13/2004 1:37:09 PM PST by Mr. Silverback (Pre-empt the third murder attempt-- Pray for Terry Schiavo!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: azhenfud
Thus exonerating the Roman's. For the Jews knew precisely what they were doing and their punishment is not yet complete according to scripture, but Christ said of the Roman's "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do". Nevertheless we all are the cause and beneficiaries, of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten Son of God.
56 posted on 02/13/2004 1:38:01 PM PST by wita (truthspeaks@freerepublic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Frank fan
Good points.
57 posted on 02/13/2004 1:38:28 PM PST by Mr. Silverback (Pre-empt the third murder attempt-- Pray for Terry Schiavo!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: fidelis
Judas got a bum rap, too. He had no choice in the matter no more than Peter had a choice in denying he was with Jesus.
58 posted on 02/13/2004 2:05:03 PM PST by Terry Mross
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: fidelis
But why can't we be honest. It WAS the Jews who made the decision. Yet, they no choice in the matter either. So what's the big deal?

What I don't understand is the Jews don't accept Jesus as the Messiah. So why should they be so concerned that people who do accept Him would be upset at them for killing him.
59 posted on 02/13/2004 2:07:47 PM PST by Terry Mross
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Inyokern
I suppose this article from a noted Christian author and speaker means nothing to you.

More about what we actually believe, than what you think we believe. Just thought I would ping you. I noticed that you chimed in earlier about "proof" again, but you're not really reading what people are writing.

Get this, Inyo. It matters not to us who was physically instrumental in playing a part in God's plan to sacrifice His Son for our sins. It only matters that He did.

Get over YOUR hang up about what part the Jews played a role in His plan. The Jews are God's chosen people. Why would he leave them out of such a significant part of His plan? He didn't.

The bottom line, Inyo: Christians do not place the blame of the death of Jesus on "the Jews". That's what you want to believe, but it simply isn't true.
60 posted on 02/13/2004 2:25:22 PM PST by Texas2step
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-202 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson