Posted on 03/28/2005 5:03:23 AM PST by RedBloodedAmerican
Consider the facts:
It seems to me that the folks who confuse these matters misunderstand the real character and true identity of Jesus. Actually, many people reinterpret the life and purpose of Jesus to fit their own agendas. They recreate Jesus to fit a pattern they prefer. Perhaps that is what happened in Mr. Gibson’s film.
The producers substituted bread for matzah in the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Whether intentional or not, this error moved Jesus to a place outside the flow of Judaism. It is well known that Jews were forbidden to eat leavened bread during the time of Passover. To ignore this lowest common denominator that Jesus shared with the Jews of His community is to ignore that He was a faithful member of the Jewish community. If He can be extricated from His situation in life as a Jewish man in the first century, He can be recreated and recast in anyway that anyone chooses. In essence, He could be molded to fit the need anyone wished for Jesus to fill. But Jesus does not change at our insistence; we change at His. God does not change; He is perfect. We must change because we are imperfect. This may seem like an abstract philosophical concern, but it is not. It is a fundamental truth and we must let Jesus be Jesus. If we are permitted to modify Him to suit our fancy then we become God and He becomes our servant. That is why I refuse to ignore that the Last Supper was a traditional Jewish Passover. To make it less is to rob Jesus of His heritage on this earth. Of course that is the pattern for many Christian traditions. Leonardo Da Vinci had the same problem when he was commissioned to create The Last Supper for the Convent of Dominican friars at Santa Maria delle Grazie in Milan. If one looks carefully at this most famous religious painting, the traditional Gentile dinner rolls will become evident.
Jesus was born into the line of Jewish kings. Christians believe He is King eternal. Had He been born into a non-Jewish home, He would have been discredited from inheriting this throne. The prophetic mantle would have remained unfulfilled. Had He sinned in His dietary regimen eating food not kosher for Passover, He would have been disqualified as a perfect sacrifice and the Cross would have been pointless in the Father’s plan of salvation. If we ignore the small details of the food Jesus ate at His final Pesach seder, it becomes easier to ignore other details, such as the clothing Jesus wore.
Consider what the poor woman with the issue of blood would have done if the wardrobe designer from Mr. Gibson’s film had outfitted our Savior? She touched the “hem” of His garment and was healed according to Matthew 9:20. To the uninitiated reader, it might seem that Jesus wore Levi Docker slacks and the woman grabbed the neatly turned, starched hem of His pleated trousers gently draping over His penny loafers. Of course that would be quite ludicrous to suggest because everyone knows Jesus did not wear slacks. Would dressing Jesus in slacks be anymore foolish than presuming He disobeyed the commands of Numbers 15:38 and disregarded wearing His tallith with the proper long tsithith—fringes in the corners? According to Jewish practice and the best scholarship, it is these fringes that the women touched. It was not the hem of His trousers, it was the borders (corners or wings) where the tsithith hung.1
If we can quietly allow Mr. Gibson to separate Jesus from His Jewish food and His Jewish dress, we can begin to disentangle Him from His other Jewish characteristics. That is why the subtitle of this book asks the question, Did the Jews Kill Christ or Has Someone Stolen His Identity? The Jews are not to blame for His death. I believe He lives! There is no body. The accusation of murder is a moot point in light of the Resurrection. The crime is in how Jesus is usually represented. Many groups have stolen His identity.
That is how the founder of The Great Passion Play of Eureka Springs, Arkansas, promoted Jesus. He presented images of a blond-haired, blue-eyed, WASP Savior. Jesus was the victim of identity theft. He stole the true identity of Jesus and created a fairy tale Christ invented in his vain imagination. The Bible commands us not to worship false gods, yet that is what happens when we worship an idea of God that is a fabrication. This can happen quite easily if we become distracted from worshipping the God of the Bible and begin to serve an illusion about God presented by false teachers.
WILL THE REAL JESUS PLEASE STAND UP?
If a heretic can separate Jesus from His own people, he becomes capable of casting Jesus as a member of any people. Yasser Arafat declared that Jesus was a Palestinian. It served Arafat’s political purposes. If no one points out the lunacy of such errant claims, the alleged Palestinian Jesus serves Arafat obediently. The very thought is sacrilegious at numerous levels.
My wife and I recently visited a huge outdoor flea market. One seller had a plethora of Christian art. My favorite was the “Black Last Supper” where an African-American Jesus was surrounded by African-American disciples. Though this odd vision drifted further than Mr. Gibson’s, I was at least pleased to see there was no pork identified on the table. I did comment to my wife that the dinner rolls were a nice touch. They were attractive in the spirit of DaVinci. Embracing Jesus as one of their own apparently serves the African-American community. It is always wiser to serve Jesus as He is than to expect Him to serve us as we are.
Jesus was neither Aryan, nor a Nazi sympathizer. Yet that is how He was portrayed in the 1934 presentation of the most famous passion play of Europe. It was a crime of identity theft that permitted the Oberammergau Passion Play to insure that all of the main characters were Aryans during the Nazi era. Hitler loved it and insisted it be preserved forever to show the world the menacing story of the Jews. The show still goes on. Jesus served Hitler in that presentation, but Hitler never served Jesus.
Neo-Nazis and Christian Identity adherents declare Jesus was not Jewish. The heretical proponents of British-Israelism shift the heritage of Jesus and the promises of God from the Jewish people of Israel to the Anglo-Saxon people in Great Britain. They don’t want to be confronted by a Jewish Jesus. Of course, neither did the Catholic leaders of the Cathedral of Florence, when they commissioned Michelangelo to create the larger-than-life statue of King David (23 feet tall on pedestal). If you dare to peek, David was cast as an uncircumcised Gentile. In a truly classic faux pax, the 1988 edition of the World Book Encyclopedia described Michelangelo’s artistry as “best known for his treatment of the human body . . . but is never false or artificial. See the picture of his statue of David with the David article.”2 How could they not notice? Apparently, the Church could not tolerate a Jewish hero. In their view, it was wise to recreate David as one like themselves, instead of one like their enemies. That could have been an embarrassment.
The gay community desires to paint Jesus as a homosexual. The women’s liberation movement prefers goddesses to God and they have cast Jesus as a woman. The truth is that once Jesus is removed from the pages of the Bible, there is no anchor to hold people to truth and Jesus to His birthright.
Jesus was a poor, itinerant, Jewish rabbi teaching in the Galilee region of ancient Israel. Yet modern prosperity preachers would have us believe that Jesus was a well-to-do, name-it-and-claim-it faith preacher in an Armani robe, Gucci sandals and a Rolex sundial. If you listen to some prosperity-preaching charlatans with nice hair and big churches, you’d think God had dumped the poor people to shower all His blessings on the fat cats and major donors.
Perhaps you’ve heard that some are asking, WWJD—What would Jesus drive? Well, Jesus didn’t tool into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday driving a donkey named Mercedes.
Like a famous American general, Jesus is coming back. But the Second Coming of Jesus will bring eternity. He is Lord of peace and Lord of the judgment.
This work is intended to be taken seriously so it is inappropriate to contain too much sarcasm. Yet there is a great irony that many seem to miss. Jesus does not need us to make Him more appealing to those who reject Him. We need Jesus to make us more appealing to those who reject Him because of us. Jesus is sufficiently winsome and wonderful that anyone who considers the true nature of Christ can easily identify the virtue that dwells in Him. It is only when we betray His love by representing Him reprehensibly that He seems unloving. It is only when we rob Him of His glorious character by infusing our own lack into His being that His worth is diminished and His value depreciated by our flawed transmission of His message.
I am here to declare that a crime has been committed. Jesus is the victim of identity theft. Every cause and each group has adopted Jesus as their own. They have created Jesus in their own image. It is one of the greatest crimes of history. Even the new improved mellow Saint Mel of the Passion recreated Jesus to suit his view.
Jesus loved women but not as sex objects. Although He may as well have, if you believe the disgusting, immoral, promiscuous, portrayals of some pre-Mel Hollywood representations of Jesus. The Last Temptation of Christ depicted Jesus fantasizing having sex with Mary Magdalene.
Jesus loved His mother but He wasn’t a momma’s boy. Jesus was a strong, bold, male role model. Nevertheless, when viewing the film, one nagging question refused to fade from my mind.
Surviving the Beating in the Passion?
The beating endured by Jesus in the film was so intense that it seemed impossible for a man, even a strong, bold man, to have lived through the preliminary stages of His torture. Perhaps that is why so much criticism has been leveled against the film from those who believed it to be too violent. The same critics were probably not offended by the violence in other films that included Mel Gibson. Yet some critics skewered his film of the Passion due to the graphic violence. Was the film too violent? No, I do not agree with that assessment. The violence contained in the film was certainly not gratuitous. It was a purposeful fair representation of what Jesus endured. There was a reason for the suffering of Jesus to be shown in the film. It was part and parcel of the Gospel story. In fact, some have posited that the film was not violent enough. That analysis is not unfounded based on the condition described in the Bible. One could still recognize the character playing Jesus on the Cross. The Scripture details that He was beaten beyond recognition.
Why did Jesus keep getting up? Why didn’t He just stay down and symbolically cry “Uncle?” The Cross would not have been escaped. Only the added suffering would have been bypassed. What possessed Him to continue?
Could a normal human being have lived through the beating? I found it perplexing to watch Jesus continue to carry the Cross after being beaten with such severity. It was quite telling to see a strong, healthy man struggle with the same Cross. Simon the Cyrenian was drafted by the Roman soldiers to help Jesus. Simon could barely manhandle the Cross in their two-man team. It was too much for him. Jesus had lost so much blood and had so many unbearable wounds. It seemed impossible for Him to be able to move under His own power, let alone drag a heavy cross through the streets of Jerusalem. Could a normal man have endured? Could a normal man have trudged up the slope to the site of His execution? I guess the answer is dependent on the man’s passion. It may have been impossible for a normal man. But Jesus was not normal. You see, Jesus was on a mission. His will to live exceeded His desire to avoid pain. His will to live exceeded the murderous intent of His enemies. But His will to live was limited to His need to live until He could die the death for which He was destined.
Jesus was divine. But this is not what separated Jesus from other men. I do not ascribe super-human strength to the Son of God. Rather, it was super-human love. Jesus would not quit because He would not fail. Jesus would not stop short of Calvary because He knew all about our need for His death. He knew that our salvation was at stake. Many men and women have been known to accomplish feats of strength beyond their natural ability when called upon in desperate conditions. Some people simply refuse to die until they accomplish their goals. Then they quietly pass on. I chose to attribute His ability to survive the beating and His choice to endure sub-human treatment to the unstoppable love He exhibited. Yet I could not remove the nagging doubt about a human’s ability to endure that much physical torture. Then a country preacher cleared it all up for me.
Pastor Kerry McDaniel put the human ability of Jesus into focus on this subject. He reminded me that Jesus had no sin. Sin is what brought death to mankind. When he stated that, I had a revelation about the character of Jesus in Mr. Gibson’s film. Could any man have endured such a beating and lived? The answer became clear. Yes! Any man who had no sin, because it is sin that brings death. The Jews did not kill Jesus. The Romans did not kill Jesus. I think those nasty soldiers could have beat Jesus until their arms turned into rigatoni. The beating would not kill Jesus. Not even the Crucifixion killed Jesus. He was fully human. But Jesus was without sin. Jesus died on the Cross, but not before He was ready. It was not before His mission was accomplished. My revelation was that it was just as the Bible had detailed the event. In John’s Gospel it is written that “He said, ‘It is finished’ and he bowed his head and he gave up the ghost” (John 19:30). Jesus knew when His work was complete. He knew when He had completed the task of taking our sins away. He would not die until this task was completed. And then no man took His life. He willingly gave it as an offering for sin that we might have life eternal. Jesus could have endured all of the pain inflicted in the film and more. His love was greater than any suffering this world could inflict. His love and His life are eternal. The pain was only temporary.
The only way to make things right is to put Jesus back into the context in which He lived, died, and rose again. As I say in every radio or TV program I produce, “Jesus is Lord . . . and He vuz such a nice Jewish boy.” To that, I will simply add, “Thank you!”
Copyright 2004 by Randy Weiss, PH.D.
If the Bible is not the word of God what method does God use to communicate his rules to us?
I believe He does it on a personal basis. To me this is evident by the fact that no one, throughout history, agrees....mainly because none of it can be proven.
Yahushua ha'Mashiach's death was arranged by the Sanhedran because he was a threat to the Temple system. They used Roman occupiers to carry out the execution maintaining He was a threat to civil order. Crucifixion was a Roman method of execution.
I can't answer that, except, that perhaps God doesn't act as we would call, logically. Perhaps, He is above our logic, and His standard is to address us each individually.
Maybe, it's just confusing to us?
Maybe, we haven't been around long enough, for that standard to be accepted? After all, we humans haven't really been around that long, when you reference our existence to the age of the earth, or even the galaxy. We may not be mature enough yet.
It seems sort of arrogant doesn't it, to expect to understand the creator of everything?
> Perhaps, He is above our logic, and His standard is to address us each individually<
The problem with that is how do I know he is addressing me.Some people claim it comes to them in a dream.That could just be the Mexican Food I had last night.
Peter was present at one of the 5 or 6 times the Bible records God speaking audibly yet he said the Bible was a more sure word than an audible voice.
2Pe 1:17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
2Pe 1:18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
2Pe 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.
This was an eyewitness account from Peter.(James and John were also there)
and it goes on with a whole list of people who the law was made for. If you read earlier in chapter one, Paul tells Timothy to avoid genealogies and fables because they raise questions " rather than Godly edifying which is in faith". He also goes on to tell Timothy in verse 6 "From which some having swerved(swerved from love out of a pure heart and a good conscience and faith unfeigned)"have turned aside to vain jangling. Desiring to be teachers of the law; they understand neither what they say or nor whereof they affirm. But we know the law is good if a man use it lawfully;
Then it goes into verse 9 explaining who the law is for.
Was David righteous? He had the Ten and he broke the law by eating the shew bread which was not lawful. Even after sending a man to his death so he could take his wife God said he would have given her to him if he would have asked. Aside from that specific act of adultery he didn't have only one wife. God said he was a man after his own heart.
Noah passed out drunk naked in his tent so his kids could see him but God cursed his son who mocked him. God also saw him fit enough to be the only man saved, besides his sons, from the flood.
I will say this, its obvious what men see as righteous and what God sees are two different things and I will take Gods righteousness over mans any day. If you say you obey the Ten Commandments and break one you will be judged of all, not only that but if you are married to Jesus but live with Moses that makes you a whore and thats all there is to it.
The best bet would be repentance from trying to keep the Ten and asking God to change your heart to walk by faith like Jesus and to have mercy on your self righteousness. I did it and so will everyone.
Finally, the law was given to the Jews because of disobedience and the gentiles get the law for the same reason.
Is it possible for a righteous man to sin?
I imagine you would just know it, I'm sure God can figure out how to do that....unless He just doesn't have much to say to you. Perhaps to them, He does come in a dream..those people seem to believe it.
I think think those accounts could easily be questioned by some. It would be hard to prove it really happened....just as any communication with God is.
Are you open to the idea God can communicate through the Bible?
I believe that God can do anything, and that He probably has communicated through the Bible, and the Torah, the Quran, and many other writings, both religious and not, and in many other ways, I don't know about or understand.
For instance, you can be believing God and then something happens financially, maybe an unexpected bill that causes you to forget that Jesus made you rich when he became poor on the cross,and you go borrow the money, when God wants you to believe him for the money, and be unrighteous until God brings you to repentance. Then you are righteous again.
Consider what Paul writing by the Holy Ghost says in 1 Corinthians 15:55, 56,57 " Oh death where is your sting? O grave where is your victory? The sting of death is sin and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
What I am trying to say is this, if you concern yourself with keeping the law and break them, they judge you just like they judged the Israelites. If you come to the revelation that the law has been fulfilled and concern yourself with believing in the power that raised Jesus from the dead, God will show himself to you and make you clean by faith.
There is nothing in any book, that makes me believe they are anything other than books, written by men. I have read much, not all, of many religious tomes. I am not familiar enough with any of them, to quote or reference them.
There is much factual evidence of accuracy of events, in the bible. I question the parts that talk about miracles, resurrection, virgin birth, God speaking, angels appearing, etc.....those are the type of things I question in any book. There are many good lessons to be learned in all the religious writings.
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.