Mel Gibson's unholy Sunday

PAGE SIX - New York Post ^ | 3/06/03 | RICHARD JOHNSON with PAULA FROELICH and CHRIS WILSON

[Justa]

Excellent post Tom.

[kstewskis]

you're right. He did say that he forgave him, he said, smiling, "I have to."

I didn't take the comment by O'Reilly as an admonishment, though?

[SauronOfMordor]

Anyone idiot reading the Gospels knows how the Jews were incenced at Jesus, and the threat he posed to their base.

Correction: the religious leaders were opposed to Jesus. Jesus, the Apostles, and everybody else around except the Romans were Jews.

It makes sense that the Pharasees would hate Jesus -- his teachings ran counter to theirs, and underminded their authority

[breakem]

And who are the desendents of Rome? The Vatican!

I'm far from being an expert, but isn't the Vatican descendened from Jews, thatis, the apostles? Just wondering.

[Bush2000]

Thanks for the clarification. While this debate is certainly of historical interest, I fear that the results will inevitably be used to pit one group against another. Sadly, it seems to be an inescapable component of human behavior.

[attagirl]

Who killed Jesus? our sins, as many brought out. As far as the direct instruments go:

(Jesus speaking to Pilate) "You would have no power over me whatever unless it were given you from above. That is why he who handed me over to you is guilty of the greater sin." (John 19:11)

Therefore, as far as accountability: Pilate had him killed out of fear. The Jews had him killed out of envy (as is stated several times. Furthermore, the Jews saw firsthand his miracles and his comportment. Pilate had never seen him before.

But we mustn't cast stones as we are not without sin. So holding up the Jews as solely culpable is not only inaccurate but wicked.

[Bush2000]

Thank you. ;-)

[Northern Yankee]

I stand corrected.

Many people don't realize that most religious leaders who opposed Jesus, and his teachings, perished in the siege of Masada.

[SauronOfMordor]

What Jesus seems to have most opposed where the Pharisees, who were the beginnings of the Talmudic school. The net effect of the Talmud was to make Judaic study so complicated and convoluted that only a full-time scholar could learn it all and argue it -- thus providing job security for the Talmudists.

What was most threatening to their power was Someone who would take all their complex rules and laws and distill them into simple and fundamental basics that the common people could comprehend. When you make the religious-scholar-class superfluous, you threaten the foundation of the religious power structure.

[MrsEmmaPeel]

"To suppress this rumor, Nero fabricated scapegoats and punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were popularly called). Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius' reign by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilatus..."

-- Tacitus, Annales, book XV.

[rmlew]

Therefore, as far as accountability: Pilate had him killed out of fear. The Jews had him killed out of envy (as is stated several times. Furthermore, the Jews saw firsthand his miracles and his comportment. Pilate had never seen him before.

Let's assume for a second that the miracles did occur etc. At any rate, relatively few Jews would have seen them. Even fewer would have been at Calvary condemning Jesus.
To say The Jews is is empiricaly false. If all Jews condemned Jesus, then all of his disciples would have.

As someone who has taken a course in Biblical History, I can tell you that the Bible Has been revised a nmumber of times. The Christian Scriptures were revised in the 4th century after Constantine made Christianity the state religion of Rome. It is likely that the anti-Roman aspects of Jesus's life were removed.

The Romans did this a number of times to Jewish Scriptures. The Jerusalem Talmud, ie the writtings on Jewish Law at the Yavneh acadamy, were screened by the Romans a number of times. Anti-roman passages were reomoved or revised. I find it hard to believe that this would not have happened at Nicea.

[rmlew]

Anyone idiot reading the Gospels knows how the Jews were incenced at Jesus, and the threat he posed to their base.

Any idiot knows that the term "the Jews" was a massive overcharacterization used for political and dogmatic purposes. It is impiracaly false.

They began losing members to this radical Nazorean, which would upset their political power within the Roman community.

1. Jesus was born in Nazareth. That does not make him a Nazareane. Greek mistranslation.
2. There were dozens of claimiants at being the Messiah in this period. They upset the collaborators to Roman occupation and brought the prospect of bloody retribution. One need only look at 67, 135, and 619, to see what the Romans did to Jews who rebelled.
Anyone other than the Roman-install King, calling himself the "King of the Jews" was making a political statement equivalent on treason and implicitely calling for insurrection. Dozens of these were Crucified by the Romans and with the approval of their puppet-King and Collaborator government.

The Romans may have tried to whitewash their execution of Jesus, but the historical record is clear. The pattern was set.

[Renatus]

In a story in this Sunday's Times Magazine, Noxon writes that Gibson embraces an ultra-traditional "strain of Catholicism rooted in the dictates of a 16th-century papal council and nurtured by a splinter group of conspiracy-minded Catholics, mystics, monarchists and disaffected conservatives."

So do I. So what?

[Northern Yankee]

Apologies if I offended you. That was not my point.

Please accept my apology.

Weren't most of that religious sect destroyed during the siege of Masada?

As I commented later, the biggest message the Gospels sends to its readers is that free will determines the way man choses to follow the techings of Christ/God. Some choose to determine their own desires and follow what they think is good for them. (Mostly out of self interest, or self preservation.) Others who choose to follow God, do so out a complete devotion and faith. A calling that is selfless.

Hope this helps clairfly my point!

[Campion]

I find it hard to believe that this would not have happened at Nicea.

We know exactly what happened at Nicaea. Editing the Gospels wasn't on the agenda. If it had been, we would have some record of someone objecting.

[rmlew]

Weren't most of that religious sect destroyed during the siege of Masada?

Nazarenes/Nazarites were not a sect. They were deeply religious Israelites who concecrated themselves to God. The equivalent in Christianity would be certain orders of Monks.

"The LORD said to Moses, Speak to the Israelites and say to them: If a man or woman wants to make a special vow, a vow of separation to the LORD as a Nazirite, he must abstain from wine and other fermented drink and must not drink vinegar made from wine or from other fermented drink. He must not drink grape juice or eat grapes or raisins. As long as he is a Nazirite, he must not eat anything that comes from the grapevine, not even the seeds or skins. During the entire period of his vow of separation no razor may be used on his head. He must be holy until the period of his separation to the LORD is over; he must let the hair of his head grow long. Throughout the period of his separation to the LORD he must not go near a dead body. Even if his own father or mother or brother or sister dies, he must not make himself ceremonially unclean on account of them, because the symbol of his separation to God is on his head. Throughout the period of his separation he is consecrated to the LORD" (Num 6:1-8 NIV).

There was no specific sext at Masada. Instead it was taken from a Roman Garrison by Zealots/Sicarri. They were religious fanatics.
Now the area near Masada was home to a sect, based in Qumran, the Essenes. They were slaughtered by the Romans, despite not taking part in the revolt.

[attagirl]

If all Jews condemned Jesus, then all of his disciples would have.

Obviously. However, the high priest (as well as the Sanhedrin) WHO SPOKE FOR ALL JEWS, saw to His death. Also, don't forget the fact that the mob accepted responsibility.

I can tell you that the Bible Has been revised a nmumber of times. The Christian Scriptures were revised in the 4th century after Constantine made Christianity the state religion of Rome. It is likely that the anti-Roman aspects of Jesus's life were removed

Please be more specific.

I find it hard to believe that this would not have happened at Nicea.

I'd like to return to this point later after you answer the above.

[rmlew]

However, the high priest (as well as the Sanhedrin) WHO SPOKE FOR ALL JEWS, saw to His death.

1.The members of the Sanhedrin served and LIVED at the whim of the Roman Governor and Roman-Installed Nabatean Kings. Herod had most of the Sanhedrin slaughtered and replaced with sycophants and collaborators.
2. I hate to tell you, but from a Jewish perspective, Jesus failed to live up to being the Messiah, even if all the miracles were true.
False Prophet who ignored the Torah and spoke blasphemy were supposed to be executed. However, they were rarely done so in this period.
Had Jesus been executed for these crimes, he would have been stoned to death after Passover.
He was killed by the Romans after a show trial. (Think about it this way. Imagine plaming all Poles for the killing of an agitator by the Communist Government under Soviet Occupation.)

Also, don't forget the fact that the mob accepted responsibility.

We all know that a mob would say "His blodd is on our hand than that of our children."
Forgetting the illogic of such a statement, please note that such a punishment was illegal under Jewish law. A group executing the Law, would not break it.
If your position is that every word is true in the Bible, and that obvious contradiction between accounts should be ignored, then we can't have a discussion.

Please be more specific.

Emperor Constantine convened the First Council of Nicea. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm
After 324, The Roman Empire defined Western Christianity.
http://www.roman-empire.net/religion/religion.html

[attagirl]

1.I cannot comment that Herod had many of the Sanhedrin slaughtered only to be replaced with more, shall we say, "Politically correct" members. However, the fact remains that the high priest and the Sanhedrin acted as representing all Jews.

2. Supposing the miracles were true, how is it that Jesus still failed to qualify as the Messiah? When you say that He ignored the Torah, do you mean that He allowed the adultress to go free? Do you mean that He allowed His followers to pick wheat on the Sabbath? A careful reading of the New Testament shows that Jesus proclaimed His own death sentence when He claimed He was the Son of God. They were having trouble coming up with corroborating witnesses.

Had Jesus been executed for these crimes, he would have been stoned to death after Passover.

Not so. Capital crimes were a responsibility of the Romans. He was killed by the Romans after a show trial.

Well, you are correct in calling it a show trial. I know that the trial was invalid from the standpoint that it took place at night. (I know there were other serious reasons why this was so, but cannot remember what they were. If you are interested, I will try to dig that info up.) I know that was against the Sanhedrin's own rules.

I hope you don't think I am anxious to pin this solely on the Jewish people. I believe they were the direct agents and for that reason, Jesus had His apostles turn toward the Gentiles to convert to His church.

Also, don't forget the fact that the mob accepted responsibility.

Since when is a mob logical? We all know that a mob would say "His blodd is on our hand than that of our children." A group executing the Law, would not break it.

Why, it happens all the time. You yourself said that the Sanhedrin was made up of sycophants. If your position is that every word is true in the Bible, and that obvious contradiction between accounts should be ignored, then we can't have a discussion.

Contradictions between accounts? I'm sorry, I don't know what you are saying here. Please be more specific. Emperor Constantine convened the First Council of Nicea. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm After 324, The Roman Empire defined Western Christianity. http://www.roman-empire.net/religion/religion.html

[attagirl]

1.I cannot comment that Herod had many of the Sanhedrin slaughtered only to be replaced with more, shall we say, "Politically correct" members. However, the fact remains that the high priest and the Sanhedrin acted as representing all Jews.

2. Supposing the miracles were true, how is it that Jesus still failed to qualify as the Messiah? When you say that He ignored the Torah, do you mean that He allowed the adultress to go free? Do you mean that He allowed His followers to pick wheat on the Sabbath? A careful reading of the New Testament shows that Jesus proclaimed His own death sentence when He claimed He was the Son of God in answer to a direct question. They were having trouble coming up with corroborating witnesses.

Had Jesus been executed for these crimes, he would have been stoned to death after Passover.

Not so. Capital crimes were a responsibility of the Romans. He was killed by the Romans after a show trial.

Well, you are correct in calling it a show trial. I know that the trial was invalid from the standpoint that it took place at night. (I know there were other serious reasons why this was so, but cannot remember what they were. If you are interested, I will try to dig that info up.) I know that was against the Sanhedrin's own rules.

I hope you don't think I am anxious to pin this solely on the Jewish people. I believe they were the direct agents and for that reason, Jesus had His apostles turn toward the Gentiles to convert to His church (read the parable of the wedding feast).

Also, don't forget the fact that the mob accepted responsibility.

Since when is a mob logical? We all know that a mob would say "His blodd is on our hand than that of our children." A group executing the Law, would not break it.

Why, it happens all the time. You yourself said that the Sanhedrin was made up of sycophants. If your position is that every word is true in the Bible, and that obvious contradiction between accounts should be ignored, then we can't have a discussion.

Contradictions between accounts? I'm sorry, I don't know what you are saying here.

Constantin did not re-write the Bible. He may have convened the Council, but there is no evidence for what you are saying. And expunging things from the Talmud is not the same as having that done to Holy Scripture.