Gibson's gaffe. Mel Gibson needs to take a history class.

Jewsweek ^ | 7/31/03 | Regenstein

[Jorge]

But, the Jews had NO power, none whatsoever, in telling Pilate who or how to kill anyone.

The fact remains, according to the Bible they had the Romans execute Jesus..according to THEIR religious law. The Romans had no interest in executing Jesus.

Pilate found no fault in Jesus and washed his hands of it..while the Jews gladly accepted responsibility for his execution..and said "let his blood be on us".

[DPB101]

Those Christians in today's society that seek political power to impose Christian values are doing nothing more than screaming "Barrabas!"

Name a couple of those values for us if you would.

[breakem]

I have not stated that the bible is not historically accurate. I believe there is some evidence of events in the bible and for others there is no evidence. To believe the latter requires faityh, but it cannot be taken as history.

Am not familiar with historical evidence of Plato and Socrates writing. If the manuscripts are there writing or scribes in their schools then I would give it credence. If it's reenactment then it would have less credence.

Regarding the crucifixion to KNOW that the Jews or the Romans are at fault would require information that the bible does not provide. And to criticize someone who has a different BELIEF when there is insufficient historical record, is arrogant at best.

[breakem]

faityh=faith

[nopardons]

The fact remains, that the Bible has been rewritten so many times, by so many different people, who all had so many different agendas, that YOU and I and everyone else, has NO idea what the original texts said. What we DO have,however, is contemporanious Roman writings.

Crucifixtion was NEVER a religious or secular form of Jewish punishment. Jesus's death was NOT halactic ( sp.?) and hence, completely against Jewish/Talmudic laws.

Rome had very good reasons to kill Jesus. They were after rabble rousers, Jewish rabble rousers, who were inciting Jews to take up arms and do whatever they could, to overthrough the Roman conquerers.

It was Roman custom, for those condemning others to death, to " wash their hands " of it.

Does any of what I have said , remove the absolute tenents of Christianity ? No, absolutely not.

Many things, that people think is fact, isn't. Nero didn't " fiddle " while Rome burned. That's just for starters.

[TheCrusader]

"I simply don't get what the ADL and other Jewish groups are worried about?"

They are worried about the truth, sir. These words, spoken by the throng of Jews who arrested, tried, and condemned Jesus to death will ring out till the end of time: "HIS BLOOD BE UPON US, AND UPON OUR CHILDREN". (Mathew 27: verse 25)

The "children" are seeking to rewrite history and avoid the unavoidable, rather than convert.

You are correct, in a sense, when you say that we all killed Christ, with our sins. But it is also correct to say the Christ killed Himself, for as he said: "No one can take my life, I give my life freely". So it is in the spiritual sense that our sins caused Jesus' death, and in the Divine sense that He died for us out of love, and in the physical sense that He was killed by the Jews. To blame the Romans, trust me, is the oldest shell game around. Jews have been trying to rewrite this history for centuries, probably even all 2,000 years. We read in the Bible that the Jews paid the Roman soldiers to say that Jesus did not rise from the dead, that the Disciples came and stole his body to make it look like he resurrected.

"While they were going, behold, some of the guard went into the city and told the chief priests all that had taken place. And when they had assembled with the elders and taken counsel, they gave a sum of money to the soldiers and said, "Tell people, 'His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.' (Mathew 28: 11-15)

Their plan from the beginning was to kill Jesus secretly or coerce the Romans to carry it out by proxy, for they feared the population that followed Jesus would seek revenge against them if they killed Jesus themselves.

"The scribes and the chief priests tried to lay hands on him at that very hour, but they feared the people; for they perceived that he had told this parable against them." (Luke 20:19)

Shall we believe the ADL,or the Bible?

[MissAmericanPie]

You are not wrong, all were guilty. The Roman Governor gave them a choice between Jesus, and Jesus Barabas. Barabas being a criminal and murderer that had terrorised the land far and wide. Pilot was scared, and he was hoping the crowd would feel pity for the beaten condition Jesus was in and set him free for what seemed to the Romans not much of a crime, instead the crowd freed the criminal Jesus Barabas, those of understanding know that Barabas served as an example of mankind, in the future, choosing the anti-Christ, the fake Christ at the coming time appointed.

We have all seen how a man can be a super star one day, and yet have his fans turn on him and eat him like lions the next day. Roman hero's enjoying parades in their honor had a servant riding in his chariot whispering in his ear, "Fame is fleeting". The same happened to Jesus, the crowds that wanted to lay hold of him and make him King the previous day, turned on him before the court.
When Pontious Pilot washed his hands of the blood of Jesus, a woman in the crowd yelled, let his blood be on our hands, and the hands of our children.

Does this mean in any way what so ever that the Jews are not to this day "the apple of God's eye"? No, they are still the apple of His eye and mankind should tremble at the thought of bringing harm to them. A Christian understanding the mysteries of Christ will lay down his own life for their protection.

Jesus said that if he had gone to the gentiles they would have believed him, He chose to reveal himself to the Jews for the express purpose of being rejected. Did Jesus committ suicide as some imply? No. He allowed things to take their natural human course, mute as a sacrificial lamb. So now we are no longer a mass of chemicals merely made in God's image, with no more connection to Him than as created to creator. He chose to become one of us in the flesh, to unite us in a way that makes us much more than we ever were before. He became a part of us, so that we can become like Him.

As Peter said, "it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we do know that when He appears we shall be like Him."
All were guilty, and all were forgiven when Christ said on the cross, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do". So who is anyone else to hold anyone guilty whom God has forgiven?

[Smedley]

"The Jews" didn't kill Jesus. A number of people who happened to be Jewish did.

The crimes of a few don't impute to an entire race -- unless you want to claim "The Americans" shot John Lennon.

[Burkeman1]

I am not sure how to respond to your post? Except to say that everyman's voice is his own. A crowd of Jews baying for the blood of Jesus does not condemn all Jews. Just as all the Romans who tormented Christ and drove the nails into his wrists and feet does not condemn all Italians. You have no idea of what it means to be Christian. That is all I can say to you.

[nopardons]

Romans killed Jesus. Jews didn't. It was Roman law, a Roman " judge ", and Romans who crucified HIM.

[nopardons]

We've found an area of complete agreement. LOL

[woollyone]

I believe there is some evidence of events in the bible and for others there is no evidence. To believe the latter requires faityh, but it cannot be taken as history In normal higher textual criticism, the text is taken to be accurate, unless it can be demonstrated that it is inaccurate. Since you cannot prove inaccuracy in the text as it relates to the historical record, it is again intellectually dishonest for you to say that just because there is no supporting evidence to your satisfaction that the historical account, as related by the four authors of the gospels is inaccurate and a matter of faith, and not history. If we look at the text alone, we find there is evidence from four different sources....Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. It is pertinent to recall that they each wrote independently, but their works were compiled much later into one volume which we now call the New Testament. In each of their works we find agreement with the others. Granted, it is believed that Mark's was the first account written and that the other accounts relied upon Marks writing to complete their own. However, a close analysis of the texts shows none of the common exaggerations which are usually added to the various false accounting of historical writings which aren't based in fact. For instance, each gospel written after Mark's contains less and less new, theretofore unmentioned miracles than Mark writes of. Insofar as textual criticism, the four gospels stand very soundly as highly accurate historical accounts.

...evidence of Plato and Socrates writing. If the manuscripts are there writing or scribes in their schools then I would give it credence."

The four gospels are "[their} writing[s]"...so if you'll give Plato's writings (for Plato wrote what Socrates said, as Socrates was illiterate according to Plato), which can only be dated to 900 years after he died (which obviously rules out first hand eye-witness accounting, by easily 850 years), why do you dismiss the gospel records, which are accounts either witnessed first hand, or the testimony of eyewitnesses, and were written at a time when the same eyewitnesses could have easily disputed the facts written of?

Your openhanded dismissal of the gospel record is not based upon solid textual standards of criticism and your reasons for refusing to accept it as historical record is inconsistent with even the standards which you have set for other historical accounts. It remains a matter of fact that the New Testament is by far one of the most accurate (IMHO, THE most accurate) historical record of antiquity that we have.

Regarding "who is at fault", I have already addressed my position in this matter in post #66. In my opinion, to argue who killed Jesus, the Jews or the Romans, is a diversionary tactic of the evil one to distract from the gospel message that Jesus proclaimed...namely, that He loves us and HE alone has the power to give up his life, that no one takes it from Him - and He gives it freely because He loves us and wants us to be restored to He and the Father. Nobody took Jesus' life. He gave it freely as a gift for you and me, that we might live.

I have not criticized you for your "beliefs", but have criticized the poor methodology of your textual criticism. Inherently, it is contradictory in that those texts which you personally favor are given more historical credibility in your mind than those which make claims which you do not prefer to accept. The Bible, as whole is the most accurate historical text of antiquity that we posses. Every turn of the archeologist’s spades proves, rather than disproves the history of the Biblical record.

"Arrogant"? Maybe. Solid in the reasons why I believe what I do, based upon lots of study and not ashamed to defend the Lord and His word boldly would be the more accurate description, I think.

No offense intended. Jesus willing laid down His life for you and then took it up again, that you might live. You do the research and draw your own conclusions. And while you search, He is still loving you and using simple things like this thread to draw you to Himself, that the free gift He offers to all might be a gift that you willingly receive.

His peace to you. baaa

[sweetjane]

Here's some history. There is a good book by Lee Strobel called "The Case for Christ" that examines the evidence for Jesus and Christianity. In it the author interviews academics to discuss the evidence. One history professor talks about Josephus, a historian who was also a Pharisee, who was born 37 A.D. Josephus wrote in Testimonium Flavianum.

..."About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection of him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."

This history professor says there are three ideas that might have been added later by someone other than Josephus, but that the rest fits with his writing style, position as a Pharisee, etc. The three ideas are:

1) "if indeed one ought to call him a man"
2) "He was the Christ" (it is unlikely that Josephus thought Jesus was Messiah or he would have been a Christian, though he referred in another writing to James, brother of "Jesus, who was called Christ.")
3) "On the third day he appeared to them restored to life" (again this shows a clear belief in the Resurrection, which a Pharisee wouldn't believe).

Even if you take these out, you have additional historical information about Jesus.

There is also Tacitus, a historian, who wrote in 115 A.D.,

"Nero fastened the guilt and inflected the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of ones of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome... Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty: then, upon their information, an immense multitude ws convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of the hatred of mankind."

[sweetjane]

Breaken, please see my post #114. I meant to address it to you. It's very interesting. Some historical evidence.

[adam_az]

Of course if he WASN'T killed, then he couldnt have given his life for your sins, or however that works?

You should be thanking the Pharisees, if anything. ;)

[adam_az]

I wonder if the author of that article actually viewed the movie in question.

Probably just as likely as it's advocates having seen it... 0%.

[adam_az]

This is not a faith issue. It is a history issue and you'll probably never know. So the comments about Gidson are unprovable and arrogant.

It also places this movie into the realm of speculation, and means that those who defend it's opinion as fact are saying things unprovable and arrogant.

[farmfriend]

ping

[farmfriend]

oops meant to ping you as well.