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

Jewsweek ^ | 7/31/03 | Regenstein

[DPB101]

Gibson's gaffe. Mel Gibson needs to take a history class. It was the Romans, not the Jews, who were the Christ killers.

The flood of recent articles and publicity on Mel Gibson's forthcoming movie on Jesus' crucifixion have failed to mention the most important point about this controversy: if the movie does tell the truth about the cruelty and brutality of Jesus' crucifixion, it will make it clear that it was the Romans, not the Jews, who are the real "Christ killers".

According to the Christian Bible ( the "New Testament", especially the Gospel of Mark), Jesus, his family, and virtually all of his followers and disciples at the time were Jews. Jesus preached almost exclusively to the Jews ("the multitudes"), who dined and walked with him. It was his popularity with the Jewish people that caused Jesus to be killed by the ruling Roman authorities; and it was Jews who took Jesus off the cross, prepared him for "burial," mourned him, and then got the blame for the crime.

While a small clique of Jewish collaborators in the ruling classes are purported to have urged the Romans on, they had no real political power, all of which was held by the ruling Romans. All accounts make it clear that it was Romans who condemned Jesus to death, tortured him, put a crown of thorns on his head, spat on him, crucified him, even ran him through with a sword, fearing that this popular Jewish reformer with a huge Jewish following was a threat to Roman law and order.

The Romans went on to kill Jesus' closest disciples Peter and Paul, along with countless other Jewish "Christians", and eventually killed or expelled from the region almost all of the Jews, thus setting the stage for 2,000 years of Jewish suffering and persecution, and for the violence and territorial disputes that plague the Holy Land today.

It is unfortunate that Gibson's movie will apparently fail to make it clear who really killed Jesus, and instead will repeat the ancient blood libels that actually contradict the New Testament's account of the murder, and which have been used since that time to stir up hatred for Jesus' own people.

Indeed, the New Testament account of these events could be used to discredit Gibson's movie, which he claims is based on the truthful version of events as set forth in the Christian bible.

[SauronOfMordor]

You misunderstand me. The site is the reverse of Jews for Jesus. It is essentially Christians for Judaism. Hasidim are the Jewish equivalent of Evangelicals.

Ok, I get your point.

Except that a "Jew for Jesus" is accepted by the Christian community as being a full-status Christian, while the Hasidics running the site want Christians to become "Noahides" (gentiles who follow the Seven Laws) rather than becoming full-status Jews.

[SauronOfMordor]

You misunderstand me. The site is the reverse of Jews for Jesus. It is essentially Christians for Judaism. Hasidim are the Jewish equivalent of Evangelicals.

Ok, I get your point.

Except that a "Jew for Jesus" is accepted by the Christian community as being a full-status Christian, while the Hasidics running the site want Christians to become "Noahides" (gentiles who follow the Seven Laws) rather than becoming full-status Jews.

[af_vet_1981]

and the romans who up held jewish law.

No, the Romans upheld Roman law.

[Varda]

The Jews in Spain helped the Moors conquer and rule Spain so I have no problem with the Spanish reconquest and whatever requirements they had. Once they lost, the Muslims and Jews that didn't want the Spanish deal (convert and swear allegience to the crown) went to live in Morocco. Those that stayed but didn't convert were trying to scam the system.

"A lot of Catholic antipathy towards Jews is a result of Catholic replacement theology - Christians see themselves as having a "new covenant," and having Jews still around following the "old covenant" wasn't viewed favorably."

Replacement theology is a concept I'm not familiar with so I went on a search of Catholic websites and I can't say I've found this teaching. Christians believe there is a new covenant and it's not a replacement for but the fullfillment of the old. No covenants were overturned. Christianity basicly follows the idea that the church is the temple at Mt. Zion where all the nations worship God. This is the blessing the nations are promised through the seed of Abraham in Genesis 22. (You don't have to tell me, not the interpertation you would give it)

I recognize that there have been many interpretations of scripture and traditions including those that see the Jews as being superceded/disinherited. Lots of catholics(clergy and otherwise) have believed (and written) lots of things, that doesn't make it doctrine.

[woollyone]

You seem to take on faith the entire history stated there and faith is not history.

no...I take the Bible to be an accurate, reliable account of the history of the periods of time which are written therein.

I take Jesus' love for me and His finished atoning work on the cross on faith.

two different topics entirely.
But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Thank you for posting this.

My take is simple.

The modern Jews want to blame the Romans.

The Romans, who don't exist anymore, don't blame anyone.

And, everyone is guilty of the sin that Christ paid on the cross, me included.

But, I admit to believing, so that must prove I have an agenda! ;)

[Intolerant in NJ]

I live in Kansas City, and remember quite vividly the night I went to see the play. There were protesters everywhere...You're right - I remember there were many objections to the production essentially because it was considered by many blasphemous and mocking (I was not very happy with it myself, but now years later I understand that it makes much of the scriptures more "accessible" in a way they might not be otherwise).

My point was that I didn't recall that any of the outrage was about the specific issue of the production portraying the Jews as "Christ killers"...but that may have been mixed in with the general melee.....

[what's up]

It was our (collective) sin that killed Christ...and one of the historical vehicles for this was the Pharisees.

No, I won't thank wicked people for killing God. Just as I don't thank myself for causing Christ to give his life.

[Crusher138]

I did it. I caused Christ to be crucified.

He knew that in about 2000 years I would be born, would sin, and that the only way that I could spend eternity in God's presence was for Him to die and take upon himself my punishment. I did not, and do not, deserve this sacrifice. His thoughtfulness for me, His grace, led Him to do this. I am the reason He died. I helped kill Him.

[MHT]

Jesus came to save the Jews, and the Jewish leaders of the day not only rejected him but realized that he presented not only a theological challenge to the way they interpreted God's laws but also a political challenge to their authority.

The "trials" they held were kangaroo courts in every sense and his conviction was no more than a wink-and-a-nod between buddies. When they presented Jesus to Pilot, they knew Pilot would go along with the program. He had political problems of his own. Even if Pilot knew that Jesus' conviction didn't measure up to the remedy required by law, he wasn't going to make trouble with the Jews, the ultimate special interest group of their day.

Worst of all, when given the chance repeatedly by Pilot to pick a criminal who would receive a reprieve, they didn't pick Jesus (though when read in certain tones, Pilot's words sound like an appeal to the Jews to let Jesus go).

Jesus was least successful in convincing those he came specifically to save. A select group of Jews followed him, as did many gentiles, and eventually, the remnants of the Roman Empire. The Romans were the executioners as Jesus was actually killed by their hands--but the Jews were the ones who condemned him to death, without the appearance of blood on their own hands.

[adam_az]

Do you have any idea how many other people at the time claimed to be the Messiah?

[RobbyS]

There were probably more Christians among the Jews than one tend to think. Up until the wars with Rome they periodically sought to suppress the movement. Not only did they kill Stephen and then James, the brother of John, they sought to get rid of Paul, and did execute James, the "brother of the Lord". So I guess the Church was a fairly large group.

[adam_az]

No, I won't thank wicked people for killing God.

When did Jesus get the big promotion?

[what's up]

John 1:1, John 1:14, John 1:18.

[Aliska]

John 19 11Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin."

[Jorge]

Jesus was killed over Passover, against Jewish law. He was Crusified, against Jewish law. Untill you know Jewish law, don't defend historical innacuracy.

Your claims are irrelevant to what I posted.

The fact remains that the Pharisees and Sadducees plotted the execution of Jesus from the beginning.
They brought Him before the Roman authorities where they accused Him of blasphemy, making Himself equal with God and on this charge they sought and finally had Him executed.

[Jorge]

A small number of Jewish leaders so insisted.

Actually, when it came to the Jewish religious leaders, the majority argued to have Jesus killed and a minority opposed it.

[Natural Law]

Christ never claimed to be the king of the Jews, but many of his followers made this claim on his behalf. They assumed that the Messiah would assend to an earthly throne. Christ entered Jerusalem knowing his fate, riding an ass was in fulfillment of prophesy.

Christ's only "crime" was not against Rome, but against the priesthood. The priesthood had made their position and considerable wealth by requiring all communion with God be through them (at a price). Christ advocated a personal relationship with God, inclusive of all peoples regardless of ethnicity, family, past sins or physical affirmity. This undermined the authority and monopoly of the priests (and hit them in the pocket book). For the Sanhedrin the crucifiction was more of a political assassination than a criminal or religious event.

[Burkeman1]

Perhaps this qualifies as a miracle?

[Jorge]

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.

With all due respect you are mistaken.

A huge number of manuscripts or fragments of the New Testament have been discovered and compared to our present day Bibles.

In fact it is by far the most well-attested document of its era.

Consider these comparisons:

For Caesar's Gallic Wars there are 10 manuscripts, the earliest dating to AD 900.
Livy's History of Rome, 20 manuscripts, AD 400 the earliest.
Thucydides'History, 8 manuscripts , back to AD 900
Herodotus' History, 8 manuscripts , to AD 900

Compared to;
The New Testament which has 14,000 manuscripts dating back to AD 125.

New Testament scholars and textual experts who have studied the thousands of manuscripts assure us that the texts from which our Bibles were translated are virtually identical to those written by Matthew, Paul, and the other New Testament writers.

There are some minor variations, but none of them change the meaning of the passage in which they are found.