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.

[Jorge]

You are fighting a losing battle here. For some, the present day Bible is a historical document. Never mind that it's been edited over, and over again. Never mind that it loses alot in its translation into English.

Not true.
New Testament scholars, language and textual experts have studied the thousands of manuscripts discovered and found that the Bibles we have today are virtually identical to the original texts.

[chickenlips]

I have an idea. Let's get out those dusty ole Bibles and look up Isaiah 53. As we read it we should pay special attetnion to verses 4 and 10. I could be wrong, but there may be a clue there.

[stryker]

The agenda of the Christian right. I don't necessarily disagree with many of their positions, especially those against abortion and supporting the traditional family, but that does not make them any less misdirected in trying to use state power rather than spiritual power to further their cause. As to those values being "Christian," they have chosen the label: not I. The families in the Bible are noticeably disfunctional, so I don't see why the traditional American family structure is a Christian value. But they have termed it such.

[MHGinTN]

Caiphus wanted the iteinerate preacher/mover of the people out of the picture. He was so into the deed, he sent Malchus with the arresting party! And who paid Judas?

[Burkeman1]

You should also note that the Spanish Inquisition was a local phenom- not to be associated with the general inquisition of the Church of Rome. The myth of the brutality of the Spanish Inquisition was also largely the result of English Puritan propaganda.

[DPB101]

What state power does the "Christian right" use that is so wrong? Assembling to petition their government? Christians doing that is the history of America.

[rmlew]

There were dozens of blaspheming preachers.
Frankly, many Sadducees considered Pharasees to be heretics.
However, the only person put to death was Jesus of Nazareth and other claimants of the title of Messiah.
I am not calling the accounts in the NT lies. I am saying that there is a different interpretation of the same facts.

[rmlew]

I admit they might have sucked up to Rome, but Rome did not appoint the Sanhedren, nor the Pharisees, nor the Sadduccees. Their actions were strictly their own politics.
The Sanhedrin was essentially appointed by the Herodians after Herod I had all his enemies in the Sanhedrin killed.
The High Priest was nominated by the Sanhedrin, but had to be approved by the Tetrarch (the decendants of Antipater, the Edomite installed by Rome) and by the Roman Governor.

Jesus NEVER told anyone to worry about the political system of the day. Notonce.
Moot point to the Romans and the Collaborators. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah. The defining element there was to be the expulsion of Romans and Syrians. That Jesus did not call for this was irrelevent once he entered Jerusalem on an ass.

[right way right]

So sin gets the credit for God's glorious work of redemption. That's pretty twisted. And unbelievable arrogance, masked in pious humility.

Redemption comes from God through Jesus and the belief that Christ died for our sins and that he is who he claims to be.

If I were not a sinner than I would not need him to have died for me.

Its not sin by itself but each one own sin on an individual basis.

Only Jesus knows my heart and only Jesus knows how pious and arrogant I am.

Have you laid your sins on Jesus?

[MHT]

Lots of people claimed to be the Messiah--and alot have since that time. But, if true, the appearance of the miracles should have been proof enough as well as the statistical improbability of Old Testament prophecy coming forth in the life of Jesus (born of the House of David, birth in Bethlehem, etc.) If I had been there, I think that the world turning dark upon his death by crucifixion would have been enough to make me utter a big, "Oooops...."

[MHT]

It appears that in the earliest days, according to the modern Jews for Jesus, being Jewish was a prequisite of the early church. After all, the disciples really didn't like the idea of gentiles chasing him around thinking that he was the greatest thing before sliced bread. They wanted Jews to follow him. Unfortunately, there were not enough men like Joseph of Aramethia in leadership positions.

[rmlew]

Jesus was either the Son of God or the Son of Joseph.
Joseph was of the house of David, not Mary.
As for supernatural event, those also occured Around Simon ben Kosiba, better known as Bar Kochba. Bar Kochba led a revolt in 132CE that failed.

You reaffirm your faith that Jesus was the Messiah every time you use the title "Christ". It is an issue of faith.
We ciould argue until we turn blue and get nowhere.

[sweetjane]

Of course God is responsible for Christ's crucifixion and resurrection. The Pharisees and Romans who made it happen were purely mechanical devices of God's sovereign will and man's free will. The point in my response is that there are historical references available, other than the Gospels. Some people would like to see the evidence. What the book I was quoting does is offer additional historical evidence for those who need it. I wholeheartedly agree that Jesus' atonement is for all of us who are willing to accept it. Doesn't matter whether we are Jews, Romans, whatever.

Seeing into Pilate's life at the time does not affect my spirituality or religion.

It is interesting to note, of course, that Rome, where Christians were so persecuted early in the Church, has been the home to the Catholic church. Something happened there.

I'm of the protestant persuasion, but I love to see God's irony and work in the world. It really hits home.

[breakem]

best wishes, I'm out

[RaceBannon]

The defining element there was to be the expulsion of Romans and Syrians. That Jesus did not call for this was irrelevent once he entered Jerusalem on an ass.

How in the world do you connect the over throw of the Romans, who did not exist when the Prophecy was made, to Jesus entering Jerusalem on an ass?

[MHT]

Didn't know about Bar Kochba...please tell me more or refer me to a responsible website about him because his name is new to me. Thank you.

[RobbyS]

Remember that there were Greek-speaking Jews like Stephen, so that the cultural gap between Greeks and Jews was both wide and narrow. That Our Lord is known by his Greek name suggests
that bridges have been thrown across it early on. I have read that there are many hints that Matthew knew both the Hebrew and the Greek versions of the Bible, that he preached to speakers of both Aramaic and Greek.

[Ann Archy]

I, too, was an adult in the workplace before I heard that Jews killed Jesus....said by a Jew. Sister Callista would NEVER have taught that.

[Ann Archy]

Stephen is consideredthe First/Martyr Saint of our Church. After that, I believe ALL or all but one of the Apostles were martyred....drawn and quartered...beheaded....fire.....all because they had FAITH in Jesus. Pretty heady stuff...pretty stiff hurdle for believing, but believe in the Messiah they did......thank GOD.