I happen to agree with most of what you say, Diogenes, but while Caiaphas couldn’t actually execute Jesus, he could recommend it to Pilate. I believe he did just that.
I really don’t blame Caiaphas, though. From the looks of things, he really didn’t have much of a choice, and yes, the NT account of Pilate trying to spare Jesus’s life strikes me as pretty bogus too. Caiaphus was in a difficult situation, and he didn’t have a much of a choice in recommending Jesus’s death, but he still recommended it.
[/quote]
While I agree that it’s plausible that Caiaphas may have helped with the arrest, his “recommendation” would have been unsolicited and unnecessary. The Romans did not solicit the advice of their own puppets when it came to making decisions about whether to execute a potential public menace. Anyone who looked like he might start a riot at Passover would have been summarily executed without regard to the opinions of the High Priest.
[QUOTE=acsenray]
It doesn’t seem to me that the Anti-Defamation League is very interested in having opinions about Christianity or conservatism. Usually, when they express an opinion, it’s about anti-Semitism. Do you discount what they have to say on that subject? Or do you believe that merely by criticizing a statement by someone claiming adherence to Christianity or conservatism that they are crossing the line into subjects in which their expertise is suspect?
[/QUOTE]
I think, however, that it is reasonable to be somewhat suspect of an organization whose sole purpose is to promote a Jewish agenda. It would be similar to taking the word of a Christian organization such as Raph Reed’s group (name escapes me) without understanding that their sole purpose is to promote a Christian agenda.
Sounds like Gibson is a mean drunk and an arsehole to boot.
[QUOTE=Lochdale]
I think, however, that it is reasonable to be somewhat suspect of an organization whose sole purpose is to promote a Jewish agenda.
[/QUOTE]
The sole purpose of the ADL is not to promote a “Jewish agenda” - whatever that means.
[QUOTE=Lochdale]
I think, however, that it is reasonable to be somewhat suspect of an organization whose sole purpose is to promote a Jewish agenda.
[/QUOTE]
Lochdale, that’s a gross distortion of the role of the Anti-Defamation League. I quote from their Charter (1913):
While the primary focus of the ADL has been anti-semitism, they have been active in opposing bigotry of all sorts, including white supremacists and gay-bashers. Their website at www.adl.org describes their activities. Their purpose is NOT to “promote a Jewish agenda” (whatever that means) but to expose and oppose bigotry and racism in all its forms.
The term “Jewish agenda” is annoying to me. You wouldn’t talk about a “black agenda” or a “gay agenda.” The implication is that there is some sort of global Zionist conspiracy with a secret agenda, and I find that offensive.
The only part of Dex’s piece I might disagree with is that there is any reason to believe that Caiaphas would necessarily have been involved in the arrest. Josephus says that the Romans kept an extra contigent of their own guards at the Temple during passover, so the Temple police would not have been necessary.
[/quote]
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
While I agree that it’s plausible that Caiaphas may have helped with the arrest, his “recommendation” would have been unsolicited and unnecessary. The Romans did not solicit the advice of their own puppets when it came to making decisions about whether to execute a potential public menace. Anyone who looked like he might start a riot at Passover would have been summarily executed without regard to the opinions of the High Priest.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not a religious scholar, so I’m not equipped to debate the details of the accuracy. I can only direct you to my source, which I find reliable in its research and conclusions. Obviously religious scholars can and do disagree on some of the details. And while I admit that you have a valid point that it might not have been necessary given the presence of the additional Roman guards, it isn’t an unprecedented act historically. Again, “Caiaphas was concerned that Jesus would incite a riot, and so sent armed guards to arrest him, gave him a hearing, and then recommended execution to Pilate, who promptly complied. This is the way the synoptic gospels describe the event, and this is the way things happened in other cases as several stories by Josephus show.” And he had good motive, if you also take into consideration his role as local peace-keeper and that he had reason to believe that not turning Jesus in on his own would inevitably “[lead] to massacre of the population and of Jesus’ followers by Roman troops”
I don’t think we disagree on those facts.
[QUOTE=Linty Fresh]
Drat. You win this round, Shayna! (Shakes fist)
[/QUOTE]
/waves back at Linty with a smile.
[QUOTE=Lochdale]
I think, however, that it is reasonable to be somewhat suspect of an organization whose sole purpose is to promote a Jewish agenda. It would be similar to taking the word of a Christian organization such as Raph Reed’s group (name escapes me) without understanding that their sole purpose is to promote a Christian agenda.
[/QUOTE]
It is unreasonable to be suspect of an organization whose sole purpose you completely misrepresent.
And on preview, I see it’s my turn to shake my fist at Adam Yax.
The allegation that the Jewish people were responsible at all for the crucifixion is patently false. They were not and could not have been.
No matter how that ancient smear is sanitized now, historically it has been the root of the “Christ killer” meme which has been responsible for a great deal of anti-Semitic violence.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry to not be clear, but what confuses me is HOW they (Christians) can condem the Jewish people negatively for the act that brings them salvation?
Yes, I understand all too well the roots of anti-semetic violence and the whole “Christ-killers” idiocy. I just don’t understand how they (Chrisitans) can embrace that idea when without it, there would be no salvation and no Christianity.
Think of it as another lovely legacy left us by Constantine and Rome in general.
[QUOTE=Shayna]
I’m not a religious scholar, so I’m not equipped to debate the details of the accuracy. I can only direct you to my source, which I find reliable in its research and conclusions. Obviously religious scholars can and do disagree on some of the details. And while I admit that you have a valid point that it might not have been necessary given the presence of the additional Roman guards, it isn’t an unprecedented act historically. Again, "Caiaphas was concerned that Jesus would incite a riot, and so sent armed guards to arrest him, gave him a hearing, and then recommended execution to Pilate, who promptly complied.
[/quote]
My only problem is that the part which I bolded is historically uncorrobrated, it’s a hypthesis, not a historically known fact. Moreover, a recommendation by the High Priest would have been superfluous and irrelevant and a formal trial on the Passover would have been impossible.
At most, a scenario similar to what is depicted in John might be plausible (an arrest and brief detainment with an informal interrogation before turning him over to the Romans) might have been plausible, but not a formal trial, and the execution would have been the Romans’ idea, not the High Priest’s. In other words, Caiaphas might have helped the Romans catch a guy they already wanted to kill, but they didn’t kill him because Caiaphas recommended it.
[QUOTE=Dropzone]
Am I correct to assume you mean that it should, though it rarely does, go without saying that no group of people can or should bear collective guilt for the actions of some of their ancestors?
[/QUOTE]
Isn’t that kinda the whole idea of Christianity’s concept of original sin?
[QUOTE=dropzone]
Am I correct to assume you mean that it should, though it rarely does, go without saying that no group of people can or should bear collective guilt for the actions of some of their ancestors?
[/QUOTE]
[shrug] Scripture strongly implies otherwise.
That Scripture was invoked to justify Christian-on-Jewish violence, and nonviolent forms of persecution and exclusion, for centuries.
When it was written, I think, the by then predominantly Gentile Christians must have been growing increasingly frustrated that those perverse, stiff-necked Jews had stubbornly rejected their own Messiah, so there must be something deeply wrong with them.
[QUOTE=C K Dexter Haven]
The term “Jewish agenda” is annoying to me. You wouldn’t talk about a “black agenda” or a “gay agenda.” The implication is that there is some sort of global Zionist conspiracy with a secret agenda, and I find that offensive.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know if Lochdale is one of them, but a lot of people do talk about there being a “gay agenda.”
[QUOTE=C K Dexter Haven] Lochdale, that’s a gross distortion of the role of the Anti-Defamation League. I quote from their Charter (1913):While the primary focus of the ADL has been anti-semitism, they have been active in opposing bigotry of all sorts, including white supremacists and gay-bashers. Their website at www.adl.org describes their activities. Their purpose is NOT to “promote a Jewish agenda” (whatever that means) but to expose and oppose bigotry and racism in all its forms.
The term “Jewish agenda” is annoying to me. You wouldn’t talk about a “black agenda” or a “gay agenda.” The implication is that there is some sort of global Zionist conspiracy with a secret agenda, and I find that offensive.
[/QUOTE]
I absolutely think there is a gay agenda and a black agenda. There is also a catholic agenda, a muslim agenda, a nudist agenda, a ufo spotters agenda etc. Put another way, a group that is (for the most part) single issue or ethnicall or culturally defined has an agenda. That agenda may bias it’s stance on an issue for better or for worse.
[QUOTE=Lochdale]
I absolutely think there is a gay agenda and a black agenda. There is also a catholic agenda, a muslim agenda, a nudist agenda, a ufo spotters agenda etc.
[/QUOTE]
There are suggestions in today’s papers (link) that his role as a life governor of NIDA (the Australian National Institute of Dramatic Art) may be under a cloud as a result of his alleged actions.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, “blood on us,” Original Sin, Mark of Cain, etc. All very good reasons to be careful when choosing which parts of Judaism and Christianity to follow. Paul did it when he tossed out circumcision for goyische converts and if it’s good enough for Paul it’s good enough for me.
Quite true. Without the crucifiction Jesus might’ve died in his sleep and where would we all be then? However, the deepest my theological thinking gets is that, if Christ (or Custer) died for our sins, the least I can do is commit some to make his death worthwhile, but I might’ve missed the point.
Finally, thank you, Shayna (and Dex) for saving me from having to do any research.
[QUOTE=rowrrbazzle]
A lot of people who supported him gave him the benefit of the doubt on the perceived anti-Semitism of PotC and his own father’s opinions. His remarks have at least seriously damaged that doubt, if not destroyed it entirely. In any case that support is justly reduced or removed. Such remarks should be condemned, no matter who says them.
[/QUOTE]
This is my view also, before this he was given some slack, and many of the stories were little more than heresay, now we have some proof that he really is a biggotted asshole.
