but Jesus was crucified, which was the Roman method of execution. The Jews used to stone people (have none of you seen The Life Of Brian?!?!)
The Romans strongly disaproved of non Roman religions, therefore they’d have been quite keen to get shot of that Son Of God fella who’s spouting non Roman religion stuff …
Well that’s what I think
There is a word for trashing the Temple on one of the holiest days of the year and then spouting quasi-revolutionary rhetoric to the governor of an occupying force from a brutal empire:
Suicide.
He went looking for someone to kill him, and found it in spades.
I figure it’d be pretty hard (if not completely impossible) to trace ancestry to discover WHO actually are even the decendants of the decendants of the decendants of the decendants of the people who even SAW Jesus, much less to pinpoint who shares DNA with the select few that even went to …trial, pre-crucifixion party… whatever that thing was with Pontias Pilate speaking to the Hebrew heirarchy.
Therefor, assigning blame 2000+ years after the fact (sure, sure it STARTED earlier, but we’re discussing NOW) is nearly as assinine as reparition for slavery, or making the grandchildren of WWII Nazis pay for the holocost.
(funny, reparition for slavery got shot down, but the German people still pay an annual allotment to Israel…)
CAIRO, Egypt (AP) – Hanan Nsour, a veiled, 21-year-old Muslim in Jordan, came out of “The Passion of the Christ” in tears and pronounced her verdict: Mel Gibson’s crucifixion epic “unmasked the Jews’ lies and I hope that everybody, everywhere, turns against the Jews.” In the Arab world, openly voiced anti-Semitism - and by extension the warm reception for “The Passion” - is bound up in the Arab conflict with Israel. Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, after watching the film at his compound in the West Bank, was quoted by an aide as likening Jesus’ suffering to the Palestinians’. Kuwait bans any movies depicting any of the prophets recognized by Islam, but one of its top Shiite clerics, Ayatollah Mohammed Baqer al-Mehri, has urged an exception for “The Passion” because it “reveals crimes committed by Jews against Christ.” The government has not yet made a decision on his call. In Jordan, a leader of the hard-line Islamic Action Front says Muslims should read the Quran or pray instead of watching movies, but he doesn’t mind “The Passion” being screened in his country. “The Jews are the most upset with the movie because it reveals their crimes against the prophets, the reformers and whoever contradicts their opinions,” Hamza Mansoor said.
Zagadka said:
Huh?
Necro Romancer said:
What am I missing here?
The Jews were living under Roman occupation, and the Roman were tolerant of the Jewish traditions, religious laws and court system. Nonetheless, executions were approved and caried out by the Roman authority.
The Jews, after essentially “convicting” Jesus of sedition and crimes against their laws brought him the the local governor Pilate. Pilate could plainly see that Jesus was innocent and tried to reason with the Jews to release him. He even tried to pass the buck, by sending Jesus to Herrod. In the end, to placate the outcry for Jesus’s death he relented and carried out the wishes of the chief priests and scribes and had Jesus put to death.
The Romans were the governing force and carried out the execution. However the Roman government had no reason to seek Jesus’s death. He was executed as a result of the demands by the Jewish leaders and the members of the Sanhedrin. (The Jewish court) Jesus himself was a Jew, and was living in Israel.
How could one read that account and NOT come to the conclusion that the Jews were responsible for Jesus’s death? What do the other 74% believe and how did they come to that belief?
Eve said:
Thanks Mel?
How did Mel let the cat out of the scriptural bag? I mean, the bible is the most widely ditributed book in the history of mankind, even now.
Was this an open secret that somehow escaped everybody’s notice for a couple thousand years?
Erasticity said:
The notion that modern day Jews are somehow “to blame” for the death of Jesus is indeed assinine, or that there should be “reparations”. (Jesus was after all, a Jew)
However if the question is whether the Jews were responsbile for his death, I think the account is pretty straight forward. (And, the Irish were not operating the gas chambers at Dresden, right?)
That the Jews (and Jesus was one…)were responsible for Jesus’s death is a historical fact. (Assuming you believe in the account in the first place…A big if on this MB)
Dex speaks. Who killed Jesus?.
Grey said:
In that whole account there was a passing reference to an account in John, and that wasn’t even quoted!
Why not use the bible as the source?
Because John is a secondary source written 60 years after the fact and targeted to a Gentile audience? There is a listing of the books that formed the bulk of the article. Here it is:
I should’ve included the summary so let me do that now. In my opinion it seems the most reasonable of any of the “blame” arguments I’ve heard.
Grey said:
You know I took the time to re-read that link. Considering it is the "Advisory Board at SDMB’, forgive me if I don’t rush to embrace them as the authority on the matter.
Nonetheless, their final conclusion is not inconsistent with what I said. Pilate did in fact relent to the wishes/demands of the Jewish court sysytem. (Which of course, was populated by Jewish leaders) That the Romans carried out the execution (through Pliate) is a historical fact, and that execution was conceived and insisted upon by the Jews (through the Sanhedrin) is also a historical fact.
Both the Sanhedrin and Roman courts were the “official” agencies that spoke for their respective people. It’s also clear from the biblical account, and not noted by the “staff”, (as they cited several sources but not the bible itself), that there a large crowd of Jews who were incensed and demanding Jesus’s blood. (Luke 23:23,24 and others).
It would be unfair to take this historical fact and “impute” guilt to modern Jews. It would also be unfair to say that the actions of the Sanhedrin and the mob that was pressing for Jesus’s death represented the views of all Jews. Even among the Sanhedrin there were member(s) who saw Jesus’s murder as wrong. (Luke 23:50,51) the accounts also cite many Jews in attendence who were besides themselves in grief over his murder.
Still, it is appropriate to say that the Jews were responsible for Jesus’s death. It is/was not necessary to establish that every single Jew sought Jesus’s death to make that statement. (Apparently though, the sentiment was widespread enough that the risk of riot was a concern for Pilate.)
I know that PC requires that we all play nice, but let’s not re-write history…
Grey said:
The Gospels as “secondary sources?” What would that make the sources cited? Considering that those sources are quouting Josephus and other historians, including the Gospel writers themselves, they would have to 3rd, or 4th or 5th removed, yes?
Not to mention a couple thousand years removed. I would submit that if we’re talking about scrpitural things, and we acceot the bible as a common platform, the bible should be considered the primary source.
No problem.
How big do you suppose the courtyard was that held these people calling for the execution? 200 sqft? 1000 sqft? 2000 sqft? At 4 sqft per person that gives you 50 to 500 people, jammed packed together, baying for blood. Hardly a representative number for the Jewish population in Roman Palestine at the time I would guess.
Now these confuses me,
So not all Jews were responsible but the Jews are responsible. I suppose you could say specific Jews were responsible for the execution of Jesus. That would be about as far as you could go.
Figures I would forget the “likely they address the use of the gospels as sources”. Typical.
Your right. I suppose primary source is a better way to describe John but the fact that John and the Gospels would definitely have their biases and objective should raise flags. I mean they were specifically written as a record of the origin of their belief system. I don’t want to debate the report as I didn’t write it; I simply found it useful and applicable to the discussion of who killed Jesus. If you want to re-open it, head up to the “Staff Reports” forum. There was a great thread on it that I guess died when the servers collapsed a while back. Your arguments might trigger a new one.
You’ll note though that the report does use other period pieces like Josephus and Tactis. Then again they also bring their biases into play.
I agree with Grey. It’s the definite article. It’s like saying the Texans killed Kennedy.
Wellll, out of everything in or about the New Testament, he takes the part where Jewish mobs beat and kill Jesus—then he takes that lit match and drops it into the current bucket of kerosene that is Europe and the Mideast . . . And looks all surprised and innocent when quotes like “I hope that everybody, everywhere, turns against the Jews” are voiced.
Grey said:
True. There is no way to know how “representative” this mob was. The account doesn’t say. It is clear from the Gospels that Jesus had a fair amount of detractors. Certainly there were many people who supported him. (Like 4:22, and many, many others) The Jewish leaders were quite aware of Jesus’s popoularity. (Like 20:19 and others)
To say that the Jews (and Romans) were responsible for Jesus’s death doesn’t infer that all Jews are responsible for his death; either the Jews of his time or modern Jews. Is saying that specific Jews are responsible makes it more palatable, cool.
Would we say than that specific Americans invaded Iraq? I mean, the Sanhedrin was the “official” agency for Jewish afairs including their own judicial system. (That, as noted, was tolerated and supported by Rome) It’s clear that the government’s decision had support, and a vocal dissenting minority. (even among the council) Sounds like the USA right now, doesn’t it?
It just looks like PC run amok…
Libertarian said:
That Kennedy was killed in Texas was a function of a single man (And even if you are a conspiracy theorist, the state of Texas isn’t generally considered part of that plot) and oppourtunity.
The State of Texas, nor any local governing agency within Texas, sought his death. And while there appears to be a mob action or mentality surrounding Jesus’s death, it was inspired by Jews, and specifically the Jewish government, as represented by the Sanhedrin.
These are troubled times. The middle east appears to sitting on a keg of dynamite. But that is not Mel Gibson’s fault, and playing semantics with words to keep the peace seems to me to be nothing more than PC window dressing.
Actually, Gibson showed both the beatings and the killing as being done by Romans. The only Jewish people presented as evil in the movie were Caiaphas and, to a lesser degree, Judas.