Well you could say “the Jews” if and only if their supreme executive power derived from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical Roman ceremony!
See the Jewish temple authorities wielded power at the discretion of the Roman procurator. They could not be said to speak for the Jewish population of Roman Palestine at the time. They spoke for themselves and what they considered appropriate to maintain a somewhat benign Roman occupation.
I’m not sure how being accurate is being PC but you have fun with that.
No, not the Sanhedrin. In the scene with the Sanhedrin, there was much protest. Members were screaming about the injustice and indignant about the underhandedness of it all. But Caiaphas had them escorted out of the room.
The middle east is in tremondous turmoil right now, and has been for several years. In the whole scheme of things, I don’t think this movie will be an enduring issue.
I haven’t seen the movie. I understand that it is is exceptionally violent, but true to the historical account. I don’t think he intended to cover the whole new testament. (Nor am I supporting the movie. I have no opinion on that)
To say the Jews killed Jesus it not a helpful thing right now, given the political situation. However, to say something else is re-writing history. (even with good intention)
The account clearly shows that the killing of Jesus came from the Sanhedrin. Further back in the Gospels it is clear that the Jewish leaders had for some time plotted to kill Jesus, but were concerned about the reaction from the growing crowd of supporters. There is nothing in the account that suggests that the killing of Jesus was an attempt by the Jewish leaders to moolify the Romans. the fact that Pilate wanted to release Jesus shows Rome’s ambivalence towards his execution. Even Herod wanted to see Jesus as a matter of intense curiosity. You explanation sounds great, but in the case of Jesus’s death it was the Romans accomodating the Jewish rulers, not the other way around. If this is wrong, please show me from the bible.
[quoteI’m not sure how being accurate is being PC but you have fun with that.[/quote]
I’ve yet to see the inaccuracy of the statement that the Jews (on harmony with the occupation forces) were repsonsible for Jesus’s death.
I’m not sure if I agree with that wording. Not to offend a poster of your stature, but I believe that Jesus was willing to die not that he chose to die. If He chose to die, that would make His make death “suicide by cop” since He could simply have arranged the circumstances.
IMHO, I always felt that there was an important parallel with the story of Jonah and the Ninevites (besides the obvious symbolism of spending 3 days in a fish). Though God planned on destroying the Ninevites, through fasting and prayer they were able to avoid that fate. Likewise, theoretically at least, Jesus could have escaped His fate. This could have been done through His own actions (fleeing) or by the world accepting Him. By and large, the Jews and Romans did not accept His teachings and His call to repent. By not recognizing Him as the Messiah, the world condemned Him to death. However, it was indeed possible for the world to accept Him as the Messiah, worship Him and praise Him, and His death would have been uneccessary. This is why Jesus prayed “let this cup pass from Me.” Jesus was probably dissapointed that we chose to kill Him rather than receive Him while on earth, but He accepted His fate willingly. Just my opinion, though.
that since they were the Jewish representatives within the Roman governing apparatus they spoke for “the Jews”. Since they were not given that position by “the Jews” and did not have a mandate from “the Jews” they can not be said to speak for “the Jews”.
Try this
I mean, when you see a tree do you call it a forest?
I don’t doubt that there was some dissension. (Luke 23:50,51) I don’t recall reading in the scriptures that level of protest. (Would appreciate it cited from the bible) But it is certainly conceivable that there was support for Jesus even in the Sanhedrin.
But there is no shortage of dissent in the US Congress over our actions in Iraq. But most people could say reasonably that America (and Americans) invaded their country. I think it would be generally accepted that not every single American, or even every single member of Congress, needs to be in agreement to use that statement.
That there were dissenters in the general population, and in the Jewish government, is well noted in the scritpture. But the fact remains that the Jews, individually, and through their government killed Jesus. (Who was one of their own; a fact that seems never to be noted…)
Pay attention. The Jewish authorities were not elected by the population. This was not a governing structure anything like the current American republic. The population can not be held responsible because the population had no say in selecting the Jewish authorities who opted to pass various recommendations on to the Roman Procurator.
I’m not sure I understand why this seems so difficult.
1)They weren’t Jewish representitives. They were Jews.
2)And they were given those positions by the Jews. The Sanhedrin was allowed to function by Rome. But it was a Jewish institution. The Chief priest didn’t have Paul Bremer’s job.
3)Whether they spoke for themselves, or whether they spoke for Rome in general terms, the issue we’re discussing is the events surrounding Jesus’s death.
Right?
So…
From the accounts, it’s clear that the Jewish leaders sought to kill Jesus previously and had plotted to kill him before. This even included other Jews. Attempts on his life had happened before, going back years. (Luke 4:28,29) those plots were by Jews, plain and simple. The chief priests more than once sought to have Jesus killed. There is nothing in the scripture supporting the notion that the Sanhedrin was Rome’s puppet in the matter of Jesus’s death.
Quite the contrary. It is clear that Rome, through both Pilate and Herod, wanted nothing to do with putting Jesus to death. Pilate, more than once, tried to reason with the Jewish leaders to not put him to death. Yet the Jewish mob, and it’s rulers persisted. Do you read something different?
I would appreciate it if you would support your claims with the bible.
In the scripture there are instances where people (Jews) sought to kill Jesus. The Sanhedrin was a Jewish institution appointed by Jews and run by Jews. The Romans occupied the Jewish territories, but gave the Jews some autonomy as to how they governed themselves.
The scriptures are clear that the murder of Jesus was conceived by Jews and and driven by Jews. It’s clear that there was at least enough support that a crowd of Jews had gathered and were on the verge of riot. Whether that was 50 people or 100 people the scriptures don’t say. Clearly that was concern for Pilate. Now whether the murder of Jesus was carried out with the support of 50 or 50,000 Jews the fact remains.** And the Jewish government sought his death, not the Romans.**
What’s making it hard for me is that the biblical account offer so much clarity, and the question before us is pretty straightforward: Did the Jews kill Jesus? It would surely make it a lot easier if you would show me from the bible if indeed I am wrong.
The whole “hey, those Jews killed my savior” thing was clearly going to flare up to some degree with the release of a big movie. The media-blitzed American memory is short. Pretty soon, there will be some other group to get angered about. I’m guessing next up are the Mexicans… right around the time “The Alamo” opens.
By the way, everybody knows that God killed Jesus. God gave Jesus life just so he could be killed. Duh.
Which is exactly why the story presented in the New Testament is suspect. We know from other historical documents that the priesthood had been compromised, with Rome appointing the high priest. We know from Jewish Law that the Sanhedrin could not convene a court because of the religious holiday. We know that under Jewish Law that the Sanhedrin had no legal reason to condemn Jesus. (The “blasphemy” charge is only a possibility if Jesus slipped out of Aramaic to invoke an ancient Hebrew verb when he answered “I am” and nothing in the Gospels indicates that he actually did so, given that the Gospels are all written in Greek.)
There are sufficient historical discrepancies in the Gospels to make the specific events less likely to have happened as narrated. Given the choice between historical evidence and a religious tract, I see no reason why I should accept the religious tract as “gospel.”
Given that you agree that it is unfair to cast blame on 21st century Jews for events in the first century, and given that an awful lot of people have done just that (for each respective century) for several hundred years, I am not sure why you are arguing so forcefully for the position that (the) Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus.
The New Testament contains the most “direct” accounts we have of the story of Jesus’ crucifixion, be they secondary or no. Everyone else who wrote about it heard or read the story third-hand at best. If Gibson was to stay remotely true to the Gospels, then the Jews ordered the execution, and the Romans carried it out. That’s the content of the narriative, simple as that. Bloody embellishment may underscore the culpability issue, but it doesn’t change the basic points: Jewish authorities condemned Him, a Jewish mob demanded his death, and a reluctant Roman prefect washed his hands and capitulated. Once again, the refrain: This is the story, as recorded in the Bible.
So, if folks don’t like it, why don’t they come out and say it: It’s not Mel’s movie, it’s the very foundation of Christianity that is the issue. Blaming Gibson is like blaming carbon for global warming: Sure, it makes the heat go up, but how did it get there?
Really? That particular scenario is not at the foundation of my belief, at all.
I find it much more likely that the high priest (without any involvement with the Sanhedrin) went to the notoriously bloodthirsty Roman procurator and said “you need to get rid of this rabble rouser” and that Pilate willingly did so.
Nothing in that scenario harms my belief in the actual passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
Why would the gospels have been altered?
Well, by the time the Gospels were written, 35 - 60 years after the events, the church was already beginning to suffer repeated persecutions at the hands of the Romans, so it might have seemed a better idea to portray the involvement of the Jews rather more forcefully and try to draw off condemnation of the Roman who actually ordered the crucifixion. At the same time, the Christian heresy had already engendered bad feelings between the increasingly gentile Christians and the Jews, themselves, so there was no love lost in portraying the Jews as having had a greater hand in the proceedings.
At any rate, the “foundation” of Christianty is the actual passion, death, and resurrection, regardless of the participants, so a re-examination of the facts of the story does nothing to harm Christianity.
So it’s perfectly alright for Mel to pick and choose his version of the Gospels in order to further inflame antisemitism in an already volatile region?
Extremely well put, and consistent with the biblical accounts as written. It is not anti-semetic to acknowledge the historical facts. Nor are most (responsible) people holding modern day Jews accountable for acts committed 2000 years ago.
Please support this from the bible. It is clear from the bible that Jesus’s death was not a spontaneous act, and that the Jews leaders and some of their adherents had planned to kill Jesus for some time and were looking for an opportunity.
This too is not supported in the bible. It is worth noting that the charges against Jesus were religious. The Romans were ambivalent at best with the Jewish laws and traditions. They got involved in Jesus execution extremely reluctantly, and Pilate’s chief concern was keeping the peace. This is well documented in the Gospels. Please show me from the bible where the Romans, independent of the Jewish Sanhedrin, took exception with Jesus, ever. OTOH, the evidence that the Jewish leaders were highly upset with Jesus, almost from the beginning of ministry, is well documented in scripture.
For believers, the redemptive value of Christ’s death is paramount. But the simple fact that Jesus was killed by the Jews (in concert with the Romans) doesn’t diminish the value of his sacrifice.
Once again, this is not supported in the scripture. OTOH, it is well documented that the apostles were quite willing to suffer indignities, beatings and death for their faith. there is no evidence that the apostles(or Christians) would have altered the record to mollify the Romans. please show me from the bible that any of this can be substantiated.