While I agree that liberals can be bigots as well as anyone (I've met some of the stereotypical liberal screamers) I didn't get that from T.W.'s post.

Just out of curiousity, thought I'd look it up:

Bigot: : a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.

I imagine some people would be happy to refer to me as a liberal bigot. I hope I have the courage to let go of erroneous beliefs and assumptions and I've done so in the past, some of it occasioned by the site, believe it or not. However, having a healthy courage of one's convictions is not the same as bigotry, IMO. I won't do anyone a favor by not asserting the need for a course correction, if I firmly believe one is needed.

__________________
1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

[QUOTE=cmac2012]While I agree that liberals can be bigots as well as anyone (I've met some of the stereotypical liberal screamers) I didn't get that from T.W.'s post.

Just out of curiousity, thought I'd look it up:

Bigot: : a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.

[QUOTE]

hmmm

There were survivors still around when the titanic was made.......

I had thought the Gospels weren't written until closer to 60 years after Jesus' death, which would have been after the destruction of the Temple by Titus in 72. As you point out, crucifixion was a very Roman punishment and was usually reserved for political offenders they wanted to make an example of. The Romans certainly would have wanted to make an example of anyone claiming to be 'King of the Jews,' as they considered themselves to be king of the Jews. For these reasons I've always figured the Romans were the real movers behind Jesus' death. Also, if you were a supporter of Christianity in the early days, it probably would have occurred to you that you would have a better chance of spreading the belief if you made a scapegoat of the Jews as opposed to making the Romans seem completely responsible for Jesus' death. The Romans were not kind to any perceived threat to their 'imperium' and the Jews were not well-liked around the empire, particularly after the rebellion that ended in the Temple's destruction. There were also major rifts between Christians who stayed in Jerusalem during the rebellion and those who left. For those who had left, cutting ties with the Jews was easier.

Just some thoughts.

__________________
Ralph

1985 300D Turbo, CA model
248,650 miles and counting...

It's unclear how many Christians were actually killed by the Romans in the early days of Christianity (before Constantine). Pliny's exchange with Trajan makes it clear that it was not unusual for a Christian to be killed for refusing to disavow their faith. Most Christians, however, probably would have chickened out and worshipped the image of the Emporer if they were brought before a magistrate, and they would more than likely have been free to go after that. That's my opinion because human nature is what it is, not because I have a low opinion of early Christians.

The Romans tried to stamp out religions they thought were bad or too contrary to their own ways. They worked hard at stamping out Druidism, for instance, ostensibly because of the human sacrifice element of it. They tolerated Judasim because of its ancient roots, but it was unacceptable for a Roman to take up Jewish ways. If they did they risked being brought up on charges of believing foreign 'superstitio' and could be killed or exiled.

Some emporers, Nero and Domitian come to mind, specifically ordered the execution of Christians around the Empire. It's unclear how seriously their subjects took these orders, though, or how many people were executed as a result. In most parts of the Empire the richest men in each province bore a lot of the responsibility for carrying out Imperial orders. They resented this (it cost them time and money) and frequently did a half-assed job.

__________________
Ralph

1985 300D Turbo, CA model
248,650 miles and counting...

Thanks Bot, I wasn't exactly sure.

Shaun

__________________
1992 Pearl Black 500E (08/91) SOLD
1997 White C36 AMG (T-Boned by Chevy truck)
2003 Silver C32 AMG (lease due, traded up)
2002 Pontiac Montana VisionSOLD
2007 Volvo XC90 3.2
2005 E55 AMG (newest ride)

Maroon 300D brings-up the most important aspects of the issue. I think I have the sequence correct.

B


1. Romans, like everybody else of that time, didn't separate politics from religion. Politics was an extension of the state religion. Therefore, putting a local God ahead of the Roman religion was a serious offense punishable by death. Thi is why the Romans had such a hard time with the cult of Yahweh--Judaism. jews believed tehre was only one supreme God and that they, the Jews, were his chosen people. That perspective was viewed as defiance by Rome.

2. Jesus was condemned by his countrymen of a religious crime, claiming to be the offspring of the one God.

3. Rome was unconcerned about local religions so long as they were not in conflict with Rome. For this reason, Pilate was desparate to avoid a repeat of his predecessors' conflicts with Judaism. If he could finesse potential conflicts he would do so. In this case he told the local Jews that Jesus had committed no crime under Roman law and that they could deal with him (Jesus) as they saw fit, so long as it didn't interfere with Roman laws and the peace of the land.

4. The claim was made that Jesus claimed to be "King of the Jews." Jesus didn't deny that accusation, which then brought Jesus in direct conflict with Roman law. Pilate ordered him chastised through scourging in hopes of a denial of the charges (see the correspondence between Pliny and Caesar, above).

5. Since Jesus did not deny the charge even after severe chastisement, he was lawfully put to death.

And here we are today.

You're probably right... I said 30 years because that's when Paul/Saul and the bunch first started preaching the word... I think. Then again, I'm not a divinity major... but I'm always looking to learn more from other people. Also, your comment on the Jews being scapegoats due to their small size/power obviously makes more sense than blaming the mighty and powerful Romans. Either way, I don't think that any of the parties involved understood the magnitude of the event except for maybe Jesus himself, who only had to take back his words in order to live, but found it more beneficial to die in order to become the immortal face of what we know as Christianity. I find irony in the fact that the biggest sect of Christianity is Roman Catholicism, named after the same bunch of guys who killed Jesus in the first place.

__________________
----------------------------------

To me, the irony of buying the "Passion" DVD is that unlike a typical DVD purchase, it is more of a keepsake rather than a copy one plans on enjoying for several viewings.

I'm picturing myself looking through our collection one weekend, suddenly spotting the "Passion", pulling it off the shelf and waving it over to my wife exclaiming "Hey honey, break out the popcorn, let's watch this tonight!"

__________________
2009 ML350 (106K) - Family vehicle
2001 CLK430 Cabriolet (80K) - Wife's car
2005 BMW 645CI (138K) - My daily driver
2016 Mustang (32K) - Daughter's car

Slip it next to "Shindler's List" and hope that there's no spontaneous combustion.

I've always been a little skeptical about the claim that Jews put the Romans up to it and that Pilate was disinterested, although it does seem to fit in with the general way in which the Romans did things. The assertion that Pilate would be eager to smoothe things over with leading Jews rings true; he wouldn't have cared about what he would see as their squabbles, and it would have been no sweat off his back to put someone to death to make important people happy. However, I think it's quite possible that the Romans were more interested in Jesus than the Gospels relate.

In any event, however, the claim through the ages that the Jews are responsible for Jesus' death is silly in my view. The Romans clearly did the deed. And it's worth noting that Jesus' followers were largely Jewish. If not for his Jewish followers, we would probably have never heard of Jesus. It seems to me that blaming the Jews for Jesus' death is a little like blaming all southerners for Martin Luther King's death.

__________________
Ralph

1985 300D Turbo, CA model
248,650 miles and counting...

When we're talking about Jews here, are we speaking strictly of religious Jews, or more broadly, the sephardic semitic peoples, which could possibly encompass Arabs as well? I've long been curious about how one delineates between the various ethnic tribes within the region. If one were to strip away the religious and cultural differences, would there be any appreciable biological difference between a Sephardic Jew and an Arab?

As a corollary, were the "Romans" we're referring to here, strictly European, or were they a hodge podge of peoples from their conquered territories? I assume these could've possibly included semitic peoples, e.g. Jews.

Anyone know something about this?

Jews = members/descendents of the Tribe of Judah. So it is not strictly religious, but Arabs would not be included. It's a good question about how similar Sephardic jews and Arabs are bilogically, but I don't know the answer.

The Romans referred to here are actual Romans and not people from their conquered territories. It wasn't until about 50 years after these events that certain foreigners (Greeks and Greek-speaking Asians) were allowed into the power structure that governed the Empire. For the most part these Romans would have come from Italy, but it is also possible that someone like Pontius Pilate could have grown up in one of the far-flung provinces if his father were a praetor or a pro-consul or something. I don't know where Pilate actually grew up, I only use him as an example.

__________________
Ralph

1985 300D Turbo, CA model
248,650 miles and counting...

From what I have read, Gibson ignored written records of other Roman crucifixions in producing his portrayal, but the actual treatment Jesus got was probably just as severe. Having taken a few years of Latin, I know Roman justice was very severe. They had no prisons or concept of prison sentences. You got thrown in a dungeon until they decided to give you your comeuppence, which happened when the judge road into town. Roman judges traveled in style throughout the empire, with footmen carrying "fascis" before them, an ax wrapped in a bundle of iron rods (later to become the symbol of the Italian Fascist Party). When the judge put court in session, he unrolled the bundle. The trial had little to do with guilt or innocence, it was a decision on how much they were going to mutilate you. The accused was going to get one or the other or both, either his bones broken with a beating with the steel rods, or his limbs removed with the ax. Death sentences were carried out via crucifixication, which usually was done on a tree. Nails were actually driven into the wrists and ankles. Israel does not have many trees, so they had to improvise. Given Roman history, Christ probably had to drag his cross, and then he was beaten with iron rods, and then crucified, a death of incredible agony. The soldier who stabbed him with the spear was doing him a favor.

To make matters worse, the Romans did not employ police. Instead they relied on people to inform on each other. So if there was profit to be gained through your demise, you had to tread very, very carefully.

__________________
Ralph

1985 300D Turbo, CA model
248,650 miles and counting...