Passion of the Christ - Page 4 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Maroon 300D · #46 05-25-2006, 01:46 PM

"Concerning Jesus' executioner, Pontius Pilate, we have a considerable body of data that contradicts the largely sympathetic portrayal of him in the New Testament. Even among the long line of cruel procurators who ruled Judea, Pilate stood out as a notoriously vicious man. He eventually was replaced after murdering a group of Samaritans: The Romans realized that keeping him in power would only provoke continual rebellions. The gentle, kindhearted Pilate of the New Testament—who in his "heart of hearts" really did not want to harm Jesus is fictional. Like most fictions, the story was created with a purpose. When the New Testament was written, Christianity was banned by Roman law. The Romans, well aware that they had executed Christianity's founder—indeed the reference to Jesus' crucifixion by the Roman historian Tacitus is among the earliest allusions to him outside the New Testament—had no reason to rescind their anti-Christian legislation. Christianity's only hope for gaining legitimacy was to "prove" to Rome that its crucifixion of Jesus had been a terrible error, and had only come about because the Jews forced Pilate to do it. Thus, the New Testament depicts Pilate as wishing to spare Jesus from punishment, only to be stymied by a large Jewish mob yelling, "Crucify him." The account ignores one simple fact. Pilate's power in Judea was absolute. Had he wanted to absolve Jesus, he would have done so: He certainly would not have allowed a mob of Jews, whom he detested, to force him into killing someone whom he admired.

Crucifixion itself, a Roman form of execution, was forbidden by Jewish law because it was torture. Some 50,000 to 100,000 Jews were themselves crucified by the Romans in the first century. How ironic, therefore, that Jews have historically been associated with the cross as the ones who brought about Jesus' crucifixion."

It seems that the considerable body of evidence here comes mostly from Josephus, whose accounts I find to be soewhat dubious. He was a leader of the Jewsish revolt but then betrayed his people and led the Romans to a cave where his elite guard was staying. The Romans slaughtered the guard and kept Josephus on as an offical historian.

Josephus is the guy who tells us some 900 Jews committed mass suicide at Masada after the revolt. It's possible that this is true, but in general Jews don't commit suicide. I believe there is only one example of a Jew committing suicide in the Old Testament, where a certain Saul, injured in battle, takes his own life before being captured by the hated Philisitines. The Jews did hate the Romans and horrible things would have happened to them had they been captured, so it is possible, but I'm just not sure about it.

In any event I think Josephus may have felt bad about what he did and lied about the mass suicide so as to make the Jews look more honorable in Roman eyes and also to make it appear that the Romans did not just slaughter everyone. The Romans did care about their image in this way; consider the fact that Titus claims to have not burned the Temple on purpose, and that it was out of control soldiers who were responsible. A dubious claim in my view.

The same thing could be going on with Josephus' accounts of Pilate. And also, Josephus was evidently not even born until after Pilate left Judea.

So his information could be accurate but I think there is also reason to doubt it.

Mike552 · #47 05-25-2006, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maroon 300D

"Concerning Jesus' executioner, Pontius Pilate, we have a considerable body of data that contradicts the largely sympathetic portrayal of him in the New Testament. Even among the long line of cruel procurators who ruled Judea, Pilate stood out as a notoriously vicious man. He eventually was replaced after murdering a group of Samaritans: The Romans realized that keeping him in power would only provoke continual rebellions. The gentle, kindhearted Pilate of the New Testament—who in his "heart of hearts" really did not want to harm Jesus is fictional. Like most fictions, the story was created with a purpose. When the New Testament was written, Christianity was banned by Roman law. The Romans, well aware that they had executed Christianity's founder—indeed the reference to Jesus' crucifixion by the Roman historian Tacitus is among the earliest allusions to him outside the New Testament—had no reason to rescind their anti-Christian legislation. Christianity's only hope for gaining legitimacy was to "prove" to Rome that its crucifixion of Jesus had been a terrible error, and had only come about because the Jews forced Pilate to do it. Thus, the New Testament depicts Pilate as wishing to spare Jesus from punishment, only to be stymied by a large Jewish mob yelling, "Crucify him." The account ignores one simple fact. Pilate's power in Judea was absolute. Had he wanted to absolve Jesus, he would have done so: He certainly would not have allowed a mob of Jews, whom he detested, to force him into killing someone whom he admired.

Crucifixion itself, a Roman form of execution, was forbidden by Jewish law because it was torture. Some 50,000 to 100,000 Jews were themselves crucified by the Romans in the first century. How ironic, therefore, that Jews have historically been associated with the cross as the ones who brought about Jesus' crucifixion."

It seems that the considerable body of evidence here comes mostly from Josephus, whose accounts I find to be soewhat dubious. He was a leader of the Jewsish revolt but then betrayed his people and led the Romans to a cave where his elite guard was staying. The Romans slaughtered the guard and kept Josephus on as an offical historian.

Josephus is the guy who tells us some 900 Jews committed mass suicide at Masada after the revolt. It's possible that this is true, but in general Jews don't commit suicide. I believe there is only one example of a Jew committing suicide in the Old Testament, where a certain Saul, injured in battle, takes his own life before being captured by the hated Philisitines. The Jews did hate the Romans and horrible things would have happened to them had they been captured, so it is possible, but I'm just not sure about it.

In any event I think Josephus may have felt bad about what he did and lied about the mass suicide so as to make the Jews look more honorable in Roman eyes and also to make it appear that the Romans did not just slaughter everyone. The Romans did care about their image in this way; consider the fact that Titus claims to have not burned the Temple on purpose, and that it was out of control soldiers who were responsible. A dubious claim in my view.

The same thing could be going on with Josephus' accounts of Pilate. And also, Josephus was evidently not even born until after Pilate left Judea.

So his information could be accurate but I think there is also reason to doubt it.

I guess we'll never really know. Either way, I find it too convenient that Christian history (at least in my experience attending Catholic school) blames the very people whom they were trying to differenciate themselves from. It's a blatantly opportunistic way to disqualify a religion... "It's THEIR fault that our leader is dead, come with US where you can repent your sins and find salvation". Pretty convenient conflict to validate a new religion, don't you think?

cmac2012 · #48 05-26-2006, 04:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maroon 300D

... The account ignores one simple fact. Pilate's power in Judea was absolute. Had he wanted to absolve Jesus, he would have done so: He certainly would not have allowed a mob of Jews, whom he detested, to force him into killing someone whom he admired.

Well reasoned. I can imagine that some or even many of the Jewish high priests would have had cause to be threatened by Jesus' power but that doesn't mean that biblical accounts of the Pharisee's (sp) treatment of Jesus were totally accurate -- could have been altered for the same reasons you mention. And one wonders whether or not a handful of jealous priest could have sold a mob on demanding a crucifixion anyway, especially for Jesus.

NPR's Fresh Air had a piece a few months back entitled Bart Ehrman's 'Misquoting Jesus'. Ehrman described the clear evidence that numerous changes were made by scribes over the centuries when copying new copies of the bible by hand. The idea being that many scribes changed sentences and stories when they believed the intent of the story was being shortchanged.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike552

I guess we'll never really know. Either way, I find it too convenient that Christian history (at least in my experience attending Catholic school) blames the very people whom they were trying to differenciate themselves from. It's a blatantly opportunistic way to disqualify a religion... "It's THEIR fault that our leader is dead, come with US where you can repent your sins and find salvation". Pretty convenient conflict to validate a new religion, don't you think?

Good point. I wish I'd thought of it.

t walgamuth · #49 05-26-2006, 09:07 AM

good point about the scribes.

i often wish for original texts for comparison to present versions of the bible. not that i could read hebrew or greek.

tom w

cmac2012 · #50 05-26-2006, 02:01 PM

What's neat about those NPR archives is you can listen to them while surfing the web. The guy makes an excellent case with numerous examples.

Mike552 · #51 05-26-2006, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Good point. I wish I'd thought of it.

Thanks. Also, not to push the envelope here.... but I also find it too convenient that the one guy who betrayed Jesus happened to go by the name of JUDAs. But of course, the guy's name is clearly remembered 60 years after the fact

. If he ever really existed... FWIW, I don't beleive he did. If that's not subliminal brainwashing, I don't know what is. I strongly beleive that the reason Jews have been such an easy target throughout the years is because they make up such a small percentage of the world's population, and it's easy to use them as scapegoats when the situation calls for it. You can label them.... Look! It's the Jews! They did it! And get away with it because the rest of the world is indifferent to them and plainly just don't give a fcuk if they are blamed... as long as someone is. Closure... that's all people care about anyways.

cmac2012 · #52 05-28-2006, 02:47 PM

Interesting. JUDAs. Who knows. Then again, there might be something to the idea that Jesus needed Judas to complete the prophesized crucifixion.

I'll have to read it again, but I believe the Last Temptation of Christ also played this angle. In fact, a lot of what goes down in the DaVince Code (though I've not read it, I've read enough about it) might have been borrowed from Last Temptation. I posted a thread about the author Nikos Kazantzakis, entitled ZORBA!! Hell of a book.

It is a bit bizarre how people seem to look for or "need" a whipping boy, a scapegoat. Hitler's crowd also hated gypsies and that has a modern corollary here in hippie hate. I've had some friends suffer serious abuse behind that, beatings and the like. I worked a Christmas tree farm in Eureka, Montana back in '89 and my buddie who lived there told me and infamous story from back in the late 60s where some slender, hitch-hiking long haired hippie was held down and had his hair cut off with a chain saw by about 10 big courageous men. Jeez, probably pulled it out, more like it.

Back when I had hair, many, many times I'd be in a cafe out in the heartland and I'd see some good ol' boy doing that clenched jaw muttering, cussing under his breath like if only he wasns't restrained by law and his decency he'd come over and give me what for. I was never attacked, I imagine I was big enough to keep the cowards at bay. Still, the legacy of hippie hate is alive and well. Here in B-Town, there's a regular supply of wandering former dead-heads, adrift without their Jerry, lounging aroung on Telegraph Ave, panhandling and being fools. Most all of these people come from somewhere else and I don't know why the city is so soft on them. The Telegraph Ave merchants are hurting from the atmosphere.

It's a nice little town, the University is a highly sought entry ticket and comes up with all sorts of valuable research. Still, Berkeley is the convenient hippie capital scapegoat for the likes of Limbaugh and minions.

pastmaster · #53 05-30-2006, 03:46 PM

MY GOODNESS!!!

What a powerful thread! In a car forum, even though it is about M-Bs.

It shows me that we are good people here...my respect to you all.

aklim · #54 05-30-2006, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pastmaster

MY GOODNESS!!!

What a powerful thread! In a car forum, even though it is about M-Bs.

It shows me that we are good people here...my respect to you all.

Why not? JC is part of the list of "handy expletives" we commonly use.

Jesus H. Christ
Jesus F***ing Christ

and many more

Botnst · #55 05-30-2006, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pastmaster

MY GOODNESS!!!

What a powerful thread! In a car forum, even though it is about M-Bs.

It shows me that we are good people here...my respect to you all.

Stick around and you'll change your mind.

B

pastmaster · #56 05-30-2006, 09:48 PM

Yup, I'm begining too see. Everything has an exception.

FeelTheLove · #57 05-30-2006, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maroon 300D

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.

I don't think "the Romans did it" fit what we know. We know very.very little. But most historians agree on an obvious set of facts that are common to the Gospels - that Jesus was probably a Jew who had been the son of servents in a Samaritian household, (more precisely, the son of a single mother cast out by her people who was taken in by Samaritans, bound by their religion to do so the night she showed up looking to drop her kid in the family barn), that as a young man gathered a following about him by his charismatic message, and that he threw the money lenders out of the temple, gave a great speech, was arrested and died a noble death.

Philosophically, he was attempting to meld the theocracy of Judaism, a harsh creed with an angry god, with that of the Samaritans, who were one of the few people who practiced any kind of human kindness in that day and age. We know that he went to the temple, got into some major hassle with the establishment there, chasing many of them about the place and giving them a good thrashing. He followed that with a major speech (Sermon on the Mount) where he demonstrated he could attract a good crowd, and then rode into the capital on Passover day in a manner prophesized for the Messiah. Typical story - he was a revolutionary, who pissed off the rednecks of his time. But it was not the Romans he was after (a fact that irritated a certain fellow named Judas) - his revolution was aimed at the Jewish power structure, which he wished to sweep away and replace with his new Love God cult.

In fact, we know he went out of his way to not irritate the Romans, what with his giving Caesar his due and telling slaves to obey their masters, etc, but throughout the Gospels, in all the Gospels, he's putting a major dis on the Sanhedrin and the Pharisees, promising them woe and eternal damnation at every opportunity. But there is little Roman bad-mouthing in the Gospels, that comes a hundred years later in the Revelation after they grew fond of feeding the pious to the lions.

I think in the end we can see a lot more motive to kill Jesus coming from the Jews - to the Romans, Jesus was not even a blip on the radar screen, some street preacher followed by a motley crew of mostly chicken hearts and an occasional whore. Unarmed, too. The Sanhedrin on the other hand were threatened by the ideas being unleashed by Jesus. If he and his cronies were to grow too popular, they could be out of a cushy job, what with all the free mutton and alms money floating around. So they arranged to have him killed.

They had no choice in how to do it - they would have had to have the Romans do it, because Rome did not allow local governments to inflict capital punishment on it's citizens. Only the Romans could do that, and they set it up that way for a reason. Capital punishment causes civil unrest. Believe it or not, the Romans wished to make sure that people were put to death justly, in order to keep the peace, and Jesus certainly came under that heading. I would imagine the Jews acted as informers, giving false witness accusing Jesus of a messianic plot that threatened Roman rule, using some of His acts against Him or even more likely, they simply paid Pilate a bribe to do the dirty work. Jesus obviously went nobly to his death, which added to his legend, a man who rised in death above the plotters, bribe takers, and the general corruption of his time, to die a dignified death, must have been the fodder for a lot of talk among the common people of the time.