7
7_Sorrows
Guest
I love books and magazines on biblical archaeology. it helps to put things into perspective when you can see pictures where events in the Bible actually took place.
- Status
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
I believe that you have to understand that the jews had been conquered by Rome and that to understand what happened at the time of Jesus’ public life and crucifixion, you simply have to understand what kind of people Tiberius, Herod, Pilate and Caiphas were as well as what all of their vested interests were in being rid of Jesus–because each of them definitley had vested interests! You are the one who needs to research history–and the church certainly does NOT deny the politics of the time being involved in Jesus being sentenced to death! PULL-EASE!!! Pilate was only too happy to oblige Caiphas and the high priests when they brought Jesus before him–the only real rub was the degree of punishment to meet out, to hopefully not upset his wife who had apparently had a dream about Jesus but even MORE important to Pilate ultimately, to not cause a jewish revolt as Tiberius didn’t want that–and Tiberius was a man to be feared–greatly feared. Pilate would have probably only beaten and tortured Jesus but spared the death sentence if Caiphas hadn’t pushed for it–AND if Jesus had not stood right in front of him and upon being asked if he were the Christ (ie the king promised in scripture to the jewish people whom they assumed would lead them out from Roman rule)–basically said “Yup–that’s me!” That statement by Jesus was a very problematic one for Pilate–and of course Caiphas knew it and certainly used it to get what he wanted–ie kill Jesus. True history is not everyone’s bag–and I realize that–but I spent a lot of time on this issue for my own personal reasons as I mentioned earlier. I could explain it to you, but me-thinks you wouldn’t believe me if I did. Read about the Roman empire at that time and then do some research on Caiphas and the priesthood. This is a little like the Kennedy assassination interactions in a way. YES, the high priests definitely wanted Jesus dead–but the Romans had reasons to want to keep the high priests happy–especially Caiphas–and on top of that, they were a little afraid that Jesus might actually be claiming to be the “messiah”, a true dissident and threat–which Herod feared meant he’d be out of a job! Obviously, the greater truth is that this was not what Jesus was about at all–but the political environment of that time made Jesus appear to be a threat to more than just one group of rich and powerful big shots at the time. And, what I see in all this: the BIG picture, I guess–is the amazing majesty that God uses to incorporate mankind’s own flaws and sinful natures sometimes to achieve his will and purpose. Frankly, if Jesus had come to earth even 100 years later–or 100 years earlier, I don’t think He’d have ended up crucified–or if He did–if that was God’s plan–it would have certainly happened but differently. Like I said, I could recite the history of Rome at the time and the jews at that time–but I think you’d only argue–and it’s a lengthy tale. Nobody–least of all me–questions in any way that Jesus came to earth to teach us how to live and to die for us, be resurrected and institute a new covenant with mankind. And that is the point! God allowed a “perfect storm” to be occurring at the exact time Jesus was born! Frankly, to me–it just awes me all the more!
thank you. that is a good argument!!
L
LisaA
Guest
Since you persist in saying I am wrong but provide exactly zero support for your claim that the Romans were not complicit in Christ’s crucifixion, I have no answer but to continue to repeat the historical facts. Jesus was crucified by the Romans having originally been brought up on charges of blasphemy by the Jewish priests. Since blasphemy wasn’t a crime in Rome, in order to have Jesus put to death he was accused of sedition, of demanding that He be worshiped as king rather than Caesar. Jesus was very crafty in his answers to Pilate and in effect exonerated himself but the objective of the Jewish priests was to have him killed and their laws would not allow them to do so. One of the points in the book was the timing of the multiple trials, Jesus’ beatings and the crucifixion since the Passover was upon them and all had to be completed prior to the Holy Day.
Obviously the Romans weren’t as concerned with Jesus as the potential for uprisings among the Jewish population and clearly Pontius Pilate didn’t want to be blamed for His death. But the Romans did order Christ to be crucified and carried out the execution. That is a historical fact.
Again I await correction on any facts presented either in the book or on CAF. Also you might be cautious of calling another poster ignorant or you will be hearing from the Moderators.
Lisa
L
LisaA
Guest
Thank you I was not indicating anything about anti-Jewish sentiment but the apparent refusal to include the Romans as agents in Christ’s crucifixion is baffling since there are multiple references to the Roman leaders, Roman troops, and Roman guards who were involved in the beatings, the trial and the actual crucifixion of Christ.
Unfortunately the Church has taken a bad rap for blaming the Jews for Christ’s death when it was a combined effort of two factions both of which felt they had something to lose were Jesus to continue to gain adherents. The Jewish priests ginned up the charges and persisted when the Romans tried to push back but eventually they condemned and crucified Jesus, perhaps thinking that the whole movement would die and things would get back to “normal” with they and the Priests living large while the populace suffered under their authority
Lisa
P
pnewton
Guest
I believe the problem was this rhetorical statement.
The words “the Jew as Christ Killer mantra” are common in accusations of antisemetism.
P
prodigalson2011
Guest
The Gospel accounts state that Pilate, the roman curate overseeing the Jewish nation, found “No fault” with Jesus. Yes, he ultimately gave the order to have Christ crucified, but it was because of the fanatical insistence of the mob; not because he thought Jesus was a real threat.
You are exactly right. Which is why Pilate caved to the pressure of the mob.
Accusations of antisemitism are unnecessary and completely unfounded. The fact of the matter is that he was arrested by Jews (though by John’s account, they were assisted by two Romans). was brought to trial before the Sanhedrin, a Jewish council, and was brought before Pilate under charges raised by that very same Jewish council. Neither Pilate nor Herod, the two most powerful political figures in Judea, found him threatening. Herod thought He was a joke. Those are just the facts as recounted in the only historical records of these proceedings we have.
To claim that the Romans considered Jesus and his followers a threat is a completely unfounded assertion made patently ludicrous by the fact that Pilate, the highest Roman authority in Judea at the time, had no idea who Jesus was before the Jews presented him for crucifxion. Moreover, he tried to release Him several times; even attempting to make a compromise by having Christ scourged brutally.
It is not antisemitism to acknowledge the Gospel truth: Christ was rejected and put to death by his own people. This is not an indictment of the Jews, writ large. Jesus himself was a Jew and so were his followers. And I’m sure many, if not most, Jews who were not his followers did not support his execution either. But the fact of the matter is that those most immediately responsible for his death were among His own people.
Christ’s earthly ministry was carried out among the Jewish people, so it is only logical that those he offended would have been among them. St. Paul affirms this in his letter to the Thessalonians:
“For ye also have suffered like this of your countrymen, even as they have of the Jews; who both killed the Lord Jesus Christ and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men.”
Ad hominem arguments are fallacious, and that is all this inflammatory charge of yours amounts to. It is no more antisemitic to point out that Christ was condemned by some of his own people than it is anti-Germanic to point out that Jews were put to death by certain Germans in WWII. Historical facts are historical facts.
As for who gets the blame for Christ’s execution: it’s every last one of us. The Jewish leaders and mob who demanded his death, as well as the Romans who carried it out, were just the immediate agents of His death. But you and I are just as guilty as the Sanhedrin. Christ came to die for all of our sins.
My point in discrediting the “Christ killed for taxes” thesis is that:
a) such a theory makes Christ out to be some kind of political figure, which He was not. Christ Himself said, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.”
b) moreover, and more importantly, it completely misses one of the most symbolic points made by the Passion: “This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.”
The point was that Jesus indicted the conscience of the corrupt and hypocritical religious authorities of His own people and they reacted with violence. This is a tremendously important metaphorical lesson for all of us: how we so often, when indicted by God through our conscience, “kill Him” within ourselves by ignoring Him and persisting in sin, refusing to submit to His will. We “love darkness instead of light.” The result of our rejection is the death of Christ.
To turn it into a merely political maneuver undermines and distorts the poetry of God’s salvific plan. It was not mere greed, but the willful rejection of goodness itself, that put Christ to death. One cannot separate Christ’s life or death from his divine mission or the theological context surrounding it, or something important ends up missing. Pope Benedict XVI stressed this point very strongly in his own “Jesus of Nazareth,” when speaking of the limitations of the historical-critical method.
L
LisaA
Guest
Again you seem to pick and choose. Christ’s death wasn’t “merely a political maneuver” but this book’s purpose is to demonstrate how the political reality at that time resulted in His death. For Catholics and other Christians it wasn’t mere accident that Christ lived and died during that particular period but “Killing Jesus” is not about theology, it is about history.
I consistently said that the Jewish priestly class was behind the crucifixion but they would not have been able to carry out this act were it not for the complicity of the Romans. As several articles I read noted, the Romans seem to escape the blame which has been fixed upon “The Jews” when in reality it was a cadre of high priests whose livelihood and power were threatened, rather than the Jewish people. Oh sure some of them got into the mob mentality screaming crucify him but the Jewish people were the ones who welcomed, adored and paid homage to Christ as he rode into Jerusalem. They were not trying to get him killed.
There has been a longstanding belief that Christians in general and Catholics in particular blamed “The Jews” for Christ’s death. While acknowledging the reality and historical facts, that SOME of the Jews did bring up the charges and persist in the face of Roman pushback, it’s rather like having our Church itself blamed for the abuse scandal when it was not the Church but corrupt human beings (then and now).
As to the Romans, they would not have killed Christ if they thought he was “a joke” as you claim. While not a direct threat to the Roman military’s might, he was a threat in his apparent influence over the people who may have rioted or otherwise created chaos. Again I don’t know why some absolve the Romans of their responsibility. It’s rather like two kids in trouble and one points to the other saying “Well Bobby MADE ME DO IT!” I don’t know about you but my mom would not have accepted that line of baloney. The Romans were not kowtowing to the Jews, they were operating in their own interest.
Further yours and others’ hairsplitting regarding the “reason” Christ was crucified is a red herring in a discussion of a historical book. We may accept that Jesus was destined from the beginning of time to be crucified as part of God’s plan for Salvation. But from a strictly historical and secular point of view, that plan put Christ into a political and societal situation that allowed man’s corruption and sinful nature to be demonstrated.
Again, if you are going to dispute the book, read it and provide some evidence. The only thing I’ve seen of question was the characteristic of Mary Magdalene.
Lisa
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
the jewish priests or council and the romans were both responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus.
I agree with LisaA. there is a lot of hairsplitting going on. remember the murder of the Holy Innocents? the roman king had heard of this messiah that was born and felt threatened by the baby. as a baby, Jesus presented a threat.
when you look at the political atmosphere at the time of the adult Jesus and the government he lived under and the religion he belonged to - there were so many factors surrounding the reason for his being crucified.
P
pnewton
Guest
Yes there were. I was just pointing out why that statement is antisemetic. If you don’t believe me, just start using that phrase “The Jew as Christ Killer” around here and see if it attracts the moderators attention. The word “mantra” was used, as in " word or phrase that is repeated often or that expresses someone’s basic beliefs"
S
Starrsmother
Guest
I truly don’t care what you choose to believe–or how deeply you choose to bury your head in the sand on the history surrounding all the factions involved–at various levels–in the death of Jesus. But you’re wrong. There’s all the evidence in the world out there–you just have to consider all the sources–not just pick and choose! Have a good day and God bless!
K
KSU
Guest
Thanks, p, but don’t waste your time with these good folks. It is blatantly obvious that those who have placed O’Reilly’s version of Crucifixion history above the Gospels have painted themselves into a corner.
The only topic at issue in this debate is: Did Pilate agree with the Jews’ demand to crucify Christ because he feared potential insurrection by the Jews, as put forth in the Gospels, or because he actually believed the Jews’ charges of insurrection, etc. against Jesus, as alleged by O’Reilly?
Instead of their addressing the topic at issue, I am charged with “hairsplitting”, “refusal to include the Romans as agents in Christ’s crucifixion”, and refusal to provide historical documentation to prove a negative, i.e., that the Crucifixion Gospels are wrong.
So, it’s an old dodge to change the subject; in this case,to possible antisemitism.
It really is funny to watch them dance around the issue.
P
prodigalson2011
Guest
What sources am I not considering? Bill O’Reilly doesn’t count. If you can offer me one historical document to support your argument, I will concede.I truly don’t care what you choose to believe–or how deeply you choose to bury your head in the sand on the history surrounding all the factions involved–at various levels–in the death of Jesus. But you’re wrong. There’s all the evidence in the world out there–you just have to consider all the sources–not just pick and choose! Have a good day and God bless!
P
prodigalson2011
Guest
You are setting up a false dichotomy. Given the religious nature of Christ’s life and ministry, theology is inextricably intertwined with that history.
As to the point about the political reality of the time (namely, some conspiracy between the Roman authorities and the Jewish leadership), there are simply no definitive contemporary sources to confirm that thesis. I repeat my request for a single historical source of any such alliance and/or conspiracy.
That is exactly what I just said in my last post. The complicity of the Romans, however, was a coerced complicity; Pilate sealed his fate, but he did not do so because of political motivations of his own. Again, I repeat my challenge for anyone to provide one historical source to the contrary.
No one here is blaming “the Jews.”
No, the rabid and unruly mob demanding his death were considered a threat. Again, Pilate tried several times to make compromises and release Christ; he saw him as an innocent and he didn’t want his blood on his hands. Do you deny this?
No one is absolving the Romans involved of their responsibility. Pilate capitulated even though he knew it was wrong. The soldiers carried out their orders even though they probably knew they were crucifying an innocent man. They are guilty, too.
Again, I challenge you to provide one piece of solid historical evidence for that claim.
The Romans were indeed acting in their own interest by kowtowing to the Jewish mob to avoid insurrection. That is the clear implication of the Gospel accounts. Which are, again, the only detailed accounts of the entire proceedings we have.
The point, again, is that there is no solid historical evidence for the thesis you are supporting. You cannot read undocumented events or motives into a particular historical setting on the basis of the general cultural milieu of the time. It is not a valid historical method.
As soon as it makes it back onto the shelves of one of my local libraries, I fully intend to do so. In the meantime, no one has yet provided a single source that refutes my objections. If I’m wrong, show me where there is some historical record that demonstrates it. That’s all I ask.
K
KSU
Guest
prodigalson2011, you are to be commended for your patience and for taking the time to spell it all out when you know it will be to no avail with the O’Reilly crowd. Your post should be a clip-and-save item.
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
no one is saying anything anti-Semitic here so I hope you are not accusing anyone of that.
K
KSU
Guest
See what I mean, pnewton
L
LisaA
Guest
Several posters have repeatedly provided information that counters your claims although these claims seem to change from post to post. Aside from that, none of this is even relevant to the thread. You haven’t read the book and are arguing against something you are apparently totally unfamiliar with. Your version of history is apparently strongly held but not very credible. You challenge others to prove a negative yet provide no evidence for your own theory.
Most of the people who read this book are unlikely to be theologians or Biblical scholars. The important element is that this book provides a factual portrait of the kind of life Christ lived and the circumstances regarding His death. Further the portrait of Christ in this book is likely to provide a positive image in a time when we could use a little more of Christ’s approach in daily life. That it’s a best seller is a good thing in my opinion as the unfamiliarity with Christ and His teaching is sadly an ever increasing phenomenon.
When you read the book, find statements you can prove incorrect and you might have something to discuss. But aside from that you are stating your unsubstantiated opinion of a book you haven’t read like so many of the Amazon reviewers who project their opinion of the author for the contents of the book. I always ignore those and should have done the same here.
Lisa
- Status