G
garn9173
Guest
I just got home from Mass and as a revert, I forgot how powerful it is to hear the Lords Passion. Wow.
- Status
J
juno24
Guest
Yes, indeed. I cry throughout the Mass on Palm Sunday, especially during the reading of the Passion when the crowd (all of us) cries, “Crucify him!”.
T
Tighty_Whitey
Guest
For at least the past 5 or more years our church has not had the congregation state, “Crucify Him, Crucify Him”. I miss this in some ways but am very grateful in otherways that I do not have to state something that I would not say.
B
Big_Feet
Guest
But, unfortunately you do…we all do. Every time we sin we spiritualy yell “CRUCIFY HIM!!!” at the top of our soul’s “lungs.” Our sins are what caused Him so much pain, and the reason He allowed Himself to endure it.
A
Azurestone
Guest
Exactly. This is why the Eastern Traditions and Latin monastics have fasting on Wednesday and Friday. Friday is for the crucifixion, but Wednesday is for the betrayal of Judas. We are all Judas and reject Jesus in our own way.
http://www.iconsexplained.com/iec/lib3/03428_last_supper_dionisios_fentas_978x517_orig.jpg
Guess which one is Judas. (HINT: It’s the one jumping over the table to serve himself.)
G
garn9173
Guest
It was that way Saturday evening for my Parish as well.
M
mh2007
Guest
Yes, it is emotionally troubling, and even frightening to ponder the torment Jesus went through. I would like to get a better understanding of the mindset, and education level of the Jewish citizens, the Sanhedrin, and the Romans who occupied that region who were involved in this great mystery. And why they were so insistent upon condemning Jesus. What a sad commentary on the human race.
After all, He was a peaceful carpenter almost all of His life, and His public ministry lasted only 3 short years. And as I understand it, Jesus never visited large cities - only small places throughout the countryside, until Jerusalem.
After all, He was a peaceful carpenter almost all of His life, and His public ministry lasted only 3 short years. And as I understand it, Jesus never visited large cities - only small places throughout the countryside, until Jerusalem.
P
patrick457
Guest
The Romans found that ruling indirectly and remotely, that is, using the loyal native rulers and leaders as proxies and considering them the responsible officials for a given area to be an effective form of government. It mostly contented itself with the collection of tribute and the maintenance of stable borders; for the most part it even left these tasks at the hands of these men.
In the Galilee, the tetrarch Herod Antipas was pretty much independent. Rome had the final say on crucial matters but he was more or less free to run the kingdom as he wished. He fulfilled the main conditions by keeping order, paying tribute and cooperating with Rome, and in return Rome gave him protection against implied threat of retaliation against invaders. The troops and the taxes were his, district governors were his appointees, and local rulers served at his pleasure. Judaea, meanwhile, was put under the rule of a Roman prefect since AD 6, but its prefect mostly limited himself by visiting places such as Jerusalem during pilgrimage festivals to prevent potential unrest: for the rest of the year he and most of his troops stayed in the capital of Caesarea Maritima with other gentiles, away from the eyes of Jews.
The prefect left daily management of internal affairs, as well as (to some degree) his main duties like maintaining of domestic peace and the collection of tribute, in the hands of people like the high priest in Jerusalem, who had informal councillors and a small formal council. Hence, if people wanted to deal with Rome, they went to the high priest. If Rome wanted to communicate with the people, the prefect summoned the high priest. If anything went wrong, the high priest held full responsibility. But he was only the first among equals: responsibility to prevent trouble fell, to some degree, on all the leading citizens. In short: Rome’s rule over Judaea at our period was rather ‘indirect’: it governed through client (puppet) kings or resident governors, who in turn, utilized local aristocrats and magistrates down the food chain.
Now Caiaphas and Pilate does have some reason to be concerned: Jesus had a following (maybe not too large but a following nevertheless), He talked about the Kingdom of God within the Empire of Caesar, He had taken physical action in the Temple. Coupled with the fact that He is not a madman and is perfectly acting of His own accord makes Jesus loads more dangerous. In a season such as Passover (when millions of people from all over the known world come to the city to celebrate Israelite release from Egyptian bondage), a guy like Jesus was the last person you’d want showing up on your doorstep. Here you have the responsibility to keep the peace and quell anything that smacked of a disturbance to the status quo, then comes an obscure Galilean prophet bringing His followers and symphatizers with Him, teaching potentially inflammatory material (and staging what looks like public demonstrations to boot!).
Even the locals seem to be drawn to His teachings, which is not a good sign: the mere fact that people gather before this Man would have set off the warning signals. If the high priest did not preserve order, the prefect would intervene militarily, and the situation might get out of hand. As long as the Temple guards, acting as the police, carried out arrests, and as long as the high priest was involved in judging cases (though he did not execute anyone), there was little possibility of a direct clash between the Jews and the Romans.
The crowds were responsible for Jesus’ death, but not in the way many people think. It was precisely because they supported Him that the authorities feared Him and wanted to get rid of Him to maintain public order.
Or a general all-purpose ‘craftsman’ (which is what the Greek tekton translates to).
That’s pretty much in the realm of ‘we don’t know for sure.’ The idea that Jesus’ ministry lasted for three and a half years doesn’t really come from the Gospels at all - which are in reality, very ambiguous about its actual duration - but from a Christological interpretation of Daniel’s prophecy of the Seventy Weeks (9:25-27), where the cessation of sacrifice and offering for “half a week” (i.e. three and a half days) is thought to be referring to Jesus. (The other more-commonly interpretation, meanwhile, applies it to the Antichrist.)
Yes.
J
johnthebaptist1
Guest
To me, in my mine,I wll never forget the suffering of Jesus,for every time of think of Jesus suffering, I cry,especally watching the King of KINGS, and THE PASSION OF CHIRST, for seeing Jesus suffering, brings chills to my body. Amen
J
johnthebaptist1
Guest
Ever Lent I watch “The Passion of Christ” and it brings tears to me,The two scene that tear me apart are the wipping of Jesus,and when they show Jesus beening nail to a Cross.
- Status