Mel Gibson's Dad, #1 Jew Fan

[Rogue 9]

Come on, how could you not want to see a movie with this trailer?

That won't load at all for me. And my connection ain't exactly slow.

[Rogue 9]

Come on, how could you not want to see a movie with this trailer?

That won't load at all for me. And my connection ain't exactly slow.

Ooookay, never mind. My God...

[kojikun]

Ahahahahaha thats a great spoof.

[Crown]

Here is something that I never understood when I was young and went to Sunday school and all that jazz;

Why blame the Jews? It was the Romans who actually crusified and killed Jesus, right?

I never got a straight answer to that one.

[Durandal]

Why blame the Jews? It was the Romans who actually crusified and killed Jesus, right?

The Romans didn't really give a shit about him, from my understanding. The Jews were not allowed to doll out the death penalty in their sub-system of justice under Rome's, so they convinced the Romans that Jesus was a political insurrectionist who sought to unify the Jewish people against Caesar. The Jews themselves believed that the Messiah would be a military leader to bring them out of captivity.

So basically, the Sanhedrin, who hated Jesus because of his proposed reforms and open defiance of their laws, convinced the Romans that a man claiming to be the Messiah had to have the intent of waging war on Rome to free the Jews from their subjugation. This is not surprising, given that if Jesus set up a new Jewish doctrine, he'd have probably disbanded the Sanhedrin because he advocated an approach to moral decision-making based less on authority. They were more content to be big fish in a small pond.

So yes, it was the Jewish higher-ups who killed Christ, in that story. And it was the Jewish people who voted to have Barabbas freed instead of Jesus. Sorry, but the story clearly paints the Jewish masses as the bad guys.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Here is something that I never understood when I was young and went to Sunday school and all that jazz;

Why blame the Jews? It was the Romans who actually crusified and killed Jesus, right?

I never got a straight answer to that one.

Because the Jews asked Pilate to crucify Jesus, and (assuming everything happened in the same broad fashion as the Bible describes it), he looked at the general situation and said "hrmm, one guy, or a bloody urban riot?" This was, after all, not exactly an era of civil rights, at least for people without Roman Citizenship. So he "washed his hands" and went along with the Jewish request to avoid any trouble. From the Catholic or Orthodox perspective, Pilate is a man being ordered to shoot someone by a suicide bomber who's surrounded by innocents, and that bomber is named "The Jews".

It's a debatable stance, but one can see how it developed. It was also aided by the fact that, had Jesus been accepted by the Jews, the Kingdom of God would have begun Right There--though, conversely, there would have never been a chance for many to be saved, and this was precisely God's plan. It's somewhat bizzare to put it mildly, but in the world where things are planned in advance but free will still exists, the Jews have to have condemned themselves with the choice they made to condemn Jesus, and yet that choice was necessary for Christianity to happen.

The whole blood guilt thing simply extends from a combination of racial prejudice and classic ideas of punishment of traitors, who's families were often banned or cursed through many generations. Jews were regarded as traitors to the Christian faith for not acknowledging Jesus, and thus were given a punishment like traitors--a blood guilt.

[The Prime Necromancer]

Here is something that I never understood when I was young and went to Sunday school and all that jazz;

Why blame the Jews? It was the Romans who actually crusified and killed Jesus, right?

I never got a straight answer to that one.

Well, besides the numerous quotes from the Gospel of John and several of Paul's epistles that usually blanketly refer to "the Jews" as responsible for Jesus's death, probably the most direct and oft-cited Bible quotes would be this one:

Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ?For he knew that for envy they had delivered him. When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him. But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus. The governor answered and said unto them, Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you? They said, Barabbas. Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified. And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified. When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it. Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.

[Crown]

But that still doesn't change the fact that Israel was a Roman province, it was Roman soldiers obeying the order of a Roman Governor (right? or am I getting my time periods mixed up).

I mean who is in control of the Roman Legions? The Jews or the Romans?

[Rogue 9]

"The Jews" in there is a mistranslation. It refers to the Jewish Temple elite; the Sanhedrin, in the original Attic Greek. Remember, Christ Himself was a Jew, as were all the disciples. The Scriptures do not justify violence against the Jews no matter how literally you take them.

Pontius Pilate was not a kind ruler by any account. On one occasion after Christ's death he broke up a crowd around a Jewish rabbi with cavalry. He killed so many people that he was recalled to Rome to explain himself. He was described by many contemporary sources as a short tempered and stubborn man. The Bible makes mention of this, but doesn't dwell on it; if it had, Pilate would have seen fit to crush Christianity at its very beginning for speaking ill of him. If anyone is to blame, it is the Romans first and Sanhedrin second, though Christ took the burden on himself and asked for them to be forgiven. And blood guilt is just out of the question. Anyone who tries to use the Bible to justify anti-Semitism needs to wake up and learn to read.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

because it was easier to just say "the Jews killed him" than get into the compicated politics of the region's Jewish sects when converting foreigners.

[Darth Wong]

Pontius Pilate was not a kind ruler by any account. On one occasion after Christ's death he broke up a crowd around a Jewish rabbi with cavalry. He killed so many people that he was recalled to Rome to explain himself. He was described by many contemporary sources as a short tempered and stubborn man.

Which contemporary sources? Are not most of these accounts actually written long after the fact?

The Bible makes mention of this, but doesn't dwell on it; if it had, Pilate would have seen fit to crush Christianity at its very beginning for speaking ill of him. If anyone is to blame, it is the Romans first and Sanhedrin second, though Christ took the burden on himself and asked for them to be forgiven. And blood guilt is just out of the question.

Of course. The very notion of any kind of inherited "original sin" is simply absurd and hideously immoral, isn't it?

Anyone who tries to use the Bible to justify anti-Semitism needs to wake up and learn to read.

Either that, or he is simply applying the Christian doctrine of inherited guilt.

[Gil Hamilton]

Pilate also built the aquaduct to Juresulem, took down the Roman emblems in the temple to spare local feelings.

The incident with the cavalry is almost understandable. What you fail to mention, Rogue, is that mob that the cavalry broke up at Tirathana happened to be heavily armed and was going up to the mountains to continue recruiting where it would be hard for the Romans to stop them. Pilate sent the cavalry and heavy infantry to head them off from doing so, things got ugly, and the Romans dealt with the rioters in typical Roman fashion. The only reason that Pilate got in trouble because of this was because the Samaritans went to the Syrian governor Lucius Vitellius and appealed to him that Pilate was too excessive. Vitellius sent him back to Rome and, oh yeah, took direct control and had his brother-in-law replace Pilate's co-ruler replaced by Vitellius's brother-in-law. Pilate was in trouble because the Syrian governor made a power move, not because he executed the Samaritan ringleaders of the armed mob.

[Howedar]

Of course. The very notion of any kind of inherited "original sin" is simply absurd and hideously immoral, isn't it?

Speaking as a Catholic: you're damned right it is.

[Rogue 9]

The belief of inherited guilt isn't shared by all denominations. I for one think its bogus.

Which contemporary sources? Are not most of these accounts actually written long after the fact?

Flavius Josephus wrote of Pilate's brutality. Philo of Alexandria wrote of his stubborn and antagonistic disposition, and I happen to have found a translation of his account. This concerns Pilate's action of setting up shields and inscriptions honoring Caesar Tiberius in Herod's palace. The narrative seeks to flatter Tiberius as much as describe Pilate's despotism, so its slanted, but here it is.

Pilate was an official who had been appointed prefect of Judaea. With the intention of annoying the Jews rather than of honoring Tiberius, he set up gilded shields in Herod's palace in the Holy City. They bore no figure and nothing else that was forbidden, but only the briefest possible inscription, which stated two things - the name of the dedicator and that of the person in whose honor the dedication was made.
But when the Jews at large learnt of this action, which was indeed already widely known, they chose as their spokesmen the king's [Herod the Great] four sons, who enjoyed prestige and rank equal to that of kings, his other descendants, and their own officials, and besought Pilate to undo his innovation in the shape of the shields, and not to violate their native customs, which had hitherto been invariably preserved inviolate by kings and emperors alike.
When Pilate, who was a man of inflexible, stubborn and cruel disposition, obstinately refused, they shouted: 'Do not cause a revolt! Do not cause a war! Do not break the peace! Disrespect done to our ancient laws brings no honor to the emperor. Do not make Tiberius an excuse for insulting our nation. He does not want any of our traditions done away with. If you say that he does, show us some decree or letter or something of the sort, so that we may cease troubling you and appeal to our master by means of an embassy.'
This last remark exasperated Pilate most of all, for he was afraid that if they really sent an embassy, they would bring accusations against the rest of his administration as well, specifying in detail his venality, his violence, his thefts, his assaults, his abusive behavior, his frequent executions of untried prisoners, and his endless savage ferocity.
So, as he was a spiteful and angry person, he was in a serious dilemma; for he had neither the courage to remove what he had once set up, nor the desire to do anything which would please his subjects, but at the same time he was well aware of Tiberius' firmness on these matters. When the Jewish officials saw this, and realized that Pilate was regretting what he had done, although he did not wish to show it, they wrote a letter to Tiberius, pleading their case as forcibly as they could.
What words, what threats Tiberius uttered against Pilate when he read it! It would be superfluous to describe his anger, although he was not easily moved to anger, since his reaction speaks for itself.
For immediately, without even waiting until the next day, he wrote to Pilate, reproaching and rebuking him a thousand times for his new-fangled audacity and telling him to remove the shields at once and have them taken from the capital to the coastal city of Caesarea [...], to be dedicated in the temple of Augustus. This was duly done. In this way both the honor of the emperor and the traditional policy regarding Jerusalem were alike preserved.

Source

Also, this.

[lgot]

then this goes for both topics, Rogue.
Pilatos was not a nice person, however, it is irrelevant. the almost nothing we know about Jesus include the real reasons of his death - If really the hebrew authority did it or if Pilatos had a reason - but the Gospels basically clean the act of Pilatos and blame jewish - not just the jewish authority. The episode symbolic of Barrabas is a way to blame the people as well - even Mathews, the most hebrewish of the writers does this with the formula of barrabas and the public taking the blame for them (do you remember, they accept the blame is jesus was innocent. In Hebrewish tradition that was important and Mathews seemed to just be hitting at the sittuation of jerusalem - the very people who said that jesus's blood would be with them and their sons - in years to come) . John clearly cleans Pilatos' hand , Jesus even say that those who delivered hm to Pilatos are the sinners, not him.
It would be even naive to not think there was bitterness between then, the separation was not easy and as human it would be ridiculous to not think some stuff lasted to be settle.

[Rogue 9]

True, but most of the early Christians still considered themselves Jews as well. The final separation didn't occur until a little over a hundred years later.

[lgot]

The separation was in the process already with Paul - Peter argument about the new christians coming from outside hebrew population or not. Also with the death of Thiago - Jesus's brother, the other head of early christians they lost a big link to the hebrewish community and seems like when John wrote his texts are already apart of hebrewish control and more "Universal".
But if you mean that even those new christian still hold hebrewish ties and visions, that is true.

[Darth Wong]

Flavius Josephus wrote of Pilate's brutality. Philo of Alexandria wrote of his stubborn and antagonistic disposition, and I happen to have found a translation of his account.

Flavius Josephus was born in 37 AD. This is hardly a contemporary account. And Philo of Alexandria was in Alexandria, not Jerusalem. He had no first-hand knowledge of events whatsoever, and obviously relied upon second hand testimony (in an era where information travelled slowly, without photographs, and often by word of mouth). He is not a primary source either.

Care to try again?

[HemlockGrey]

Going from memory here, but I believe Philo of Alexandria was Jewish and thus may indeed have spent time in Jerusalem.

[Darth Wong]

Going from memory here, but I believe Philo of Alexandria was Jewish and thus may indeed have spent time in Jerusalem.

Maybes are not the same as evidence. If Rogue is going to use the guy's testimony as evidence rather than hearsay, he has to show that the man's testimony actually qualified as such.

[HemlockGrey]

Actually, I believe Philo did visit Jerusalem, but only once; and given his obvious pro-Jewish bias, I would hardly call him an impartial observer.

[Rogue 9]

Flavius Josephus wrote of Pilate's brutality. Philo of Alexandria wrote of his stubborn and antagonistic disposition, and I happen to have found a translation of his account.

Flavius Josephus was born in 37 AD. This is hardly a contemporary account. And Philo of Alexandria was in Alexandria, not Jerusalem. He had no first-hand knowledge of events whatsoever, and obviously relied upon second hand testimony (in an era where information travelled slowly, without photographs, and often by word of mouth). He is not a primary source either.

Care to try again?

Its the best we have. Unless you'd rather take the Biblical account, that is. Close as anyone's going to get, anyway. All the evidence we have, discounting the Gospels (as you do), indicates a tyrant.

And while Philo was not directly present, he was a relative of Herod. From the first link:

We can be a little bit more precise about one of these spokesmen [the other being Flavius]: Philo was related to the Herodian dynasty and will have heard the story from one of the members of the embassy. (It should be remembered that at least one Herodian prince hated Pilate: Luke 23.12.)

Which makes him a secondary, not a tertiary, source, since he likely heard it from a direct witness. Again, best we have. I concede that there are no conclusive primary sources, but that can be said of many historical figures and events. More is known about Pilate than most of the other provincial governors, for example.

[Darth Wong]

In other words, you have nothing but hearsay, yet you take their word as fact and use it as evidence in arguments. Sorry, but I have to call a foul on that one.

You cannot honestly say, based on the information at hand, that Pilate was a maniac. You can only say that some of his political enemies in the Herodian dynasty accused him of being one. Not quite as striking a condemnation, is it?

[Rogue 9]

Actually, Igot used the term "maniac" first. But you're right. I concede. Can't prove it.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Flavius Josephus was born in 37 AD. This is hardly a contemporary account. And Philo of Alexandria was in Alexandria, not Jerusalem. He had no first-hand knowledge of events whatsoever, and obviously relied upon second hand testimony (in an era where information travelled slowly, without photographs, and often by word of mouth). He is not a primary source either.

Care to try again?

Philo was a hellenized Jewish philosopher in Alexandria who's writings were preserved by the Church because they thought that he spoke on an early monastic group, which he did not; and some even claimed him to have met the Apostle Peter and have converted to Christianity; which he did not on both accounts. His work is surely more unbiased than that of the Church fathers themselves but considering it was only preserved inside the Church, has a questionable state of preservation.