So I finally saw the Passion of the Christ

[skins]

Not saying you're wrong, but you shouldn't state your opinion as fact. The Bible can be at times contradictory and confusing, but not in this case. It clearly says that both Herod & Pilate wanted nothing to do with his death. How you interpret Matthew's writings is your own opinion. The truth probably lies somewhere in between. I think they both wanted him dead, but neither wanted his 'blood on their hands'. Therefore since it was the Romans job to crucify him they ultimately forced the decision to do it on the Jewish leaders making it sound as if they only did it to placate them.

 

 

Of course, you are correct that much of biblical interpretation is opinion, but it is usually based upon scholarshp and fact. For example, Matthew was one of the Synoptic Gospels, meaning seeing with one eye. It was based upon the earliest accepted traditional Gospel, Mark, and with Luke repeats much of what was written in Mark. It is also a post-Masada writing that follows Paul. Many call the four Gospels Pauline in nature, because they are addressing an early church whose message is largely shaped by Paul and not by the early Jerusalem church led by the family of Jesus (the family of Jesus and the Jerusalem community were largely destroyed after the revolt leading to Masada and the sack of Jerusalem).

 

Paul's message was to both Jews and gentiles, but it was specifically pro-Roman and anti-Jewish in nature, because there was incredibly widespread animosity to the Jews at that time following their numerous and ongoing rebellions--which continued into the second century AD. So what Asz is saying is pretty commonly accepted by biblical scholars based upon historiographical information and analysis of the early church writings.

[Yukon Cornelius]

We should have a Tailgate contest to see who can be the first Huddler to succesfully identify a subject where Az is something other than an absolute authority. :oldrolleyes:

 

[Big John]

We should have a Tailgate contest to see who can be the first Huddler to succesfully identify a subject where Az is something other than an absolute authority. :oldrolleyes:

 

He does have a deep understanding of the Bible.

 

 

Civil Engineering?

Land surveying?

 

Gender Identification?

[rajncajn]

He does have a deep understanding of the Bible.

Civil Engineering?

Land surveying?

 

Gender Identification?

 

[whomper]

One thing I always wondered about the bible was about the amount of letters Paul wrote to the corinthians. Every gospel I ever heard in church was a reading from a letter of Paul to the corinthians..Do you ever wonder if the corinthians at some point were saying to themselves..Jeez another letter from Paul doesnt Paul have anything better to do .

[tonorator]

One thing I always wondered about the bible was about the amount of letters Paul wrote to the corinthians. Every gospel I ever heard in church was a reading from a letter of Paul to the corinthians..Do you ever wonder if the corinthians at some point were saying to themselves..Jeez another letter from Paul doesnt Paul have anything better to do .

 

 

they are usually reading the same passage ... "love is patient, love is kind, etc. etc."

[whomper]

they are usually reading the same passage ... "love is patient, love is kind, etc. etc."

 

 

 

The joke is better if its a bunch of letters

[tonorator]

The joke is better if its a bunch of letters

 

 

no, it's a bad joke. "anyone can see that this guy has brains" ... now THAT'S a good joke ...

[whomper]

no, it's a bad joke. "anyone can see that this guy has brains" ... now THAT'S a good joke ...

 

 

 

Its was what I call a heat seeking joke..Designated for a few specific people..

[Jimmy Neutron]

That is not accurate at all. The High Priests and Pharisees were not "losing followers" to Jesus because his followers were all still Jews. They were going to lose the power and wealth they had gathered as collaborators under Roman rule keeping the Jewish populace under control. Jesus, as the Davidic heir, would be above them politically.

 

And Jesus and his followers viewed Annas and his family as Herodian collaborators, and thus, in league with Herod, the murderer of John the Baptist. They knew they would be driven from power if Jesus led a revolt against Roman rule.

 

There was no competing religious message between Jesus and the Jewish collaborators. They asked him to publicly declare himself Messiah--or anointed king of Israel--so that the Romans would kill him as an heir to the throne and potential political threat.

 

 

In any case, I think the High Priests were worried about losing followers to Jesus in a spiritual sense. People were beginning to view Jesus as a spiritual advisor where they had once turned to the High Priests. They saw the trend and worried about losing power as more people chose to follow Jesus. If they failed to control the Jewish population, they'd be in deep trouble with the Romans and lose their cushy positions.

 

I think that if Herod believed Jesus was a real threat as the Davidic heir, he would have condemned Jesus himself, rather than returning the decision to Pilate's court. I mean really, we're talking about the Romans here. They were not known for waiting around until people really became a problem threatening the state.

 

You are right about Pilate not being a saint, but I'm more inclined to believe he caved to a very vocal sect of the Jewish leaders that demanded His death. I do think the movie went over board here in showing the general population of Jews clamouring for blood.

 

Why exactly Pilate lose his office? I've only ever heard that he lost his post because of an uprising in Samaria a few years later.

[AtomicCEO]

One thing I always wondered about the bible was about the amount of letters Paul wrote to the corinthians. Every gospel I ever heard in church was a reading from a letter of Paul to the corinthians..Do you ever wonder if the corinthians at some point were saying to themselves..Jeez another letter from Paul doesnt Paul have anything better to do .

 

 

Dear Corinthians,

 

Loving the leather couch. Seriously. When they say Corinthian leather is top notch, they mean it.

 

Anyway... A lot has happened to me since I last wrote. Love is patient, love is kind... etc.

 

Love,

Paul

[godtomsatan]

jesus, blahblahbalh, jesus, blahblahblah.

 

Lethal Weapon 2 was better.

[Ursa Majoris]

Congratulations, you have reached Level 2.

 

You're assuming he started at zero......unfortunately this isn't the case. Balla has advanced now to -478.

[skins]

In any case, I think the High Priests were worried about losing followers to Jesus in a spiritual sense. People were beginning to view Jesus as a spiritual advisor where they had once turned to the High Priests. They saw the trend and worried about losing power as more people chose to follow Jesus. If they failed to control the Jewish population, they'd be in deep trouble with the Romans and lose their cushy positions.

 

I think that if Herod believed Jesus was a real threat as the Davidic heir, he would have condemned Jesus himself, rather than returning the decision to Pilate's court. I mean really, we're talking about the Romans here. They were not known for waiting around until people really became a problem threatening the state.

 

You are right about Pilate not being a saint, but I'm more inclined to believe he caved to a very vocal sect of the Jewish leaders that demanded His death. I do think the movie went over board here in showing the general population of Jews clamouring for blood.

 

Why exactly Pilate lose his office? I've only ever heard that he lost his post because of an uprising in Samaria a few years later.

 

 

The High Priests were worried that Jesus would cause an uprising and either win it and depose them or lose it and cause turmoil throughout Israel. Hespoke out against them because he considered them impure, non-Aaronic High Priests and thus illegitimate. But there was no spiritual conflict in the sense of competing religions. Jesus was a Jew, the High Priests were Jews. Jesus just thought they had strayed and were not righteous anymore.

 

And Herod had no power over Jesus in Jerusalem because he did not rule there. It is highly doubtful that Jesus was put in front of Herod at all. Those events occurred during one night--for example, Jesus was brought before a hastily convened partial Sanhedrin in the middle of the night which presumably did not include the members sympathetic to his claim to the throne (e.g. Joseph of Arimathea). I doubt that the Herod passage is factual. Jersusalem was not ruled by Herod and he had no authority there so why would the Jews bring him to Herod? He could do nothing even if he wanted to as the Romans alone were the secular authority in Jerusalem.

 

If Herod had gotten his hands on Jesus outside of Jerusalem, I think it is pretty likely that he would have done the same to him he did to his cousin John the Baptist (although Jesus was not as directly confrontational towards Herod as John, he did call him an illegitimate ruler and was claiming to be the sole true heir to the throne of Israel).

 

And the Romans did not wait around for Jesus. He was baptizing for a year or so with John, although in a different area, and then he was speaking out in Galilee. During those periods he was not directly in their face and was not directly challenging their authority in an aggressive manner. But when he came to Jerusalem and publicly declared himself the Davidic Messiah at Passover with 1.5 million Jews in the area, they immediately locked him up and tortured and crucified him. They didnt wait around at all. Until that point, they probably viewed him as one more "messiah" running around Herod's hinterlands and figured it was an internal Jewish problem. Once he got in their face he was immediately crucified.

 

And I dont think it is historically accurate to imply Pilate would have ever caved to the people he ruled there. He was known for being incredibly bloodthirsty and ignoring Jewish sensibilities at every turn. He was canned because he was so brutal in putting down that Samaritan uprising but he had earlier complaints about putting Roman symbols in the Temple go all the way to the Emperor in Rome, who had to overrule Pilate to keep the Jews pacified.

 

Did Jewish collaborators--Annas and his faction--want Jesus dead? Absolutely. Did they or any other Jews kill Jesus? Absolutely not.

Edited July 11, 2006 by skins

[Azazello1313]

The High Priests were worried that Jesus would cause an uprising and either win it and depose them or lose it and cause turmoil throughout Israel. Hespoke out against them because he considered them impure, non-Aaronic High Priests and thus illegitimate. But there was no spiritual conflict in the sense of competing religions. Jesus was a Jew, the High Priests were Jews. Jesus just thought they had strayed and were not righteous anymore.

 

if jesus is going around calling them liars and hypocrites, that sounds like a "spiritual conflict" to me. there was definitely a serious conflict between pharisaic legalism and the "essence" of the torah as jesus was going around preaching it. part of the struggle was definitely political, but serious spiritual rifts were underlying.

 

And Herod had no power over Jesus in Jerusalem because he did not rule there. It is highly doubtful that Jesus was put in front of Herod at all. Those events occurred during one night--for example, Jesus was brought before a hastily convened partial Sanhedrin in the middle of the night which presumably did not the members sympathetic to his claim to the throne (e.g. Joseph of Arimathea). I doubt that the Herod passage is factual. Jersusalem was not ruled by Herod and he had no authority there so why would the Jews bring him to Herod? He could do nothing even if he wanted to as the Romans alone were the secular authority in Jerusalem.

 

If Herod had gotten his hands on Jesus outside of Jerusalem, I think it is pretty likely that he would have done the same to him he did to his cousin John the Baptist (although Jesus was not as directly confrontational towards Herod as John, he did call him an illegitimate ruler and was claiming to be the sole true heir to the throne of Israel).

 

And the Romans did not wait around for Jesus. He was baptizing for a year or so with John, although in a different area, and then he was speaking out in Galilee. During those periods he was directly in their face and was not directly challenging their authority in an aggressive manner. But when he came to Jerusalem and publicly declared himself the Davidic Messiah at Passover with 1.5 million Jews in the area, they immediately locked him up and tortured and crucified him. They didnt wait around at all. Until that point, they probably viewed him as one more "messiah" running around Herod's hinterlands and figured it was an internal Jewish problem. Once he got in their face he was immediately crucified.

 

these are very good points. you have to think the herod thing was thrown in there, 1) to allude back to the john the baptist story, and 2) once again, to make the jewish authorities look worse by making the roman authorities less culpable. but the herod/johnbaptist thing raises a very key point, in that it shows just how concerned the ROMAN authorities were with these "messianic" figures, and the lengths they were willing to go to to very publicly and ceremoniously cut off the heads (literally) of those movements. something to keep in mind when we're discussing jesus/pilate. pilate would most certainly NOT have been indifferent to jesus' fate the way the gospel of matthew describes.

 

And I dont think it is historically accurate to imply Pilate would have ever caved to the people he ruled there. He was known for being incredibly bloodthirsty and ignoring Jewish sensibilities at every turn. He was canned because he was so brutal in putting down that Samaritan uprising but he had earlier complaints about putting Roman symbols in the Temple go all the way to the Emperor in Rome, who had to overrule Pilate to keep the Jews pacified.

 

Did Jewish collaborators--Annas and his faction--want Jesus dead? Absolutely. Did they or any other Jews kill Jesus? Absolutely not.

 

 

pretty much.

[tonorator]

you can't really debate skins on this topic since he was there.

[skins]

if jesus is going around calling them liars and hypocrites, that sounds like a "spiritual conflict" to me. there was definitely a serious conflict between pharisaic legalism and the "essence" of the torah as jesus was going around preaching it. part of the struggle was definitely political, but serious spiritual rifts were underlying.

 

I think it is just a matter of how we are describing it. There were certainly competing strains within Judaism at the time. The Essenes and the movement following Jesus, which may have a lot of overlap, were messianic eschatological ones, while the traditional pharisees and the collaborators were legalistic but politically go along get along.

 

I was pointing out that while there was competition on that front, that was not the ultimate power struggle between Annas and his family and Jesus and his family. I think it was more realpolitik, Annas and his clan were one of the richest in the region because they controlled the Temple and had the hand of Rome behind them. Jesus was going to muck that up on a much more serious level than spiritually. He was going for their livelihood, in a sense, and that couldnt be contemplated by them. I view it, from the perspective of Annas and his bunch, as a blood feud between some upstart Galileans with royal blood and the entrenched political Jewish power. Jesus and his followers obviously saw it in much more religious terms.

 

And that feud went on for decades. Some 30 years later, Ananus killed James the Lord's Brother, called The Righteous, considered one of the holiest men in Jerusalem at the time and leader of the movement of Jesus followers, and set off serious turmoil.

[skins]

you can't really debate skins on this topic since he was there.

 

 

tonormanondog, do you have something you would like to add here? Or do you want to explain to us the intricacies and joys of banging animals and how boys kissing threatens you?

[tonorator]

tonormanondog, do you have something you would like to add here? Or do you want to explain to us the intricacies and joys of banging animals and how boys kissing threatens you?

 

 

i have nothing of substance to add. i just enjoy wrinkling your velvet.

[skins]

these are very good points. you have to think the herod thing was thrown in there, 1) to allude back to the john the baptist story, and 2) once again, to make the jewish authorities look worse by making the roman authorities less culpable. but the herod/johnbaptist thing raises a very key point, in that it shows just how concerned the ROMAN authorities were with these "messianic" figures, and the lengths they were willing to go to to very publicly and ceremoniously cut off the heads (literally) of those movements. something to keep in mind when we're discussing jesus/pilate. pilate would most certainly NOT have been indifferent to jesus' fate the way the gospel of matthew describes.

 

 

True. It is pretty amazing how frickin bold a move it was for Pilate to do what he did. He literally took the guy claiming to be the Davidic heir and messiah and tortured him and publicy crucified him in fornt of the largest gathering of Jews in the world, many of whom were followers of or at least sympathetic to Jesus and his message. That is not some tossoff "oh well, if you insist, Sanhedrin" kind of move. That was an in your face complete stab in the eye of the Jews.

 

Pilate essentially had to have decided that it was time to stop Jesus and make an example of him--the mocking "King of the Jews" title--and then he did in a manner which was very incendiary and could potentially result in revolt. He basically dared the Jews to do something and was most definitely prepared to militarily respond. Remember, he sent almost 1000 Roman troops to arrest Jesus in Gethsemane--he wasnt fooling around.

 

I believe Pilate may have even been pushing the Jews to revolt to make a point and was prepared to wipe out a bunch of them to cement his lesson. I am a little surprised they did not do anything--possibly out of shock at Pilate's boldness. They did not revolt until after James was killed much later.

[skins]

i have nothing of substance to add. i just enjoy wrinkling your velvet.

 

 

I thought you were going to explain to us how Jesus told you that Brokeback Mountain was evil and that dogs sexyees were beautiful.

 

Another time, I guess.

 

Edit to add: bu.ngees = sexyees

Edited July 11, 2006 by skins

[tonorator]

I thought you were going to explain to us how Jesus told you that Brokeback Mountain was evil and that dogs sexyees were beautiful.

 

Another time, I guess.

 

Edit to add: bu.ngees = sexyees

 

 

we have spain to comment on brokeback ... he's just as good as Jesus.

[Sgt. Ryan]

That is not accurate at all. The High Priests and Pharisees were not "losing followers" to Jesus because his followers were all still Jews. They were going to lose the power and wealth they had gathered as collaborators under Roman rule keeping the Jewish populace under control. Jesus, as the Davidic heir, would be above them politically.

 

And Jesus and his followers viewed Annas and his family as Herodian collaborators, and thus, in league with Herod, the murderer of John the Baptist. They knew they would be driven from power if Jesus led a revolt against Roman rule.

 

There was no competing religious message between Jesus and the Jewish collaborators. They asked him to publicly declare himself Messiah--or anointed king of Israel--so that the Romans would kill him as an heir to the throne and potential political threat.

 

 

 

 

Skins, Are you Jewish?

[skins]

Skins, Are you Jewish?

 

No, but my grandfather was.

 

Are you, Sarge?

[Sgt. Ryan]

No, but my grandfather was.

 

Are you, Sarge?

 

By reading your response it sounded as if you and Az were defending the Jews, so I asked the question.

 

 

No Im a Southern Baptist, can't you tell.