Who Killed Jesus?: Setting the Record Straight

BreakPoint ^ | 12 Feb 04 | Charles Colson

[Dr. Frank fan]

I'm talking about the Sanhedrin. Had they not asked Pilot to crucify Jesus? Were they not Jews?

Yes they did (or at least, a majority of them, or something like that). Yes they were the historical analogue of what we today call Jews.

I thought you had been implying that the(se same) Jewish leaders were all "there" that day (some time later, Jesus already in custody) when Pilate asked some mob of people whether he should spare Jesus or some other guy, a "thief" called "Jesus Barabbas". Again: I see no reason to believe that they (the Sanhedrin) were there (in that crowd). They had already decided to turn Jesus over to Pilate (like, the previous day perhaps?) and now Jesus was in Roman custody. By the time of the "Barabbas" question most Sanhedrin were probably home relaxing or whatever.

This stuff didn't all happen simultaneously.

Again, it's nobody's fault but God did "use" the Jews to get it done.

No, God used some Jews (if that's what you believe). Not "The Jews".

So, maybe the Christian world should be thanking the Jews. They gave us Jesus of Nazareth and they gave us our Saviour.

In the sense of the cultural legacy they passed on to "the Christian world", there's no "maybe" about it: without Judaism there'd have been no Christianity. Yes Christians should "thank" "the Jews", I suppose.

But not because "they" got Jesus killed. "They" didn't. At most, some of them did!

[Dr. Frank fan]

I withdraw the inference that 1/4 of humanity is presently taught, as part of their official religious education, the notion that "the Jews killed/murdered Jesus."

Fair enough. This is precisely what was under dispute.

the anti-Jewish teachings of the Catholic Church (and, to a lesser degree, many Protestant denominations) over the course of more than 1,500 years

But this was never under dispute. If this is all you had said, I wouldn't have argued.

Until you recognize that what Flannery (among others-check out the bibliography of his book) wrote is true,

But I do and always did.

Again, since there seems to be confusion, I was only disputing your actual assertion, that some "1/4 of humanity" (a reference to essentially, "all Christians") have been taught since very young that "The Jews" "killed Jesus". Your exact phrasing was, "On the other side you have about 1/4 of humanity who've been taught since...". Note the use of the present tense "have" (not "had"); this seemed to imply that you were talking about the current state of affairs (as opposed to historical).

As you have since withdrawn that aspect of the assertion, we have no further argument. I might add that when accusing others (such as Mel Gibson) of slandering an entire people, one might do well to choose their words more carefully to avoid even the appearance of doing the same. Best,

[Texas2step]

I, among many other Jews, recognize that in the last generation or so many Christians - both individually and as part of their particular Christian denomination's official theology - have been great and true friends of Jews and Israel.

Which is exactly why I've had so much trouble understanding the ranting of one particular person. You know, it wouldn't hurt if some of his fellow Jews were to attempt to calm his attacks down, some. They are not helpful to either of us.

I appreciate you well reasoned responses. Thank you.

[Preachin']

Isaiah 53

5 But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed.

6 All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

According to the bible, the Lord God killed Him. Jesus' death was a sacrifice. Up until Christ, man made the sacrifice to God, but in the end, the Lord had to make the ultimate sacrifice. This is why He could ask Abraham to offer Isaac on the mountain.

[Preachin']

Add to last comment:

Isaiah 53

10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.

[Ancesthntr]

Your post #146 speaks for itself. The mere fact that you resorted to an ad hominem attack is evidence that you don't have a real argument, merely a belief that you can't back up with ANYTHING.

You believe what you want to, and I'll do the same. Buh-bye!

[aruanan]

Ha ha. Paul, an anti-semitic Jew?

[Dr. Frank fan]

"The Jews". Yeah, I said THE Jews. Lighten up!

Since this is what you said and you refuse to back away from it, there's no good reason for anyone to "lighten up" on you.

One can only point out your perpetual error so many times, however, and sheer exhaustion may win the day.

[Rightly Biased]

Who Killed Jesus?


I did.

[Terry Mross]

When, like a liberal, you tell me what YOU think I should believe, that is an attack. Now go away and watch Chris Mathews.

[yonif]

This may be of interest.

[Stultis]

Excellent op-ed.

I don't happen to be a Christian (or a Jew). I don't believe in either the inerrancy or the inspiration of the bible. I think the gospels are (in varying degrees from one to the other) slanted against the Jews. I don't believe for a minute that Pilot, by all secular accounts a hard-nosed and no nonsense Roman governor, turned a seditionist against Rome over to the Jews for trial. I think the gospel accounts are cast to make the Christian sect seem less threatening to Romans (saying, in effect, "we don't hold you Romans responsible for killing our God") and avoid association with Jews who had, after all, recently been in open revolt against Rome.

All that being said, the attacks against Gibson have been unfair. From everything I've heard his movie, and he himself, clearly emphasizes the higher theological meaning -- that all humans are responsible for the suffering and death of Jesus -- as described by Colson.

Living in a college town, and one where even the bedroom communities have a surfeit of aging hippies, I come across vicious bigotry against theologically conservative Christians (and ludicrously paranoid views about their control of right-wing politics) with depressing regularity. Even though I'm a nonreligious "philosophical theist," I find myself refuting such nonsense so often that I'm almost ready to claim the status of "honorary evangelical". Anyway, I'll be keeping this Colson article handy. Sadly I'll probably have occasion to use it.

[adam_az]

"I would venture to guess that this film doesn't change the world at all.......except that some investors will become more wealthy."

Gibson spent about $50 million of his own money on the film and distribution.

[stuartcr]

Yes, that is correct....do you think he did it without thinking of getting his money back, or making a profit? What about the other investors?

[GigaDittos]

And the problem is?

[COBOL2Java]

We all killed Christ, every last one of us. And, you know what? He has forgiven us. So if he forgives, how can the Jews claim the guilt and branding thing. They too were forgiven now, weren't they.

Exactly right!

And Jesus said, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."
- Luke 23: 34

[stuartcr]

None that I know of.

[GigaDittos]

His death is not what matters; it's the resurrection that does.

"1 Corinthians 15:
12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain."

[Dr. Frank fan]

When, like a liberal, you tell me what YOU think I should believe, that is an attack.

Correcting errors is an "attack"?

Again, the idea that "The Jews" killed Jesus, got him killed, made the decision to get him killed, etc., is not just a "belief", it's logically incoherent. "The Jews" CANNOT engage in a specific action which is localized at some particular time; some Jews can, but not "The Jews". It literally makes no sense to say this.

At times you seemed to demonstrate understanding of this by backing away from the phrasing, yet still seemed to feel the need to cling to some statement casting some blame in The Jews' direction. ("but their leaders were there..", which even if true proves WHAT exactly?)

But in your #146 you revert back to the original phrasing: ""The Jews". Yeah, I said THE Jews."

As long as you cling to this asinine error, don't expect not to be corrected on it. (Particularly given the history of Jews being persecuted based on just this illogic.)

I respect genuine good-faith beliefs (like that the Sanhedrin 2000 years ago delivered Jesus to the Romans because God caused them to - that's a belief and I would never "argue" with it). The problem is when someone says something nonsensical like that "The Jews" got Jesus killed, and tries to shield it from criticism by calling it a "belief". I don't have to respect this any more than I'd respect the "belief" that 2+2=5.