Zucco

Just read an article about Mel Gibson's new movie "Passion." Evidentally it depicts Jews as having killed Christ, and the Anti-Defamation League is concerned that the film will re-kindle Christian anger on this issue.

My question is, why would Christians care who killed Christ? According to their entire believe system, he was SUPPOSED to die. Doesn't the Bible say that Christ "died for our sins"? If the Jews or the Romans or whoever had not crucified him, wouldn't the entire New Testament be null and void?

It seems to me that Christians would laud the responsible party. How do they justify anger?

Rational BAC

Got me Zucco.

I think if there were any scapegoats in this, it would be the Romans. Pontius Pilate did have the deciding vote in this. And like most barely competent politicians, he caved in to the crowd.

And you are correct. It was all foreordained, so who gives a crap.

I think that the one good thing coming out of this supposedly very graphic movie is to show how cruelly barbaric (in a modern sense) the Romans could be.

I don't think anything will change as far as popular opinion concerning the Jews. But definitely most people today will forevermore consider the "great and mighty Roman empire" to have been made up of a bunch of barely civilized sadistic jerk-offs.

PopeInTheWoods

Maybe they're pissed about the reasons behind the alleged cruci-fiction. The Jews and/or Romans didn't do it to help mankind become saved, they did it in the "mistaken" belief that they were getting rid of a troublmaker.

Andy

Ojuice5001

I think it's just a manifestation of the universal human need to blame someone in particular for every problem. But let me tell you, I'm glad that almost all of them have decided that the Jews are to blame, and ignore the role of the Romans. And I can think of reasons they should be considered right. For instance, the role of the Jews was the formation of a fairly large faction who pushed for Jesus' execution. The role of the Romans mainly consisted of one man, Pontius Pilate, caving in, and half a dozen soldiers who were just following orders (which sometimes is a good excuse). The Jews who wanted to execute Jesus were active oppressors, while Pilate's guilt is more a result of a lack of moral conviction.

Certainly you can't really blame the Roman pantheon as a whole for the crucifixion, for three reasons:

1. As I have argued, the Jews were a larger part of the cause than the Romans.
2. It's likely that no member of the Roman pantheon was watching Pontius Pilate at the time.
3. Why would they have wanted Jesus to be crucified? As you point out, if he hadn't been, Christianity would have had a weaker case, and thus had less chance of overcoming paganism.

PopeInTheWoods

PopeInTheWoods recalls:

- The jeers on Sunday as Jeff Gordon is punted off course at the final turn of the last lap...
- Philly Fan's reaction to Michael Irvin's broken leg...
- The glee in the bar as bombs rain down on Baghdad...
- Palestinians dancing in the streets as the WTC crumbled...
- Teenage rioters laughing and pointing at Reginald Denny after one of them smashes his face with a fire extinguisher...
- An LAPD officer giddily reporting on the radio to his buddy how he helped beat Rodney King...
- Then-governor Shrubya making fun of soon-to-be-executed prisoner Karla Faye Tucker...

... without even going into Tiananmen Square, terror bombings of London, Dresden, and Hiroshima, gulags, concentration camps, "re-education" camps, Pol Pot, "necklacing" with burning tires....

Not at all like the majority of the "common folk" in today's "modern" societies....

Andy

RRoman

It matters so that Christians know which group rejected Jesus, and thus have a scapegoat.

Ojuice5001

That would explain why they always latch onto the Jews; more Romans converted to Christianity, and thus it would be perverse to blame them more than the Jews for the rejection of Jesus. I've tried to show that this point of view has a rational defense--I need only the assumption that intentional oppression of Jesus is worse than just giving in to political pressure--but it wouldn't seem that the fundies got their conclusion this way.

MortalWombat

This contradicts what we know about Pilate from two independent sources: Philo of Alexandria and Josephus. Both of them characterize Pilate as a stubborn and sometimes merciless character who had little sympathy for the Jews.

For example, Josephus tells us that when an angry Jewish mob protested his taking of Temple funds to build an aqueduct, he had his troops disguised as locals, armed with clubs, to infiltrate the mob and beat them so severely that the riot was quelled.

Philo wrote that Pilate's tenure was associated with "briberies, insults, robberies, outrages, wanton injustices, constantly repeated executions without trial, and ceaseless and grievous cruelty."

Pilate was eventually removed from office by the Syrian governor Vitellius because of his repeated difficulties with his Jewish subjects and his often brutal tactics.

Outside the gospels, there is little evidence that Pilate would have any reservations in executing someone for fear of repercussions from his subjects.

Zucco

But didn't they need a group to reject Jesus in order to secure their salvation? Unless I'm mistaken, the foundation of their belief is that Jesus died for their sins. If everyone had accepted Jesus, he would have never been crucified and mankind would still be lost. Again I ask, why would you be angry at the group that enabled your salvation?

Demigawd

Well, I think you're touching on the apologetic response that god uses existing evil to further his agenda. Everything was pre-ordained, but that doesn't supposedly excuse those who do evil acts, such as Judas betraying Junior and the Jews rejecting him.