I just wanted to see how long I could keep you inflammed. It was a long time this run! Score!!
I know in some cases you were just answering Chi's questions, but still the context doesn't necessarily apply.
So this (finally) is your argument of what is anti-semitic about the Gospels:
quote:
27:15 Now at that feast [Passover] the governor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would
27:16 And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas.
27:17 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?
27:18 For he knew that for envy they had delivered him.
27:19 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.
27:20 But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.
27:21 The governor answered and said unto them, Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you? They said, Barabbas.
27:22 Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified.
27:23 And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified.
27:24 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.
27:25 Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.
Most notably I would say that even if these passages are arguably anti-semitic, the four books conflict each other in many places (you even point out the Gospels conflict each other). So a movie based on the Gospels could at best be a composite, otherwise it would offer conflicting facts. Could a movie not then weed out instances that might appear to be anti-smeitic?
quote:
This account is extremely suspicious:
* The "Passover Privilege" referred to in Matt 27:15 and in all the Gospels is reported in no other historical record. It does not make sense that Rome would release condemned rebels back into an unruly province three times a year. Virtually all scholars now regard this element of the story as fictitious. But it is necessary for the Gospels to show that the Jews really had it in for Jesus.
But the movie is based on the Gospels, not what scholars think is fact and fiction. (How would scholars feel about Jesus rising from the dead in terms of its historical probabilty?)
quote:
* It's odd that Jesus made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, taking over the Temple and casting out Sadducee police and moneychangers with wild popular support and acclaim from the Jews-- the same Jews who, here, on the following Thursday, are clamoring for him to be tortured to death. This extraordinary turn requires an extraordinary explanation, and I am not aware of any. It is only intelligible, as far as I can tell, in the context of a Gospel writer who wanted to pin blame on the Jews.
You're seeing it in the context of Jews, when it is Jesus's own poeple. Are you saying public opinion cannot be fickle? Do you remember Howard Dean?
And if his followers did believe he was the messiah, they would (and do) feel betrayed when he was caught and tried, since they could not understand why God just didn't release him. (There is even a passage where they ask him to come down off the cross, if he truly has the powers of God).
quote:
* Why do the Jews get to select Jesus' punishment?
This sounds more like a question then evidence that the Gospels are anti-semitic. Maybe the Romans did want him dead, or maybe they wanted to appease the local masses, maybe it was a combination of the two. More to the point, it's an interchange between an occupying power and the occupied, not Jews versus the rest of the world.
Even if the writers misunderstand what actually happened, that doesn't neccesarily point to a conspircay to exonerate Rome. And a conspiracy to exonerate Rome doesn't neccesarily point to an anti-semitical agenda. (It might point to a PRO-CHRISTIAN agenda, that is an agenda of promoting the religion of Christianity. If that is anti-semitical, than any religion by that definition is automatically anti-semitical).
quote:
* Why does Pilate have to obey this subject people?
What?
quote:
* Why would Jews choose crucifixion as punishment for supposed blasphemy, when it was exclusively Rome's punishment for sedition?
Maybe they just plain liked crucifictions. I brought up a point early on, that this was precisely the behavior Jesus was speaking against, the desire to punish one brutally as long as the law allowed it, whether or not it was just or moral. In many ways him saving the adulterer from stoning foreshadows his own (pointless) death. I think ony thourgh modern-day eyes could you interpret it as the Jews crying for Jesus to be crucified, when it's simply his own followers in the context presented.
quote:
* The picture of Pilate we get here, particularly in 27:24, is of a mild-mannered, rather weak, but well-intentioned guy. At last, he gives in to the murderous Jewish multitudes and washes his hands of the matter, declaring himself innocent. Only in the Gospels is Pilate portrayed as such a sweet pushover. Historians like Josephus note Pilate's record of cruelty and unnecessary executions.
I think the reader could interpret Pilate as being a pushover, or as passing the blame. I think you are assuming a de facto interpration of Pilate being a pushover, which isn't neccessarily the case. (Pilate isn't exactly held up as one of the heros of the New Testiment by Christians).
quote:
Rome at last removed him from office for carrying out massacres against the Jews. But it seems the Gospel writers had an interest in exonerating Rome. (What interest? Refer again to the circumstances following the year 70, as well as Paul's background as a Sadducee thug and Roman citizen.)
Again, wild assumption based on the conclusion you WANT to make.
And again, even if there was a desire to exonerate Rome, that isn't by default an anti-semitcal agenda.
quote:
* In 27:25, "all the people"-- that's all the Jews, Chi--
Is it? And again, the story is SET IN ISRAEL, if most of the people were Jews, that is the reason. I'm really exhausted by your arguing this point.
And if it says all the people, I'm sure it refers to any onlooker. You're changing the word "people" to "jews" to fit into your anti-semitical allegations. Other races and religions lived in the area at the time. (As you point out, Paul himself might not have been born Jewish).
quote:
call down a curse on their own heads: "His blood be on us, and on our children." This is pretty incredible crowd behavior, to call down a curse on itself with one voice. But whether or not you choose to believe this weird tale, its message is clear: The guilt for Jesus' crucifixion rests with the Jews, and accrues (Biblically enough) to their descendants as well.
Again, it's all the people saying this, not all the Jews. The evil of humanity asked for Jesus to be killed, not the evil of the Jews. And, once again, Jesus knows the crucifiction is going to happen, and asks God to stop it, which I think pretty much shows that it is God's plan for him to die. That's the whole point of the religion. If he wasn't crucified, there would be no covenant between humanity and God. That's the biggest point that you seem to be missing, that the killing of Jesus wouldn't damn any one group of people since it (supposedly) leads to the salvation of mankind. AND he fucking COMES BACK FROM THE DEAD, ALL BETTER, BOORITE. HE FUCKING COMES BACK TO LIFE. It's not like in the story, he is killed, doesn't come back, and mankind is doomed because they decided to kill Jesus.
---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008
