By no means of any stretch of the imagination am I a fan of Glenn Beck. His words are vile and void of common sense but he made a statement that I would like to address. Watching Keith Olbermann last night, 7/15/2010, Keith informed the viewing audience that the “Beckster” had made one of his nauseating comments, but when it was shared, I felt this issue needed to be addressed. The comment was “that the Jews killed Jesus Christ”. It was not the Jewish nation of a whole but their equivalent to our current day GOP/Teabaggers and I have scripture to support my statements.
While the Romans carried out the actual execution, what did they have to gain from it? This Man was no threat to the Roman Empire, as He was not a warmonger, He was peaceful. It was the Jewish hierarchy of religious and political leaders who plotted how to take Him down, “then the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders of the people assembled and plotted to take Jesus by trickery and kill Him”. It was this group of leaders, who at every possible moment questioned Jesus' authority, being envious of the knowledge He had and shared with the people. After all, they were learned men and He was a carpenter, what could He know more than they who went to school and were learned in the Law of Moses? Pontius Pilate even asked them, what had Jesus done to deserve death, “for he knew that the chief priests had handed Him over because of envy”. It was these leaders who, according to the Roman custom where one person could be exonerated, encouraged the crowd to request the release of a known convict, Barabbas. Okay, so where in any of this are they innocent? In our judicial system it would be seen as premeditated murder and the conspirator is just as guilty as the one who committed the actual act. These leaders and the people in the courtyard went so far to declare, “His blood be on us and on our children”. I will reiterate that Jesus challenged the authority of the religious leaders in His knowledge of the Law and told them the truth about themselves, “I know that you are Abraham’s descendants, but you seek to kill Me because My word has no place in you”. He was not having a discussion with the Romans when He made this comment as Romans are not descendants of Abraham. What was that He said to them? That they sought to kill Him and that was not the first time.
Sometimes the truth can come from an unlikely source and one does not have to agree with the source, however, the truth can never be changed no matter how much one may desire to do so. Biblical truth cannot be modified nor adapted to appease anyone; left, right, liberals, conservatives, Teabaggers, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and so on. The truth of it is that Jesus had a mission, which was executed according to the will of GOD. It does not matter who is offended. As one reads the four Gospels, you will see that Jesus pissed off those in religious power quite often and rightly so, as they were smug individuals flexing both their political and religious muscles, not unlike the modern day GOP/Teabaggers. The truth can be quite ugly especially if it reminds us of a deed best forgotten. I am by no means anti-Semite, I observe and address from my perspective. I will close with a quote from Wolfgang Borchert, a German author and playwright and the quote states, “Truth is like the town whore. Everybody knows her, but nonetheless, it’s embarrassing to meet her on the street”.
Whoa... put your glass of Kool-ade down just a few minutes, -before your hurt yourself.
ReplyDelete"I have biblical history to support my statements."
Oh, really? And exactly What 'history' do you read that says the Jews did Not crucify Jesus Christ???
The Way I See It: Crystal Clear to me too, Ms Corder, -for I Know for certain that 'history' is Always revised and re-written by the victor, -in this case, the 'Church'. The 'history' that need be read is the one that was destroyed (by the 'Church').
Nevertheless, regarding the question (The Way I See It), 'Who crucified Christ', the answer, comes to me via employing Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's method of observation and reasoning (since it is impossible to read what has been destroyed, -all we can do is read what is available to us) to wit: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be to truth." In this particular case, it is obvious that the "the Jews (as a whole) didn't crucify Christ" rather it was accomplished by the machinations of one man. (His identity follows.)
If you 'think', 'believe' or 'assume' that the Holy Gospels are 'historical fact', your off on the wrong foot, -you will walk in a circular labyrinth of your own construct and never know the real world or 'history' (it doesn't matter how much you read).
For the record, in the very first instance, the Holy GOSPELS are Not 'history' in the scientific sense of that word... neither were the Holy GOSPELS written for that purpose, -they were written for the sole purpose of 'instilling FAITH' only. Period.
Having said that, 'historically' speaking, the various Holy GOSPELS were written from ten to forty YEARS AFTER 'the crucifixion of the descendant of David and Jewish mashiach (messiah)'... they were Not written in the days of Pontius Pilate, -they were written AFTER Pilate was recalled to Rome. Likewise, they were Not written during the days of "Jesus Christ". (No Jew knew or saw or even heard of "Jesus Christ".)
"Christ", supposedly, a GREEK 'translation' of the Hebrew word "mashiach" (later Anglicized to messiah) is without etymological foundation or basis in the Greek language or customs... there is no such person or appellation in Greek 'history'.
YOUR 'history' fails to include the FACT that there was an 'insurrection' raging throughout Judea, that started in 6-7 c. e. by Judas the Galilean and ended after the wealthy and educated Jews scattered themselves abroad, the temple at Jerusalem was razed to the ground and the Jewish nation ceased to exist altogether... in 70 c. e. It was a war of theocracy v. secularism, -having it roots in the days of the prophet Samuel... when the twelve tribes of Jews desired to become a nation (like other nations).
At first, Samuel was appalled at the suggested innovation to their ancient customs. Eventually, Samuel relented and, 'anointed' Saul of the tribe of Benjamin as the first king of the Jews.
King Saul fell from the grace of the (unseen) 'Lord', -for failing to carry out His injunction 'to lay waste Amalek' and was stripped of his crown. He was replaced by the 'anointment' of David (of the tribe of Judah). Later, in a battle against the Philistines, the former king "fell upon his own sword", -ostensible to avoid being captured and made sport of.
The cowardly, abominable and sinful act of Saul, brought EVERLASTING shame and dishonor upon his heirs and descendants. They were banished from Palestine.
End of Part 1. Part 2 follows...
Part 2 continues...
ReplyDeleteKing David was succeeded by the 'anointment' his son, Solomon.
King Solomon was succeeded by his son, Rehoboam, -but, ten tribes revolted away from Rehoboam (as well as the heretofore theocratic governance of David and Solomon) and established a secular government, headed by Jeroboam. The 'government' of Rehoboam was marginalized into the background, -that schism among the Jews continued down through the centuries... into the days of the Roman appointment and militarily supported Herod (an Idumean and 'convert' Jew).
Herod the Great tried to stamp-out 'the descendants of David', -but the very idea of a (Jewish) 'mashiach', he could not eliminate.
After Herod the Great died, in 4 b.c.e., all hell broke loose...
Enter, Judas the Galilean... riding into Jerusalem on an ass... (Yes, I Know the 'chronology' is askewed, -thanks be to the Holy GOSPELS).
What, pray tell, do you 'think' young Saul of Tarsus, -aka the Apostle and eventual Saint Paul, -the namesake and descendant of the very first 'anointed' but dishonored king of the Jews, -a schizophrenic, flunked-out student of Gamaliel, -a temple thug... persecuting "Christians" (at a time when there weren't any "Christians" yet, only zealous and fanatical 'followers of the descendant of David and the Jewish mashiach'), thought and did in 33-34 c. e.?
The Way I See It: It is Crystal Clear to me... the plotting of the capture, arrest and crucifixion of 'the descendant of David and the Jewish mashiach', under salacious circumstances (see Mark 14:51-52), for "envy", succeeded whereas Herod failed.
What 'Christian' speaks of the Jewish mashiach today?
What 'Christian' wants a U.S. president to institute sharia law in America?
'Teach love, use word only when necessary.'
Roland, a reluctant iconoclast.