Bible Discussion: Has Mel Gibson Got Jewish Participation In The Crucifixion Right?

Has Mel Gibson Got Jewish Participation In The Crucifixion Right?
Posts: 10

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1   (First | Last)

David Christainsen
2003-09-12 11:47:55 EST
Friends,

Mel Gibson has only the surface narrative. Dr. Thiering shows
the pesher level of the history.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/2446

I'd like to clarify what I really did say about Jewish participation
in the death of Jesus.

The tensions of his times had produced two distinct kinds of Jews.
There were those like Josephus and Philo, who had benefited from
exposure to hellenism, and were able to recognise that the highest
kind of Judaism, its ethical monotheism, was superior to anything that
paganism could offer. Josephus, who at the end of his career was
welcomed in Rome, deplored the other kind of Jew, the militants,
saying that these were the cause of all the troubles that befell the
Jewish people (Ant.18, 3-10).

The militant zealots were a quite separate organisation, developed
from the sect of solarists who kept a different calendar. It was they
who were instrumental in the death of Jesus. When the gospels say
‘Jews' they are using the term in a specialised sense, as always in
the pesher. It means Herod Antipas and his following. They were called
‘Jews' because the Herods had become Jews by conversion, being
originally Idumeans. Antipas was allied with the militants Simon Magus
and ‘Barabbas', Theudas. Jesus had been born into their party, but had
become a dissident within it, sympathising with Romans, an
embarrassment to them. When Pilate had the duty of crucifying a
triarchy of zealots who had led a demonstration against Rome, he had a
choice for the third man, between Jesus and Barabbas, both having the
same status. Antipas, knowing Pilate's weakness of character, bribed
him to crucify Jesus and release Barabbas.

When my work became known, this distinction was recognised by Jews in
Australia, who gave me positive support. They saw that the true
history exonerated mainstream Jews. I was invited to speak in
synagogues and at their lectures. A leading Sydney Jew has
corresponded with me regularly in a very friendly way, and Jewish
women from Israel, including their scholars, have been quietly
supportive. The other kind, allied for political reasons with
Christian fundamentalists, were hostile, noticeably coming up with
fabrications that could be easily disposed of.

I suspect that making fine distinctions will not be acceptable in
American talk shows, and the present flurry won't lead anywhere much.
I'd rather stay in an environment where thorough and balanced
treatment of the evidence is respected.

B.T.

---

I believe mystically ---

Crucifixion without the resurrection is a meaningless
symbol. Crucifixion is the energy pattern of fear, the
manifestation of a closed heart. Resurrection is the
reversal of that pattern, brought about by a shift in
thought from fear to love.

Look at the crucifixion but do not dwell upon it.

We know that life is always in process and always
on its way to greater good. We just can't see that.

Resurrection is actively called forth. It represents
the DECISION TO SEE LIGHT IN THE MIDST OF DARKNESS.

In the TALMUD, the Jewish book of wisdom, the Jew
is told how to behave in the midst of dark times. "During
the time of the darkest night," says the Talmud, "act as if
the morning has already come."

Best,
David Christainsen
Wellesley, Mass USA
Moderator of Qumran/Christian Origins Internet Forum (72 members)
Dr. Barbara Thiering is my star member
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin

Dirk Hartog
2003-09-12 18:43:52 EST
> There were those like Josephus and Philo, who had benefited from
> exposure to hellenism, and were able to recognise that the highest
> kind of Judaism, its ethical monotheism, was superior to anything that
> paganism could offer

Yeah? Is this just Dr. Thiering's bigotry, do you think, or has she
really listed the moral teaching of the antique traditions, and really
made a comparison?

Maybe you can point us to where Dr. Thiering lists what she imagines
are the highest moral teaching of the Platonist, Skeptics, Eclectics,
Aristotelians, Peripatetic, Skeptics, Cynics, Stoics, Epicureans,
Neopythagoreans, and Neoplatonists, and how she comes up with the
moral gage she imagines lets her 'recognise' _her_ tradition is
better.

-----
"There is a relationship between men and the Gods, because men partake
of the divine principle. . .;"
[Diogenes Laertius, The Life of Pythagoras, 19 (Guthrie's divisions)
(3d century AD)]
amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0933999518/paganoriginofthe

-----
Mauricius (582- 602 . . .; saw to it that pagans were brought before
the courts 'in every region of the city,' and in particular, in
Carrhae-Harran. Here, the bishop. . . ;received the emperor's orders
to institute a persecution. 'Some he managed to convert to
Christianity, while many who resisted he carved up, suspending their
limbs in the main street of the town.'
[MacMullen, Ramsay. Christianity & Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth
Centuries (1997), pg. 27]
amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0300080778/paganoriginofthe


Dirk Hartog

Mark Johnson
2003-09-12 21:35:47 EST
david_christainsen@hotmail.com (David Christainsen) wrote:


Okay, look. This stuff is nuts. But you're trying to get a
'discussion' going. So . . I'll bite. Ouch. Pull the hook straight
out, if you can.


>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/2446

>The tensions of his times had produced two distinct kinds of Jews.
>There were those like Josephus and Philo, who had benefited from
>exposure to hellenism

And:

>welcomed in Rome, deplored the other kind of Jew, the militants

Now according to The Bible - as in, it's in-The-Bible - the Jews
conspired (that's right, real conspiracy theory stuff - actual
documented conspiracy, in-The-Bible) to accuse Our Lord of all kinds
of false charges, to trip Him up, over the years, and finally to
disobey their own rules, and in an illegal middle of the night meeting
brought in perjurers (this long before the days of Clinton) to make
stuff up about God so that the pompous high priest could dramatically
tear his robe (in a way similar to what God did with the curtain
outside the Holy of Holies, just a few hours, later). Those were Jews
taunting Our Lord, who insisted Pilate find Him guilty of a capital
crime. Those were Jews mocking Our Lord as He hung on The Cross. And
those were Jews who lamented, and fled from His side, and stayed by
His side, as He, Himself, Our Lord - was a Jew, who died and rose
again, for the Jews, but also for anyone else, and everyone else, who
would just say no to all sorts of heresy and 'reform', and instead,
follow Him and His Catholic Church.


>who were instrumental in the death of Jesus. When the gospels say
>‘Jews' they are using the term in a specialised sense, as always in
>the pesher. It means Herod Antipas and his following. They were called
>‘Jews' because the Herods had become Jews by conversion

Who imagined he . . . was the Promised Messiah.

>originally Idumeans. Antipas was allied with the militants Simon Magus
>and ‘Barabbas', Theudas.

So who, exactly, was Barabbas?

>Jesus had been born into their party, but had
>become a dissident within it, sympathising with Romans

Like the centurion?

I wonder if it's in-The-Bible why He might have been 'sympathetic', as
your 'expert' has it?


>same status. Antipas, knowing Pilate's weakness of character, bribed
>him to crucify Jesus and release Barabbas.

Pilate did that all by his lonesome. He sent the most Innocent Man,
ever born, to His death, because the Jews wanted this Jew . . dead.
And they don't have a lot of good things to say, now, about any Jew
who dares convert to Catholicism. I think not only are they supposedly
suddenly non-Jewish, as if Jewishness were like a pair of shoes you
can simply take on and off, but they are non-persons, as well. Some
things, I guess, just never change.


>I suspect that making fine distinctions will not be acceptable in
>American talk shows, and the present flurry won't lead anywhere much.
>I'd rather stay in an environment where thorough and balanced
>treatment of the evidence is respected.

Or where such nonsense goes unchallenged, more likely. Some things -
they just never change.


Peace.

------------------------------------------------------------
* When one finds nothing more to say to God,
* but just knows He is there --
* that, in itself, is the best of prayers.

[Fr. John Vianney, priest of Ars township, France, 1859]

Matt Giwer
2003-09-13 01:58:45 EST
David Christainsen wrote:
> Friends,
>
> Mel Gibson has only the surface narrative. Dr. Thiering shows
> the pesher level of the history.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/2446
>
> I'd like to clarify what I really did say about Jewish participation
> in the death of Jesus.
>
> The tensions of his times had produced two distinct kinds of Jews.
> There were those like Josephus and Philo, who had benefited from
> exposure to hellenism, and were able to recognise that the highest
> kind of Judaism, its ethical monotheism, was superior to anything that
> paganism could offer.

As archaeology has established they were not monotheists and as there are no
learned discourses upon ethics from that time I find it necessary to point out you
are an idiot.

--
Support our troops. Bring them home now.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2815


David Christainsen
2003-09-13 10:28:01 EST
t*g@yahoo.com (Dirk Hartog) wrote in message news:<acf48a55.0309121443.61103d0d@posting.google.com>...
> > There were those like Josephus and Philo, who had benefited from
> > exposure to hellenism, and were able to recognise that the highest
> > kind of Judaism, its ethical monotheism, was superior to anything that
> > paganism could offer
>
> Yeah? Is this just Dr. Thiering's bigotry, do you think, or has she
> really listed the moral teaching of the antique traditions, and really
> made a comparison?
>
> Maybe you can point us to where Dr. Thiering lists what she imagines
> are the highest moral teaching of the Platonist, Skeptics, Eclectics,
> Aristotelians, Peripatetic, Skeptics, Cynics, Stoics, Epicureans,
> Neopythagoreans, and Neoplatonists, and how she comes up with the
> moral gage she imagines lets her 'recognise' _her_ tradition is
> better.
>...

Friends,

I've ALREADY presented Dr. Thiering's evidence on the Internet Newsgroups
for over 5 years.

To substantiate use GOOGLE under "Christainsen Thiering" and appropriate
KEYWORDS. Also, check the Archives of my Forum.

For those interested in serious conversation feel free to ask me
questions.

Best,
David Christainsen
Wellesley, Mass USA
Moderator of Qumran/Christian Origins Internet Forum (72 members)
Dr. Barbara Thiering is my star member
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin

Susan Cohen
2003-09-13 21:07:56 EST
In answer to the header question, "No, he couldn't possibley, for a number
of reasons."

The short explanation: even if you *do* believe that Jesus existed, the
story given is inconsitent w/it's own internal logic.

Susan



TheAnswer
2003-09-13 22:14:53 EST
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 21:07:56 -0400, "Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@his.com>
wrote:

>In answer to the header question, "No, he couldn't possibley, for a number
>of reasons."
>
>The short explanation: even if you *do* believe that Jesus existed, the
>story given is inconsitent w/it's own internal logic.

And with the Bible
And with the teachings of the Vatican

Then again, Arabs defile The Prophet (pbuh), so this comes as no
surprise. Our world would be a much nicer place if people actually
followed the teachings of the religions they claim to believe in.

Dirk Hartog
2003-09-14 11:07:02 EST
david_christainsen@hotmail.com (David Christainsen) wrote in message news:<15910715.0309130628.1518d2d4@posting.google.com>...
> thedirkhartog@yahoo.com (Dirk Hartog) wrote in message news:<acf48a55.0309121443.61103d0d@posting.google.com>...
> > > There were those like Josephus and Philo, who had benefited from
> > > exposure to hellenism, and were able to recognise that the highest
> > > kind of Judaism, its ethical monotheism, was superior to anything that
> > > paganism could offer
> >
> > Yeah? Is this just Dr. Thiering's bigotry, do you think, or has she
> > really listed the moral teaching of the antique traditions, and really
> > made a comparison?
> >
> > Maybe you can point us to where Dr. Thiering lists what she imagines
> > are the highest moral teaching of the Platonist, Skeptics, Eclectics,
> > Aristotelians, Peripatetic, Skeptics, Cynics, Stoics, Epicureans,
> > Neopythagoreans, and Neoplatonists, and how she comes up with the
> > moral gage she imagines lets her 'recognise' _her_ tradition is
> > better.
> >...
>
> Friends,
>
> I've ALREADY presented Dr. Thiering's evidence on the Internet Newsgroups
> for over 5 years.
>
> To substantiate use GOOGLE under "Christainsen Thiering" and appropriate
> KEYWORDS. Also, check the Archives of my Forum.
>
> For those interested in serious conversation feel free to ask me
> questions.
>
> Best,
> David Christainsen
> Wellesley, Mass USA
> Moderator of Qumran/Christian Origins Internet Forum (72 members)
> Dr. Barbara Thiering is my star member
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin

Man, you are some kind of arrogant. You think we got nothing better
to do than search newsgroups looking up your precious drivel? Your
mommy maybe, not the rest of the world. Get a life, asshole.

Dirk Hartog

Paul Duca
2003-09-14 11:58:37 EST


Mark Johnson wrote:

> david_christainsen@hotmail.com (David Christainsen) wrote:
>
> Okay, look. This stuff is nuts. But you're trying to get a
> 'discussion' going. So . . I'll bite. Ouch. Pull the hook straight
> out, if you can.
>
> >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/2446
>
> >The tensions of his times had produced two distinct kinds of Jews.
> >There were those like Josephus and Philo, who had benefited from
> >exposure to hellenism
>
> And:
>
> >welcomed in Rome, deplored the other kind of Jew, the militants
>
> Now according to The Bible - as in, it's in-The-Bible - the Jews
> conspired (that's right, real conspiracy theory stuff - actual
> documented conspiracy, in-The-Bible) to accuse Our Lord of all kinds
> of false charges, to trip Him up, over the years, and finally to
> disobey their own rules, and in an illegal middle of the night meeting
> brought in perjurers (this long before the days of Clinton) to make
> stuff up about God so that the pompous high priest could dramatically
> tear his robe (in a way similar to what God did with the curtain
> outside the Holy of Holies, just a few hours, later). Those were Jews
> taunting Our Lord, who insisted Pilate find Him guilty of a capital
> crime. Those were Jews mocking Our Lord as He hung on The Cross. And
> those were Jews who lamented, and fled from His side, and stayed by
> His side, as He, Himself, Our Lord - was a Jew, who died and rose
> again, for the Jews, but also for anyone else, and everyone else, who
> would just say no to all sorts of heresy and 'reform', and instead,
> follow Him and His Catholic Church.
>

And spend eternity joining Mark and Ann Coultier in a three-way...



Paul


Matt Giwer
2003-09-15 00:13:33 EST
TheAnswer wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 21:07:56 -0400, "Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@his.com>
> wrote:

>>In answer to the header question, "No, he couldn't possibley, for a number
>>of reasons."

>>The short explanation: even if you *do* believe that Jesus existed, the
>>story given is inconsitent w/it's own internal logic.

> And with the Bible
> And with the teachings of the Vatican

The Vatican just gave the movie two thumbs up.

--
When adults do something, that which they accomplish is what they intend.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2830

Page: 1   (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron