Pope exonerates Jews.

Well, Pope Irrelevant XVI has finally entered the 19th century.

I agree with you. Understanding the political climate of the time it is clear Jesus was executed as an insurgent, and executed in the Roman fashion at that, as would any such rebel who was gaining a following.

Vince524 said:

I have a hard time believing that anyone in their right mind could really believe that all Jews were responsible for what happened to Jesus.

Click to expand...

You'd be surprised, though it does hinge on the definition of "in their right mind".

Well I'm glad it only took two thousand years to figure that one out.

But gays still go to Hell right?

Vince524 said:

I have a hard time believing that anyone in their right mind could really believe that all Jews were responsible for what happened to Jesus.

Click to expand...

It would have to be someone who never actually read the Bible, since the Apostles and the vast majority of Disciples were Jews, so that by definition means it wasn't "all." It was probably much like 9/11, a group of 20 or so guys. Even if it had been all (which it wasn't), all those involved are long dead. The (insert group of choice) of today are not the same as those 2000 years ago. Since this is the teaching also of the Catholic faith and has been at least since Vatican II, I find it odd that the Pope felt the need to reiterate it.

Took em long enough.

Religious History Mad Libs

Are there any recognized "number" sects that teach as dogma to blame people today for "letter"? Or is it all just radicalized individuals?

1: Christian
2: Jew
3: Muslim

A: Crucifixion
B: Spanish Inquisition
C: Crusades

Chris P said:

I agree with you. Understanding the political climate of the time it is clear Jesus was executed as an insurgent, and executed in the Roman fashion at that, as would any such rebel who was gaining a following.

Click to expand...

Or as might be equally possible in some Jesus-scenarios, he was executed as a pharisee in a manner considered appropriate for pharisees and the Romans appear in the story to justify post-dating it to a later period -- maybe 50 years or so after the actual events.

Maxx said:

Or as might be equally possible in some Jesus-scenarios, he was executed as a pharisee in a manner considered appropriate for pharisees and the Romans appear in the story to justify post-dating it to a later period -- maybe 50 years or so after the actual events.

Click to expand...

We're in danger of a derail here, but, if I understand you correctly, are you saying Jesus lived about 50 years earlier than the currently accepted dates? Therefore the Romans weren't even around yet but for some reason the writers of the gospels thought it important for the Romans to be there? If so, then who executed Jesus for being pharisaic rather than as a rebel? I'm not trying to challenge you, but to understand what you're saying. Interesting idea; I've not heard that before. It's more often I hear people say Jesus never lived and all the gospels were "invented" about 100 to 200 years after he was supposed to have lived.

So is he going to tell people to stop putting on those passion plays?

There's never a justification for persecution of people's based on what their ancestors did.

Even if Jews were responsible for Jesus being crucified, so what? They shouldn't be held responsible and persecuted for thousands of years.

Living Germans should not be held responsible for what happened during the holocaust.

White people should not be held responsible because their ancestors owned slaves.

Etc.

I just don't understand the mentality of blaming living people for what dead people, they didn't even know, did.

It's nice what the pope did, but it's enough already with humans blaming groups for stuff they had nothing to do with that happened before they were even alive.

Thank you.

Amen!

Chris P said:

We're in danger of a derail here, but, if I understand you correctly, are you saying Jesus lived about 50 years earlier than the currently accepted dates? Therefore the Romans weren't even around yet but for some reason the writers of the gospels thought it important for the Romans to be there? If so, then who executed Jesus for being pharisaic rather than as a rebel? I'm not trying to challenge you, but to understand what you're saying. Interesting idea; I've not heard that before. It's more often I hear people say Jesus never lived and all the gospels were "invented" about 100 to 200 years after he was supposed to have lived.

Click to expand...

I'm suggesting it is possible that some of the details of the gospels (all written after the Fall of Jerusalem) relate to anxieties in the world of the post-revolt diaspora rather than the world where Jesus was active. I would say, if you look at the stories that are embedded in the gospels, they show a man interacting critically, but not dismissively, with the Pharisees to the extent that an outsider (somebody from the Judean Oligarchy for example) would have thought he was a Pharisee and possibly applied the traditional method of executing Pharisees, which was by crucifying. In terms of timeline this would be a matter of the 80s and 90s roughly looking back at an imagined pre-revolt world of around the 30s and 40s, but the gospel understanding of what Jesus was saying (in the context of the Temple still functioning and the Pharisees having an ambigious relation to it) is so far off as to suggest the stories are not just 50 years old, but possibly much older -- maybe even a century old.

The problem with interpreting Jesus is not that he didn't exist, but that he existed possibly as much as 50 years before Paul and 100 years before the gospels and the problems that Jesus was addressing were very different from the problems Paul and the Gospel-writers faced.

I'm with you on this one, billy.

What baffles me most about this is how people can actually still care. Good to know the world has no more pressing matters than what sect had what madman killed 2000 years ago.

Sad Soup-eating Girl said:

What baffles me most about this is how people can actually still care. Good to know the world has no more pressing matters than what sect had what madman killed 2000 years ago.

Click to expand...

Madmen and sects are always pressing matters.

That's the third time the Jews have been exonerated in my lifetime: John Paul did it (at Easter, I think) and John XXIII did it in 1959.

It was special the first time, maybe. The third time, it starts to look lazy.

Sarpedon said:

So is he going to tell people to stop putting on those passion plays?

Click to expand...

How do you go from a recounting of what may have happened 2 millenia ago to a condemnation of people today? That would be like Egyptians complaining that Jews shouldn't celebrate Passover.

Just a note, folks, since religion tends to be a touchy topic: tread carefully with each other, and assume goodwill wherever possible.

Here endth the PSA.

What I want to know is did he ever exonerate that woman who pushed him down? She had tried it before! It was, like, her life's goal!

*Appropriatelysorrybat, as that is neither on-topic nor funny.

Maxx said:

I'm suggesting it is possible that some of the details of the gospels (all written after the Fall of Jerusalem) relate to anxieties in the world of the post-revolt diaspora rather than the world where Jesus was active. I would say, if you look at the stories that are embedded in the gospels, they show a man interacting critically, but not dismissively, with the Pharisees to the extent that an outsider (somebody from the Judean Oligarchy for example) would have thought he was a Pharisee and possibly applied the traditional method of executing Pharisees, which was by crucifying. In terms of timeline this would be a matter of the 80s and 90s roughly looking back at an imagined pre-revolt world of around the 30s and 40s, but the gospel understanding of what Jesus was saying (in the context of the Temple still functioning and the Pharisees having an ambigious relation to it) is so far off as to suggest the stories are not just 50 years old, but possibly much older -- maybe even a century old.

The problem with interpreting Jesus is not that he didn't exist, but that he existed possibly as much as 50 years before Paul and 100 years before the gospels and the problems that Jesus was addressing were very different from the problems Paul and the Gospel-writers faced.

Click to expand...

Gotcha. I agree the gospel accounts of Jesus' life are tainted by up to 80 years of hindsight, and a very tumultuous 80 years at that. I also agree the early church founders would for sure have had different problems than their previous generations; the gospels might well reflect 110 AD more accurately than 30 AD. However, I'm not yet convinced that descriptions of temple life better reflect 50 BC because the gospel writers might have idealized the events of 30 AD to where they appeared to belong to an earlier age (and I, of course, don't have references to refute the idea). But look at the idealization of past US presidents; they were much more controversial (and less liked) in their own day than we remember them now. Anyway, good food for thought but well off the topic by now.

Chris P said:

Gotcha. I agree the gospel accounts of Jesus' life are tainted by up to 80 years of hindsight, and a very tumultuous 80 years at that. I also agree the early church founders would for sure have had different problems than their previous generations; the gospels might well reflect 110 AD more accurately than 30 AD. However, I'm not yet convinced that descriptions of temple life better reflect 50 BC because the gospel writers might have idealized the events of 30 AD to where they appeared to belong to an earlier age (and I, of course, don't have references to refute the idea). But look at the idealization of past US presidents; they were much more controversial (and less liked) in their own day than we remember them now. Anyway, good food for thought but well off the topic by now.

Click to expand...

Actually if we get to 110 AD and the Gospel of John, we can see the Jews (actually Judeans in the text) being blamed for being very nasty indeed.

As for 50 BC, yes, that would be pretty early, but with Paul writing in the late 40s and early 50s, Jesus could have been active and died around 5 BC and still not have been easy to understand, though of course one contender for Messianic kudos was Antigonus II, who took control of Jerusalem with Parthinian help (and the Parthinians would have had Magi with them) in 40 BC, IIRC. And it seems Antigonus was scourged and crucified.

GeorgeK said:

How do you go from a recounting of what may have happened 2 millenia ago to a condemnation of people today? That would be like Egyptians complaining that Jews shouldn't celebrate Passover.

Click to expand...

How do I go? I don't. But that hasn't stopped christians through the ages going there.

And as far as the passover thing, I do think it's pretty sick to celebrate the anniversary of a mass murder.

Sarpedon said:

How do I go? I don't. But that hasn't stopped christians through the ages going there.

And as far as the passover thing, I do think it's pretty sick to celebrate the anniversary of a mass murder.

Click to expand...

Maybe, if that's all it was about. But it's not. It's about the exodus from Egypt and slavery. The ten plagues are part of the story, no doubt.

Again, lemme warn y'all and remind you about respecting your fellow writer, which means not trampling all over other's beliefs. Disagree, but do it civilly or not at all.