27 Mar 2004

Events of crucifixion could not have happened as stated in Bible

Submitted by theshovel
Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionSend to friendSend to friendPDF versionPDF version

A friend sent a review from his local paper regarding the recent "The Passion of the Christ" movie where the author stated:

the events depicted could not have occurred as described, because: (1) Jews obeyed the Exodus 12:22 commandment not to leave their house after the Passover meal; therefore, no Jews would have been available to seize Jesus, who also would not have left the house where he had the Passover meal; (2) Jews did not hold trials during Passover week, so no priests or other Jews would have been available to question Jesus; (3) Jews and others would have wanted to befriend someone who could heal the sick and raise the dead; (4) Jesus did not violate Jewish law by calling himself the Son of God, but he did commit a capital crime under Roman law by calling himself a king withough Roman authorization; (5) the Romans did not release a prisoner during Passover, and Pilate did not have the authority to release someone (Barabbas) accused of sidition; (6) Pilate, who had massacred thousands of Jews and looted the temple, did not meet or speak with Jews and did not comply with their demands; (7) if Jesus had appeared before Pilate and Pilate considered him to be innocent, he would have freed him, but he could not free anyone claiming to be a king; (8) the gospel accounts are contradicted by Peter and Paul in the Book of Acts; (9) there is no historical evidence to support any of the contradictory gospel stories.

There was a time I wouldn't have considered responding in any other way than to break each one down and answer them one by one. Now, it's not that there aren't some good answers (because there are) but whether any of the answers really answer what is behind stuff like this. The truth of the matter might take us all a little closer to home so that we might discover that we're often far too concerned about defending a position than to simply recognize intellectual self-gratification for what it is (our own, as well as that of the "antagonist"). In other words, in order for us to stop and consider what's really going on in matters such as these we might first have to recognize our own little games!

You know, in reference to the intellectual viewpoint regarding how the death of Christ could not have gone down as stated in the "gospel accounts" .... doesn't it seem rather religiously or politically naive, or perhaps even self-righteous? In other words, bullshit. Let's face it, this man's proposition is based upon the same blindly gullible PR put out in both religious and political campaigns. Is he really suggesting that there's no way that any or all of those religious and political laws and rituals couldn't have been by-passed if those in power wanted to make them happen? Hahahaha!

Just a quick consideration at any one of the many cover-ups in our own recent time should be enough to say that people will do and say anything and by-pass any and all restrictions and obstacles and lie and cheat and swear up and down they would NEVER break the most sacred trust of God and man ... until after they're finally convicted. And then it all comes out. :)

The real issue has to do with protecting one's interests at all costs, even if it means groveling and sucking up to those you despise, breaking tradition and any sacred trust, or dishonesty and secretive meetings. Geez, this is the stuff of both religious and political power hounds. Consider the recent struggles involved in the political primaries by which one candidate emerged victorious over the others. Those who declared that their opponent could not do the job now have to get on the bandwagon and support him declaring that he's the only one who can if they are going to defeat the common enemy. The one who won may very well choose a former opponent who had formerly declared him incompetent in one way or another. Lots of sucking up, lots of breaking rules and traditions, lots of temporary alliances replacing former hostilities.

Could it have happened just as stated? Why not? I can say this much: if the "gospel accounts" had painted a picture as suggested by the intellectual in question - you know, with both the religious and political powers following rules and not bending to one another's whining demands and pleas for mutual gain by forming temporary alliances to cover each other's backsides - then I would have to wonder as to the possibility that such a thing could occur. But as it is it sounds so in line with every thing we have all experienced regarding the "powers that be".

Add new comment

Random Shovelquote: Validation (view all shovelquotes)

The reality that faith didn't need any validation came through a desire to find some. source