From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: _Jesus: A Life_ by A.N. Wilson
Date: 4 Jan 93 21:13:03 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <1993Jan1.215038.21489@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> muttiah@thistle.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah) writes:
>In article <1993Jan1.203913.12465@engage.pko.dec.com> pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec28.053547.18160@cs.ucla.edu> pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce) writes:
>>>   "+ The `servant of the high priest' who accompanied Judas in leading
>>>      authorities to arrest Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane may have
>>>      been the Apostle Paul himself before his conversion.
>>This only shows how little the author knows the history.  Apostle Paul
>>was a Pharisee before his regeneration, and everyone who has the
>>slightest idea of the history of that period knows that Pharisees
>>were the bitter political as well as theological enemies of the high
>>priest.
>
>I doubt all the Pharisees hated the high priest.  The Romans ruled with an
>iron fist and the worst they could have done was deny religious freedom
>to the Jews (like they had done in many other places of their empire).  I
>think part of the concessions were that the Romans have a part (read "control")
>in the religous activities.  I doubt this arrangement could have been made
>if there wasn't tacit approval of the Pharisees (much like the Sadducees).
>Please correct me if you think I'm wrong here.
>
>>The Gospel stories never blame the Jews for the condemnation of Jesus.
>
>Well, the picture drawn is that Pilate judged by noise of the mob (later
>taken to be the vast majority of Jews) outside.  To begin with Pilate would
>have been instantaneoulsy fired by the Romans (I have read that Pilate was
>really a Gaul) if he didn't follow Roman laws to the dot, which also included
>crucifying seducers and most of all not giving into so-called mobs.  There
>must have been a very brief trial.
>
>>Gospels blame the Roman-appointed high priest for that crime.  Anyone
>>who has the slightest idea of the history knows that the high priests in
>>that period were Roman puppets hated by the rabbis and the Jewish populace.
>
>Agreed (on condition of my statement above) on your last sentence.  As
>to whom the gospel blame, I think it can anyone of either the mob outside,
>the Pharisees, the high priest, or even the whole of the religious establishment 
>of that time.

The Apostles' Creed, and the later Nicene Creed, show wisdom in speaking of
the crucifixion and who is to blame for it.

     He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
     Was crucified, died, and was buried.

Note the passive voice.  No one gets the "credit" for it.  Not even Pontius
Pilate, "under" whose authority it happened.  If as tradition has it this
statement really did originate with the disciples themselves, then it shows
that they understood that what happened on Golgotha was a mystery that goes
far beyond questions of placing blame.  This deed, which was done by Christ
himself, was for the whole earth.  As he said, No man taketh my life from
me, I lay it down and I take it up again.  Yes it is unfortunate that small
men and narrow minds allowed the original wisdom of the apostles to become
clouded and great and bloody hostility to arise between Christians and Jews,
and for that even to become institutionalized.

Even the evangelists simply say, "there they crucified him".  The words are
profound. The "they" is really the whole of mankind, of which the Jews, the
Romans, the mob, and even the disciples who ran away or stood by helpless are
a kind of representative picture. But the deed itself was Christ's own, and a 
free one.

Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy:13949 alt.activism:20372 talk.religion.misc:25853 talk.politics.theory:5619 talk.politics.guns:26446