1) Gibson has expressly disavowed anti-Semitism, as recently as the past week, on the Diane Sawyer show.
2) It's disingenuous to simultaneously bring up the wacky beliefs of Hutton Gibson, an 85-year-old man who is, putting it charitably, an autodidact, and say, "but of course we don't attribute those views to his son."
3) The fact that Jesus was publicly executed by the method of crucifixion can only mean that Rome wanted him dead:
This is the meat of the argument. It's politically incorrect to blame the Sanhedrin for Jesus' death anymore, despite what the Gospels actually say - that they asked Pilate to execute him, that he refused, because he found no fault in Jesus.
They also tried to get Herod to do it, because he was in charge of Galilee, where Christ was from, but Herod refused to do it, and sent Christ back.
They then demanded again that Pilate execute him. Pilate offered to punish him, instead, but they threatened a riot, and Pilate washed his hands of it - he gave in to their demands.
This is what the Gospels say. If anyone has a quarrel with this, their quarrel is with the Gospels, not Gibson.
I don't expect an atheist to know the Bible, and am not at all surprised that the author's viewpoint. Perhaps if pressed she would disavow the miracles and the Resurrection, as well.
Earlier today on another website a devout Jew told me that the Romans appointed the Sanhedrin so . . . . I guess that's another way of blaming the Romans.
Devout Christians don't blame all Jews - that's crazy. Christ was a Jew, his family were Jews, his followers were Jews. Probably the vast majority of Jews in the area had no opinion about the events one way or the other, and went about their lives unaware that anything of significance was transpiring. |
