Jesus Lied - He Was Only Human: Debunking the New Testament (20 page)

It’s almost impossible to calculate how many Jewish people have been slaughtered throughout the ages because of this single sentence contained in the New Testament, that makes all Jews collectively guilty of
Decide
. Here, Matthew not only singles out the priests or elders involved in the conviction of Jesus, but for all Jewish generations to follow. In fact, it wasn’t until 1965 that the Church under Pope Paul VI ended the charge of
Deicide
against the Jewish people:

Pope, John Paul II, said in 1986:

Isn’t it sickening that a Pope must give one of mankind’s most belated apologies? It’s quite fitting considering that it was the original Catholics who ensured that this verse was propagated. Ultimately, we have come to know this to be the modus operandi of the Vatican – deny responsibility until it’s impossible to continue to do so, vis-à-vis child rape scandal, AIDS and condoms, and the execution of Galileo.

Nevertheless, the false charge of
Deicide
endures, particularly in Eastern Europe and Russia, where the Eastern Orthodox Church resides. The charge of
Deicide
was again spread by Catholic Poland, albeit with less vitriol than in the past. Moreover, the accusation remains even within Hollywood cinematic viewing.

Mel Gibson’s
Passion of the Christ
portrays the Jews as responsible for demanding the arrest of Jesus and his ultimate death by crucifixion. The film makes no effort to conceal the theological claim that the Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus, and that the sins of the angry crowd before Pilate remain the sins of their descendents forever.

One scene in particular, in the movie, has members of the mob intone the curse from Matthew 27:25:
“Let his blood be upon us and our children forever.”
But Gibson, mischievously, has the crowd shouting this in Aramaic with no English subtitles. Presumably, in a thinly veiled attempt to not upset his Jewish Hollywood peers.

Luke’s account is similar to Mark’s but with distinct theological differences. In Matthew, and Mark – Jesus’ response to the charge of calling himself the King of the Jews is more or less,
“If you say so!”
But Luke’s response is of far greater drama:

Big difference, huh? Furthermore, Luke adds another dimension to the trial by introducing King Herod. Herod was the Jewish ruler over Jerusalem, and the son of Herod the Great - who according to Matthew, caused Jesus’ family to flee to Egypt. Scholars believe Luke to be on the wrong side of historicity with his solo claim.

Robin Lane Fox,
The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible,
contends that the story was invented by Luke based on Psalm 2 of the Old Testament, in which the
“kings of the earth”
are described as opposing the Lord’s
“anointed”,
and also served to show that the Jewish authorities failed to find grounds for convicting Jesus. Wells gives emphasis to this in his book:

Now let us wrap this up with John’s trial narrative; a narrative that is unique to say the least. Mind you, we’ve already become accustomed with John’s particular brand outrageousness and incredulity.

The stand out difference, most certainly, is the lengthy and friendly dialogue between Jesus and Pilate, as though they’d been best mates or childhood pals. In Mark and Matthew, Jesus utters only three words throughout the entire trial,
“You say so”,
whereas in John’s, the two characters get extremely chatty with one another and if we didn’t know the ultimate ending to the Jesus story, we could easily conclude that the pair had a blossoming bro-mance in the making. And legend has it that Jesus gave great
moustache rides.

At first, Pilate attempts to dismiss the case against Jesus completely, he says to the priests,
“Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law”
. The priests reply that they have no right to execute anyone, and therefore require Roman approval. Tailing this sentence is John’s comment:

Pilate leaves the priests and enters the room where the guards are holding Jesus, and asks him directly,
“Are you the King of the Jews?”
Jesus replied,
“Is that your own idea, or did others talk to you about me?”
Pilate asks the equivalent of,
“Do I look like a Jew to you, and does this look like the face that actually gives a shit?”
Pilate then asks Jesus,
“What have you done?”
Jesus replied:

“
You are a king then?”
said Pilate. Jesus answered:

Pilate replied,
“What is truth?”
before leaving the room to talk with the Jewish priests again. Pilate is frustrated (just like I am each time I meet a Christian apologist, who are always freaking truth relativists!); he finds no reason to condemn Jesus and can’t believe the fuss the Jews are making over him. And he says as much,
“I find no basis for a charge against him.”

The Jews argue their case to Herod some more, before Pilate eventually throws his hands in the air, and says:

Jesus’ fate is sealed from then on. If we now review Mark, for example, against John’s, the testimonies are distinctively different perspectives. In John’s gospel, Pilate declares Jesus innocent on three separate occasions and therefore he believed he did not deserve to be executed, whereas in Mark’s gospel, Pilate never declares Jesus innocent.

We should ask ourselves, why? Well, it is no secret to anyone that the author John, via his writings, was openly hostile towards the Jews and he makes no attempt to conceal as much in his gospel. John narrates a scene whereby Jesus is talking to some Jewish priests. They’re ridiculing him for talking in nonsensical parables and Jesus replies:

Effectively, Jesus is implying that all Jewish peoples are the children of the devil and with John’s narration of the trial, the charge of deicide will stick to the Jewish people until well into the 20
^th
century (the Vatican finally withdrew this charge, as detailed earlier, reluctantly, in 1965).

John’s anti-Semitism and sheer nastiness towards the Jews has been well documented by more accomplished devotees of Biblical scholarship than myself; it is, therefore, no secret or false innuendo. John was determined to pin the execution of Jesus squarely upon the Jews. Moreover, if we refer to John 18:36 again:

This is, quite tellingly, the Jew hating author’s attempt to imply that Jesus is no longer a Jew. I guess, amusingly, this may be part of the reason why most American living rooms are adorned with a portrait of Jesus above the mantelpiece. In those illustrations, he is characterized as a tall, longhaired white boy from Nebraska, rather than the short, stumpy, hairy, brown skinned Palestinian he would have most likely been.

Christian apologists will offer all kinds of feeble denials when attempting to refute the anti-Semitism of John, but it is widely accepted by scholars and is clearly bloody evident throughout his writings. For example, in the Gospel of John, Jesus portrays Christians as the beneficiaries of all that is positive and good (light; truth; spirit and life). In contrast, the Jews belong to the realm of Satan; death; falsehood; flesh and darkness.

John’s Gospel is obsessed with “the Jews”. Thus, “Jew” or “the Jews” is mentioned more than 70 times, compared to only 5 times in Matthew; 6 times in Mark and 5 times in Luke. Moreover, more than half of John’s seventy references are anti-Semitic. For example:

Most significantly, John implicates the Jews for the conviction and execution of Jesus, and this is evident in the fact that he introduces two Jewish trials of Jesus, in contrast to the single trial in the Synoptic Gospels. Moreover, John portrays the Jews as the moving force behind the crucifixion:

John also portrays Pilate as an indecisive, bumbling leader who is ultimately manipulated by the wicked and conniving Jews. Therefore, making “the Jews” directly responsible for Jesus’ crucifixion.

The title of “Christ killers” had now been securely placed on the Jews, thanks to John. These writings would result in some of humanity’s worst atrocities, the Nazi Holocaust being just one. In ‘
The Holocaust as Interruption”
, Dr. E. Florenza (Professor of New Testament Studies) and Dr. D. Tracy (Professor of Philosophical Theology) say that:

“Christian biblical theology must recognize that its articulation of anti-Judaism in the New Testament, generated the unspeakable sufferings of the Holocaust.”

Finally, Rev. James Parkes writes, Anti-Semitism and the Foundations of Christianity”:

The truth, however, is much simpler. If there was indeed a historical Jesus, and he was in fact crucified, then it was because he was an uppity schizophrenic who pissed off everyone he met, but who also had a series of extremely good spin-doctor publicists.

The Passion narrative is arguably the most near and dear to the collective ‘hearts’ of the Christian faithful. That said, the story is actually an amalgamation of all four respective gospel accounts. A collage of passages taken from each that more than likely depicts the images you have in your own mind if you were asked to tell the story, as you know it, without referencing the Holy Book.

From Monty Python’s
Life of Brian:

Centurion: You know the penalty laid down by Roman law for harboring a known criminal?

Matthias: No.

Centurion: Crucifixion!

Matthias: Oh.

Centurion: Nasty, eh?

Matthias: Could be worse.

Centurion: What you mean “Could be worse”?

Matthias: Well, you could be stabbed.

Centurion: Stabbed? Crucifixion lasts hours. It’s a slow, horrible death.

Matthias: Well, at least it gets you out in the open air.

Centurion: You’re weird!