Near the end of Ben Hur, as Judah Ben-Hur and Balthasar stand broken and weary at the feet of the crucified Jesus, Balthasar explains how in this act of self-sacrifice Jesus took upon himself the sins of all mankind. This may have been powerful moviemaking but it was terrible history. Okay, he was a wise man, but how exactly he worked out over two centuries of Christian theology in just two minutes was never adequately explained. But given the context of the times, maybe William Wyler didn't have to do much explaining; that Jesus died for our sins was a social given in 1959. One of the strengths of recent historical Jesus scholarship is its insistence on understanding the "Jesus event" in its own social/political/religious context -- a context that knew nothing of Christian theology.
A moment's reflection will tell you that the standard Sunday school answer to the question "Why was Jesus crucified?" (for man's salvation, eternal life, to reconcile humanity to God, etc.) would have made little sense to those directly involved in the event itself. Imagine you could travel back in time and cover the crucifixion as a reporter today might cover the protests in the Middle East. If you asked Pontius Pilate, Caiaphas or members of the crowd the reason behind this condemnation could any of them have muttered anything remotely like what most Christians say today? Very unlikely for the simple reason that this answer is born out of Christian theology -- something that did not exist at the time of Jesus.
So if we are going to get at why Pilate ordered Jesus to be crucified, Christian theology does us no good. Instead we have to look at why the Romans crucified people (in general) and why Pilate must have believed that Jesus (in particular) deserved this punishment. First, let's be clear. The fact that Jesus was crucified tells us that Rome was ultimately responsible for his execution. The Romans reserved this singularly brutal form of death for their exclusive use. If the Jews were going to execute someone they might behead (think John the Baptist) or stone them (think Stephen), but they didn't crucify them (for two interesting exceptions, however, see J.D. Crossan's book The Birth of Christianity, pp. 541-543).
Under Roman law, three offenders were most likely to be crucified: pirates, rebellious slaves and enemies of the state. Note well what all these have in common: a direct challenge to Roman authority. Crucifixion was public torture designed to pound home an unambiguous message: Don't mess with Rome. Obviously, Jesus was neither a pirate nor a rebellious slave. So now our historical question becomes more specific: Why did Pilate come to believe that Jesus was an enemy of the Roman Empire? How could one little peasant preaching love of one's enemies be seen as a threat to an empire whose armored legions spanned three continents? (Note: one should also be skeptical of Pilate as a wet-noodle weakling pushed about by cunning Jewish leaders and rowdy crowds. History suggests otherwise, although later gospel writers may have had good reasons to play him up somewhat differently than what he probably was.)
The problem with Jesus (from Rome's perspective) was that he didn't just preach loving kindness. He also preached justice -- and it wasn't Rome's justice; it was God's justice. Following in the footsteps of Albert Schweitzer, historical Jesus scholar Bart Ehrman argues that Jesus was understood by his contemporaries as a Jewish apocalyptic prophet. The kingdom of God was at hand, he proclaimed. This meant that God was soon to intervene in human affairs in order to correct a world that had gone badly awry. The first shall be last and the humble shall be exalted when this divine kingdom is fully realized. Needless to say the Romans were not too keen on hearing that their day had faded and they ought to consider a more humble approach to foreign policy. They were perfectly content with their form of justice. God's justice was not on their agenda.
Another influential scholar, John Dominic Crossan, sees Jesus as more of a Jewish cynic sage rather than an apocalypticist. The Cynics were philosophers who argued that true happiness could be found only by rejecting social conventions and living simple, uncluttered lives. Roman commercialism had corrupted Jewish society, Jesus argued. A few were getting very rich cooperating with the Romans while most were being dispossessed and taxed to death. This rupture in the Jewish community was threatening their relationship with God. The Jewish people were supposed to be a people of righteousness and justice, worshipping a God of righteousness and justice. But under Roman rule, their society was becoming just like all the others -- a wealthy arrogant elite grinding down on an increasingly desperate working class. As prophets throughout the ages had done, God was calling the Jews back to himself once again through Jesus. Only this time, there was nasty catch -- they had to stop cooperating with Rome. You can't serve both God and mammon.
Whether in his time Jesus was better understood as an apocalyptic prophet or a cynic sage, either one of them would have made him subversive. When he dispatched the money changers from the Jerusalem temple, he went too far. He did exactly what candidates for crucifixion do: he directly challenged Rome's authority (that authority being exercised through the Temple priests). As Crossan concludes in his book The Birth of Christianity , Pilate got it right. Jesus was subversive; more so than he could ever have imagined. Preaching compassion often gets you canonized. Preaching justice often gets you crucified.
Pope exonerates Jews for Jesus' death in new book - Yahoo! News
Pope Benedict Exonerates Jews For Jesus' Death In New Book
Crucifixion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
FRONTLINE: from jesus to christ: jesus many faces: crucifixion | PBS
Just because the "historian" Josephus barely mentions him is almost meaningless. (His history reads more like 'notes' and press clippings of the era - yet it still does mention Jesus and his crucifixion). Jesus was a reformer to the Jews who was only around for a few years and, by Gospel accounts, seems to have wanted to remain low key during most of his ministry. By the time his message started to spread, he was on the hot seat and his mission had put him in deep trouble with the Romans and the Jewish clergy. Why would historians like Josephus have the whole scoop on Jesus then? They wouldn't. That is why little is mentioned of him in such 'historical' accounts.
There is no doubt that Gospel accounts are flawed and contradictory and that absurd legends and myths were invented / injected once the pagan Romans absorbed Christianity a couple of centuries later, but this is not cause to throw out the entire existence of Jesus altogether.
Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as recieve the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the jews and Gentiles. He was (the) Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, condemened him to the cross, those that loved him at first did not forsake him; for he appeared to be alive again on the third day, as the divine prophets have foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him, and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct from this day.
The fact that Josephus was a jew using Christian language strikes me as ridiculous.
His death was tragic. It was not a payment but rather an icon so our small minds can experience a freeing revelation.
You can legally download the book in pdf format at this link.
http://www.desiringgod.org/Store/Books/660
God creates man and woman with original sin.
Then he impregnates a woman with himself so that he can be born.
Once alive he kills himself as a sacrifice to himself to save mankind from the sin he originally condemned them to.
This is not original with me. I got it from the Why Won't God Heal Amputees? website
It just gets strange.
I keep forgetting that in a theistic universe all paradoxes and contradictions are not only possible but frequent.
God generously hands the first two people the Garden of eden and everything in it, save one tree which God warns them they must never touch or Death will enter God's creation, and they would then die.
Typically human, they arrogantly believe the Father of Lies when he tells tem they can be Gods if they do the one thing a benevolent, and generously good God warned them NOT to do.
This Infinite Offense closes heaven to man, makes him subject to death, and God punishes man by making women bear children in pain, and makes man work for all his bodily needs.
To reverse this Infinite offense that God must respect, due to His gift of a truly Free Will, a man who is infinite must atone for that insult to God or man can never be with God, even after death for the power of death must be defeated only this way. God sends His only son, who is also God to earth to become a man and can then Atone for the Infinite Sin, and conquer Death so man and God can again be together one day. This is simply the truth.
So you admit youre a NUT then New Yorker? You should quit while youre ahead, because now youre just lagging.
What if a kingdom revolted against its king and the king killed his only heir just to appease himself? I think that would be kind of strange. Especially when his heir had nothing to do with the revolt in the first place.
Christians will argue that God killed his only Son out of kindness for mankind. But being a kind father to strangers doesn't give that father the right to be unjust and cruel to his son. In the end, all the qualities that theology gives to God cancel each other out. When God exercises one of His 'perfections', it's always at the expense of another.