The Pharisees wouldn't care. See remarks by Gamaliel below. The Priest class (Sadducees) and their Roman masters would care, because declaring oneself king of a Roman subject realm is an act of sedition against Rome. The way Rome punished such acts-- and only such acts-- was crucifixion. Although the Pharisees left a copious literature behind, there is no contemporaneous record anywhere of Pharisees crucifying anyone or advocating the crucifixion of anyone. The Pharisees were nationalists, and crucifixion was abhorrent to them, as it stood for their subjugation by Rome. Also, as nationalists, they sympathized with Messianic movements, whose whole purpose was to kick Rome's ass out of Judaea.
I hope you're beginning to get the picture.
Then you can't read.
It's only antisemitic because it invents a conspiracy of Jewish leaders to torture and kill God Himself. It also exonerates the true killers and oppressors of Jews. That's pretty antisemitic.
I have acknowledged that Jesus argued with the Pharisees, as all Pharisees argued with Pharisees, and condemned the Sadducees, as all Pharisees (probably) condemned the Sadducees, and that this was their job, and there was nothing antisemitic about that. You cannot seem to get this through your skull.
The question that I think is thick-witted, which you continue to ask in myriad wondrous forms, is "What's so antisemitic about framing up the Pharisees for the death of Christ?" I thought that pointing to Christendom's long and heart-rending history of pogroms and genocide against the Jews might provide you some clues, but alas.
Gamaliel was the leading Hillelite Pharisee of the time. Such was his fame that the author of Acts puts these words in Paul's mouth: "I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God" (22:3). In other words, the claim to Paul's knowledge of Pharisaic law rested on his training "at the feet of Gamaliel."
And what did Gamaliel have to say about the followers of Jesus' Messianic movement? According to Acts:
5:34 Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space;
5:35 And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men.
5:36 For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought.
5:37 After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.
5:38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:
5:39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.
5:40 And to him they agreed...
So according to Acts itself, the leading Pharisee, Gamaliel, who "had in reputation among all the people," advocated the position that we shouldn't mess with claimants to Messiahship, because if the claim is false, it will come to nothing, but if it is true, then you're messing with the Messiah and going against God. And his argument carried the day. This position is quite consistent with what we know of the Pharisees from their own writings, and the position we would infer from the fact that they were nationalists who wanted Rome out of Judaea.
Again, it is not the Pharisees, but the Priest class and their Roman masters, who had something to fear from Jesus.
Because the textual foundation of Christianity, including the Gospels, is the writings of Paul. You and Chi (and I suppose many others) have some rather non-current ideas about New Testament authorship, and I'm putting it charitably. More on that later.
So he identified parts that were arguably antisemitic? Admirable. And since he says it was all taken directly from the Gospels, he and I apparently agree that the Gospels are arguably antisemitic. Glad he made efforts to tone down those possibly-antisemitic parts.
Maybe your reading skills are deficient, or maybe you're high on shoe polish or something. I wrote that for all I know Mel loves Jews from the bottom of his heart, but his intentions do not enter into the question of whether the Gospels are antisemitic, and whether by repeating the story, he is repeating an antisemitic story-- intentionally or not. So, there, I wrote it again. I expect you'll soon be asking again why I think Mel Gibson intended an antisemitic message, and I'll have to repeat the same answer. Or you could just read what's in front of you.
More snappy answers to such questions are on the way.
---
What others say about boorite!
