One of many problems facing Biblical scholars, and in particular the scholars of the New Testament (NT), is that of contextual scholarship vs. strict reading of the NT. Contextual study attempts to view not only what is contained in the NT, but also determine how the NT fits within the context of the society as a whole.

For example, Matthew has a sign tacked above the head of Yeshua which identifies his crime. In actuality, the cross used by the Romans had no upper member; it was shaped like a capital T rather than a lower case t (technically, it was a tau cross). Thus, no place to put the sign -- but the Romans DID include a placard in the procession to execution, which was usually carried by the condemned or was carried for him.

A strict reading of Matthew would ignore what is actual, proven history. A contextual reading can give a new view of how the crucifixion actually looked and a new view of the procession of the condemned.

It should also be remembered that the Romans weren't executing anyone out of the ordinary. To them, Yeshua of Nazareth was a condemned criminal, NOT the Son of God, a Redeemer, or anything special. Of course, he DID die more quickly than the crucified usually did, but that was nothing extraodinary.

Oddly enough, the Protestant churches for many years were the hotbeds of contextual study and the Catholic strict readers. In recent years that has reversed itself (recent: the last 50 or so).

Bobert, if you're concerned about the Catholic Church being a church not of Charity and Love, check out the documents of Vatican II. It's even surprising the me how changed the RC churches are since 1963. (I'm not talking about the Vatican, but of the churches and the people that attend them.)