Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

We All Live On Stolen Land...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    Where have I written as much?
    You said:Oh yes it was. Claiming, or being acclaimed to have, messianic status was punishable by crucifixion. So was that the reason for Christ's crucifixion or not?

    You wrote "Sorry that is just speculation" it therefore follows that you must have to hand some extraneous source evidence to support that statement. Otherwise you are simply making an unfounded comment.
    I'm going by the text that we have.

    The King is the Messiah. He is not divine.
    Where does it say that he is not divine?

    Paul does not equate Jesus with God. I also repeat that the meaning of the phrase "son of God" was somewhat different for the residents of Corinth or Ephesus, from that of Jews in Jerusalem.
    Paul was a Jew, a Pharisee. And again, it is THE Son of God. If all Jews were sons of God then calling Jesus the son of God would have been meaningless. The high priest asking him that question would have been meaningless. There would be nothing special in that title - but Paul and the Gospel writers certainly did see that title as important, definitive.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
      I think most Americans are ashamed at the antics of some of our ancestors, specifically things like the Trail of Tears and the smallpox blanket fiasco.
      The latter of which IIRC was carried out by the British.

      I'm always still in trouble again

      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        Hypatia,

        The Jews expected the Messiah to just be a holy man, not God in the Flesh. So other people claiming to be the Messiah would not be blasphemy, they would just be ignored or arrested if they cause problems.

        Jesus not only claimed to be the Messiah, but ALSO THE Son of God. He would also go around calling himself "the Son of Man" and that people would see him "coming with the clouds of heaven" both of which were actually a reference to his deity, not his humanity.

        Ref:
        Daniel 7:13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

        So of course the Jews thought he was being blasphemous, claiming equality with God and claiming worship.

        He also went around claiming to forgive sins and allowed people to worship him and that he was the King of the Jews with authority directly from the Father.
        Sparko,

        We know that there were various Messianic movements from the late first century BCE and into the early years of the first century and that these were not always easily subdued. At least one, led by Athronges, a shepherd, took quite some time for either the Roman or Herodian troops to eventually suppress it.

        In that period there were several mass movements of Jewish peasants who came from villages or towns such as Emmaus, Bethlehem, and Sepphoris. These people rallied to the leadership of charismatic figures who were viewed as “anointed kings of the Jews” [i.e. Messianic figures]. These popular uprisings occurred in all three provincial areas of Jewish settlement in Palestine [i.e. Galilee, Perea, and Judaea].

        Sepphoris, a few miles north of Nazareth, had been burned in 4 BCE and its inhabitants sold into slavery; while Emmaus, which is one of the locations for the resurrection appearances according to Luke, had likewise been destroyed by the Romans for another mass uprising, barely a generation later. [See: R.A. Horsley & J.S. Hanson Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular Movements in the Time of Jesus]

        I repeat my observation to seer that the phrase “son of God” did not carry the same meaning in Jerusalem as it did in cities like Ephesus or Corinth. All pious Jews believed themselves to be sons of God.

        You also need to remember that your texts are the earliest examples of Christian apologetics. Your reference to Daniel is irrelevant as it is a work of Jewish apocalyptic literature from the second century BCE. Attempting to “shoe-horn” it into a prophecy for Jesus of Nazareth is just another example of Christian apologists engaging in quote-mining the Hebrew texts and manipulating them to fit their own theological agenda.

        Furthermore, in Mark 10 Jesus is provided with the perfect moment to announce Ho Theos eimi but he does not. There are various verses to be found within all four gospels where Jesus makes it clear that he is not God.

        The accounts of Jesus’ “trial” before the Jewish authorities in the Synoptic gospels [with variant narrative details] and in the somewhat different scenarios of John [consisting of a double interrogation before Annas and Caiaphas] are even more problematical.

        Many modern historians and commentators regard these descriptions largely as apologetic fabrications [Christian narrative fictions] on the basis of the manifest anomalies and inconsistencies contained within them. Moreover Jewish scholars have advanced plausible arguments against the historicity of these accounts. For a full discussion of this issue I recommend Haim Cohn’s The Trial and Death of Jesus.

        The basic point still remains. Jesus of Nazareth had committed no crime against Jewish religious law. His offence [perceived or actual] was that he had claimed, or was believed to have claimed messianic status [King of the Jews]. It was this political charge alone,[sedition] that would have been significant to the Roman administration in Judaea. The Romans in general [and their provincial magistrates in particular] had no interest at all in disputes regarding matters pertaining to Jewish religious belief or practice.
        "It ain't necessarily so
        The things that you're liable
        To read in the Bible
        It ain't necessarily so
        ."

        Sportin' Life
        Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by seer View Post
          You said:Oh yes it was. Claiming, or being acclaimed to have, messianic status was punishable by crucifixion. So was that the reason for Christ's crucifixion or not?
          See my reply above to Sparko on that issue.

          Originally posted by seer View Post

          I'm going by the text that we have.
          In other words you are using the gospel passion narratives to "prove" the gospel passion narratives.


          Originally posted by seer View Post
          Where does it say that he is not divine?
          Might I remind you of the first two commandments? In Judaism there is only one ineffable, unseen, immanent deity.


          Originally posted by seer View Post
          Paul was a Jew, a Pharisee.
          Paul never calls himself a Jew and we only have his word he was a Pharisee. If he was one then he seems remarkably unfamiliar with his scriptures in their original language. He always quotes the Septuagint never the Hebrew.

          Originally posted by seer View Post
          And again, it is THE Son of God. If all Jews were sons of God then calling Jesus the son of God would have been meaningless.
          The phrase had entirely different connotations in the Gentile world with its mythologies about anthropomorphic deities that often included miraculous births.

          Originally posted by seer View Post
          The high priest asking him that question would have been meaningless. There would be nothing special in that title - but Paul and the Gospel writers certainly did see that title as important, definitive.
          Again, see my reply above to Sparko on the "trial".
          "It ain't necessarily so
          The things that you're liable
          To read in the Bible
          It ain't necessarily so
          ."

          Sportin' Life
          Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
            The date of Mark is generally agreed to have been no earlier than 70/71 CE.
            That's what I JUST said.

            Max period of 40 years (and that's based on the ASSUMPTION it was written that late; there's no evidence against the assumption it was written earlier) after the event is the "context" of which you spoke of.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by seanD View Post
              That's what I JUST said.
              You wrote "The max date is around 70 at the latest " [my emphasis]. That suggests earlier datings are also under consideration. They are not.

              Originally posted by seanD View Post
              Max period of 40 years (and that's based on the ASSUMPTION it was written that late; there's no evidence against the assumption it was written earlier)
              The text contains the "prophecy" of the event to which I was referring, namely the First Jewish War 66- 71 CE which resulted in the siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple, thereby indicating that this text was written post eventum i.e.after 70/71 CE.
              "It ain't necessarily so
              The things that you're liable
              To read in the Bible
              It ain't necessarily so
              ."

              Sportin' Life
              Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                You wrote "The max date is around 70 at the latest " [my emphasis]. That suggests earlier datings are also under consideration. They are not.
                Yes, there are. They're of the "apologetic" variety, but their education and scholarly experience is no less credible.

                The text contains the "prophecy" of the event to which I was referring, namely the First Jewish War 66- 71 CE which resulted in the siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple, thereby indicating that this text was written post eventum i.e.after 70/71 CE.
                Duh. That is the criteria secular scholars insist, which is an assumption that the supernatural doesn't exist, therefore prophecy doesn't exist. That's an assumption. And btw, it doesn't necessarily have to based on the supernatural, as Josephus pointed out there were others who apparently made that prediction.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by seanD View Post
                  Yes, there are. They're of the "apologetic" variety, but their education and scholarly experience is no less credible.
                  Bearing mind that such theories will have a degree of bias what sources are you citing?

                  Originally posted by seanD View Post

                  Duh. That is the criteria secular scholars insist, which is an assumption that the supernatural doesn't exist, therefore prophecy doesn't exist. That's an assumption.
                  Historical research does not deal with superstitions and folklore as reliable souces. Of course someone researching the background to folktales will try and put such tales into their socio-historical context but that does not presume that such tales are believed to be entirely factual.

                  Originally posted by seanD View Post
                  And btw, it doesn't necessarily have to based on the supernatural, as Josephus pointed out there were others who apparently made that prediction.
                  Could you provide the citation from Josephus?
                  "It ain't necessarily so
                  The things that you're liable
                  To read in the Bible
                  It ain't necessarily so
                  ."

                  Sportin' Life
                  Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                    Sparko,

                    We know that there were various Messianic movements from the late first century BCE and into the early years of the first century and that these were not always easily subdued. At least one, led by Athronges, a shepherd, took quite some time for either the Roman or Herodian troops to eventually suppress it.

                    In that period there were several mass movements of Jewish peasants who came from villages or towns such as Emmaus, Bethlehem, and Sepphoris. These people rallied to the leadership of charismatic figures who were viewed as “anointed kings of the Jews” [i.e. Messianic figures]. These popular uprisings occurred in all three provincial areas of Jewish settlement in Palestine [i.e. Galilee, Perea, and Judaea].

                    Sepphoris, a few miles north of Nazareth, had been burned in 4 BCE and its inhabitants sold into slavery; while Emmaus, which is one of the locations for the resurrection appearances according to Luke, had likewise been destroyed by the Romans for another mass uprising, barely a generation later. [See: R.A. Horsley & J.S. Hanson Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular Movements in the Time of Jesus]

                    I repeat my observation to seer that the phrase “son of God” did not carry the same meaning in Jerusalem as it did in cities like Ephesus or Corinth. All pious Jews believed themselves to be sons of God.

                    You also need to remember that your texts are the earliest examples of Christian apologetics. Your reference to Daniel is irrelevant as it is a work of Jewish apocalyptic literature from the second century BCE. Attempting to “shoe-horn” it into a prophecy for Jesus of Nazareth is just another example of Christian apologists engaging in quote-mining the Hebrew texts and manipulating them to fit their own theological agenda.

                    Furthermore, in Mark 10 Jesus is provided with the perfect moment to announce Ho Theos eimi but he does not. There are various verses to be found within all four gospels where Jesus makes it clear that he is not God.

                    The accounts of Jesus’ “trial” before the Jewish authorities in the Synoptic gospels [with variant narrative details] and in the somewhat different scenarios of John [consisting of a double interrogation before Annas and Caiaphas] are even more problematical.

                    Many modern historians and commentators regard these descriptions largely as apologetic fabrications [Christian narrative fictions] on the basis of the manifest anomalies and inconsistencies contained within them. Moreover Jewish scholars have advanced plausible arguments against the historicity of these accounts. For a full discussion of this issue I recommend Haim Cohn’s The Trial and Death of Jesus.

                    The basic point still remains. Jesus of Nazareth had committed no crime against Jewish religious law. His offence [perceived or actual] was that he had claimed, or was believed to have claimed messianic status [King of the Jews]. It was this political charge alone,[sedition] that would have been significant to the Roman administration in Judaea. The Romans in general [and their provincial magistrates in particular] had no interest at all in disputes regarding matters pertaining to Jewish religious belief or practice.
                    Edited to add: For further reading I also recommend Paul Winter's On the Trial of Jesus. This is an another excellent work and also from a Jewish scholar.
                    "It ain't necessarily so
                    The things that you're liable
                    To read in the Bible
                    It ain't necessarily so
                    ."

                    Sportin' Life
                    Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                      Sparko,

                      We know that there were various Messianic movements from the late first century BCE and into the early years of the first century and that these were not always easily subdued. At least one, led by Athronges, a shepherd, took quite some time for either the Roman or Herodian troops to eventually suppress it.

                      In that period there were several mass movements of Jewish peasants who came from villages or towns such as Emmaus, Bethlehem, and Sepphoris. These people rallied to the leadership of charismatic figures who were viewed as “anointed kings of the Jews” [i.e. Messianic figures]. These popular uprisings occurred in all three provincial areas of Jewish settlement in Palestine [i.e. Galilee, Perea, and Judaea].

                      Sepphoris, a few miles north of Nazareth, had been burned in 4 BCE and its inhabitants sold into slavery; while Emmaus, which is one of the locations for the resurrection appearances according to Luke, had likewise been destroyed by the Romans for another mass uprising, barely a generation later. [See: R.A. Horsley & J.S. Hanson Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular Movements in the Time of Jesus]

                      I repeat my observation to seer that the phrase “son of God” did not carry the same meaning in Jerusalem as it did in cities like Ephesus or Corinth. All pious Jews believed themselves to be sons of God.

                      You also need to remember that your texts are the earliest examples of Christian apologetics. Your reference to Daniel is irrelevant as it is a work of Jewish apocalyptic literature from the second century BCE. Attempting to “shoe-horn” it into a prophecy for Jesus of Nazareth is just another example of Christian apologists engaging in quote-mining the Hebrew texts and manipulating them to fit their own theological agenda.

                      Furthermore, in Mark 10 Jesus is provided with the perfect moment to announce Ho Theos eimi but he does not. There are various verses to be found within all four gospels where Jesus makes it clear that he is not God.

                      The accounts of Jesus’ “trial” before the Jewish authorities in the Synoptic gospels [with variant narrative details] and in the somewhat different scenarios of John [consisting of a double interrogation before Annas and Caiaphas] are even more problematical.

                      Many modern historians and commentators regard these descriptions largely as apologetic fabrications [Christian narrative fictions] on the basis of the manifest anomalies and inconsistencies contained within them. Moreover Jewish scholars have advanced plausible arguments against the historicity of these accounts. For a full discussion of this issue I recommend Haim Cohn’s The Trial and Death of Jesus.

                      The basic point still remains. Jesus of Nazareth had committed no crime against Jewish religious law. His offence [perceived or actual] was that he had claimed, or was believed to have claimed messianic status [King of the Jews]. It was this political charge alone,[sedition] that would have been significant to the Roman administration in Judaea. The Romans in general [and their provincial magistrates in particular] had no interest at all in disputes regarding matters pertaining to Jewish religious belief or practice.
                      I love how you handwave away anyone's evidence, but do it in such a patronizing way. It's hilarious.

                      I am more direct and speak more plainly (Probably because of my hillbilly upbringing:) You are wrong. Yes, I know there were many false messiahs, but none were crucified and none claimed to be divine. Jesus did. And yes, Daniel IS relevant since Jesus directly referenced Daniel 7 in regards to himself on multiple occasions, and in fact did it during his trial before the Sanhedron which is what caused them to charge him with blasphemy. He was claiming divinity, equality with God. That he was worthy of worship and would lead God's eternal kingdom (not just the earthly kingdom of Judea which did not even exist at that time.) The priests understood this reference even if you do not, or simply want to hand wave it away.

                      For someone as intelligent as you seem to be, you are mindbogglingly ignorant to the evidence before you. But then Jesus also predicted that would happen too.

                      Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.

                      And Paul says it well in 1 Corinthians:

                      18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:

                      “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
                      the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."

                      20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

                      26 Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him. 30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31 Therefore, as it is written: “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.”
                      Last edited by Sparko; 07-09-2020, 10:29 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                        Bearing mind that such theories will have a degree of bias what sources are you citing?

                        Historical research does not deal with superstitions and folklore as reliable souces. Of course someone researching the background to folktales will try and put such tales into their socio-historical context but that does not presume that such tales are believed to be entirely factual.

                        Could you provide the citation from Josephus?
                        HA it's apparent to me you're out of your league here when it comes to knowledge about the subject. I've also grown weary debating this with skeptics and regret even starting here (as I used to do this in the past with vigor until it dawned on me it's kind of pointless), and it's just way off topic from Civics, so I'm bowing out after this.

                        John A. T. Robinson, Carsten Peter Thiede, Gunther Zuntz, Bernard Orchard, Harold Riley, Allen P. Wikgren, Eta Linnemann, D.A. Carson, Joseph S. Exell, David A. Fiensy, Robert H. Gundry, Gary R. Habermas, Simon J. Kistemaker, and Claude Tresmontant have all argued pre-70 dates of the gospels, in some cases even the gospel of John.

                        From Josephus War 4.6.3 -- "For there was a certain ancient oracle of those men, that "The city should then be taken, and the sanctuary burnt, by right of war, when a sedition should invade the Jews: and their own hands should pollute the temple of God.""

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by seer View Post
                          And so goes the trope. No we did not steal the land per se, we conquered it. Exactly what native tribes were doing to each other long before the white man showed up. We just happened to be the bigger more advanced tribe. And I wonder if the leftists who are complaining about us living on stolen land are willing to give their houses and lands back to the American Indians. Or will they remain blatant hypocrites.
                          This 5-4 SCOTUS decision handed down today declares that half of Oklahoma including Tulsa is reservation. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN24A268. I'll be interested to see how this one plays out.
                          "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings." Hosea 6:6

                          "Theology can be an intellectual entertainment." Metropolitan Anthony Bloom

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by seanD View Post
                            HA it's apparent to me you're out of your league here when it comes to knowledge about the subject.
                            Your withdrawal from the exchange is duly noted and leaves me feeling rather as Charles Martel must have felt in 732 CE.

                            In point of fact I am no more out of my"league" than are you or anyone else. However, I do endeavour to approach these topics from a critical perspective.

                            Originally posted by seanD View Post
                            From Josephus War 4.6.3 -- "For there was a certain ancient oracle of those men, that "The city should then be taken, and the sanctuary burnt, by right of war, when a sedition should invade the Jews: and their own hands should pollute the temple of God.""
                            From the Loeb edition of Josephus' War the translator comments in a footnote " I can quote no " ancient " authority for the saying." Nor does this quote from Josephus provide any further illumination as to the veracity of the various Synoptic verses pertaining to this alleged "prophecy".

                            Attempts at dating these canonical gospels remains a contentious issue among New Testament scholars. There is no overall consensus on this matter.
                            "It ain't necessarily so
                            The things that you're liable
                            To read in the Bible
                            It ain't necessarily so
                            ."

                            Sportin' Life
                            Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              I love how you handwave away anyone's evidence, but do it in such a patronizing way. It's hilarious.
                              Where precisely have I patronised you? Where have I belittled or demeaned you?

                              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              I am more direct and speak more plainly (Probably because of my hillbilly upbringing:)
                              As far as I am concerned you are free to "speak " as directly and plainly as this site’s etiquette rules permit.

                              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              You are wrong. Yes, I know there were many false messiahs, but none were crucified
                              Oh yes they were as were thousands of other Jews both before and after the execution of Jesus of Nazareth. Or do you imagine he was the only Jew to be crucified by the Romans?

                              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              and none claimed to be divine. Jesus did.
                              No he didn’t. You [as so many do] are simply referring to periphrastic language in John’s gospel. That work cannot be regarded as a factual account of an actual human being. The personage of Jesus with which we are presented in that work cannot be compared to the holy man of God we find in Mark.

                              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              And yes, Daniel IS relevant since Jesus directly referenced Daniel 7 in regards to himself on multiple occasions,
                              According to the three Synoptic accounts the words put into the mouth of Jesus allude to a personage described in Daniel 7.13. In the first century the Book of Daniel was held in high esteem by both Jews and early Christians.
                              However, that work continues “And he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him”. This personage is not a divinity but is being acknowledged by the god of Israel as the future Messianic king and the text then continues to describe the Kingdom over which this King will rule.

                              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              and in fact did it during his trial before the Sanhedron which is what caused them to charge him with blasphemy. He was claiming divinity, equality with God. That he was worthy of worship and would lead God's eternal kingdom
                              You are presenting me here with a collection of Christian narrative fictions and dogmatically pronouncing that these four accounts [with their respective variant narrative details] are attested historical facts.

                              The manifest contradictions and anomalies contained within these narratives are succinctly and [at times] humorously dealt with in the following extract.

                              Although the arrest of Jesus was sudden and unprepared, the evangelists declare that the whole august body of the Sanhedrin- consisting of 71 members according to the Mishnah – was already assembled in the High Priest’s palace at night, and on Passover night of all nights! Not only were the councillors present, but there was also a whole bunch of witnesses ready to testify against Jesus. Was all this carefully organised when it was still uncertain whether Jesus would actually be found let alone detained?

                              The harmony between the synoptics immediately breaks down. Luke makes no mention of a nocturnal session of the Sanhedrin. If we now turn to Mark and Matthew, another oddity emerges. Although we are told that the authorities had decided in advance that Jesus must be eliminated [Mk 14.1; Mt 26.4; and Lk 22.2], they carefully maintained the outward appearances of a due legal process. No one should be condemned without witnesses; so we are presented with witnesses for the prosecution. They are already there, waiting. They come forward and make their depositions, but although the judges seem to be interested only in conviction – Matthew even claims that the court was looking for pseudomartyria or false witness [Mt 26.59] – the accusations are all rejected because, to quote Mark’s sober comment, they “did not agree”.

                              When finally two witnesses stand up and proffer an identical charge, namely that Jesus had issued threats against the Temple; the tribunal, abiding by the law governing testimony in capital cases, is still unsatisfied [Mk. 14.55-9; Mt 26.59-61]. This quibbling about minutiae is surprising and perhaps explains why Luke is altogether silent about the witnesses.

                              After this punctilious adherence to the rules one would have expected dismissal of the case, but the evangelists suddenly change direction. First the High Priest invites Jesus to respond to the charges, although they have already been dismissed.

                              Not surprisingly Jesus refuses to answer them. Next, Mark and Matthew assert that Caiaphas adopted the tactic of direct challenge and confronted Jesus with “Are you the Christ the Son of the Blessed”- the Blessed being a substitute name for God. The words can be paraphrased “Are you the Messiah the promised royal deliverer of Israel?”.

                              In Jewish religious thought, before and after the age of Jesus, a king of the House of David and above all the King-Messiah, was considered the “Son of God” on the basis of Psalm 27 where on the enthronement of the Israelite monarch, God declares: “You are my son, today I have begotten you”. Elsewhere he also makes a promise to King Solomon “I will be his father and he shall be my son" [2 Sam.7.14]. Indeed in the commonly used metaphorical terminology of Judaism “Messiah” and “Son of God” were interchangeable; they were synonymous.
                              ”[See Vermes, G, The Passion 2005].

                              At a later point in the same work Prof. Vermes notes:

                              Furthermore, the Synoptic version of the trial of Jesus occurring at Passover night [or in the morning of Passover according to Luke] seems to be intrinsically vitiated. Both the timing of this hearing and the charge of blasphemy create apparently insoluble legal difficulties. According to the Mishnah , no capital sentence could be pronounced by the Sanhedrin on the day of the court hearing itself. It had to wait until the following day to allow the judges a night to reflect on their verdict Therefore trials involving death penalty may not be held on the eve of Sabbath or on the eve of a feast day [Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:1; Betzah 5:2] It obvious why a court could not do business on the Sabbath and apart from all other considerations the proceedings were required to be recorded by two clerks. Given the Mishnah’s prohibition to write as few as two letters on the Sabbath [Shabbat 7:2] this would exclude the recording of minutes and therefore render the court proceedings impossible.

                              John’s gospel contains no mention of any trial before the High Priest and/or Sanhedrin and nor does it mention any witnesses. Moreover, its chronology of the Passion narrative is at complete variance with that of the Synoptics.

                              So which of these four disparate accounts do you consider to be authentic and correct?


                              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              (not just the earthly kingdom of Judea which did not even exist at that time.)
                              Of course Judaea existed at that time. It was a province of Rome and prior to that it had been part of Herod the Great’s kingdom, which following his death, and the disastrous and short-lived ethnarchy of his eldest son Archelaus, was taken directly under Roman control.

                              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              For someone as intelligent as you seem to be, you are mindbogglingly ignorant to the evidence before you.
                              To employ your own words and "be more direct and speak more plainly" the only “evidence” you appear to have presented is your own uncritical, entrenched, and literalist theological opinion.
                              Last edited by Hypatia_Alexandria; 07-09-2020, 08:39 PM.
                              "It ain't necessarily so
                              The things that you're liable
                              To read in the Bible
                              It ain't necessarily so
                              ."

                              Sportin' Life
                              Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                                Where precisely have I patronised you? Where have I belittled or demeaned you?

                                As far as I am concerned you are free to "speak " as directly and plainly as this site’s etiquette rules permit.

                                Oh yes they were as were thousands of other Jews both before and after the execution of Jesus of Nazareth. Or do you imagine he was the only Jew to be crucified by the Romans?

                                No he didn’t. You [as so many do] are simply referring to periphrastic language in John’s gospel. That work cannot be regarded as a factual account of an actual human being. The personage of Jesus with which we are presented in that work cannot be compared to the holy man of God we find in Mark.



                                According to the three Synoptic accounts the words put into the mouth of Jesus allude to a personage described in Daniel 7.13. In the first century the Book of Daniel was held in high esteem by both Jews and early Christians.
                                However, that work continues “And he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him”. This personage is not a divinity but is being acknowledged by the god of Israel as the future Messianic king and the text then continues to describe the Kingdom over which this King will rule.



                                You are presenting me here with a collection of Christian narrative fictions and dogmatically pronouncing that these four accounts [with their respective variant narrative details] are attested historical facts.

                                The manifest contradictions and anomalies contained within these narratives are succinctly and [at times] humorously dealt with in the following extract.

                                Although the arrest of Jesus was sudden and unprepared, the evangelists declare that the whole august body of the Sanhedrin- consisting of 71 members according to the Mishnah – was already assembled in the High Priest’s palace at night, and on Passover night of all nights! Not only were the councillors present, but there was also a whole bunch of witnesses ready to testify against Jesus. Was all this carefully organised when it was still uncertain whether Jesus would actually be found let alone detained?

                                The harmony between the synoptics immediately breaks down. Luke makes no mention of a nocturnal session of the Sanhedrin. If we now turn to Mark and Matthew, another oddity emerges. Although we are told that the authorities had decided in advance that Jesus must be eliminated [Mk 14.1; Mt 26.4; and Lk 22.2], they carefully maintained the outward appearances of a due legal process. No one should be condemned without witnesses; so we are presented with witnesses for the prosecution. They are already there, waiting. They come forward and make their depositions, but although the judges seem to be interested only in conviction – Matthew even claims that the court was looking for pseudomartyria or false witness [Mt 26.59] – the accusations are all rejected because, to quote Mark’s sober comment, they “did not agree”.

                                When finally two witnesses stand up and proffer an identical charge, namely that Jesus had issued threats against the Temple; the tribunal, abiding by the law governing testimony in capital cases, is still unsatisfied [Mk. 14.55-9; Mt 26.59-61]. This quibbling about minutiae is surprising and perhaps explains why Luke is altogether silent about the witnesses.

                                After this punctilious adherence to the rules one would have expected dismissal of the case, but the evangelists suddenly change direction. First the High Priest invites Jesus to respond to the charges, although they have already been dismissed.

                                Not surprisingly Jesus refuses to answer them. Next, Mark and Matthew assert that Caiaphas adopted the tactic of direct challenge and confronted Jesus with “Are you the Christ the Son of the Blessed”- the Blessed being a substitute name for God. The words can be paraphrased “Are you the Messiah the promised royal deliverer of Israel?”.

                                In Jewish religious thought, before and after the age of Jesus, a king of the House of David and above all the King-Messiah, was considered the “Son of God” on the basis of Psalm 2.7 where on the enthronement of the Israelite monarch, God declares: “You are my son, today I have begotten you”. Elsewhere he also makes a promise to King Solomon “I will be his father and he shall be my son" [2 Sam.7.14]. Indeed in the commonly used metaphorical terminology of Judaism “Messiah” and “Son of God” were interchangeable; they were synonymous.
                                ”[See Vermes, G, The Passion 2005].

                                At a later point in the same work Prof. Vermes notes:

                                Furthermore, the Synoptic version of the trial of Jesus occurring at Passover night [or in the morning of Passover according to Luke] seems to be intrinsically vitiated. Both the timing of this hearing and the charge of blasphemy create apparently insoluble legal difficulties. According to the Mishnah , no capital sentence could be pronounced by the Sanhedrin on the day of the court hearing itself. It had to wait until the following day to allow the judges a night to reflect on their verdict Therefore trials involving death penalty may not be held on the eve of Sabbath or on the eve of a feast day [Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:1; Betzah 5:2] It obvious why a court could not do business on the Sabbath and apart from all other considerations the proceedings were required to be recorded by two clerks. Given the Mishnah’s prohibition to write as few as two letters on the Sabbath [Shabbat 7:2] this would exclude the recording of minutes and therefore render the court proceedings impossible.

                                John’s gospel contains no mention of any trial before the High Priest and/or Sanhedrin and nor does it mention any witnesses. Moreover, its chronology of the Passion narrative is at complete variance with that of the Synoptics.

                                So which of these four disparate accounts do you consider to be authentic and correct?


                                Of course Judaea existed at that time. It was a province of Rome and prior to that it had been part of Herod the Great’s kingdom, which following his death, and the disastrous and short-lived ethnarchy of his eldest son Archelaus, was taken directly under Roman control.

                                To employ your own words and "be more direct and speak more plainly" the only “evidence” you appear to have presented is your own uncritical, entrenched, and literalist theological opinion.
                                NB The following sentence has been corrected - Psalm 27 was initially cited and it should read Psalm 2.7

                                In Jewish religious thought, before and after the age of Jesus, a king of the House of David and above all the King-Messiah, was considered the “Son of God” on the basis of Psalm 2.7 where on the enthronement of the Israelite monarch, God declares: “You are my son, today I have begotten you”.
                                "It ain't necessarily so
                                The things that you're liable
                                To read in the Bible
                                It ain't necessarily so
                                ."

                                Sportin' Life
                                Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                45 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                230 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                173 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                284 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X