We All Live On Stolen Land...

[Sparko]

Where precisely have I patronised you? Where have I belittled or demeaned you?

I was speaking as to your general tone in your posts. They come across as patronizing.

As far as I am concerned you are free to "speak

Well since I am one of the owners here...

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?

Goal post moving noted. I said Messiahs, not Jews. And I said for claiming to be divine or blasphemy. I am sure some of them were arrested and executed for violent crimes.

Again with your dismissal of any evidence you don't like. The scriptures show clearly in multiple places where Jesus claims divinity and accept worship and makes references to him being the divine person mentioned in Daniel 7. The Sanhedrin recognized his claims and used them to charge him with blasphemy. Your continual denial of this fact is hereby recognized as ignorance.

. 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.

Did you actually read Daniel 7:13?

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.

You don't have to accept any of it. You are an atheist so I understand you don't believe. But if you are going to argue the events of the bible with Christians then you need to accept the scriptures as true as far as the debate goes. You can't use the scripture when it suits you and then turn around and dismiss it when it shows you wrong. If your argument is that it is all myth, then why are you even bothering to argue with us? Do you argue with children about what Cinderella really said? Just go away and let us live in our delusion.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I was speaking as to your general tone in your posts. They come across as patronizing.

I simply cite facts and assess the evidence. I cannot help it if you find that patronising.

Well since I am one of the owners here...

Really? How interesting for you.

Goal post moving noted. I said Messiahs, not Jews.

From which other ethnic group do you imagine those messianic claimants originated? Messianism is a religious concept unique to Judaism. Hence we do not find evidence of Roman or Greek messiahs.

And I said for claiming to be divine

Jesus never explicitly claimed to be divine. The implication is all by suggestion and inference. There is no direct textual, categorical statement attributed to Jesus as to that alleged status.

or blasphemy

Within the known historical contemporary context Jesus never committed blasphemy.. Even had he actually claimed to be God, [which he never did], the offence would have been classified as idolatry [not blasphemy] and punished with a beating and strict admonition to desist from making such outrageous remarks. He may even have been considered mad and there is a hint of this latter Jewish reaction in Mark 3.21.

Nor is the allegation found in the synoptics that he had spoken against the Temple evidence of serious wrongdoing as the case of Jesus son of Hananiah, recounted by Josephus in War 6, 300-9 makes quite clear.

To claim, or being suspected of claiming, messianic status was by definition a political matter in the estimation of the authorities.

This was the only charge with which the Roman administration would have been concerned.

The canonical gospels writers invented the blasphemy charge in order to deflect from and deny the real reason why Jesus was executed; which was for sedition by claiming (or being suspected of claiming) messianic status. This was a political and not a religious offence. The Roman authorities took little or no direct interest in alleged transgressions of Jewish religious laws. These were not matters cognisant for a Roman provincial magistrate upon which to adjudicate.

Now to my question in my last post, which of the four canonical gospels do you accept as being the authentic and accurate account? Is it one of the versions found in the Synoptics? If so which one?

Or is John's version correct? He mentions no such Sanhedrin trial.

I am sure some of them were arrested and executed for violent crimes.

You might be interested to learn that the Romans executed thousands of Jews before they executed Jesus and continued to do so to many more after his death.

Again with your dismissal of any evidence you don't like. The scriptures show clearly in multiple places where Jesus claims divinity and accept worship and makes references to him being the divine person mentioned in Daniel 7. The Sanhedrin recognized his claims and used them to charge him with blasphemy. Your continual denial of this fact is hereby recognized as ignorance.

religious aspect of Messianic status. They would however have recognised the inherent political implications of such a claim.

Did you actually read Daniel 7:13?

Yes and specifically Daniel 7:14.

worshipworship. The fact that it is found more than 170 times in the OT shows something of its cultural significance. It does notnot occur anywhere in the Septuagint passage cited from Daniel 7:14.

This person was given authority, glory and sovereign power, and received worship. God said he would never give his glory to another, nor is anyone other than God, not even angels to be worshiped. In addition, God gave him his kingdom eternally and said his dominion was everlasting. As in forever and ever.

worshipped

This passage is talking about someone divine

That is a misconception. In Daniel this apocalyptic figure appears to have preternatural attributes however, these do not encroach upon the concept of Jewish monotheism.

and if you think it through logically, since there is only one God and no other, the person also has to be God.

According to Jewish monotheism there can be no idols, images, or representations [either in human or any other form]. Your comment therefore totally misunderstands the nature of Jewish monotheism.

Your examples appear to reinforce my case. As above, the Jewish god accepted no other deities and hence the concept of that particular deity [or an attribute of it] in a human form would have been obnoxious and idolatrous to Jesus and all other contemporary Jews.

You don't have to accept any of it.

My stance is to question and challenge subjective beliefs that are being put forward as if they are attested objective historical facts, when in point of fact they are nothing of the sort.

You are an atheist

But if you are going to argue the events of the bible with Christians then you need to accept the scriptures as true as far as the debate goes.

You can't use the scripture when it suits you and then turn around and dismiss it when it shows you wrong.

As I have already attempted to point out, your interpretations are subjectively and dogmatically preconceived and the translations upon which they appear to be based are quite evidently flawed in specific instances.

If your argument is that it is all myth,

Where have I written that? This is yet another sweeping and unsubstantiated assumption on your part.

As a final point, this exchange is not really pertinent to the topics covered on this board. If you wish to engage in any further discussion, I would politely suggest you start a new thread on the Apologetics 301 board.

[seer]

Can you guys bring this discussion over to Apologetics?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Can you guys bring this discussion over to Apologetics?

I think that is an excellent suggestion.

[oxmixmudd]

The resurrection is the fundamental belief of all Christians from the beginning of the faith. The Church has never considered the gospels the account if 'just' a human being. We have records in all the Gospels and Acts of actions that can only be attributed to divine action through Christ, and in the Resurrection we have the affirmation Christ himself IS divine per the prophetic references and Christ own words.

One can of course chose to believe or not believe in the divinity of Christ. That is the fundamental division between the 'believer' and the 'unbeliever'. And if you are an unbeliever, I would expect not much less from you. But if one believes in the Resurrection, in the Divinity of Christ, then one does not judge the truth or falsity of what is recorded in the Gospels by what it is possible for a human being to do.