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 " as directly and plainly as this site’s etiquette rules permit.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Did you actually read Daniel 7:13?

Dan 7:13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man,[a] 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.

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.

This passage is talking about someone divine, and if you think it through logically, since there is only one God and no other, the person also has to be God.

Isaiah 44:6 "This is what the LORD says-- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.

Exodus 34:14 Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

Isaiah 42:8 “I am the Lord; that is my name! I will not yield my glory to another or my praise to idols.

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.

It has nothing to do with evidence I “don’t like” but to do with the known historical situation at that time. The evidence you supply appears to be derived from a particular translation of the biblical texts. You are therefore using this translation to maintain the veracity of this translation, which is a completely circular argument.

I would also point out that based on what you have written later in this reply your version evidently appears to contain some specific mistranslations and paraphrases.

If anyone is dismissing attested evidence because they do not care for it, that would appear to be you because it challenges your preconceived notions about these texts.

As mentioned in a previous post and earlier in this reply the Sanhendrin would have had no issues over the 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.

Dan 7:13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man,[a] 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.

I have no idea what translation you are using but in this specific instance it would appear to be incorrect. In Daniel 7:14 neither the original Masoretic Text Aramaic [Daniel 2:4b - 7:28 is written in Aramaic] nor the Greek Septuagint employ the word “worship”. The specific word transliterates as šǡrat [to serve or minister]. This word occurs less than 100 times in the OT.

The word to worship transliterates as šǡhǡh [to worship, prostrate oneself, bow down] this word in modern Hebrew is used in the sense of “to bow or stoop” but not in a general sense “to worship”. The fact that it is found more than 170 times in the OT shows something of its cultural significance. It does not occur in Daniel 7:14.

In the Septuagint šǡrat is translated as δουλευσουσιν [serve]. Greek also has various words for worship and the one most commonly used is the verb proskuneō [προσκυνέω]. This latter does not 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.

With regard to the verses in Daniel this figure is not “worshipped” – see above. He is served by his people as a monarch is served by his subjects.

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.

Isaiah 44:6 "This is what the LORD says-- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.

Exodus 34:14 Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

Isaiah 42:8 “I am the Lord; that is my name! I will not yield my glory to another or my praise to idols.

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

As I have made no comment on my views, that is a sweeping assumption.

I am not sure that I entirely care for the term “atheist” [against god] because it suggests there has to be a god that is not believed in.

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.

It is not merely a question of discussing 'events' [= historical facts?]. The OT and the NT contain literature of several different genres dating from various periods. All these disparate texts cannot be defined or classified as just “true” or “false”. That is a far too simplistic approach. Some measure of detailed critical assessment must be employed in order to gain any informed understanding as to the nature of their content and interpretation of their meaning within the historical, socio/political and religious background from which they originated.

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]

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.

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.