Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 10-29-2009, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Well, if the Jewish charges are not in question, then what is your problem?

Pay attention.

The notion that Jesus was crucified for blasphemy is false.

It has no basis in either the Gospels or history.

dog-on · 10-30-2009, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Is that the latest rewrite?

I thought those guys were still on strike, guess I was mistaken...

I cannot explain your confusion. I can only try to reduce it by pointing out that the story has Jesus being accused of blasphemy by the Jewish leaders who didn't, and IIUC, couldn't crucify anyone for anything. As I said, had they taken it upon themselves, the biblical punishment would have been stoning.

In the context of the story you claim to be relying upon, crucifixion is a Roman punishment resulting from Roman charges. The story indicates that the Roman charge would have been sedition (ie "King of the Jews") and the punishment fits that crime.

Like I said, this must have been in a rewrite.

Your point is simply that the Biblical story is, on it's face, unlikely. You don't say...

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China, I might ask?

Tortie Cat · 10-30-2009, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

There are no Roman charges, the charges or accusations are from the Jews. The stories are actually in the NT.

Pilate did not have an arrest warrant for Jesus or had him on a wanted list. It was the Jews that brought Jesus to Pilate, not the other way.

After Jesus was brought before Pilate, the chief priest accused Jesus of MANY things.

Pilate, based on the story, wanted to release Jesus.

This is Pilate in Mark 15.9-10

Quote:

But Pilate answered them saying, Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews?

For he knew that the chief priests had delivered him FOR ENVY.

Jesus was crucified ultimately because of the Jews, based on the Gospels, Pilate did not convict Jesus of any crime but it was the Jews who thought he should be crucified.

Jesus was not crucified for Roman charges of sedition at all based on the Gospel stories.

One eminent NT scholar likened the non-existence of any reference to Roman authority in the various Gospels as comparable to writing about Vichy France without mentioning the Nazis!

You use a passage from Mark, a work probably composed for a small Pauline Christian sect based in Rome around 70 CE, a significant historical date for both Jews and fledgling Pauline Christianity. This work provided that early Christian community with an explanation of the significance (for their faith) of those momentous events which had recently occurred in a distant Eastern province of the Empire, and is the earliest of the four Gospels.

These early Pauline Christians were already viewed with suspicion and had only recently been accused of causing the fire in Rome in 64 CE. As with any secretive organisation gossip and rumour were rife and they were regarded with distrust. This is confirmed by the Roman historian Tacitus – writing in the early second Century. [Annales – XV. 44] Introducing his account of the persecution of the Christians by Nero] - he explains: "Their originator, Christus, had been executed in Tiberius’ reign by the governor of Judaea, Pontius Pilatus. But in spite of this temporary setback the deadly superstition had broken out afresh, not only in Judaea – where the mischief had started – but even in Rome. All degraded and shameful practices collect and flourish in the capital”.

Following the monumental events of 66-70 CE (the First Roman Jewish War) and Titus’ Triumph through Rome with hundreds of Jewish prisoners, and the artefacts of the Temple, these Pauline Christians were viewed even more suspiciously. Their worshipped another such rebellious and seditious Jew who had suffered the lowest form of capital punishment meted out only to slaves and rebels.

So in a brilliant literary sleight of hand the writer of Mark invented a Passover Amnesty whereby it was not the Romans who brought about Jesus’ death, but the Jews!

This is of course arrant nonsense. It needs to be remembered that the Praefectus of Judaea was a military Governor and any interrogation would have been conducted within the Antonia fortress to ensure maximum security. Neither was any choice offered to the "Jews". The Imperium inherent in military command, the Ius Gladii and the troops to reinforce judicial decisions, completely excluded any such scenario. Roman law also differed between its treatment of citizens and members of subjugated regions, as we see from Paul's treatment in Acts 22:25-27. However, if Jesus as a peasant from an occupied area, made no reply when the charge was put to him then he was guilty as charged.

Yet within this earliest Gospel the Romans are barely mentioned and when their Governor does finally appear he is portrayed as a vacillating and rather inept character who bears no relation to the real Pontius Pilate whom we know from other sources (Josephus and Philo) was "naturally inflexible and stubbornly relentless" and was accused of "acts of corruption, insults, rapine, outrages on the [Jewish] people, arrogance, repeated murders of innocent victims and constant and most galling savagery".

Thus in Mark’s account we have this caricature of Pilate presented as timid and ineffectual who consults the Jews as to what he should do with their King and when they reply “Crucify him” he says “”Why what evil has he done”? This literary invention is totally oblivious to the political implications of Jesus’ claim and merely "wishing to satisfy the crowd" [...] "handed him over to be crucified."(Mark 15:15 NRSV translation)

However, the writer of Mark had achieved his intention. Guilt for the death of Jesus the Christ was shifted from the Romans to the wicked Jews! His invention is given more spin in the Gospel of Mathew who makes it quite clear that the Romans are innocent: "So when Pilate saw that he could do nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took some water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, ‘I am innocent of this man’s blood; see to it yourselves. ’ Then the people as a whole answered, ‘His blood be on us and on our children! (Mathew 27:24-25 NRSV translation and my emboldening). Here we have the Roman Governor making it quite clear this is nothing to do with him (and by definition Rome, since he is the representative of Roman authority in the region) but the Jews must see to it themselves. The Jews then say that responsibility for this man's death will be upon them and their children.

As to the question put by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China, I might ask?

The Jews have borne the stigma of being "the Christ killers" for nearly 2000 years and many of the iniquities and cruelties suffered by the Jewish people throughout that period have resulted from that libel.

TC

dog-on · 10-30-2009, 05:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tortie Cat

As to the question put by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China, I might ask?

The Jews have borne the stigma of being "the Christ killers" for nearly 2000 years and many of the iniquities and cruelties suffered by the Jewish people throughout that period have resulted from that libel.

TC
[/SIZE][/FONT]

I suppose you have all those Jewish writers (according to most) in the first and second centuries to thank for it.

Of course, I don't actually believe that these writers were actually Jews...

Amaleq13 · 10-30-2009, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Like I said, this must have been in a rewrite.

And it continues to make no sense.

Quote:

Your point is simply that the Biblical story is, on it's face, unlikely. You don't say...

No, my point is that you were incorrect in claiming that Jesus was crucified for blasphemy.

Quote:

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China, I might ask?

Ask double a.

aa5874 · 10-30-2009, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Well, if the Jewish charges are not in question, then what is your problem?

Pay attention.

The notion that Jesus was crucified for blasphemy is false.

It has no basis in either the Gospels or history.

It can be argued that the notion that Jesus was crucified is false. I t can be argued that Jesus would have been stoned and that the crucifixion has no basis.

In Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 20, a character called James was put to death by the Sanhedrin and he was not crucified.

It can also be argued, successfully, that the notion that Jesus was crucified for sedition is false.

It is recorded that Pilate found no fault with Jesus.

dog-on · 10-30-2009, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

No, my point is that you were incorrect in claiming that Jesus was crucified for blasphemy.

Ok, provide the gospel reference.

Amaleq13 · 10-31-2009, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Ok, provide the gospel reference.

Read my posts. They provide everything you need to understand your mistake.

Amaleq13 · 10-31-2009, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It can also be argued, successfully, that the notion that Jesus was crucified for sedition is false.

Perhaps but you haven't done so.

Quote:

It is recorded that Pilate found no fault with Jesus.

It is recorded that Pilate executed him all the same after only considering a charge of sedition.

The stories indicates Jesus was wrongly executed for sedition. All you have to do is read them.

aa5874 · 10-31-2009, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It can also be argued, successfully, that the notion that Jesus was crucified for sedition is false.

Perhaps but you haven't done so.

Quote:

It is recorded that Pilate found no fault with Jesus.

It is recorded that Pilate executed him all the same after only considering a charge of sedition.

The stories indicates Jesus was wrongly executed for sedition. All you have to do is read them.

I have already dealt with the matter. It is false that Jesus was crucified for sedition. Pilate found no fault with Jesus.

I have already supplied the passage in gLuke.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.