Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 09-19-2009, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

So the mainstream consensus Biblical scholarship , based on a survey of 100 top NT scholars, is 'Jesus was killed because....', because of what?

I'm not sure what the mainstream consensus view is, which is why I ask.

I'm not sure that there is a mainstream consensus.

If you follow Ehrmann and think that Jesus was a David Koresh-type, he was probably killed because he annoyed/threatened the establishment or the public order.

If you think that Jesus was a pacifist religious reformer, he was probably killed for blasphemy, but it was a miscarriage of justice.

Minimalist · 09-19-2009, 12:29 PM

isn't is necessary to first prove that he lived at all before you worry about how he may have died?

Toto · 09-19-2009, 01:20 PM

Some off topic digression has been split off here.

Let's not wander all over the place.

The question is what the current consensus is for the reason Jesus was killed/executed. The current consensus is that there is minimal but sufficient evidence to conclude that Jesus existed and was crucified under Pilate. Can we go further and say that there is a consensus about why Jesus was executed?

Toto · 09-19-2009, 01:36 PM

There is a particularly unpersuasive argument from Shimon Gibson here, which I doubt is representative of any consensus. But he was able to get a book deal out of it for The Final Days of Jesus: The Archaeological Evidence (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Gibson claims that Jesus must have performed healing miracles at the pools of Bethsaida, which were a threat to the establishment.

Quote:

Archaeological work has successfully brought to light these two enormous pools, with steps and landings, and they clearly functioned as public Jewish ritual cleansing pools (miqwa’ot). It was here Jesus would have had large audiences. With unfettered ease, he was able to perform his healing procedures and to expand upon his teachings, and it was this, more than anything else, that irritated the local authorities and sealed his fate. The Romans would have been concerned that Jesus’ activities at the pools might lead to unrest among the thousands of pilgrims in Jerusalem.

. . .

I would argue that Jesus did not plan to threaten the Jewish Temple authorities and that his teaching was regarded as fairly harmless. Instead, his aim was to capture the attention of the thousands of Jewish pilgrims gathering at the pools by performing acts of healing and baptism. By doing so, Jesus was hoping that he might be regarded as the successor of John the Baptist, whom almost everyone in the country had revered a few years earlier. Since John never practiced healing himself, Jesus wanted to take things further by combining baptism with healing and with “signs and wonders.” This is what the city authorities (Jewish and Roman) dreaded the most: the return of the powerful figure of John the Baptist (or one who might represent his ideas), and they feared that this could signal upheaval with major changes ensuing.

Is Benny Hinn a threat to the establishment?

Elijah · 09-19-2009, 01:38 PM

John 11:47 "What are we to do? For this man performs many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation." But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all. Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish."

I would go with the above being the reason. The main concern I think would be about the repercussions from their Roman oppressors if they couldn’t keep the people in line. They were worried about what actually did happen later when someone tried to take on Rome and Rome tried to destroy their nation.

mountainman · 09-20-2009, 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

'Jesus was killed because....', because of what?

Pathos.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

The writers could have had God come down and create the kingdom of heaven on Earth. That would have been the happy ending.

Hi Philosopher Jay,

Have you read "Vita Constantini"?

dog-on · 09-20-2009, 05:36 AM

A simple answer.

In order to free men from the curse of the law of the creator, the savior must become a sacrifice to the creator and in doing so, pay a blood ransom through a perfect sacrifice.

John Kesler · 09-20-2009, 06:14 AM

Luke 23:1-2 gives charges against Jesus:

Quote:

Then the assembly rose as a body and brought Jesus before Pilate. 2They began to accuse him, saying, "We found this man perverting our nation, forbidding us to pay taxes to the emperor, and saying that he himself is the Messiah, a king."

All four gospels state that the charge that Jesus was "King of the Jews" was leveled against Jesus:

Quote:

Matthew 27:37
37Over his head they put the charge against him, which read, "This is Jesus, the King of the Jews."

Mark 15:26
26The inscription of the charge against him read, "The King of the Jews."

Luke 23:38
38There was also an inscription over him, "This is the King of the Jews."

John 19:19
19Pilate also had an inscription written and put on the cross. It read, "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews."

Harper Collins Bible Dictionary, page 522, article titled "Jesus Christ," gives this summary:

Quote:

The precise details of Jesus' final days or of the political processes that led to his crucifixion are no longer recoverable. But two groups in particular--his Jewish coreligionists and the occupying Romans--had different reasons for failing to sypathize with him...Since the Jewish leaders' own relationship with the Roman officials were always uneasy at best, there was no particular reason for them to defend Jesus' cause when the political authorities, no doubt misunderstanding his teachings about the kingdom and mistrusting his popularity among an overtaxed and restless peasantry, decided that Jesus should be put to death.

The bottom line is that Jesus was killed because Rome viewed him as a potential troublemaker.

Doug Shaver · 09-20-2009, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

What is the consensus mainstream view on why Jesus was killed?

I haven't read enough to have an answer that's worth anything, but I get the impression that most scholars without any ideological or confessional axes to grind suspect that Pilate, for some reason long since lost to secular history, viewed him as a potential insurrectionist.

Julio · 09-20-2009, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

A simple answer.

In order to free men from the curse of the law of the creator, the savior must become a sacrifice to the creator and in doing so, pay a blood ransom through a perfect sacrifice.

This "curse of the law" is a misnomer, and religious frustration. The Law was immediately violated by Jehovah himself and his protégé Moses, who as soon as he arrived back in the camp ordered the slaughter of THREE THOUSAND of his followers [Exodus 32:28]!! "Thou Shalt Not Kill!", was first read by Moses, a deranged terrorist. If this "Creator" had to kill a spirit-anointed man at his baptism, why the most brutal form in those days?!... Why not a fast spear through the chest?...

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

09-19-2009, 12:29 PM	#12
Minimalist Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,808	isn't is necessary to first prove that he lived at all before you worry about how he may have died?

09-19-2009, 01:20 PM	#13
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Some off topic digression has been split off here. Let's not wander all over the place. The question is what the current consensus is for the reason Jesus was killed/executed. The current consensus is that there is minimal but sufficient evidence to conclude that Jesus existed and was crucified under Pilate. Can we go further and say that there is a consensus about why Jesus was executed?

09-19-2009, 01:38 PM	#15
Elijah Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: MidWest Posts: 1,894	John 11:47 "What are we to do? For this man performs many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation." But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all. Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish." I would go with the above being the reason. The main concern I think would be about the repercussions from their Roman oppressors if they couldn’t keep the people in line. They were worried about what actually did happen later when someone tried to take on Rome and Rome tried to destroy their nation.

09-20-2009, 05:36 AM	#17
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	A simple answer. In order to free men from the curse of the law of the creator, the savior must become a sacrifice to the creator and in doing so, pay a blood ransom through a perfect sacrifice.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.