Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-12-2012, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Furthermore, the Priests could have stoned Jesus for religious crimes themselves if they wanted.

Under the Romans, the Jews did not have authority to carry out capital sentences.

Do you have a solid cite for this? I've had difficulty ever researching a definitive answer on this. The Gospels say the Sanhedrin couldn't execute criminals, but I've never seen anything else to support that. Josephus says that James (whether he was "brother of the so-called Christ or not) was executed by the High Priest, and Acts says Paul was present at the stoning of Stephen (only a year or two after the crucifixion in Gospel chronology.

So is there a source that demonstrates anything definitively?

stephan huller · 04-12-2012, 09:15 PM

I just stumbled on this explanation by Clement of Alexandria on Jesus as 'king.'

Quote:

Now among the Greeks, Minos the king of nine years’ reign, and familiar friend of Zeus, is celebrated in song; they having heard how once God conversed with Moses, “as one speaking with his friend.” [Ex. xxxiii. 11] Moses, then, was a sage, king, legislator. But our Saviour surpasses all human nature. He is so lovely, as to be alone loved by us, whose hearts are set on the true beauty, for “He was the true light.” He is shown to be a King, as such hailed by unsophisticated children and by the unbelieving and ignorant Jews, and heralded by the prophets. So rich is He, that He despised the whole earth, and the gold above and beneath it, with all glory, when given to Him by the adversary. What need is there to say that He is the only High Priest, who alone possesses the knowledge of the worship of God? He is Melchizedek, “King of peace,” the most fit of all to head the race of men. A legislator too, inasmuch as He gave the law by the mouth of the prophets, enjoining and teaching most distinctly what things are to be done, and what not. Who of nobler lineage than He whose only Father is God?

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-12-2012, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

The figure in Daniel IS human. That's exactly what "one like a son of man" means. One like a human.

How does the above not strike you as a contradiction in terms? "IS human" and "one like a human"? The LXX and hebraic both have "like/as/similar to" here. Not "IS."

It's because the original Hebrew construction is ben Adam - "son of Adam." Adam means "man." Everybody is a son of Adam, therefore everybody is a son of man. The redundancy is just an artifact of Adam's name being an eponym for "man."

ETA, if your asking why daniel said "one like a son of man, instead of just "a son of man." it's because he's being poetic. What's that coming down from the clouds? It's a bird, it's a plane, it's Sonofman.

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-12-2012, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Well either he didn't know or didn't care. I suspect he didn't know since every time he tried to say anything about Jewish tradition or law (or Palestinian geography) he got something wrong.

I'm with (b) on that.

B could have been the reason for A.

Grog · 04-12-2012, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

It is difficult to imagine that Mark was developing a narrative where Jesus was acknowledged to have (a) claimed he was the Son of God and (b) was not thought to have been crazy. The idea comes up in the gospel narrative. It's like a modern person claiming to be Napoleon. It is hard to imagine a justice system that would take the claim to be the Son of God so seriously that all the remarkable things described in the narrative would have taken place - i.e. the Romans helping arrest Jesus by stealth at night, a special session of the Sanhedrin, being put in front of Pilate - all for a mashugana. I find this difficult to believe. The more likely reason for his execution is that he was found to be competent on some level and the original charge was either blaspheming the temple, turning people away from Yahweh or both.

The Romans wouldn't have cared about either of those things. Crucifixion was reserved only for slaves and for crimes against the state.

Furthermore, the Priests could have stoned Jesus for religious crimes themselves if they wanted.

Claiming to be the King of the Jews would have done it. So would merely causing a tumolt at the Temple during passover. That would make him a public threat if there was any potential for riot.

Josephus talks about other riots and violent battles between the Romans and Jews in the Temple, and about a time when thousands of people were crushed in a stampede trying to escape the courtyards during some kind of melee.

A ruckus at the Temple was a legitimate threat with a legitimate potential for large scale violence.

Both the Temple authority (which was a Roman puppet anyway) and the Romans would have had no compunction about putting down a firestarter like that immediately.

It's hard for me to take this discussion seriously, as if there is evidence that any of this actually happened in the 30's AD (or so). Even if we accept that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified by Pilate, the circumstances of that outcome are nowhere reliably described, certainly not in the Gospels. Did Jesus create a ruckus in the Temple? Did he blaspheme? Would what Jesus said have amounted to blasphemy? Yes, because the author of that story said so.

Is it feasible that Orolo would be declared anathema for using a telescope to chart a strange object in the sky? Yes, because Neal Stephenson says so. Those are the rules that the author set. There are other, as someone put it, "mistakes" in Mark's Gospel. That doesn't matter to the author of Mark. It is a story, the feasibility of which doesn't matter too much. It's not really intended for those who might be bothered by these details.

LegionOnomaMoi · 04-12-2012, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

It's because the original Hebrew construction is ben Adam - "son of Adam." Adam means "man." Everybody is a son of Adam, therefore everybody is a son of man. The redundancy is just an artifact of Adam's name being an eponym for "man."

It doesn't matter if whether ben 'adam or the aramaic equivalent bar ^enasa/bar nasha means "human" because hos (LXX) or kbr serve no purpose other than to point out that this is a comparison to a human.

Quote:

ETA, if your asking why daniel said "one like a son of man, instead of just "a son of man." it's because he's being poetic. What's that coming down from the clouds? It's a bird, it's a plane, it's Sonofman.

There are plenty of constructions (stative verbal constructions, verbless copulative constructions, etc.) in semitic languages, including hebrew and aramaic, which could be used to indicate that the "human" in Daniel was actually human. The only reason for a qualifier is to express similarity rather than use an equative construction.

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-12-2012, 10:14 PM

Even if you think it only denotes similarity (and once again, Daniel is an apocalyptic work and those images are not supposed to be literal), it still denotes a separate entity from God.

stephan huller · 04-12-2012, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Even if you think it only denotes similarity (and once again, Daniel is an apocryphal work and those images are not supposed to be literal), it still denotes a separate entity from God.

Honestly, I think I have had more meaningful discussions with aa or mountainman. Of course the being from whom we got our image (and will get our likeness) was anthropomorphic. That's the whole point of Genesis. That's the whole point of Christianity. The Father isn't anthropomorphic in shape. He is shapeless, he is without form.

It is impossible to have a discussion about Christianity with someone who doesn't understand what Christianity is. I am sorry but your objections here show a level of familiarity with the subject matter which is appalling. You don't understand what Christianity is. I would venture to guess you have never read an early Christian commentary on the religion. What are we to say to you? Yes, Jesus is not the Father. My God, what a revelation! He's anthropomorphic in shape. He looks like a man. Is there some controversy that God can be in human form or that Christians believed this or that Daniel saw that in his vision? Read the Qumran texts for an anthropomorphic God.

Please read something by someone ancient or from an ancient Christian culture. This is pointless. Next we will have to teach you the alphabet or how to use chopsticks.

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-12-2012, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

Even if you think it only denotes similarity (and once again, Daniel is an apocryphal work and those images are not supposed to be literal), it still denotes a separate entity from God.

Honestly, I think I have had more meaningful discussions with aa or mountainman. Of course the being from whom we got our image (and will get our likeness) was anthropomorphic. That's the whole point of Genesis. That's the whole point of Christianity. The Father isn't anthropomorphic in shape. He is shapeless, he is without form.

It is impossible to have a discussion about Christianity with someone who doesn't understand what Christianity is. I am sorry but your objections here show a level of familiarity with the subject matter which is appalling. You don't understand what Christianity is. I would venture to guess you have never read an early Christian commentary on the religion. What are we to say to you? Yes, Jesus is not the Father. My God, what a revelation! He's anthropomorphic in shape. He looks like a man. Is there some controversy that God can be in human form or that Christians believed this or that Daniel saw that in his vision? Read the Qumran texts for an anthropomorphic God.

Please read something by someone ancient or from an ancient Christian culture. This is pointless. Next we will have to teach you the alphabet or how to use chopsticks.

I am not talking about Christianity, I'm talking about Judaism. and believe me, I know Christianity.

If you know it well, you also know that there is no unified Christology in the New Testament.

Mark makes it clear that he does not view God and Jesus as the same person. He makes it explicit, actually, in more than one verse.

LegionOnomaMoi · 04-12-2012, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Even if you think it only denotes similarity (and once again, Daniel is an apocalyptic work and those images are not supposed to be literal), it still denotes a separate entity from God.

I'm not saying it doesn't. It's the idea that the figure is divine which could constitute a technical charge of blasphemy. For a decently comprehensive survey of the issue (suprisingly, considering that was written by Bock), I've uploaded a paper from the series Library of New Testament studies "Jesus as Blasphemer" (Who do my opponents say that I am? An investigation of the accusations against Jesus).

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

04-12-2012, 10:14 PM	#107
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Even if you think it only denotes similarity (and once again, Daniel is an apocalyptic work and those images are not supposed to be literal), it still denotes a separate entity from God.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.