Chili

Correct. Pilate was Civil Law and no Religious Law.WRONG. Pilate asked what 'the man' did wrong and never addresses the man as Jesus. Then he released Bar-abbas to them and had Jesus scourged and then handed him over to be crucifed according to their law.
And note that "he' here means the man that Pilate saw and not the Jew in him. The Jews were looking at the Jew in Him that is more that just a cloak of faith that they could remove, and towards this end 'to beat him up' is a good beginning to knock his 'lights out' but not the end because it was the anvil they were after that convicted him of sin to get him there and for that he must be crucified.

So there are 3 levels of faith the Jews were after and Pilate tried to look beyond his cloak of faith as Jew. Then they beat him up to get his TOK assaulted, and then handed him over to get his TOL 'delivered' from the persistent Jewish nature by which he stood convicted, and spared the Son of the Father (bar-abbas) to let the Jews do it as they saw fit.

To this end there is a way or they would not have presented him (and did it often). Then notice that the beating takes place while dressed in purple and not as Jew to show how they 'knocked his lights out,' you can say, and address his conscious mind as Jew.

Then the parade begins now again as Jew under the burden of Jewishness as sinner. Then they stripped him and offered him sedation, but this Jesus decided to remain rational, and that is what kept the faculty of reason alive in him and hence the function of the law remained untouched in him and he just blew himself in Mark that way. IOW, he refused to die like a Jewish fool and died like and iron fool to keep the law alive in him and so remain a slave to sin.

Remember here that the Law is writ upon the human heart and there it must now be loosed and for that he had to die. In other words, you cannot consciously die to sin!!!!!!!!!!

Chili

Huh? Created by 'conjecture only' in Gen.3:10 when "the man" (sic) here now first saw himself naked and for that there must be 2 of them and so it was that Adam here now was created in the "like god" projection.

The Man was the divine creation and the "Adam [where are you]" here was addressed to the hu-man projection of this idol . . . here called Jesus as the second Adam, to annihilate the first Adam.

Oh and that is annihilate and not nihilate as movement.

Edit: A beautiful cf here is with Macbeth who also wanted to be king hereafter in I.iii.50 where Lady Macbeth was 'usurper on the fore' where she did not belong, as opposed to Coriolanus where this 'unconscious surrender' is presented with "O, no more, no more" (V.iii.87) by Aufidius, who so died like a Roman fool at Corioli for which Virgilia stayed home in Rome to be his honor in the 'ever Virgin' under the protection both Valeria (valor) and Volumnia (volume) of Rome.

Diogenes the Cynic

Both David and Solomon are called sons of God in the Hebrew Bible (Psalms 2:7, 1 Chronicles 17:13, 1 Chronicles 22:10)

DCHindley

But does it have to? Josephus and the other writers were writing in Greek to describe Roman military units, which have Latin terms. The Hellenistic model for an army was as follows:

StratEgiai of 4,000 men each,
each with four Chiliarchies of about 1,000 each,
each with four Speirai of 256 men,
further subdivided into four Tetrarchies of 64 men,
subdivided into four 16 man units variously known as Dekades, SEmaiai, Lochoi or "files".
The Seleucid Army: Organization and Tactics in the Great Campaigns p.66

Herod himself organized his army on Roman patterns but also retained the Greek terminology and oriental type units (cavalry, archers, etc).

Why would we expect the high priests' temple guard, this speiran, to follow Roman patterns of Organization? If the word used to be used as an equivalent to a Roman Maniple, then there were about 60 men in the unit.

DCH

Sheshbazzar

A whole lot of 'assuming' goes on in these discussions.
Day after day, page after page, verse after verse, the falsehoods reveal themselves.
Yet men continue to blindly grope after a figment, each assuming their presumptions.

Once they have assumed this figment is real, they seek to clothe it in the garb of a man.
And with their clever words and imaginations, like a marionette, make it move about the scenery of their imagined stage, acting and speaking whatever bits of script they choose to place in its mouth.

Strange thing it most certainly is, this figment of old, The only begotten of a Figment. Stranger yet they be, these men who all assume so much, that a Figment in which they do not believe, did indeed bring this figment into being.
From out of what they assume was not, they assume what was, and then assume what is, which is that which is not.

Poor deluded men, deluded by words, deluded by delusions fed by the words, even the words that they learn day by day, are multiplied falsehoods and lies.
But do they ever learn, and turn, and walk away? Nay, nay, although to turn away they may, they stay, being altogether entangled in the strings of the assumptions they have made to move their stick figment upon its imagined stage.

Ah ha. Behold! every play, and every scene has its appointed end.

Lo! Listen! how the mighty orchestra in volume grow! Surely the climax approaches!
See! All of the actors are, with small shufflings, maneuvered into their final positions.

A mighty roll of Thunder upon the drums! clash the cymbals! one last time!
Hearts are all aflutter.... pause.....dead silence.

Then That Mighty Final Trumpet Sounds...







.

mountainman

\
The same could be said for Bilbo Baggins and Yoda.

aa5874

The passages in Psalms 2, 1 Chron. 17 and 1 Chron. 22. are methaphorical and has nothing to do with any honorific title.

Psalms 2 was supposedly written by David himself so he did NOT receive any honorific title.

1 Chronicles 22:10 are also the supposed words of David to his own son Solomon which has nothing to do with any honorific title.

There is a distinct difference between Deification and metaphors.

You should know that the Jews did NOT worship Men as Gods and this is confirmed in the writings of Philo, Josephus and Tacitus.

It was Blasphemous for a Jew to be DEFIED as the Son of God.

Diogenes the Cynic

Of course it's metaphorical. It's also honorific.
You have to know this is a ridiculous argument. You don't actually think David wrote Psalms, do you? Give me a break.
No, it's God to David.David is speaking to Solomon but quoting God. Read it again.
Exactly. That's exactly my point. The phrase "son of God" had no literal connotation. It was an allusion to Davidic Kings and to the Messiah. If Jesus called himself that, it would not have been a claim to literal deity, and it would not have been taken that way. That there is no prediction in Hebrew Scripture of a divinely sired Messiah is exactly my point.

aa5874

It is NOT honorific. In 1 Chronicles 22, David was merely talking to Solomon about some kind of words from the Lord.

You ought to know that we are probably dealing with a Myth Fable and some fabricated story in Hebrew Scripture.

You MUST first understand that Deification of a man was contrary to Jewish Laws.

Don't you see the word SUPPOSEDLY .

But, now you look at your own post.

Your statement is now ridiculous.

Give me a BREAK!!! What ridiculous claim you have made. David and Solomon were called sons of God???? When did that happen???

Come on!!!!!


You don't believe the ridicuous story that God EXIST and was talking to David???

You make me laugh!!! David was quoting God.

You believe that ridiculous story???
Your claim is utterly contradicted in the Gospel of gMark.

You DON'T seem to understand the difference between Deification and metaphors.

In the gMark Jesus story, Jesus was found to be GUILTY of death for Blasphemy immediately AFTER he claimed he was the Son of the Blessed.

It is the story itself that is IMPORTANT and must be understood not what you IMAGINE should have happened.

In the gMark story, the author is portraying his Jesus as a self proclaimed DEIFIED being on the day he was crucified.

la70119

But the LSJ still reports from the First Century CE onwards, the Greek term σπείρης (speires) referred to a Roman cohort. John does NOT tell us that the σπεῖραν (speiran) belonged to Herod Antipas, who was a king ELSEWHERE in Palestine, OR to the Temple guard in Jerusalem.

Pilate was the PREFECT of JUDAEA.

The speiran would have been HIS cohort. This is ELEMENTARY LOGIC.

Jerome used 'cohortem' for 'speiran'.

John 18:3, Latin, Biblia Sacra Vulgata

There are even Christian illustrations showing ROMAN SOLDIERS present at the arrest.

One example: http://www.goodsalt.com/details/stdas0171.html