Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 12-15-2008, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

And now, as promised, a brief look at the charges of blasphemy and of claiming to be the king of the Jews:

Blasphemy was a Jewish crime, not a Roman crime. Therefore, finding Jesus guilty of blasphemy could happen only in a Jewish hearing.
Claiming to be king of the Jews or even the messiah, however, was not a Jewish crime (Simon bar Kokhba did it, and was applauded by the greatest rabbi of his day), but it could and often did qualify as a Roman crime (insurrection). Josephus records the fates of many Jewish royal claimants. Anyone claiming to be king without Roman approval (such as Herod the great had) could be guilty of insurrection.
The Jewish leaders did not charge Jesus with blasphemy in front of Pilate because it would do no good; the Romans did not care who was slandering the Jewish God or the Jewish temple. They did, however, care who was pretending to be a Jewish king without their approval.

Ben.

But, where and when was Jesus ever claiming to be a King of the Jews according to the author of Mark?

aa5874 · 12-15-2008, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Didymus

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Jesus was born God, that is impossible.

Jesus was a Jewish man, born of a woman in Bethlehem. What's impossible about that?

Ddms

Well, God, the so-called Creator, was just the physical father of Adam. Adam was just a lazy bastard who, instead of looking after the plants and animals, used to make love all day with Eve and just eat all the fruits.

One day God got angry because Adam ate the fruits and drove him from his farm.

What's so impossible about that?

You see, once you ignore the written statements about Jesus of the NT and fabricate some other character called Jesus of Nazareth then you have really only manufactured a straw man.

The historical Jesus is a straw man based on someone's imagination while ignoring all of the written statements in the NT and the church writers that can show that Jesus was impossible.

spamandham · 12-15-2008, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The historical Jesus is a straw man based on someone's imagination while ignoring all of the written statements in the NT and the church writers that can show that Jesus was impossible.

That isn't what "straw man" means. I encourage you to look it up.

aa5874 · 12-15-2008, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The historical Jesus is a straw man based on someone's imagination while ignoring all of the written statements in the NT and the church writers that can show that Jesus was impossible.

That isn't what "straw man" means. I encourage you to look it up.

What do you suggest I use instead of "strawman"?

Do you think "BS" is a better substitute? That's is really what the historical Jesus means to me.

And I would think eveyone knows what "BS" means?

spamandham · 12-15-2008, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

What do you suggest I use instead of "strawman"?

Do you think "BS" is a better substitute? That's is really what the historical Jesus means to me.

To be consistent, I suggest you simply repeat your mantra about the impossibility of Jesus as depicted in the NT.

To declare "BS" is to start to analyze the motives and background of the writers, which is necessarily speculative.

But regardless, "straw man" is certainly not the expression you are looking for.

Ben C Smith · 12-16-2008, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But, where and when was Jesus ever claiming to be a King of the Jews according to the author of Mark?

The answer to this question would take more time than I have, and would involve looking into at least (A) what the term messiah means, (B) the Marcan purpose in narrating the two trials, the rest of the passion narrative, and the three passion predictions, and (C) the overall Jewish religious and political background of the time (whether the time be that of Jesus or that of Mark, or both).

But, again, I thank you for your response to my previous question; you did really, really well.

Ben.

bacht · 12-16-2008, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But, where and when was Jesus ever claiming to be a King of the Jews according to the author of Mark?

And Pilate asked [Jesus], "Are you the King of the Jews?" And he answered him, "You have said so." Mk 15.2

If Jesus was preaching about "the kingdom" wouldn't that invite speculation about his messianic pretention?

aa5874 · 12-16-2008, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

What do you suggest I use instead of "strawman"?

Do you think "BS" is a better substitute? That's is really what the historical Jesus means to me.

To be consistent, I suggest you simply repeat your mantra about the impossibility of Jesus as depicted in the NT.

To declare "BS" is to start to analyze the motives and background of the writers, which is necessarily speculative.

But regardless, "straw man" is certainly not the expression you are looking for.

But, you need to tell me what you think "straw man" means.

When I looked in my dictionary, "strawman" seems reasonable.

An impossible Jesus can be characterised as a "straw man".

You yourself may need to look up "straw man" in a dictionary.

aa5874 · 12-16-2008, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But, where and when was Jesus ever claiming to be a King of the Jews according to the author of Mark?

The answer to this question would take more time than I have, and would involve looking into at least (A) what the term messiah means, (B) the Marcan purpose in narrating the two trials, the rest of the passion narrative, and the three passion predictions, and (C) the overall Jewish religious and political background of the time (whether the time be that of Jesus or that of Mark, or both).

But, again, I thank you for your response to my previous question; you did really, really well.

Ben.

Now, I suggest you read Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1, where the brother of Jesus, called James, was accused by Ananus, the high priest, of breaking some law, and was brought before the sanhedrin and ordered to be stoned to death.

Josephus claimed it was said that the sanhedrin was assembled without the consent of Albinus.

But , Eusebius in Church History 2.23, claimed James was executed because he claimed Jesus was the Son of God.

Church History 2.23

Quote:

.....But contrary to the opinion of all, with a clear voice, and with greater boldness than they had anticipated, he [James] spoke out before the whole multitude and confessed that our Saviour and Lord Jesus is the SON OF GOD.....

By the way, this is another indication to me that the author of Mark wrote after Antiquities of the Jews, or after 92 CE.

Ben C Smith · 12-16-2008, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Now, I suggest you read Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1....

I have certainly done so. You can consult the Greek text and a translation on my James page.

And thank you for the reference.

Quote:

...where the brother of Jesus, called James, was accused by Ananus, the high priest, of breaking some law, and was brought before the sanhedrin and ordered to be stoned to death.

Josephus claimed it was said that the sanhedrin was assembled without the consent of Albinus.

You are correct.

Quote:

But , Eusebius in Church History 2.23, claimed James was executed because he claimed Jesus was the Son of God.

Church History 2.23

Quote:

.....But contrary to the opinion of all, with a clear voice, and with greater boldness than they had anticipated, he [James] spoke out before the whole multitude and confessed that our Saviour and Lord Jesus is the SON OF GOD.....

Again, you are correct.

To recap: A few posts ago you corrected your previous assertion that Jesus was charged with blasphemy in the Pilate trial to read that Jesus was charged with blasphemy earlier than the Pilate trial, and now in your most recent post you are correctly reading what Josephus has to say about the trial of James the brother of Jesus.

You are on a roll. Keep it up.

Ben.

View Poll Results: What do you think the probability of a historical Jesus is?
100% - I have complete faith that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person.	8	6.15%
80-100%	10	7.69%
60-80%	15	11.54%
40-60%	22	16.92%
20-40%	17	13.08%
0-20%	37	28.46%
o% - I have complete faith that Jesus of Nazareth was not a real person,	21	16.15%
Voters: 130. You may not vote on this poll

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.