Joan of Bark

Obviously the majority of historians do not think that speculating on a HJ is speculating in a vacuum.

Joan of Bark

The explanation is that Jesus was preaching sedition. He was claiming, according to some, that he was the messiah. He overturned the money changers' tables and was causing general trouble during passover in Jerusalem -- a time and place when rebellion was in the air.

Joan of Bark

Okay, sheshbazzar, we're at an impasse here.

The majority of historians believe in an HJ. You think they're full of it. As I don't have the knowledge of ancient Greek to read the oldest texts to decide for myself, nor access to the oldest documents, I'm left with the option of trusting those experts who can and do. Even a tough Bible critic (and non-believer) like Robin Lane Fox accepts an HJ. You'll pardon me for trusting him over you.

And frankly, I don't know why you feel the need to spend so much time on this forum ranting over this one point. We all know where you stand on this issue. Why don't you direct your energies toward convincing the Fox's, E.P. Sanders, Bart Ehrmans, and like? Write to them with your arguments. They reach millions of people -- orders of magnitude more than this board and forum. Perhaps you can convince them they're wrong. If not, and they give you detailed explanations of why they believe in an HJ when you claim there is NO evidence whatsoever, you can start a thread here to debunk them. I promise I'll read it.

And I also promise this is the last post for me on this thread, as I feel I've said everything I want to say about the subject of the mostly forgotten OP. You can have the last word -- or rant.

rahrens

Ok, granted that these are not supernatural claims, but again, would the Romans have crucified a man for claiming messiah status? Would they have interfered in local religious matters to that extent? Overturning moneychangers tables? Would that REALLY be considered sedition?

Merriam Webster says sedition is: "incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority".

Creating a ruckus in the Temple would have been considered a Temple affair, and not seditious against ROMAN authority. Claiming messiah status might be walking a fine line, but as Jesus remarks are not, as I recall, a call for revolution ON THIS EARTH, then why would the Romans have bothered?

Roman policy regarding religious matters was actually pretty loose. As long as you didn't outright reject the authority of the Emperor, they didn't care squat, because they knew the fastest way to incite a rebellion was to stop a conquered culture's religious activities. Sure, they considered the Jews as a group to be troublesome and a bunch of nuts, but that was how they considered most barbarians that didn't worship the Roman gods.

And again, even the NT shows Pilate to have initially rejected any reason for Roman action.

So, once again, while I see what your thought is for the initial premise, you can't allow supernatural reasons for the crucifixion BEFORE that happened and then deny anything supernatural AFTER that event, which is what you are, in essence, doing, since there is, in the text of the NT, no seditious or treasonous activities on Jesus' part for the Romans to act in response to.

Amaleq13

According to the Gospels, I think the formal charge would have been sedition (ie King of the Jews). A more encompassing reason would be "threatened the existing power structure".

See above.

No, the same elements of popularity and subsequent perceived threat to the existing power structure remain whether one believes the magic was real or only thought to be real.

I haven't taken them away, though.

You don't think causing any sort of trouble during Passover when Jerusalem was overfilled with Jews would get their attention? We know from Josephus that additional soldiers were stationed around the Temple to prevent any sort of uproar during such festivities.

rahrens

But that charge was based upon the Sanhedren's supposed upset over the supernatural events that resulted in a supposed large following. Take away the miracles, and he becomes no more or less than hundreds of other messiah wannabe's over the centuries, very few of whom ever got crucified. Stoned to death maybe, but not crucified, which was a uniquely Roman punishment.

Remember, Pilate showed tremendous reluctance to get involved, which indicates he saw no sedition.

Remember, Jesus' message was to a heavenly kingdom, and he roused no rabble to insurrection against Rome.

See above

Again, absent the supernatural events that would have resulted in a huge following, there is nothing to set him apart from loads of other messiah wannabe's over the years. Remember, you have to remove not just the miracles, but also the things that happen as a logical result of those miracles.

That was the initial proposition of this thread.


Oh, the Romans were certainly big proponents of civil peace! That doesn't mean that disturbers of that peace were always crucified. There were lots of other punishments that were meted out, to include floggings, short term jail time, etc. Crucifixion was reserved for the bad boys that instigated (or participated in) insurrection, and remember, Jesus counseled his followers to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's". No sedition there!

Amaleq13

Why do you keep repeating this straw man? Do you genuinely not understand the difference between removing the miracles entirely from the story and recognizing that he may have been perceived as performing miracles?

So? It is still presumably the charge for which he was executed (ie THE reason).

[QUOTE]Remember, you have to remove not just the miracles, but also the things that happen as a logical result of those miracles.

No, it isn't. Please reread the OP. The first explicit reference to miracles is from Toto nine posts into the discussion and it is to "naturalistic explanations". Joan, several posts later, clarifies that this is the point of the book as well. Do you not understand that naturalistic explanations of the miracles do not remove them from the story?

A Jesus perceived to perform miracles (but not actually doing so) still becomes popular and still becomes a threat to the Jewish leadership and still becomes set up to be executed for sedition.

spamandham

My comment has to do with the OP and the pissing in the wind going on in this thread.

It has nothing to do with the opinions of some group of scholars in regard to whether or not there was a HJ.

By the way, what poll are you basing your claim upon?

rahrens

Not a straw man, see Joan's post post # 5780904 She is noting just what I said.


But that is my point here, that if one takes the miracles out of the story, and assumes they are not true, and then adjust the story to account for their not really being there, then the reason given in the gospel accounts makes no sense.

You are assuming that the story as told in the NT was either true, or believed to be true, while that is not necessarily the case. The whole story could have been (assuming as Joan says, there is a kernel of truth as to his existence for the purpose of this thread) put together later using no more than made up miracles and additions leading from those miracles to add elements into the story for doctrinal purposes that would have had no connection to the real events of his life. All entirely possible, given the prior existence of almost ALL of the major elements of Jesus' life in prior mystery religions and available to whomever would have had exposure to those foreign stories.

One CAN take the story from the point of the crucifixion and go from there, as the OP says, but that begs the question of prior supernatural elements needing to be taken into account. One cannot just assume the story is intact up to a point and then suddenly make an arbitrary decision to depart from the supernatural nature of the story and begin making "what if" assumptions based upon reality instead of supernatural story elements. It isn't logical and makes no sense.


See above and her post as I refer to it above.

Again, see my remark above. You are assuming that the story is true, either as reality as to the miracles, or that it relates real events as if the miracles are not real. This is a false dichotomy, as there is the possibility that the story is contrived from the beginning and contains no relationship to true events of a "real" Jesus (i.e., it was a contrived myth attached to a real person, as Joan is assuming.)

In this case, one cannot make an assumption that the Romans would have crucified Jesus at all, as it is only the miracles that give the story its purpose.

Sure, if you want, go ahead and guess as to whether there was an empty tomb all you want, but if one departs from the supernatural elements at all, the entire thing unravels, and literally ANYTHING could be possible.

Or nothing interesting may have happened at all.

Amaleq13

No, not just what you said.

"or have other explanations"

IOW, naturalistic explanations.

Straw man.

Taking out the miracles and assuming they are not true are two different approaches but you are not treating them as such. That is an error that appears to be creating confusion for you.

As we've already seen the story needs no adjustments and the reason given continues to make just as much sense as when one assumes the magic is real.

You've certainly offered nothing to suggest otherwise except repeated insistence. :huh:

Explaining why the miracles don't have to be assumed true for the story to make sense requires neither of those assumptions.

The rest of your post only perpetuates the same confusion.