Bernard Muller

Llyricist:
The gospels are trying very hard to show otherwise. They employed Pilate to indicate the crucifixion is not justified. Jesus is condemned to the cross because Pilate is pressured by a mob of Jews, itself manipulated by the chief priests. Of course, I do not believe that, but that's what the gospels are saying. I do not think the gospels (or any other Christian writings) qualify Jesus as a criminal because he got crucified. Where is the evidence?

Rebel or criminal. I said the royal welcome, plus the "disturbance" was enough to send summarily Jesus to the cross. That, plus making a deterrent out of him, to cool off expectation about the Kingdom & discourage Jews to be looking for a "King".
But then, I do not represent Christian views, far from that. Once again, any Christian would deny he/she is worshipping a man crucified as a criminal. That's the point I was trying to make, not if HJ was or was not a criminal/rebel, not if him crucified meant he was a criminal/rebel.

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

GakuseiDon:


Oh Gasuseikon, on another thread you wrote the opposite of what I just said:
"Once again, any Christian would deny he/she is worshipping a man crucified as a criminal."

Or at least it appears. Jesus is not a regular man for a Christian and they do not worship just a regular dead man. For my defense, I always thought that "as a criminal" meant "because he was a criminal". Of course, educated Christians would know the Romans reserved crucifixions for criminals/rebels. I never doubted it.

Best regards, Bernard

Llyricist

I think you missed the point. It's quite clear they didn't believe him to be a criminal, that he was wrongfully crucified, but the fact remains that he was crucified as a criminal in their eyes..... wrongfully yes but still as a criminal.

Perhaps we have different ideas of what "crucified as a criminal" means?

GakuseiDon

I knew what you meant, Bernard, and I think that is the difference that Doherty tries to exploit in his translation by using "as a criminal". The Roberts-Donaldson translation is pretty clear that the man was being crucified for being wicked.

rlogan

I would like to see the evidence upon which we base the assertion that Tertullian obviously believed in an HJ.

I think it worthwhile to go over this with a fresh eye as opposed to looking through the ecclesiastical eyeshades.



Also, I don't really get the assault on Doherty here. The fact that Tertullian wrote about Christianity without jesus is just that much more evidence that even by second century he was not the shining diamond in the showcase of christianity.

GakuseiDon

By all means, I would love to see an evaluation of Tertullian's beliefs, esp at the time he wrote Ad nationes. I provided a link to resources for Tertullian on christianearlywritings that lists his writings.


IMHO, I think that part of the answer is that the figure of a historical Jesus would have just gotten in the way in philosophical attacks against pagan beliefs. Some modern examples: the Kalam Cosmological Argument, Plantinga's "Advice to Christian Philosophers".

rlogan

I'd be up for a tertullian study session, yeah. I'm pretty weak there.

spin

Sorry, I just noticed this interesting tangent on Ad Nationes.

Tertullian writes about xians (Bk 1 ch 7):

This name of ours took its rise in the reign of Augustus; under Tiberius it was taught with all clearness and publicity; under Nero it was ruthlessly condemned, and you may weigh its worth and character even from the person of its persecutor.

This name of ours took its rise in the reign of Augustus?? The common understanding has Jesus starting to preach in the 15th year of Tiberius. What is Tertullian referring to?

[Edited to add:]

He goes on in the same chapter to say: "Two hundred and fifty years, then, have not yet passed since our life began." He was writing circa 197 CE. Did their life start in about 50 BCE?


spin

spin

Another great dose of Tertullian (Ad Nationes Bk 2 ch 8) is that the Ptolemaic Egyptian god Serapis is in fact Joseph (the one sold into Egypt).

Where on earth did he get that one?


spin

the_cave

No idea, and I'm not a scholar, but I'm guessing it's because (Io)sephus resembles Se(ra)phis.

My understanding of claims like that in ancient authors is not so much that they're completely equating one figure with the other. When they say "X is/was Y", what they mean is "Figuratively speaking, X is Y, and also they both are incarnations of the same principle."