aa5874

What you are claiming is not really true. I have already quoted Tertullian, Eusebius, and the authors of the NT, they have written that Jesus was a God, conceived of the Holy Ghost, born of a virgin and ascended through the clouds WITNESSED by the disciples, his supposed mother Mary and thousands of followers.

Why do you pretend that you have not seen the written statements of the authors of the NT and the church writers?

It would be absolutely stupid and dishonest of Jesus believers to know that Jesus was just human and pray to him to forgive their sins while at the same time call pagans evil for worshipping Caesar, and then allow themselves to be persecuted and gruesomely executed for a man who was called a blasphemer.



Jesus had a fictional core. It is impossible for fiction to be ever true. Jesus was impossible as described and witnessed going through the clouds after dying on a day when the sun did something that was impossible and only seen by Jesus story tellers.

Elijah

What am I claiming that isn’t true?

What does the claims surrounding Jesus have to do with the probability of a historical core? We’re talking about the probability of a historical core not of a virgin birth you know.
Maybe I haven’t seen them. Is there something that you think supports your position or are you using the legend surrounding Jesus to dismiss him and that is the limit of your argument?
Not just any human but the messiah.
The story of Jesus coming from a fictional core is a highly unlikely scenario based on pure speculation. You have to be able to distinguish between legend and a historical core if you want to comment on the probability of a historical core. You seem to be missing the concept. IMO

Ben C Smith

Done.

Yes, Jesus was brought before Pilate after he made the blasphemous statement.

Yes. Just as I said. (My exact words were: If the Jewish authorities could have carried out capital punishment, they would have done so instead of hauling Jesus to Pilate.)

You are mistaken. But I am not going to show you how until you answer my question. I have answered yours; now it is your turn. You wrote:

I am asking you where, during the trial in which Jesus was asked about being king of the Jews, Jesus was also charged with blasphemy. See Mark 15.

Ben.

aa5874

A person is generally charged before brought to trial.

I am not going to tell you again that Jesus was not charged during the questioning by Pilate. He was brought before Pilate because he made a blasphemous statement which carried the death penalty.

The charge of blasphemy can be found earlier in gMark 14 during the interrogation by the chief priests or sanhedrin.

Mark 14.61-64 Do not read a single verse, as I have suggested, read the entire Mark 14 and 15 to get the chronology of the betrayal, arrest, charge of blasphemy and trial by Pilate, according to the author.

Ben C Smith

Thank you. You have answered my question. The charge of blasphemy is indeed found earlier. Not during.

Ben.

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.

Toto

I stilll find the charge before Pilate ambiguous - "Are you the king of the Jews?" is the beginning of the conversation with Pilate, but not the basis of the sentence. And after that

3 The chief priests accused him of many things. 4 So again Pilate asked him, "Aren't you going to answer? See how many things they are accusing you of."

What are those many things? All we know is that Pilate did not seem to believe them, and they seem to be irrelevant to the plot. They could have been accusations that he tore the tag off his mattress that was clearly marked DO NOT REMOVE UNDER PENALTY OF LAW.

And the Titular (The "written notice of the charge against him read: THE KING OF THE JEWS") may have been part of the mockery, or just another part of the plot. Luke turns the "charge" into a mere "notice" in Luke 23:38.

Nothing in the trial is at all historical. It is all symbolism and drama. There is no reason for it to make sense from a legal point of view, or as coherent history, and no way to extract any real history from it.

Ben C Smith

The king of the Jews question implies the accusation that the priests are making against Jesus before Pilate. It was surely not just some random question that popped up in his head out of the blue; he is going by whatever the priests told him (which goes unrelated in the gospel) when they brought Jesus to him.

The charge is pretty specific; Jesus is being accused of sedition or insurrection against Roman authority; it is, as you point out, the basis for that charge that lacks specificity:

Bingo. They are irrelevant, and, so far as the sympathetic reader of the gospel knows, are probably also false.

Set aside for a moment whether (you think) any of this actually happened. What is Mark trying to say? I personally think it is pretty clear that he is (at least) playing up the difference between what the Jewish leaders want to stone Jesus for and what the Roman leader will actually fall for.

It is a bit like the FBI wanting to send someone away for being unpatriotic or communist but having to trump up the only kinds of charges that they know the courts will go for.

And who knows? Maybe he did.

I think it is part of the mockery. And it is also (an overly abbreviated form of) the charge.

There is every reason to make sense of it from a legal point of view, even if it is all made up, or even if making sense of it from our end leads us to conclude that Mark was not very familiar with Roman law.

But in this case I think most of it makes sense.

Ben.

Didymus

If you mean the information presented in the poll, the answer is yes. But it's obviously not comprehensive.

Yes, for the purposes of this poll, which you seem determined to misconstrue. This poll is not, repeat NOT, designed to gather opinions regarding the likelihood of a divine being having walked the earth. It is to determine how people feel about the probability of there having lived a historical human whose biography somewhat resembles that of the NT Jesus. Implicit in that question, of course, is the possibility that all the divine stuff may have been added to his biography, just as we hang ornaments on a Christmas tree.

The poll is about the tree, but you insist on arguing about the ornaments.

Ddms

Didymus

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

Ddms