Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TedM · 12-22-2007, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stuart shepherd

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Joe asked,

ted

IMO there are two traditions concerning the death of Jesus.
The gospels tell the story that Jesus was crucified by the Romans.

But there is another tradition in the New Testament that Jesus was executed by the Jews according to the Law given by God through Moses.

Look at these Scriptures.
Acts 5:30 (King James Version)
30The God of our fathers[the God of the Jews] raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.

Acts 10:39 (King James Version)
39And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they[the Jews] slew and hanged on a tree:

Acts 13:27-29 (King James Version)
27For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him.

28And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain.

29And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.

IMO, these three Scriptures are saying that Jesus was executed by the Jews, and not by the Romans. That his corpse was displayed on a tree, not on a cross and then he was buried on the day he died before sundown.
This "fits" with Mosaic law as to how a criminal is executed. See the following from the Law.

Deuteronomy 21:21-23 (King James Version)
21And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

22And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree:

23His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God; ) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

The Apostle Paul seemed to believe that Jesus died according to Jewish law.
Galatians 3:13 (King James Version)
13Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

You will notice that Paul quoted from Deut 21:23.BOLDED.

Stuart Shepherd

My understanding is that "tree" and "cross" were used to mean the same thing. I don't think there were two traditions.

ted

TedM · 12-22-2007, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Joe asked,

Three:

1 Peter 2:24 perhaps since the author says he was a witness

ted

JW:
I was kind of hoping someone would mention this. Before we even look at 1 Peter 2:24 I don't think the author knew Jesus. Do you?

I think it could go either way.

Quote:

If the author did not know Jesus than we have evidence that someone who did not know Jesus wrote that he knew Jesus and witnessed a crucifixion that he did not witness. Is that evidence for HJ or MJ or AJ?

No.

One other option is that he didn't say he knew Jesus, but it is interpreted that way. In this case it is a hearsay report.

Why do you think he didn't know Jesus?

ted

Johnny Skeptic · 12-22-2007, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stuart shepherd

Deuteronomy 21:21-23 (King James Version)

21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

22 And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree:

23 His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God; ) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

Those Scriptures could not have had anything to do with Jesus since the Old Testament clearly indicates that the messiah would be a GENETIC descendant of David. Jesus was not a GENETIC descendant of David. Matthew says that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

At any rate, if God can predict the future, it is obvious that he is not trying to convince people that he can predict the future. If he was, he would have accomplished that long along. For instance, God could have predicted when and where some natural disasters would occur that have occured. By "when," I mean month, day, and year.

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-22-2007, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mythra

Let's say for the sake of discussion, that the two passages in Josephus are genuine. With the exception of the phrase "he was the Christ" - which no one (that I'm aware of) accepts.

How exactly does that prove (in the least) the resurrection (or even just crucifixion) of Christ?

Who is arguing that Josephus' statement regarding what Jesus' followers believed about what happened to Jesus after his death proves that what they believed on this matter was true?

Quote:

In my mind, it proves precisely one thing. That there was a christian tradition in place at the end of the first century. Josephus had no first-hand knowledge. That much is obvious.

And so, he gets his information second-hand. From some source. And we have no evidence whatsoever to suggest that his source was anything but someone - or someones - who were believers.

On what grounds do you say that? How does it follow that because Jospehus had no first hand knowledge of how Jesus died, that his source for what he says regarding how Jesus died must be what Christians passed on about Jesus' death? And even if believers reports were his source, why does that make what believers told him regarding how Jesus died untrue or unreliable?

Josephus had no first hand knowledge of the actions and fate of other "Messianic" figures like Theudas or the Egyptian or of Judas of Gamala and Zaddok the Pharisee or of Menahem or of Eleazar ben Yair that he speaks about. Must we presume -- since, as with his information about Jesus, Josephus is silent about his sources of his reports about these figures - that he got his information about them from those who had followed them as believers in their respective causes? And if we must, please note that on your logic that material from believers has to be discounted automatically as historically suspect, we would then also have to conclude that what Josephus says about these figures is spurious and possesses no historical value.

But we don't, do we?

Why then the double standard when it comes to what he says about Jesus even should you be correct about what the source of what he says is?

Jeffrey

Mythra · 12-22-2007, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Who is arguing that Josephus' statement regarding what Jesus' followers believed about what happened to Jesus after his death proves that what they believed on this matter was true?

You have to understand, Jeffrey, that I'm used to bantering about with christian born-again apologists. And this concept, if not explicit, is at least implied, in the great works of Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell, the apologists' handbooks.

Quote:

On what grounds do you say that? How does it follow that because Jospehus had no first hand knowledge of how Jesus died, that his source for what he says regarding how Jesus died must be what Christians passed on about Jesus' death?

You should read more closely what I said, Jeffrey. I said there is no evidence to think otherwise.

Quote:

that on your logic that material from believers has to be discounted automatically as historically suspect,

I don't think I said that, either, Jeffrey. I spoke of the possibility that Josephus was referencing things that were present in the christian traditions.
I'm not sure I stated anywhere in my post that we can conclude somehow that the christian traditions are unreliable. Perhaps you can point it out to me.

Michael Dravis

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-22-2007, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mythra

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Who is arguing that Josephus' statement regarding what Jesus' followers believed about what happened to Jesus after his death proves that what they believed on this matter was true?

You have to understand, Jeffrey, that I'm used to bantering about with christian born-again apologists. And this concept, if not explicit, is at least implied, in the great works of Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell, the apologists' handbooks.

Great works??

Quote:

You should read more closely what I said, Jeffrey. I said there is no evidence to think otherwise.

There isn't? Have you taken into consideration what Josephus himself says about how he gathered his data?

Quote:

that on your logic that material from believers has to be discounted automatically as historically suspect,

Quote:

I don't think I said that, either, Jeffrey.

Nor did I say you did. But it appears to be an assumption behind what you did say.

Quote:

I spoke of the possibility that Josephus was referencing things that were present in the christian traditions.
I'm not sure I stated anywhere in my post that we can conclude somehow that the christian traditions are unreliable.

No, you didn't. But it seemed to be entailed in what you did say.

In any case, what are you saying?

Jeffrey

Minimalist · 12-22-2007, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PyramidHead

Anything not from the very text whose historical validity is currently under question?

Nope. Josephus is closest since he was raised in Galilee.

ted

No. Josephus commanded an army in Galilee. Justus of Tiberias was raised in Galilee, a contemporary of Josephus, who also wrote a history. That history does not survive. However, we have this comment:

Quote:

'I have read the chronology of Justus of Tiberias ... and being under the Jewish prejudices, as indeed he was himself also a Jew by birth, he makes not one mention of Jesus, of what happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did.'

– Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, 9th Century

Which indicates that Justus was so impressed with his Galilean countryman that he did not make any mention of him whatsoever.

Odd, eh?

Mythra · 12-22-2007, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Great works??

Geez, Jeffrey. Is there a single reader in this forum who could not recognize I was being facetious? Great works (IN THE MINDS OF THE APOLOGISTS)

Quote:

There isn't? Have you taken into consideration what Josephus himself says about how he gathered his data?

Honestly, no, Jeffrey. My primary familiarity with Josephus is strictly surrounding Antiquities 18 and 20. So, I am not fully informed, obviously. Is there Josephan material that would lead a person to believe that he received the information about Jesus from some official source other than hearsay via the christian traditions? If so, I would appreciate you pointing me towards it. Or explaining further in this thread.

Quote:

In any case, what are you saying?

I thought I was fairly clear. Perhaps not.

I am saying that there is a chance that Josephus' only information is obtained from the Christian traditions that existed at the end of the first century C.E. And that those traditions may or may not be accurate. And the end result is, no help to the christian apologists trying to prove the historicity of the gospels.

Mythra · 12-22-2007, 10:09 AM

Jeffrey: I understand that you have a thing for people coming in here and making statements that are above their pay-grade.

But I try hard to not do that. Although (as you may recall) I am a big fan of Robert Price, I'm currently reading Burton Mack, and at the suggestion of someone here (I think it was Solitary Man) the next thing I plan on working my way through is "The New Testament, a Student’s Introduction", by Stephen Harris.

So, I am a work in progress. And appreciative of anything I learn via this forum.

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-22-2007, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mythra

I am saying that there is a chance that Josephus' only information is obtained from the Christian traditions that existed at the end of the first century C.E.

So now it's "a chance". Before, it was pretty much a certainty (since we have, according to you, "no reason" to think otherwise).

Quote:

And that those traditions may or may not be accurate. And the end result is, no help to the christian apologists trying to prove the historicity of the gospels.

This is the end result if and only if the traditions about the way that Jesus died (and under whom) are not accurate. And since you admit that they may be accurate, the conclusion you draw is a false one.

And I ask again, does the fact that a tradition stems from believers' testimony about the way a messianic figure died automatically render that testimony historically unreliable? And if it does, must we not then, if we assume (since there's no reason to think otherwise) that Josephus got his information about "Messianic" figures other than Jesus from those figures' "believers", throw out as historically unreliable what Josephus says about them, too?

Jeffrey

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

12-22-2007, 10:09 AM	#19
Mythra Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: BFE Posts: 416	Jeffrey: I understand that you have a thing for people coming in here and making statements that are above their pay-grade. But I try hard to not do that. Although (as you may recall) I am a big fan of Robert Price, I'm currently reading Burton Mack, and at the suggestion of someone here (I think it was Solitary Man) the next thing I plan on working my way through is "The New Testament, a Student’s Introduction", by Stephen Harris. So, I am a work in progress. And appreciative of anything I learn via this forum.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.