Fitz009

In response to the Pharisee vs Roman point, it is noted, also historically, that Christ appeared before the Sanhedrin (Pharisee) for a religious trial before being taken to Pilate. Pilate did not want to condemn Christ at first so sent him to Herod. Herod did not want to touch that political hotpoint so he sent Jesus back to Pilate. At this point the Pharisees had the Jewish population on the edge of revolt, so Pilate appeased them. Yes the Romans had final word, but lets look at who started it. Apart from that point, what does that have to do with Jesus as God's Son?

Secondly, why do I have to use an outside source? You have argued from inside the Scriptures so why is the argument now being taken outside them? Maybe because they say Im right? Apart from that, its interesting that the book you throw out, John, is also the one that emphasizes the point that Christ is part of the same Godhead as God the Father and the Holy Spirit. Amazing how that works in your favor. What process did you use to decide what books stay and what go?

Mentalepsy

All things are relative? What are you talking about? You think I believe that whether I have legs or not is a relative and subjective truth that changes with the observer? That the earth is neither round, flat, nor in-between, but its shape is a matter of opinion? That nothing whatsoever can be objectively true or false? I am clearly misunderstanding you, because this cannot possibly be what you are trying to say. [Actually, it can. I've heard it before.]

Amaleq13

In addition to the questions Vinnie asks, where is the evidence (outside the Gospel stories) that such a claim warranted a death sentence according to Jewish Law?

According to Jewish scholar, Geza Vermes, it was common for Jewish holy men to be called a son of God.

If I recall correctly, Crossan provides an example in one of his books (The Birth of Christianity?) that suggests Jews would have simply considered someone crazy, rather than condemning them to death, if they actually claimed to be God.

Vinnie, do you know the reference?

Fitz009

The key difference was that Christ referred to himself as "I AM," one of God's holiest names for himself. It was the name he used when he first appeared to Moses. Also, Christ was referred to and referred to himself as the Messiah, a definite person in Jewish prophecy that was the one true SON of God, not a mere priest or prophet. And yes, blasphemy was a death penalty throughout Jewish history up to the Roman occupation because the Romans took away their ability to pass capital sentencing, all capital cases had to be decided by a Roman official.

Amaleq13

One of the authors of the Fourth Gospel puts this claim in the mouth of Jesus. There is very little reason to conclude that the historical Jesus (assuming one existed) ever made such a claim.

Please provide any evidence (outside the Gospels) that claiming to be the Messiah or even "the" son of God was considered blasphemous according to Jewish Law.

Why, in Acts, does Gamaliel not bring these charges up as a legitimate reason to persecute the followers of Jesus?

Fitz009

Again I raise the question that I asked earlier. This thread was started using biblical text that supposedly supported that Jesus was gay, and many comments such as yours and the ones concerning the unclean animals make reference to the Bible. If you can challenge me on certain biblical texts then why may I not use others to answer?

Amaleq13

If the issue is what is said in the Bible, appealing to biblical passages is entirely sufficient.

For example, this question:

Why, in Acts, does Gamaliel not bring these charges up [blasphemy] as a legitimate reason to persecute the followers of Jesus?

clearly calls into question your claim and but makes no appeal outside the New Testament, itself.

If, OTOH, the issue is about what was true in the larger setting of the historical context in which the Gospel story is set, biblical passages are not necessarily sufficient.

For example, this question:

Please provide any evidence (outside the Gospels) that claiming to be the Messiah or even "the" son of God was considered blasphemous according to Jewish Law.

addresses the broader context of what was and was not against Jewish Law. Clearly, it was to the advantage of the Gospel authors to contend that Jesus made claims his fellow Jews found worthy of execution if only to avoid focusing on Roman culpability.

Now, do you have any answers to my questions?

WinAce

</Rimshot>
:notworthy

Vinnie

Amaleq, I don't remember the exact reference (aka page numbers).

At any rate, I've given up on the Lee Strobel or Josh Mcdwowelll atheism bashing type here known as Fitz. Anyone who uses the "I am" sayings in GJohn is not worth talking to. :banghead: I'd go to a fundy board to show Jesus NEVER spoke like that, not in a Biblical Criticism and History forum (where this originated).

The sayings material is so strikingly different between ( Q//Thomas overlaps and the Synoptic sayings material) and (the Gospel of John). The curious failure of any other gospel to quote ANY of these wondrous speeches of Jesus is telling itself. In the synoptics, virtually every other line is about "the kingdom of God". In John we have nothing but lengthy speeches about Jesus himself, not the KOG which comes up once or twice at most. In the synoptics we have short pithy sayings, aphorisms, parables and so on. In John excessive and rampantly long self-monolgues. The entire mode of discourse and content of that discourse is different. Jesus is always in control (contrasted with the Markan Jesus), Jsus in John scoffs at synoptic notions and so on.

The sayings material in John UTTERLY and COMPLETELY fails and all critical scholars know this. Its an implicit litmus text for whether "critical" should apply to you. I do not deem Fitz worthy of counter argument in such a venue.

I leave him in your good hands,

Vinnie

Fitz009

Given up on me Vinnie? Why because you dont like the answers? If anyone should bang their head it should be me, because its always fun to debate someone who just changes the situation when it doesnt agree with him. John proves you wrong so you throw it out. And yes it is different from the other three Gospels. Duh. They were all written by different people who had different relationships with Christ. It is logical that John would focus more on the person of Christ, because John was the closest to Christ. Prove that there is any real reason that John is inaccurate other than the fact that its different, Id love to hear it.

BTW, Im quite different from Mcdowell, Strobel, or any other "fundy" youve probably talked to. I have studied the works of every major religion and philosophy in the world, including atheism (whether or not you deem it a religion). I could probably argue for atheism just as well as you could, maybe better because I actually listen to people and try to understand their POV.