FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-27-2012, 08:18 AM   #91
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 3,057
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotto voce View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer View Post
So the "hung from a tree" bit may have just been a way for the apostles to rile up the Jewish population by saying that killing Jesus through crucifixion was an insult to their religion because it was the same as hanging him from a tree and having God curse him, sort of like how a bunch of politically-motivated troublemakers in our day got a bunch of Muslims worked up over some cartoons by saying it was a direct insult to them to publish them.
Was the 'bunch of politically-motivated troublemakers' Muslim?
Yes. Who else would it be referring to?
The people who drew the cartoons? Were they not seen as troublemakers?
sotto voce is offline  
Old 01-27-2012, 08:25 AM   #92
Talk Freethought Staff
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Toronto, eh
Posts: 42,293
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotto voce View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer View Post

Yes. Who else would it be referring to?
The people who drew the cartoons? Were they not seen as troublemakers?
Incorrectly, in my opinion. I have no problem with anyone drawing a comic about anything, no matter how offensive anyone else might find it. The freedom of speech trumps the freedom to not be offended by speech by a wide margin. That is, however, unrelated to the topic of discussion. The referent in my post was the Muslim leadership who made such a big to-do about the silly cartoons. If you'd prefer, change the example to the Sikhs who got all pissy about Jay Leno including a picture of one of their temples in a joke about Romney.
Tom Sawyer is offline  
Old 01-27-2012, 08:34 AM   #93
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 3,057
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotto voce View Post
The people who drew the cartoons? Were they not seen as troublemakers?
Incorrectly, in my opinion.
So who are non-Muslims to decide who is the trouble-maker among Muslims?
sotto voce is offline  
Old 01-27-2012, 08:40 AM   #94
Talk Freethought Staff
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Toronto, eh
Posts: 42,293
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotto voce View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer View Post
Incorrectly, in my opinion.
So who are non-Muslims to decide who is the trouble-maker among Muslims?
I assume any non-Muslims who have a trivial ability to analyze available facts and make judgement calls based on that analysis and their non-Muslimness would seem to be irrelevant to that. Again, though, it's a derail from the topic at hand.
Tom Sawyer is offline  
Old 01-27-2012, 09:28 AM   #95
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 3,057
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotto voce View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer View Post
Incorrectly, in my opinion.
So who are non-Muslims to decide who is the trouble-maker among Muslims?
Quote:
I assume any non-Muslims who have a trivial ability to analyze available facts and make judgement calls based on that analysis and their non-Muslimness would seem to be irrelevant to that.
This is circularity. The ability to make judgment calls is what is in question.

Quote:
Again, though, it's a derail from the topic at hand.
If accusing the apostles of troublemaking is a derail, it is. But of course accusing the apostles of troublemaking by analogy is on topic, and seemingly it is an inappropriate analogy, even thus far.

Let's have a look at some available facts and see if they justify this accusation, which may soon appear to be a travesty.

The apostles did not initiate the occasion on which they mentioned Jesus being hanged on a tree. It was the Sanhedrin, mostly wealthy, responsible, politically aware, politically-motivated Jews, who had him crucified, who did that; and they knew what they had done, so the responsibility, if there is one, lies entirely with them. The apostles were under very serious accusation, and had to defend themselves. And the concept of Jesus taking the curse of God on behalf of the whole nation (as then perceived) was, or should have been, very telling in that defence. This hanging was, in the view of the apostles, to 'give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel'. Their mention of this may even have been the factor that saved their lives, because the Sanhedrin did not want to find themselves "fighting against God".

Neither did they say that killing Jesus through crucifixion was an insult to their religion. That's painting with an alien Islamic brush that's also alien to their viewpoint, which was all about forgiveness and peace-making. So the apostles did not set out to rile up the Jewish population, and they did not achieve that, either. In fact, soon after this, 'the number of disciples was increasing'.

When Peter alone spoke of Jesus being hanged from a tree, he addressed Gentiles, and Gentiles in private, by invitation. Nothing to do with Islamic cartoons.

So inappropriate analogy it really is.
sotto voce is offline  
Old 01-27-2012, 09:30 AM   #96
Talk Freethought Staff
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Toronto, eh
Posts: 42,293
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotto voce View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer View Post
This is circularity. The ability to make judgment calls is what is in question.
That would be a judgement call on your part about who has the ability to make judgement calls. What are you basing that on?
Tom Sawyer is offline  
Old 01-27-2012, 10:58 AM   #97
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: u.k
Posts: 88
Default

Quote:
It was the Sanhedrin, mostly wealthy, responsible, politically aware, politically-motivated Jews, who had him crucified, who did that; and they knew what they had done, so the responsibility
the carrier geezer says ,



jewish judges astonished by pete's claim that the jews killed jesus. the judges dismissed it as the ramblings of an illiterate commoner. so whats going on here? how is it possible that the jews forgot about what they did in matthews account?

jews say to pete , " you EVEN want to lay this mans blood on us"
mrsonic is offline  
Old 01-27-2012, 12:18 PM   #98
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: The only Carribean port not in the Tropics.
Posts: 359
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer
If the Jews killed Jesus for blasphemy, that is how they'd do it.
If the Romans killed him, they'd likely use crucifixion.
The confusing and contradictory part of the Bible is that both methods of death were mentioned as how he died.
Actually the Hebrew word עֵץ translated as 'tree' simply refers to WOOD in any of its forms and is thus variously translated in its 328 usages within the received Hebrew Text as tree 162 times, wood 107 times, timber 23 times, stick 14, gallows 8, staff 4, stock 4, carpenter + 02796 2, branches 1, helve 1, planks 1, stalks 1
(search courtesy of The Blue Letter Bible)

Point being that to meet the Hebrew Scriptural qualifications one need only to be hung upon WOOD of any form (Deut 21:22-23)
Thus whatever form or shape that WOOD took that one was hung upon, the curse was applicable.
From the Hebrew idiom and Scriptural perspective the one was effectively the equivalent of the other.





.
Not only does a piece of WOOD of any form qualified, so does hanging by any method, even impalement. Indeed, the JPS has translated the Hebrew in their 1985 edition of the Tanakh not as "hang upon a tree" but "impale upon a stake." But back in the Second Temple period if the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 6:4) is correct, apparently they thought impalement to be too barbaric and so they bound the convict's wrists together and hanged him from a gallows in the shape of an upside-down "L."

Plus, the original Greek in the verses in Acts says first that the Jews fixed, fastened or impaled Jesus alive to something (prospēxantes) and caused him to die. The other three occasions where it says the Jews killed him, they hanged* him upon something made out of wood (kremasantes epi xulou) while still alive.

*And just like the Hebrew in deuteronomy, here in the Greek any method of suspension and any item made out of wood will do.
la70119 is offline  
Old 01-27-2012, 12:36 PM   #99
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

The notewothy thing here being that by the letter of The Law, (Deut 21:23) simply being hung (or impaled) upon wood, was enough to bring the curse into effect regardless of that persons guilt or innocence.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 01-27-2012, 01:15 PM   #100
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: The only Carribean port not in the Tropics.
Posts: 359
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
The notewothy thing here being that by the letter of The Law, (Deut 21:23) simply being hung (or impaled) upon wood, was enough to bring the curse into effect regardless of that persons guilt or innocence.
Exactly. But according to Deuteronomy the hanged person was supposed to be convicted and executed first. Of course, human courts are not infallible and innocent people do and did get executed.
la70119 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:07 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.