Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jayrok · 03-23-2009, 04:33 AM

Depends on what gospel you read. Synoptics? No. Gospel of John? Yes.

IamJoseph · 03-23-2009, 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

Judea was a hotbed of Jewish nationalism, the Jews living outside of Judea had no general problems. The Romans were cosmolpolitan and supported any group that worked to increase the wealth of the empire.

This is the mis-info from Europe and a total dis-history. Explain 'hotbed' in terms of reality, namely the jews had a law forbidding human worship, and the other nations did not. Did they have adequate reason to be disturbed by Rome - which demanded the emperor's statue be housed in the Temple for worship or not? - did they indulge in numerous wars with other nations of this same issue? Why is this not mentioned in the Gospels? Are the other nations not 'hotbed' because this Roman decree never bothered them one way or the other? Is my question not relevent - or is the European Gospel writers view a truth?

Quote:

The Jews in Judea had a prophesy of a redeemer which they were hoping would return them to polical power as a nation. Goggle Masada

In fact there were five canditates nominated by various groups, and all of them were by far more popular than Jesus. In fact Jesus was never in the running here, and is not recorded by any Judean or Roman writer. A Rabbi Akiva, one of the Messiah candidates, was specially targeted by Rome - his skin was burnt while he was alive, a death far more deadly than crucifixion. That is why it makes no sense whatsoever the Romans would entertain a 'trial' for a Jew claiming to be a Messiah - or that Jews would hand him over to Rome!

Quote:

JC would have been one of many agitators, there were many who claimed to be the redeemer. To the Romans he did not get an honrable mention.

The Jewish elite in Judea were in bed with Romans. JC was railing against this situation and acuratly predicted the ultimate dowmnfall of the Jewish state.

So says the Gospels - and all obedient christians say YES SIR! It does not bother them that even the Pre-Islamic Arabs, then Islam itself - totally rejects this story. It means they never bothered to check!

Quote:

It was not unlike today. Isreal is not where all Jews live and not all Jews outiside of Isreael are orthodox or nationalistic. Accoring to my history of Chritianity the Jewish faith actualy became a fad religion among the Romans who took on some o the trappings.

Totally wrong again. Unlike the invasion and destruction by Babylon in 586 BCE, the Jews were totally religious and observing the law in 70 CE. In fact they were fanatic and almost Talibanic in this time - eventually giving up everything but refusing to bend for Rome. And most Jews did live in Israel at this time - the diaspora was voluntary, mostly related to inter-marraige and commerce.

Quote:

At one point Paul invokes his Roman citizenship to get protection from Jews out to kill him.

Correct. He was freed by his relative Agrippa after 2 years in a Roman prison in Cesaera, quoting his Roman citizenship, and thereby his right to a Roman trial. Paul was executed in Rome - by Romans - without any help or jewish conspiracy - as would have been the case with Jesus had the Gospel story have any veracity. This shows Paul's views were totally rejected by all Jews - including the followers of Jesus known as the Nazerites, who expelled him as a heretic, causing a riot in Jerusalem. The Gospels is saying a Jew could march up to the temple, claim himself a Messiah [or worse!], fullfil away the Hebrew laws - and that the Jews were the bad guys for not accepting him. Wow. Are you guys for real? Try that today in any non-christian country - then blame the Jews for every European crime!

Quote:

The Jewsish folks I have known have said JC is considerd a prophet.

Your hallucinating, or confusing Jews with Muslims! :huh:

arnoldo · 03-23-2009, 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julio

Do always remember that John’s gospel came in the scene TOO LATE for genuine credentials.
Nothing, in other words, is of unassailable value in that “Gnostic gospel” of the middle of the second century or later!

Why couldn't John's gospel been written in the first century? The following writing certainly isn't the autograph, correct?

Quote:

Gospel of John 18:37-38 (verso)

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΕΙΜΙ ΕΓΩ ΕΙΣ
ΤΟΥΤΟ ΓΕΓΕΝΝΗΜΑΙ ΚΑΙ (ΕΙΣ ΤΟΥΤΟ) ΕΛΗΛΥΘΑ ΕΙΣ ΤΟΝ
ΚΟΣΜΟΝ ΙΝΑ ΜΑΡΤΥΡΗΣΩ ΤΗ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ ΠΑΣ Ο ΩΝ
ΕΚ ΤΗΣ ΑΛΗΘΕIΑΣ ΑΚΟΥΕΙ ΜΟΥ ΤΗΣ ΦΩΝΗΣ
ΛΕΓΕΙ ΑΥΤΩ Ο ΠΙΛΑΤΟΣ ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
ΚΑΙ ΤΟΥΤΟ ΕΙΠΩΝ ΠΑΛΙΝ ΕΞΗΛΘΕΝ
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΥΣ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΟΥΣ ΚΑΙ ΛΕΓΕΙ ΑΥΤΟΙΣ
ΕΓΩ ΟΥΔΕΜΙΑΝ ΕΥΡΙΣΚΩ ΕΝ ΑΥΤΩ ΑΙΤΙΑΝ

... a King I am. I for this have been born and (for this) I have come into the world so that I should testify to the truth. Everyone being of the truth hears my voice. Says to him Pilate, "What is truth?" and this saying, again he went out to the Jews and says to them, "I nothing find in him a case."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_52

show_no_mercy · 03-23-2009, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Under Roman rule, the Jewish leadership had no authority to impose a capital sentence. That is why the matter was referred to Pilate.

This seems to contradict "Acts of the Apostles" and "Antiquities of the Jews", where Stephen and James are stoned to death by the Sanhedrin, respectively.

jon-eli · 03-23-2009, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Why couldn't John's gospel been written in the first century? The following writing certainly isn't the autograph, correct?
[...]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_52

The dating of P52 is quite uncertain, and the simple fact that Mark was written in the second half of the 1st century (at the earliest), makes it somewhat unlikely that John could have snuck into that tiny gap before the close of the century.

From that same article:

Quote:

[...] Brent Nongbri, who collected and published a wide range of dated comparitor manuscripts; demonstrating that, although the preponderance of hands most similar to P52 are found in the first three decades of the 2nd century, nevertheless there are other examples of hands with similar characteristics dated as late as 152 CE - and that a prudent margin of error must allow the possibility of P52 being younger still by several decades (or equally, as much as a century older). [Bolding, mine.]

And John also seems to be theologically more developed than the other gospels, so a late date is preferable... but like everything else, it's by no means certain.

storytime · 03-23-2009, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

Quote:

Originally Posted by iPodAddict181

Did Jesus ever state that he was God/the son of God? I have researched this and my conclusion has come to no, he never stated this, it was implied. Tell me if I am wrong, and if so, give me a verse.

Yes, in several different places. One example is John 8:58 where Jesus said, "before Abraham was, I AM".

To which the Pharisees asked: "Ye are not yet 50 years old and you have seen Abraham?"

Christians relate Jesus "before Abraham was, I Am" statement to his being God the Father. But what did the Pharisees mean in their question to Jesus?

storytime · 03-23-2009, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Under Roman rule, the Jewish leadership had no authority to impose a capital sentence. That is why the matter was referred to Pilate.

I'll take a wild guess, that under Roman rule the Jewish leadership had no authority to impose a capital sentence on non Jewish people. As Jewish laws were different and not recognized as authority over the whole world (Roman Empire), and "blasphemy" specifically could not render a death sentence to non Jews. But Jesus was a Jew and Jews would have had authority to make judgment as to his sentence.

Jesus answered: "Ye say that I am" - King of the Jews. But the Jewish leaders declared they had no king but Caesar. So in order to rid themselves of the militant Jesus the Jews turned him over to Pilate who then turned Jesus over to Herod for execution in Judea, outside Jerusalem. Seems both Romans and Jews were satisfied with the process within their legal boundaries of religion and politics.

No Robots · 03-23-2009, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

This seems to contradict "Acts of the Apostles" and "Antiquities of the Jews", where Stephen and James are stoned to death by the Sanhedrin, respectively.

These were irregular proceedings. Stephen's stoning occured during an interregnum between Roman administrators. James' stoning may have been the trigger for the general revolt of a.d. 70.

No Robots · 03-23-2009, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

I'll take a wild guess, that under Roman rule the Jewish leadership had no authority to impose a capital sentence on non Jewish people.

[T]he Roman authorities, who held that only the governor, the surrogate of the emperor, had the authority to execute people in a Roman province.--Jesus & the Rise of Early Christianity / Paul Barnett, p. 323.

Gotta watch those wild guesses.

storytime · 03-23-2009, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

The conspiracy of Jesus the Christ and thus why he wanted to keep his proposed identity secret from the Pharisees and revealed to his disciples only. An intriguing story about the takeover of Jerusalem from the existing powers and start a new kingdom in Jesus name, his leadership. So, even though he died, yet would he live through those followers who would expand his teaching against the Pharisees and Sadducees. Keeping his identity as the only son of God might play on the elect priesthood in Levi as having been given the only authority in covenant, guaranteed throughout the life of Israel - iow, a forever priesthood. Is this what Jesus was conspiring to restore, in the only name given under heaven by which the Jews could be saved? Was this why the Pharisees hated Jesus, because they knew his lineage in Levites guaranteed him the throne at Jerusalem as high priest? Above every tribal name? All were sons of God but not all were the only begotten, the elect in name of Levi.

If the Pharisees were afraid of losing their authority at Jerusalem to an upstart like Jesus who was claiming himself as the elect of God and they in fear that Caesar might intervene should he get wind of it, as the story seems to indicate, would this have been enough reason to move Jesus out of the way? But this gets into politics moreso than religion doesn't it? I'm speculating of course, and like reading conspiracy theories.

That sounds very plausible. For the Jews as a theocracy politicfs and religion wrere the same.

Outside of Judea the Jews were accepted in rge greater Roman empire. It was the Jewish nationalists that had a problem with Rome.

I think the fundamentalist Jews had a problem with the whole world due to their strict laws which they wanted to impose on everyone else, one way or another. The Jews wanted to be recognized as a people, but as a people with priveleged "godly" status, thus the Jews bucked at paying taxes to Gentile nations even though taxes was imposed on everyone. Jews didn't want to honor Caesar or Caesars position as ruler over them, so they became militant and subversive to Rome. And with their mindset rooted in their traditional laws and customs of religion, they viewed everyone outside Judaism as being antisemitic - against the Jews. Which was probably true but understandable as not everyone would have wanted to live as the Jews or worship the Hebrew god.

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

03-23-2009, 04:33 AM	#41
Jayrok Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: USA Posts: 471	Depends on what gospel you read. Synoptics? No. Gospel of John? Yes.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.