Freethought & Rationalism Archive

outhouse · 03-03-2012, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cege

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

it has Zero hsitoricity, and it probably didnt happen. Raise a sword to a temple guard and you would be run through. no pass or go.

You would not be let free, period.

Perhaps not an actual temple guard, but a mere servant/slave 'along for the ride'?

My guesses.

they would'nt drag spectators around in the night.

it was probably a small group of 20-30 armed men that knew who and where there traget was.

aa5874 · 03-03-2012, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Ironically, claiming to be he Messiah was (and is) NOT a crime under Jewish law and is not "blasphemy" as the author of Mark mistakenly believed.

In gMark, it is claimed that Jesus AFFIRMED that he was the Son of the Blessed.

Oddly enough other Canonised Gospels did NOT include the claim where Jesus supposedly admitted he was the Son of the Blessed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

...The fact that they crucified him means the Romans viewed him as an insurgent. Crucifixion was only given out for crimes against the Roman state. If he hadn't been viewed as some kind of insurgent, he wouldn't have been crucified. If he called himself "the King of the Jews," then he was guilty of sedition under Roman law...

It is NOT a fact that Jesus was crucified because the very authors that claimed Jesus was crucified also claimed he was the Child of a Ghost. that he was transfgured, Walked on sea water and did many things that were WHOLLY implausible and total fiction.

Now, in the Gospels, the Romans were NOT looking for Jesus, and Pilate did NOT even know of Jesus and what he did to be brought before him.

Incredibly, Pilate was Confused and asked what Jesus did wrong.

And if he was an isurgent against the Romans there would be NO need for him to have been brought before the Sanhedrin.

Examine the words of Pilate in gMark.

Mark 15:14 KJV

Quote:

Then Pilate said unto them, Why, what evil hath he done ? And they cried out the more exceedingly, Crucify him...

NT Jesus was NOT an insurgent--Pilate did NOT even know who Jesus was and where he came from until the Sanhedrin brought Jesus to Pilate.

outhouse · 03-03-2012, 06:35 PM

Quote:

In gMark, it is claimed that Jesus AFFIRMED that he was the Son of the Blessed.

the author gmark made that claim, we dont know if jesus did.

Quote:

It is NOT a fact that Jesus was crucified because the very authors that claimed Jesus was crucified also claimed he was the Child of a Ghost

no they didnt, the latter hellenized authors claimed him as a deity, jesus didnt view himself as a deity

Quote:

that he was transfgured, Walked on sea water and did many things that were WHOLLY implausible and total fiction.

yes, they created a biblical jesus over the real life of historical jesus

Quote:

Now, in the Gospels, the Romans were NOT looking for Jesus, and Pilate did NOT even know of Jesus and what he did to be brought before him.

nor did they arrest him in the gospel accounts.

causing a scene that weekend when tensions were high would get you put on a roman cross though.

you dont mess with a roman payday, and jesus crime is more biblical then historical.

Quote:

Incredibly, Pilate was Confused and asked what Jesus did wrong.

fiction.

we dont know if jesus was ever brought before Caiaphas or Pilate, there was no need. He could have been written in that way to make jesus more important then he was.

Quote:

And if he was an isurgent against the Romans there would be NO need for him to have been brought before the Sanhedrin.

we dont know that he was.

remember, the roman authors downplayed all anti-roman activity, and hyped up the jewish priest involvement

Quote:

Examine the words of Pilate in gMark.

see above.

Diogenes the Cynic · 03-03-2012, 06:43 PM

The title, "Son of God" was an honorific for Jewish kings (i.e "Messiahs"). It was not used literally and to claim that title was not a claim to literal, supernatural parentage, but to the throne of David. It was not a blasphemous claim.

By the way, Luke even calls Adam "the son of God" (3:28).

outhouse · 03-03-2012, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

The title, "Son of God" was an honorific for Jewish kings (i.e "Messiahs"). It was not used literally and to claim that title was not a claim to literal, supernatural parentage, but to the throne of David. It was not a blasphemous claim.

By the way, Luke even calls Adam "the son of God" (3:28).

good info

makes perfect sense.

I just dont know a poor jew from galilee ever qualified for that title. I believe his lineage was created after his death.

but if they threw that statement around, im sure he picked it up after the fact. [I think]

Doug Shaver · 03-04-2012, 02:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

1. Why was Peter not arrested after cutting a dude's ear off? They were already arresting Jesus for less than that. Is it at all historically plausible that anyone could have attacked a "servant of the High Priest" with a sword while defending a fugitive insurgent that the servant had brought Temple guards to arrest and not been arrested (if not killed on the spot)?

Have any apologists tried to address this or explain it?

Sure they have. According to apologists, if your expectations of what would have happened contradict what the Bible says happened, then your expectations are in error.

Doug Shaver · 03-04-2012, 02:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Putting things into more broad terms (and this is probably what I should have done in the first place), are there any decent HJ theories as to why Jesus' followers would not have been arrested with him.

Decent HJ theories do not assume that the gospels present an accurate account of his arrest. Decent HJ theories assume only that an arrest occurred, nothing more. In particular, they don't assume that any of his disciples were actually with him at the time.

aa5874 · 03-04-2012, 05:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

The title, "Son of God" was an honorific for Jewish kings (i.e "Messiahs"). It was not used literally and to claim that title was not a claim to literal, supernatural parentage, but to the throne of David. It was not a blasphemous claim....

Your claim appears to be ENTIRELY erroneous. In Hebrew Scripture there is NO TITLE called Son of God for Jewish Kings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

....By the way, Luke even calls Adam "the son of God" (3:28).

You very well know that Adam in Genesis had NO human father and was DIRECTLY Created by God.

The Gospel Jesus had NO human father and was God the Creator.

Net2004 · 03-04-2012, 05:14 AM

Quote:

none of the arrest really has a decent amount of historicity.

for all we know, he could have been arrested at the temple, if the temple incident has any historicity

it is christians like sotto voce who are assuming that everything in the gospels is historical

55The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for evidence
against Jesus so that they could put him to death, but they did not
find any. 56Many testified falsely against him, but their statements
did not agree.

their statements did not agree. they couldn't find anything to nail jesus.

58"We heard him say, 'I will destroy this man-made temple and in three
days will build another, not made by man.' " 59Yet even then their
testimony did not agree.

jesus used violence to drive out the traders in the temple yet they didn't bring that up and thier TESTIMONY did not agree on something UNRELATED to the temple incident.

why didn't christians reconcile thier testimonies or create how it could have been scenarios?

john

sotto voce · 03-04-2012, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Net2004

jesus used violence to drive out the traders yet they didn't bring that up

They'd have had to prosecute a lot of cattle drovers along with him.

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

03-03-2012, 06:43 PM	#54
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	The title, "Son of God" was an honorific for Jewish kings (i.e "Messiahs"). It was not used literally and to claim that title was not a claim to literal, supernatural parentage, but to the throne of David. It was not a blasphemous claim. By the way, Luke even calls Adam "the son of God" (3:28).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.