jules?

Hi Angelo, I was trying to pick through your multi quotes! John the Gospel is not written by John the gorefest lune. Check out my reasons for an early Revelation in the previous post 118.
jules

angelo

Lets pretend for a moment that god exist. Now look up at the night sky, away from the glare of city lights. You will see a band of light which is our Milky way galaxy. Billions of stars with perhaps a fair few number of planets with intelligent life inhabiting them. The point is, has this god sent his only begotten son to be killed on each and every planet for the forgiveness of sins ? That means he could at this very minute be hanging from some alien tree, and has done so perhaps a million times. And that's just in our galaxy. What about the billions of other galaxies out there. So looking at it cosmology wise. It cannot be plausible. The weak response from theists to such a question is that only the earth needed salvation. And other planets if they exist, have no need of salvation because they are closer to this mythical god. What; all of them?? The whole idea is so irrational that we would be better off believing in Mary Poppins.

Clivedurdle

I thought Revelation is originally Jewish.

http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/rjohn.html

And if Mark is about 135 that may mean the abomination of desolation makes more sense, and we should be looking at Hadrian and his senior civil servants as a possible author (s). We have not really brought in Ellegard's views.

andrewcriddle

Jesus and the 'thieves' crucified with him are obviously non-Romans, accused in Jesus' case of claiming some sort of kingship and in the case of the 'thieves' presumably of organised armed violence.

There was a previous tradition of the use of crucifixion in Palestine see
http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu...-josephus.html

If criminals were to be executed in the vicinity of Jerusalem for crimes allegedly committed in that area they would have to be killed some way other than in the arena. (The nearest arena would have been in Caesarea.)

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

Hengel in his book Crucifixion (or via: amazon.co.uk) has a whole chapter (pps 46-50) entitled
Crucifixion for rebellious foreigners criminals and robbers
He finds examples of the crucifixion of robbers in populat fiction such as the Satyricon of Petronius and the Metamorphoses of Apuleius , astrological and dream literature and Roman Jurists (notorious robbers famosi latrones should be crucified if possible at the scene of their misdeeds, Digest 48.19.28.15).

Andrew Criddle

angelo

The Romans kept meticulous records of their actions in the Empire, including Palestine. They make no reference at all to executing a ''king of the Jews''. So if some Jewish rebel of some kind got himself crucified, he would have been a no body and not worth reporting or keeping any record of. So the question of where the hell the gospelors come about this obviously mythical account of a mangod been crucified come from is quite obvious. From the Mystery religions of the Pagans. There is no other explanation. Cheers.

Chris Weimer

No, you said it yourself that he could have been a nobody and not worth reporting about, although Josephus and Tacitus both report him.

JoeWallack

JW:
Like I keep saying, you need to identify which supposed Passion account you are trying to defend. "Mark" uses LHSTAS who's range of meaning includes "rebel". In the Context of Romans, 1st century Israel and Crucifixions, the proper translation is "rebels." "Bandits" is a mistranslation. I have never seen any Christian translation or Christian scholar say "rebel" and one of the unfortunate things about not having Something Gibson around anymore is that here he would not rest until he found one just to try and prove me wrong. Toto, Gibson was willing to do research for others. You just had to know how to motivate him.

All the contextual Markers from "Mark" also point to "rebel" but I don't need to use anything more than the above to demonstrate that "rebel" is the likely meaning here of "Mark", do I Andrew.

"Luke" has changed the offending word to criminals/wrong doers as a Reaction to "Mark" to move the meaning from Political to Theological (Is. 53). Of course it still doesn't work because the 53 meaning is buried with the wicked and not executed with the wicked.



Joseph

"The Simontic Problem" - An Inventory Of "Mark's" Negative Casting Of Peter

fanucon

Is it not possible it was something they (like Egyptians of the time) didnt record want they didnt want to be remembered?

JoeWallack

JW:
Yes, the problem here for HJ Minimalist is just how much do you have to Minimize one of the supposed Passions to reach a Plausible core? Even if you exorcise all the implausible additions by "Mark" down to:

Jesus was crucified

In order to reach Plausibility you have to supply a reasonable Motivation to have Jesus crucified. The reason "Mark" gives for "The Jews" wanting Jesus dead is that they were jealous of his popularity. Okay, that could be plausible. But why do they want him crucified?
Because they have to accuse him of a Political crime against Rome in order for him to receive the death penalty, which here is crucifixion. We may be reaching the betrock of plausibility here. But where it's lost is why does Rome, which has the authority here, agree to crucify Jesus? The Christian presentation of Jesus is as a model of Peace. The historical evidence of the time indicates that Rome was only concerned with violent political aspirations.

What is the HJ solution here for plausibility? "Mark's" explanation is that "The Jews" threatened Pilate. What could "the Jews" have done? Wouldn't the HP (historical Pilate) have been more afraid of what Rome might do to him for crucifying someone he thought was innocent (and exorcising for the moment the Jesus Barabbas tale) than what "the Jews" might do to him? Implausible. You still have the related problem of how exactly the chief Priests stirred up the multitude.

On a side note, looking again at the WTF, (What TF?):

"About this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one should call him a man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. He was the Messiah. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. For he appeared to them on the third day, living again, just as the divine prophets had spoken of these and countless other wondrous things about him. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out."

We also have another suspicious looking sentence:

"And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us"

This looks suspiciously like it has a Gospel source:

"And the chief priests accused him of many things."

Why wouldn't Josephus give the Specific accusation? This is what good historians and Josephus normally do. Not to have Josephus do this smacks of a Christian source that considers any accusation blasphemous (including blasphemy) and repeating such an accusation blasphemous. The WTF above reads like an official Apology of Josephus on behalf of "The Jews" ("made by the leading men among us") which is exactly what we would expect from Christian Forgery.



Joseph

"The Simontic Problem" - An Inventory Of "Mark's" Negative Casting Of Peter