Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vorkosigan · 03-05-2005, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qiwi

Dont you just love the last bit... "I have a duty to be a fighter for truth and justice"
I expect in Adolf's mind Jesus was not actually a Jew at all...

There was a whole Aryan Jesus movement in Germanic nationalism that goes back into the 19th century.

Toto · 03-05-2005, 01:57 AM

Some German theologians opined that Jesus might have been the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier, which, in Nazi eyes, would have made him an Aryan.

Hitler's views seem to be based on the idea that Jesus's father was a non-Jewish God, therefore he was not Jewish.

Quote:

Hitler also thought of Jews as a race rather than a religious group but he certainly did not think of Jesus as a Jew. Hitler believed in an Aryan Jesus as he expressed several times later in his life. To understand this particular German kind of reasoning, the idea of a mischling prevented Jesus from the Jewish fate. According to Hitler's mischling theory, Jesus, fathered from a non-Jew God, and who never married, excused Jesus from Jewishness (when you deal with beliefs in the supernatural you can justify anything. The mischling theory has just as much validity as the most liberal minded Christian interpretation, which gives just one reason why beliefs, especially religious beliefs can prove so dangerous).

WILLOWTREE · 03-05-2005, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qiwi

If we want to know why Jesus was killed, we have to ask why a Jew from Galilee in those times might meet his end on a Roman cross.
Many Jews from Galilee died in the same way during this period. Judas of Galilee was a Jewish patriot who led an armed rebellion against the Romans. Many hundreds of his supporters were crucified by the Romans.
At one time, while Jesus was a boy, four thousand Jews were crucified by the Romans for an insurrection against Roman taxes, crucifixion being the cruel form of execution which the Romans used for rebels against their rule.

Galilee was always a centre of rebellion, partly because it was not under direct Roman rule and, therefore, like Vichy France during the Last World War, gave some scope for the organizatrion of resistance.
The presumption is , therefore, that Jesus the Galilean who died on the cross did so for the same reason as the others: because he was a threat to the Roman occupation.
The Gospels indeed tell us that this was the charge made against him. The actual charge, according to Luke was as follows:
'We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King.'
To 'pervert the nation' meant to disturb them from their allegiance to Rome.

The reason for Jesus' crucifixion, then, was simply that he was a 'rebel' against Rome. He was not framed on a political charge by the Jews; rather it was the Jews who were framed by the Gospels, whose concern was to shift the blame for the crucifixion from the Romans (and their Jewish henchmen, the High Priest and his entourage) to the Jews and their religion.

The source you cite it makes it perfectly clear that Jesus was crucified for who He claimed to be and not for anything He did or didn't do.

Jesus said to render to Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's.

Where's the rebellion ?

Funny how you use the sources (Gospels) to conclude exactly opposite of what they say.

Matthew 26:63-66

But Jesus held his peace, And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.

Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.

What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.

Jesus intentionally said what He knew would be held as blasphemy in order to cause His own death. This means He THOUGHT He was the Messiah atoning for the sins of the world.

Your rhetoric about insurrection to Rome evades the meat in the Gospels and highlights subordinate facts to override the central facts and claims.

It appears you have a bias against the Gospel writers for obvious reasons irrelevant at this point.

WT

Diogenes the Cynic · 03-05-2005, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WILLOWTREE

The source you cite it makes it perfectly clear that Jesus was crucified for who He claimed to be and not for anything He did or didn't do.

Jesus said to render to Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's.

Where's the rebellion ?

Funny how you use the sources (Gospels) to conclude exactly opposite of what they say.

Matthew 26:63-66

But Jesus held his peace, And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.

Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.

What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.

Jesus intentionally said what He knew would be held as blasphemy in order to cause His own death. This means He THOUGHT He was the Messiah atoning for the sins of the world.

Your rhetoric about insurrection to Rome evades the meat in the Gospels and highlights subordinate facts to override the central facts and claims.

It appears you have a bias against the Gospel writers for obvious reasons irrelevant at this point.

WT

Claiming to be the Messiah wasn't blasphemy under Jewish law (and neither was quoting Daniel). The Sanhedrin trial is pure fiction.

WILLOWTREE · 03-05-2005, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Claiming to be the Messiah wasn't blasphemy under Jewish law (and neither was quoting Daniel). The Sanhedrin trial is pure fiction.

Twisted assertions evading the evidence of the source.

The High Priest understood the claims of Jesus to make Himself to be Divine Messiah.

He was guilty of blasphemy because the Jews didn't believe Him.

IOW, you are saying the Jewish disciples are liars or whatever.

The fact that they died ALONE a horrible martyrs death for the testimony of the Risen Savior refutes your charge.

Nobody would submit to a martyrs death with the escape hatch of recantation available. Each disciple could recant and be on their way and nobody would ever know in the First century.

History does not own ONE shred of evidence that the Apostles and Disciples did not die alone for the witness of the Resurrection.

This means they reported the truth as written in the Gospels.

Impalcable opponents just assert contrary to all facts and logic anyway.

WT

Vorkosigan · 03-05-2005, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WILLOWTREE

Twisted assertions evading the evidence of the source.

The High Priest understood the claims of Jesus to make Himself to be Divine Messiah.

He was guilty of blasphemy because the Jews didn't believe Him.

Willow, please show us a law or similar that made it blasphemy to name oneself the Divine Messiah. No such thing existed.

spin · 03-05-2005, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WILLOWTREE

Twisted assertions evading the evidence of the source.

The High Priest understood the claims of Jesus to make Himself to be Divine Messiah.

Hey, I saw that cartoon too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WILLOWTREE

He was guilty of blasphemy because the Jews didn't believe Him.

IOW, you are saying the Jewish disciples are liars or whatever.

The fact that they died ALONE a horrible martyrs death for the testimony of the Risen Savior refutes your charge.

Nobody would submit to a martyrs death with the escape hatch of recantation available.

Tell that to the suicide bombers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WILLOWTREE

Each disciple could recant and be on their way and nobody would ever know in the First century.

History does not own ONE shred of evidence that the Apostles and Disciples did not die alone for the witness of the Resurrection.

This means they reported the truth as written in the Gospels.

You are acting as if you can use the gospels as historical evidence. You haven't substantiated that claim... in fact no-one has.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WILLOWTREE

Impalcable opponents just assert contrary to all facts and logic anyway.

In a conversation like the one you are involved in, facts are the building blocks for a discourse that the parties involved can agree to as being relevant.

Logic is a process which both parties accept as a means of manipulating the aforementioned facts so as to draw conclusions that the parties can agree to in principle.

I don't think you have used information which your interlocutors can agree to as being relevant. I don't think you have established a grasp on those means I referred to as logic.

Perhaps, instead of labelling even more ("implaccable opponents", etc.), why don't you demonstrate the facts you want to use -- that way no-one can dispute them --, then use a process of logic that we can follow and we will have to agree with you, right?

spin

Diogenes the Cynic · 03-05-2005, 02:52 PM

WILLOW, two things:

1. The Talmud says no one is guilty of blasphemy unless he utters the Tetragrammaton. Unless Jesus verbalized the name, YHWH, he did not commit blasphemy.

2. The Jewish conception of the Messiah was (and is) not God. Claiming to be the Messiah was not a claim to divinity and it was not against any Jewish law (still isn't). The person making the claim might be wrong but he isn't breaking any law and he certainly is not committing blasphemy.

Now, can you find a citation from Jewish law that says claiming to be the Messiah is blasphemy?

Juliana · 03-05-2005, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Some German theologians opined that Jesus might have been the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier, which, in Nazi eyes, would have made him an Aryan.

This is not what "some German theologians opined" but from the Talmud.
In Kallah, 1b (18b), and in Sanhedrin (67a), it says that Jesus was the bastard son of a Roman soldier named Pantheras and other nasty things.
'Pantheras' looks like a metathesis of 'parthenos', Greek ‘virgin’.

Interestingly, there is the Roman again...

"No one can be blinder than the one who doesn't want to see."

WILLOWTREE · 03-05-2005, 04:18 PM

WT: The fact that they died ALONE a horrible martyrs death for the testimony of the Risen Savior refutes your charge.

Nobody would submit to a martyrs death with the escape hatch of recantation available.

Spin: Tell that to the suicide bombers.

Willowtree: The bombers die in front of everybody. Their families are compensated. IOW, their peers are watching and they know it.

OTOH, the Apostles died ALONE. Each one could of recanted and walked away with his tail between his legs. He could then run into another apostle somewhere else and they would never know that they recanted.

Did they all die alone for a lie ?

Like I said, only if you defy logic.

Where in history is ONE report, ONE account, ONE legend, ONE anything which even breathes that they did not die alone, a martyrs death, for the testimony of the Risen Savior ?

Quite the opposite is true.

History says all of the common denominators above are facts.

They were honest reporters who told the truth.

WT

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

03-05-2005, 02:52 PM	#18
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	WILLOW, two things: 1. The Talmud says no one is guilty of blasphemy unless he utters the Tetragrammaton. Unless Jesus verbalized the name, YHWH, he did not commit blasphemy. 2. The Jewish conception of the Messiah was (and is) not God. Claiming to be the Messiah was not a claim to divinity and it was not against any Jewish law (still isn't). The person making the claim might be wrong but he isn't breaking any law and he certainly is not committing blasphemy. Now, can you find a citation from Jewish law that says claiming to be the Messiah is blasphemy?

03-05-2005, 04:18 PM	#20
WILLOWTREE Banned Join Date: May 2004 Location: LOS ANGELES Posts: 544	WT: The fact that they died ALONE a horrible martyrs death for the testimony of the Risen Savior refutes your charge. Nobody would submit to a martyrs death with the escape hatch of recantation available. Spin: Tell that to the suicide bombers. Willowtree: The bombers die in front of everybody. Their families are compensated. IOW, their peers are watching and they know it. OTOH, the Apostles died ALONE. Each one could of recanted and walked away with his tail between his legs. He could then run into another apostle somewhere else and they would never know that they recanted. Did they all die alone for a lie ? Like I said, only if you defy logic. Where in history is ONE report, ONE account, ONE legend, ONE anything which even breathes that they did not die alone, a martyrs death, for the testimony of the Risen Savior ? Quite the opposite is true. History says all of the common denominators above are facts. They were honest reporters who told the truth. WT

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.