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 11-29-2006, 08:54 AM   #81
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me.
Posts: 6,508
Default

Quote:
Phoenix From Ashes: Don't pretend to know Roman Law, Koy, or you'll get yourself "found out".


Don't pretend to be a critical thinker, Phoenix, because you've already been "found out."

Quote:
MORE: Pilate was a prefect, a relatively lowly position, and was subject to the Syrian Legate. His powers were limited, though obviously he had the power of a death sentence.
A "relatively lowely position" that nonetheless has the power of the death sentence.

Got it.

Quote:
MORE: His troops were much smaller than those of the Syrian Legate, and he was likely brutal in many cases because he did fear wide-spread rebellion.
Fearing a rebellion and appeasing a crowd by murdering an innocent man to prevent one are two entirely different concepts, Phoenix so until you acknowledge you understand that one does not equate with the other there's no point in continuing this.

Quote:
MORE: Again, this "Caesar's decree" thing is simply absurdity. If you truly feel that what you are saying is correct in any way, then please attempt to be more precise.
:banghead:

If Caesar decrees something to be a part of Roman Law (such as, "You shall have no King but Caesar" and this is considered a criminal act) then any trial where a ruling is concerned on Roman Law would necessarily incorporate this crime, yes?

So when Pilate officially and publicly rules that he can find no Roman crime committed by Jesus, what is he declaring? Did Pilate just forget that it was a Roman crime to claim allegiance to another King?

Quote:
MORE: The incessant ranting about "blackmail" and this obsessive repetition of this question are simply strawmen of your own making. And it seems you will repeat them until I finally give up and you claim an ill-gotten and demented victory of some sort.
It is a perfectly valid and legitimate and pertinent question to ask that you still refuse to address.

Our posts stand as they are and anyone who cares to judge "victory" can clearly do so for themselves. I could give a fuck. I know the account as depicted could not possibly have taken place on any level; only you adamantly refuse to address the incongruities and downright contradictory (not to mention ridiculous) events as written, so that's your cross to bear.

Now please whine some more about how you're the victim and have addressed all the points, etc., because, again, everyone here can just use the scroll bar as well to see you have not.

:huh:
Koyaanisqatsi is offline  
Old 11-29-2006, 09:00 AM   #82
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phoenix From Ashes View Post
As to the likelyhood of a situation involving the framing or blackmail or whatever you like, I most certainly did produce cases in Josephus and Philo which, if you had known of them or read them, you would know that they support the case I have quite "painstakingly" made.
I don't see how they are similar since no framing or threat of false charges were involved. Causing one's subjects to riot by placing offending standards is not something likely to be looked upon favorably by Caesar. Likewise, murdering an entire crowd to quash a riot or allowing the people to prevent a public improvement project would not be looked upon favorably by Caesar.

None of these suggest that we should assume that Caesar would take the unsubstantiated word of a group of Jews over that of Pilate.

The Synoptic Gospels depict Pilate engaging in behavior that would get him in trouble with Caesar (executing an innocent while freeing a convict) because he was afraid of being falsely accused of engaging in behavior that would get him in trouble with Caesar. That is simply not credible as history and the examples you've offered don't seem to me to change that appearance.
Amaleq13 is offline  
Old 11-29-2006, 06:15 PM   #83
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 39
Default

Grrr...I just typed up a nice long reply to spin's analysis of the Josephan account, among other things, that would have (again) address Koy's concerns and Ameleq's and then blew it all away with an accidental keypress! Blast it!

Oh well, I'm sure you're all on the edge of your seats for my reply (that's sarcasm, by the way), but I don't feel like trying to type it all up again, and I likely won't find the time to address the issues again until some quiet time this weekend.
Phoenix From Ashes is offline  
Old 11-29-2006, 07:40 PM   #84
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Lightbulb Sympathy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phoenix From Ashes View Post
Grrr...I just typed up a nice long reply to spin's analysis of the Josephan account, among other things, that would have (again) address Koy's concerns and Ameleq's and then blew it all away with an accidental keypress! Blast it!
I've had this sort of thing happen to me a few times, so I've taken to copying anything that starts to get long into a text editor (Notepad) as good practice. I get this bell that goes off when I feel that losing the text would cost too much to rewrite.

(And ironically enough, when I had written this the computer mysteriously shut itself down, I guess because of a power surge (my UPS fried itself recently), so I thought I was up for rewriting the above, but fortunately the browser had kept it all in its cache, offering to return to the previous session when I started it up, so I was lucky.)


spin
spin is offline  
Old 11-29-2006, 08:21 PM   #85
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Bernardino, Calif.
Posts: 5,435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malachi151 View Post
What is the point of this in John?
To suck up to Roman authorities by showing that Christians considered the Jews to be hypocritical scumbags.
Doug Shaver is offline  
Old 11-29-2006, 09:13 PM   #86
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Shaver View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malachi151
What is the point of this in John?
To suck up to Roman authorities by showing that Christians considered the Jews to be hypocritical scumbags.
Being Jewish in the half century after the Jewish War was not popular in Roman circles. Simeon Bar-Kochba helped aggravate this unpopularity. Christianity was a Jewish offshoot, which would put christians in a difficult position with the Romans, so distancing christians from Jews should be an understandable thing to do.

It's also probable that after the Jewish "conference" at Yavneh, which set the road to Jewish orthodoxy, satellite positions such as messianism would have been discouraged, ie they would have pulled the plug on christianity. Pulling the plug on the Jewish connection would be a logic response.

So I must concur with Doug's summation.


spin
spin is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:35 AM.

Top

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