FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Philosophy & Religious Studies > History of Abrahamic Religions & Related Texts
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 01:23 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-28-2013, 06:36 PM   #21
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Minimalist View Post
Quote:
Jesus was not an anti-Roman zealot.

He claimed the Jews were of their father the Devil.

John 8:44 KJV

Here's the problem with that, aa. It assumes that "John" knew shit from shinola. Authors always put words into the mouth of their characters. So what? It isn't as if "jesus" wrote anything of his own.
Jesus was NOT an anti-Roman zealot just like Superman was NOT a real human.

The Jesus cult wrote their stories of Jesus and the character was completely mythological.

We cannot change the story of the origin of Supoerman and we can't change stories of the origin of Jesus.

We are dealing specifically with non-historical figures in the Canon with respect to Jesus and his 12 disciples.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 07-28-2013, 06:52 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Oregon
Posts: 738
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Minimalist View Post
Quote:
What if Jesus Was Real?
Even though the philosophical stuff usually bores me to tears, the question is interesting.

Dismissing the miracle working son-of-god routine, we seem to be given two choices.

One, an anti-Roman rebel who got himself killed, or

Two, a preacher to slaves and peasants who counseled them to keep their mouths shut and wait for their reward in the "next" life, and got himself killed anyway.

Well, there is no current Roman empire and the number of slaves and peasants - at least in xtian countries - is way down. Of what value is either point of view?
Where does this idea of an "anti-Roman rebel" have any support in the ancient records. In another thread, I have already shown how that can't be possible, based mostly on the writings of Josephus. If the TF is real, then Jesus can't have been an anti-Roman rebel for whom Josephus only heaps scorn. If the TF is not real, then Josephus completely misses this supposed rebel, who, by the 60s should be well-known.

Going beyond Josephus, there is no evidence in any other ancient sources to support the idea that there was a Jesus from Nazareth who rebelled against Rome and was crucified by Pilate. That includes all our early Christian sources about Jesus of Nazareth. I will also note that most scholars accept that Paul is our earliest Christian source and he had nothing but praise for the civil rulers (Romans 13).
Grog is offline  
Old 07-28-2013, 07:32 PM   #23
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Auburn ca
Posts: 4,269
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grog View Post

Where does this idea of an "anti-Roman rebel" have any support in the ancient records. .

Josephus only gives us a partial biased view.


Its my opinion Galileans in general are know for their Zealous views, and often called Zealots.

Why would traditional Jews forced off their land by Herod in Galilee, be happy about oppression?

The tax wars in Galilee when Jesus was a child claimed thousands of Jews, and 4000 ish sent to slavery, do you think this left Galileans happy about the Hellenistic oppressors, or bitter?


The biblical records claiming he was crucified for sedition and tax evasion justify claims as a "anti-Roman rebel"

The money tables and their temple coins had a Roman pagan deity Melqart which could have been viewed as blasphemous. Tipping these could be considered as anti Roman.




What you may fail to realize is that Herod was walking a tightrope during this time period. If he didn't cater to the Romans letting them feed off the temples profits, the Romans would have leveled the temple a long time ago. The temple was the Romans cash cow and Herod did not want to lose control.
outhouse is offline  
Old 07-28-2013, 11:43 PM   #24
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Japan
Posts: 156
Default

Quote:
What you may fail to realize is that Herod was walking a tightrope during this time period. If he didn't cater to the Romans letting them feed off the temples profits, the Romans would have leveled the temple a long time ago. The temple was the Romans cash cow and Herod did not want to lose control.
We're talking about the 30s CE. What "Herod" are you referring to? Antipas had no control over the Temple.
Tenorikuma is offline  
Old 07-28-2013, 11:52 PM   #25
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Auburn ca
Posts: 4,269
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenorikuma View Post
Quote:
What you may fail to realize is that Herod was walking a tightrope during this time period. If he didn't cater to the Romans letting them feed off the temples profits, the Romans would have leveled the temple a long time ago. The temple was the Romans cash cow and Herod did not want to lose control.



We're talking about the 30s CE. What "Herod" are you referring to? Antipas had no control over the Temple.

To understand "rebel" you need to understand the context of this time period.

What Herod the Great started continued after his death, Romans took it over placing Caiaphas in charge.

The money kept flowing to the Romans, Pilate raided the treasury for the aqueduct at will.

Above all Pilate and Caiaphas job was to keep the money flowing, Rome's sword was perched above the temple ready to fall at any time.

Some Jewish sects had it right, gods kingdom was at hand for much of the Jewish population. Jews would rather commit suicide then to keep living the oppression and corruption they were forced to endure.
outhouse is offline  
Old 07-28-2013, 11:54 PM   #26
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Japan
Posts: 156
Default

You can't fudge the dates like that, though. You can't posit an imaginary revolution from the late 30s because Herod the Great ruled with an iron fist 50 years earlier.

Palestine was tranquil in the 30s and 40s. Heck, the Jews seem to have loved Agrippa when the Romans put him in charge. (Though the writers of Acts sure didn't!)
Tenorikuma is offline  
Old 08-02-2013, 06:46 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Oregon
Posts: 738
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grog View Post

Where does this idea of an "anti-Roman rebel" have any support in the ancient records. .

Josephus only gives us a partial biased view.
Of course he does and his bias is to be adamantly opposed to zealots, a view diametrically at odds with the extant record. That's my point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse
Its my opinion Galileans in general are know for their Zealous views, and often called Zealots.
Yes, that's documented, but you are begging the question. I am not questioning the existence of rebellious Galileans "in general," but specifically the Galilean, Jesus from Nazareth.
Quote:
Why would traditional Jews forced off their land by Herod in Galilee, be happy about oppression?

The tax wars in Galilee when Jesus was a child claimed thousands of Jews, and 4000 ish sent to slavery, do you think this left Galileans happy about the Hellenistic oppressors, or bitter?
Again, begging the question.

Quote:
The biblical records claiming he was crucified for sedition and tax evasion justify claims as a "anti-Roman rebel"
The question I am asking is did this occur. My recollection was that , according to the story, the charge against Jesus was blasphemy and the Roman governor only reluctantly crucified Jesus at the behest of Jewish officials and under popular pressure from Jews themselves. Do you have a differenet account? Romans seemed to me always more than willing to execute rebels, happily so. If Jesus were a zealot, do you think Pilate would have been reluctant to crucify him?

Quote:

The money tables and their temple coins had a Roman pagan deity Melqart which could have been viewed as blasphemous. Tipping these could be considered as anti Roman.




What you may fail to realize is that Herod was walking a tightrope during this time period. If he didn't cater to the Romans letting them feed off the temples profits, the Romans would have leveled the temple a long time ago. The temple was the Romans cash cow and Herod did not want to lose control.
Wasn't Herod already dead?
Grog is offline  
Old 08-02-2013, 09:13 PM   #28
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Auburn ca
Posts: 4,269
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenorikuma View Post
You can't fudge the dates like that, though. You can't posit an imaginary revolution from the late 30s because Herod the Great ruled with an iron fist 50 years earlier.
If you prefer I can call it "from" Herodian rule, no dates need to be fudged at all.

The temple wasn't even finished completely


Quote:
Palestine was tranquil in the 30s and 40s.
Not exactly tranquil, what about the 40 Jews burned alive for tearing down the eagle?

The 50's had quite the ordeal over the Roman Guard exposing himself.


Quote:
Heck, the Jews seem to have loved Agrippa when the Romans put him in charge. (Though the writers of Acts sure didn't!)
That would be the Hellenistic Jews
outhouse is offline  
Old 08-02-2013, 09:25 PM   #29
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Auburn ca
Posts: 4,269
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grog View Post
The question I am asking is did this occur. My recollection was that , according to the story, the charge against Jesus was blasphemy and the Roman governor only reluctantly crucified Jesus at the behest of Jewish officials and under popular pressure from Jews themselves. Do you have a differenet account?
Tax evasion and sedition as well

That would be the unknown authors playing to their Roman audience, so they would not be persecuted like the Jews, since many were not Jews.

Remember, these are not Jewish legends, they are Hellenist stealing Judaism for their personal needs finding monotheism appealing.



Quote:
Romans seemed to me always more than willing to execute rebels, happily so. If Jesus were a zealot, do you think Pilate would have been reluctant to crucify him?
Pilate was a bloodthirsty killer, his Job was keeping peace. I doubt Pilate would have blinked a eye, and would have never heard the mans name and only knew him as a trouble maker at best.

I think the legends grew from Pilate being in attendance at the Passover policing the event.

Pilate and Caiaphas jobs were at stake to make sure they kept the peace, their hineys were on the line.





Quote:
Wasn't Herod already dead?
Yes, what 3CE? im talking in context of "Herods temple" and I was not clear enough. It started when Herod built the temple and stayed in place until it fell at Romans hands.



The Roman ax was over the temples head the whole time starting from when Herod built it top its fall.
outhouse is offline  
Old 08-03-2013, 09:26 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Oregon
Posts: 738
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grog View Post
The question I am asking is did this occur. My recollection was that , according to the story, the charge against Jesus was blasphemy and the Roman governor only reluctantly crucified Jesus at the behest of Jewish officials and under popular pressure from Jews themselves. Do you have a differenet account?
Tax evasion and sedition as well
In gMark, Jesus is charged with blasphemy:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark14
Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “Why do we still need witnesses? 64 You have heard the blasphemy! What is your verdict?” They all condemned him as deserving death.
Pilate doesn't convict Jesus of anything. Did the author of Mark forget to mention tax evasion and sedition? In gMark, Pilate, in fact, believes Jesus ot be innocent and offers to release him:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark15
So Pilate asked them, “Do you want me to release the king of the Jews for you?” 10 (For he knew that the chief priests had handed him over because of envy.)
According to our earliest version of the Gospel story, Jesus was executed by Rome on charges brought by the Sanhedrin, those charges being blasphemy.

Quote:
That would be the unknown authors playing to their Roman audience, so they would not be persecuted like the Jews, since many were not Jews.
That is your assumption.

Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse
Remember, these are not Jewish legends, they are Hellenist stealing Judaism for their personal needs finding monotheism appealing.
You want me to remember something that you haven't demonstrated yet.




Quote:
Pilate was a bloodthirsty killer, his Job was keeping peace. I doubt Pilate would have blinked a eye, and would have never heard the mans name and only knew him as a trouble maker at best.

I think the legends grew from Pilate being in attendance at the Passover policing the event.

Pilate and Caiaphas jobs were at stake to make sure they kept the peace, their hineys were on the line.
Wait. Are you saying Pilate would have known or would not have known?



Quote:

Quote:
Wasn't Herod already dead?
Yes, what 3CE? im talking in context of "Herods temple" and I was not clear enough. It started when Herod built the temple and stayed in place until it fell at Romans hands.



The Roman ax was over the temples head the whole time starting from when Herod built it top its fall.
ok.
Grog is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:41 AM.

Top

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