spiker said
@Gav
I don’t know of any prophecy governing how many men would come to arrest him or whether someone would engage in sword play. Now you want to claim (Is there even a spec of evidence?) that the sword play was apolgetic and by implication, made up. Apologetics don’t disprove historicity; yet one guy using a sword during the arrest is rather lame apologetic. Yea we all ran away but Peter used his sword to cut off some guys ear. It does next to nothing to mitigate their situation. One might argue that such a tactic could make them look worse: Cowards and incompetant.
Further, one of Mark’s main themes is abandonment. Therefore, if we continue entertaining pure speculation as fact, we can say the disciples fleeing is completely consonant with Mark’s narrative. Thus, following your strange logic, we would have to assume Mark made it, the disciples fleeing, up.
“I don’t think the small movement was considered a threat to Rome. It was considered a threat to public order during the festival, by the High Priest and the Sadducee priesthood in general, sparked by the table overturning performed by Jesus.”
Leaving aside the problem with whether this (overturning the tables) happend at the begining of his ministry or at the end (John 2:11-12), I don’t see how “a threat to public order during the festival was not also a threat to Rome; particularly since as you conceed “The Romans brought an armed unit into Jerusalem during festivals to prevent public disorder and uprising.” and then note “how easily they could trigger disasters” Further, Considering he was tried by the Roman Governor
for treason (or was it sedition?), I suspect the involvement of Roman soldiers makes alot of sense; however, I’ll concede the Gospels do not specify Roman involvement in the arrest. Finally, and again these issues have to be considered in the specific context in which they were raised: That Paul was a Roman mole/provaceture within the early Christian movement.If you’re going to argue “the small movement was[n’t] considered a threat to Rome”
then it’s hard to explain why the Romans would want a mole/provaceuter in this “small movement”Your other arguments are problematic as well, but since they don’t adress the issue in question,
I don’t see their relevance.
Primarily I think it was the temple authorities who considered him a threat to public order during the festival,because they received the first reports. Indirectly, of course, the Romans would think likewise, when being informed and if given a reasonable accusation. That’s why they were persuaded to execute him. But I doubt that the initiative came from the Romans. If so, there would have been more direct evidence for Roman participation and there would have been no interrogation by the high priest.
The basic premise that there was a ruckus in the temple area during that festival and that this was contributing strongly to Jesus’ arrest is the consensus of most top critical scholars. It is not a fringe opinion of mine. However one cannot leave out the possibility that he had done it before, and gotten away with it – hence the position of the pericope in the gospel of John. But John is considered the least historically authentic of all the Gospels, with a possible exception for parts of the passion narrative and the milieu description.
As for the Markan narrative you still need to explain the likelihood that a pacifistic, religious sectarian devoted to preaching, healing and exorcism, suddenly draws a sword (from where?) and performs a master stroke. Personally I have no idea who invented the stories about scripture fulfillment and violent resistance, Mark or his traditions. That’s why I used a lot of maybes and perhapses. But in any way, this is apologia for the basic conclusion that the disciples fled, whoever made it up. Later Christians wanted to believe that the crucifixion was part of God’s plan. Let’s say the stories were authentic in some sense. If so, we should have expected the presence of the disciples in the remaining narrative. Beside this, as scholars have known for a long time, the Gospels sometimes contain contradictory traditions, due to the fact that they are edited collections of oral traditions, assembled in units called pericopes, of which the original contexts have been lost. The periscopes became assembled into new contexts, fitting the view of the gospel writer, but not always successfully, as can be seen very clearly in Matthews treatment of John.
I did not understand your remark about ‘why the Romans would want a mole/provaceuter in this “small movement”‘. Did I say anything like this? What I claimed was that Judas defected to the high priest most likely because he quite early realized the outcome of the temple “cleansing”. I think Albert Schweitzer was the first to suggest that Judas was the one who supplied the priesthood with the knowledge about Jesus’ royal pretensions, later used to build a formal case against him, when delivering him to the Romans.
Gav: This is one of those times that, together with Bart’s critics, I wish his books written for broader lay audiences were better indexed (setting aside no foot or end-noting). Ehrman, I suppose due to years of delivering lectures on the subjects, can jot off these popular reads much faster without taking the time to make them more usable afterward. But there’s an example in what you just said- the bit about multiple Judas attestations pointing to his betrayer status. Bart did a great summary of the evidence for that somewhere in one of his books, and it would be nice to turn to the back flyleaf index and look up “Judas as the betrayer” to find the place, but alas, after 5 or 6 Ehrman books in my case, who has the time to look up the wonderful summary he did? So it gets lost to the sands of time in my memory, grower dimmer month after month, until its covered in ancient sand dunes never to be unearthed, because I have too many new unread books to go back and reread. But yes, there almost certainly must have been a Judas, whether his real name matched the goat or not.
@ Gav
“I did not understand your remark about ‘why the Romans would want a mole/provaceuter in this “small movement”‘. Did I say anything like this?”
No, but you responded to my criticism of that claim; hence our exchange. If you missed the context, I don’t know what value your analysis would have.
“But I doubt that the initiative came from the Romans”
Ok Al Gore, but no one was talking about who took the initiative. The question was whether Rome considered the movement
1.) a threat and 2. ) Enough of a threat to insert a mole. It hardly matters who “received the first reports” Now since the Romans did crucify him, I’m guessing the accusation was reasonable enough.
“But in any way, this is apologia for the basic conclusion that the disciples fled, whoever made it up. Later Christians wanted to believe that the crucifixion was part of God’s plan. Let’s say the stories were authentic in some sense. If so, we should have expected the presence of the disciples in the remaining narrative. Beside this, as scholars have known for a long time, the Gospels sometimes contain contradictory traditions, due to the fact that they are edited collections of oral tradition”
Taking the long way to avoid the problem. There’s a difference between assuming something is made up ( call it apologia if you like but that only reveals you don’t understand the word) and having evidence for that belief.
I never claimed anyone made up the disciples fleeing. I did point out (again there’s that annoying context thing) that you could argue the case , if all your going to do is try to come up with reasons to claim it’s made up with out any evidence. You confuse apologetic intent with a lack of historicity- that is someone made something up just to defend some doctrine. Defending what you’ve done (apologia) doesn’t require or mean that things are made up. I would think if they did make up the story about the sword, that they would have said something other than hey one of us had a sword and used it
Once again that is a pretty lame “apologia” -A point you ignored-. One that also makes the disciples look incompetent as well. So far from making them look better SOMEHOW, it also adds incompetence.
“Let’s say the stories were authentic in some sense. If so, we should have expected the presence of the disciples in the remaining narrative..”
Why? if the story is authentic in some sense, wouldn’t we expect the rest to be “authentic in some sense”. If the disciples actually fled and they were were not at the crucifixion, why should our (rather your) expectation amount to anything. Was Mark’s narrative built on what “our expectations” might be? Finally If one of Mark’s main themes is the abandonment of Jesus, why would he want to minimize that by making up a sword fight ? Further the existence of Pericopes doesn’t mean the story was made up. You simply go from one insinuation to the next do the intellectual hokey pokey and say that’s what it’s all about.
One thing that is true and cannot be denied is that the Jews were called ‘Christ Killers’ for nearly 2000 years and we know what suffering that caused to them and still does in some parts of the world. I’m not sure its the brain dead leading the brain dead here BUT if as they do,Christians believe that Jesus had to die by the very will of God, so the sins of the whole world and their sins especially, could be redeemed and forgiven, which is the central core of their faith. In fact its so central, its fundamental to being mandatory to believe that to be a Christian, then should they not congratulate the Jews for what happened? What was their alternative? That Jesus died in his bed? Do they not ever think these things through?
What’s more, it wasn’t the Jews that ‘actually’ crucified him, it was the Romans, but seemingly, Paul and others went out of their way to exclude ALL responsibility for his death by the occupiers. In fact considering they were an occupied and conquered people, why was the NT so silent about this? In his letters, Paul said the Romans should be obeyed because it was the will of God etc.
Its actually surprising that any of them were persecuted by Rome on that basis and more so that Paul died by their hand eventually when he got fed up with waiting for Jesus to return and telling his followers hang on there, it could be tomorrow. How come nobody knew what happened to Paul when he did go back to Rome or how he died. It was made up later that he and Peter were crucified upside down. There is no historical evidence for that. Of course its possible some of the converts in Rome did know and may even have written to others about it, but its not preserved and/or not yet found?
The Bible is one where anyone can assume anything and what was it Paul said again? God is not the author of confusion? 
MikeyS said
Yes, you would need to be a master swordsman to aim just for an ear and to succeed! More likely to miss or hit the head. They do have to dress these things up a bit. Maybe they belonged to the Galilee or Jerusalem Amateur Dramatics Society?
Well, assuming that is what you were trying to do. If you were trying to cut the arm or the head off, I don’t see how getting the ear is a “Master Stroke” Finding reasons why someone might have had a motive or how you can see a story as faked doesn’t establish eitherthat it was faked or made up. Gav is still busy chasing his tail. with this nonsense.
SWerdal said
Gav: This is one of those times that, together with Bart’s critics, I wish his books written for broader lay audiences were better indexed (setting aside no foot or end-noting). Ehrman, I suppose due to years of delivering lectures on the subjects, can jot off these popular reads much faster without taking the time to make them more usable afterward. But there’s an example in what you just said- the bit about multiple Judas attestations pointing to his betrayer status. Bart did a great summary of the evidence for that somewhere in one of his books, and it would be nice to turn to the back flyleaf index and look up “Judas as the betrayer” to find the place, but alas, after 5 or 6 Ehrman books in my case, who has the time to look up the wonderful summary he did? So it gets lost to the sands of time in my memory, grower dimmer month after month, until its covered in ancient sand dunes never to be unearthed, because I have too many new unread books to go back and reread. But yes, there almost certainly must have been a Judas, whether his real name matched the goat or not.
Yea Indexes would be great. This may have more to do with what sort of book he is writing and whether they think ppl will actually use an index. Personally I’ve found myself reaching for an index a number of times while thinking about one of his books
Bart said
I agree — I wish they were *all* indexed!! But it has nothing to do with my laziness! There are various reasons books don’t get indexed, one of the most common being that books are on a tight time-schedules (publishers are running a business, after all) and sometimes there just isn’t time. And some publishers of trade books don’t think indexes are terrifically important, unlike academic books. I’ve never been asked by a publisher if I would like an index and said No!
I’ve taken to marking the text and writing the page number in the book cover. Of course there are several good arguments in DJE that I Didn’t mark etc. I have just started How Jesus became God and am going to need to be more consistent on that score
@ Gav
“The Markan story about the disciple who drew a sword is wholly apologetic. It is described in verses 14:47-48, and is connected to Jesus’ explanation of the arrest in verse 49 – “but the scriptures must be fulfilled”. This is indeed the voice of the gospel author, who wants to give a theological explanation for what really happened, which is simply stated in verse 50: “And they all forsook him, and fled. “
Am I missing something? I don’t see any maybes or perhapses. You’re claim is that the story “is wholly apologetic” by which you mean the story was made up. You haven’t offered a shred of evidence just alot bad speculation based on the assumption that if you can come up with a reason why they might have made it up, then it must be so. That’s not proof, it’s insinuation.Yet the sword story real or not, doesn’t accomplish an apologetic goal. Jesus followers are left looking worse than when they started. If you wanted to defend the disciples fleeing from the scene, I would think you would want to make it look like they had no other choice: We put up a good fight but in the end….”
Further, I don’t need to explain the sword Vs Pacifism etc. 1.) I never claimed the story is historically accurate 2.) I don’t recall describing early Christians that way and 3.) It’s entirely possible that some of his followers believed he would eventually lead an armed rebellion and overthrow the Romans ( after all this is in line with messianic expectations)
spiker said
@ Gav
“The Markan story about the disciple who drew a sword is wholly apologetic. It is described in verses 14:47-48, and is connected to Jesus’ explanation of the arrest in verse 49 – “but the scriptures must be fulfilled”. This is indeed the voice of the gospel author, who wants to give a theological explanation for what really happened, which is simply stated in verse 50: “And they all forsook him, and fled. “
Am I missing something? I don’t see any maybes or perhapses. You’re claim is that the story “is wholly apologetic” by which you mean the story was made up. You haven’t offered a shred of evidence just alot bad speculation based on the assumption that if you can come up with a reason why they might have made it up, then it must be so. That’s not proof, it’s insinuation.Yet the sword story real or not, doesn’t accomplish an apologetic goal. Jesus followers are left looking worse than when they started. If you wanted to defend the disciples fleeing from the scene, I would think you would want to make it look like they had no other choice: We put up a good fight but in the end….”
Further, I don’t need to explain the sword Vs Pacifism etc. 1.) I never claimed the story is historically accurate 2.) I don’t recall describing early Christians that way and 3.) It’s entirely possible that some of his followers believed he would eventually lead an armed rebellion and overthrow the Romans ( after all this is in line with messianic expectations)
It says they fled to fulfill scripture, so there is no reason to think there is any real history there.
spiker said
@ Gav
“The Markan story about the disciple who drew a sword is wholly apologetic. It is described in verses 14:47-48, and is connected to Jesus’ explanation of the arrest in verse 49 – “but the scriptures must be fulfilled”. This is indeed the voice of the gospel author, who wants to give a theological explanation for what really happened, which is simply stated in verse 50: “And they all forsook him, and fled. “
Am I missing something? I don’t see any maybes or perhapses. You’re claim is that the story “is wholly apologetic” by which you mean the story was made up. You haven’t offered a shred of evidence just alot bad speculation based on the assumption that if you can come up with a reason why they might have made it up, then it must be so. That’s not proof, it’s insinuation.Yet the sword story real or not, doesn’t accomplish an apologetic goal. Jesus followers are left looking worse than when they started. If you wanted to defend the disciples fleeing from the scene, I would think you would want to make it look like they had no other choice: We put up a good fight but in the end….”
Further, I don’t need to explain the sword Vs Pacifism etc. 1.) I never claimed the story is historically accurate 2.) I don’t recall describing early Christians that way and 3.) It’s entirely possible that some of his followers believed he would eventually lead an armed rebellion and overthrow the Romans ( after all this is in line with messianic expectations)
I do not know who made up the apologetic stories, Mark or his sources, that’s what I intended with “perhapses”. On the other hand, I feel very safe about the conclusion that the sword story is fictional , and I have given two reasons, that you need to counter. And yes, I think the sword story serves a purpose, which is to make an excuse for what really happened , that they fled without attempt at resistance or rescuing their master. What you call “insinuation”, is better called circumstantial evidence. Another objection to the sword story is that the stroke was directed against a “servant of the high priest”. This does not sound authentic and scholars have doubted the presence of any such person during a nightly, armed raid. The apologetic at work here tries to conjure up resistance against the High Priest in folklore tradition.
As to your final speculation, I think that none of his followers, having been spoon-fed for months or years with teaching on the miraculous Kingdom to come, in a supernatural way, would have expected Jesus to lead an armed rebellion. There is not even circumstantial evidence for it.
I think it could only be the Roman Soldiers who arrested Jesus for sedition and a threat to security, if that happened at all that night. Secondly, it would make sense there was no Roman trial as such as Pilate wasn’t into niceties like giving fair trials and Jesus was likely just taken to the place of execution the next day or day after. It was necessary for later writers to implicate the Sanhedrin so they could be blamed for his death and at the same time allow Jesus to confirm his Messianic purpose to later followers. Otherwise who was there recording all that as eye witnesses in both places? The Disciples were asleep. So the choice of Barrabus or Jesus couldn’t have occured either as there is no record of the Romans ever doing that before. But again it had to be included so once again it could be said that the Jews had his blood on their hands and their descendents. Neat, very neat passing of the buck.
As I said before. The Sanhedrin had no problems ordering stoning of adulterers to death nor Stephen and James for some trumped up charge, so they could easily have done the same to Jesus at dawn before anyone was about. They may have conspired with the Romans to arrest Jesus but don’t think they had need to give him a trial. Anyway, two trials taking place within one day? Not likely imo. If the Sanhedrin were into doing trials and then passing them over to the Romans for execution, why didn’t they do that with Stephen and James? If the charges were blasphemy for all three, even less reason to do so and have Jesus stoned like the other two. But don’t think we can ever know the truth really. There are too many ifs and buts. So much for scripture being the word of God!
john76 said
spiker said
@ Gav
“The Markan story about the disciple who drew a sword is wholly apologetic. It is described in verses 14:47-48, and is connected to Jesus’ explanation of the arrest in verse 49 – “but the scriptures must be fulfilled”. This is indeed the voice of the gospel author, who wants to give a theological explanation for what really happened, which is simply stated in verse 50: “And they all forsook him, and fled. “
Am I missing something? I don’t see any maybes or perhapses. You’re claim is that the story “is wholly apologetic” by which you mean the story was made up. You haven’t offered a shred of evidence just alot bad speculation based on the assumption that if you can come up with a reason why they might have made it up, then it must be so. That’s not proof, it’s insinuation.Yet the sword story real or not, doesn’t accomplish an apologetic goal. Jesus followers are left looking worse than when they started. If you wanted to defend the disciples fleeing from the scene, I would think you would want to make it look like they had no other choice: We put up a good fight but in the end….”
Further, I don’t need to explain the sword Vs Pacifism etc. 1.) I never claimed the story is historically accurate 2.) I don’t recall describing early Christians that way and 3.) It’s entirely possible that some of his followers believed he would eventually lead an armed rebellion and overthrow the Romans ( after all this is in line with messianic expectations)
It says they fled to fulfill scripture, so there is no reason to think there is any real history there.
Nowhere in Mark is there a claim that the disciples fled to fulfill scripture, but my statement was I didn’t know of any prophecy governing the number of men. If you took time to actually understand what you’re writing about, you’re contribution would be of much greater value.
spiker said
john76 said
spiker said
@ Gav
“The Markan story about the disciple who drew a sword is wholly apologetic. It is described in verses 14:47-48, and is connected to Jesus’ explanation of the arrest in verse 49 – “but the scriptures must be fulfilled”. This is indeed the voice of the gospel author, who wants to give a theological explanation for what really happened, which is simply stated in verse 50: “And they all forsook him, and fled. “
Am I missing something? I don’t see any maybes or perhapses. You’re claim is that the story “is wholly apologetic” by which you mean the story was made up. You haven’t offered a shred of evidence just alot bad speculation based on the assumption that if you can come up with a reason why they might have made it up, then it must be so. That’s not proof, it’s insinuation.Yet the sword story real or not, doesn’t accomplish an apologetic goal. Jesus followers are left looking worse than when they started. If you wanted to defend the disciples fleeing from the scene, I would think you would want to make it look like they had no other choice: We put up a good fight but in the end….”
Further, I don’t need to explain the sword Vs Pacifism etc. 1.) I never claimed the story is historically accurate 2.) I don’t recall describing early Christians that way and 3.) It’s entirely possible that some of his followers believed he would eventually lead an armed rebellion and overthrow the Romans ( after all this is in line with messianic expectations)
It says they fled to fulfill scripture, so there is no reason to think there is any real history there.
Nowhere in Mark is there a claim that the disciples fled to fulfill scripture, but my statement was I didn’t know of any prophecy governing the number of men. If you took time to actually understand what you’re writing about, you’re contribution would be of much greater value.
Well, regarding the disciples abandoning Jesus, Matthew wrote: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: “‘The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes’?
@ Gav
What I call insinuation?
1.) evidence is data
2.) insinuation is a way of deriving a conclusion about the data
So what did I describe as insinuation? Let’s go to the videotape shall we,
” You haven’t offered a shred of evidence just alot [of] bad speculation based on the
assumption that if you can come up with a reason why they might have made it up, then
it must be so.”
That’s not circumstantial evidence. It’s faulty logic. The question has always been about HOW
you get to your conclusions not what you conclude.
Yes, you have given me several things to explain as you misread (Willingly?) my arguments.
To wit, “I feel very safe about the conclusion that the sword story is fictional , and I have given
two reasons, that you need to counter.”
Not only have I never claimed the story is true, but I’ve also indicated that whether its true doesn’t matter here. My contention, AGAIN is how you get to that conclusion. You offer,
“Another objection to the sword story is that the stroke was directed against a “servant of the high priest”. This does not sound authentic and scholars have doubted the presence of any
such person during a nightly, armed raid”
1.) Mark says nothing about what “the stroke was directed against” he states in 14:47 “Then one of those standing near drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest,
cutting off his ear.” As I speculated to MikeyS on whether it was a master stroke, that
very much depends on what you’re trying to do. If I am an unskilled swordsmen trying to
slash at someone, I might very well hit the ear rather than the arm , shoulder or head.
2.) a “servant of the high priest”? Scholarly doubt is not proof or even evidence. Bart
Ehrman, for example, in questioning why Judas was given 30 pieces of silver to follow
Jesus, pointed out that you could have a slave follow him for free.
Does that mean it happened or that a slave was actually there? Not at all, but it does
give a good reason for a slave to have been there, if he was.
3.) No circumstantial evidence that one of his followers “would have expected Jesus to lead
an armed rebellion? If the charges against him aren’t evidence, what are they? Ehrman’s
explanation for why Judas recieved 30 pieces of silver is that he told the authorities
about teachings like Mathew 19:28 “”Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”
Further, according to James Still of Infidels.org
” It was Caiaphas who sent out the Temple police to arrest Jesus, most certainly
on grounds that Jesus was seditious (rebellious) against Roman authority. Our evidence is good that Jesus did act politically seditious against Roman authority:
Several of Jesus’ disciples were known Zealots, e.g., Simon the Zealot (Lk. 6:15);
Simon Peter who was known as “Bar-jona” (Mt. 16:17) a derivation of of “baryona” Aramaic for “outlaw” which was a common name applied to Zealots; James and John shared the nickname “Boanerges” or in Hebrew “benei ra’ash” which is to say “sons of thunder”
another common Zealot reference; and the most famous Zealot was Judas Iscariot,
“Iscariot” a corruption of the Latin “sicarius” or “knife-man” which was a common Roman
reference to Zealots.”
Personally, I think Still’s argument is incredibly thin and if he has good evidence, “that
Jesus did act politically seditious against Roman authority”, he kept it a secret, but the
forgoing seems to rise to the level of what you call “circumstantial evidence”
Finally, apologetic purpose doesn’t disprove historicity. Also I didn’t argue that there was no apologetic purpose. What I argued is tat it doesn’t ACCOMPLISH that goal. Not only do the disciples look like cowards, but that story
What I call insinuation?
1.) evidence is data
2.) insinuation is a way of deriving a conclusion about the data
So what did I describe as insinuation? Let’s go to the videotape shall we,
” You haven’t offered a shred of evidence just alot [of] bad speculation based on the
assumption that if you can come up with a reason why they might have made it up, then
it must be so.”
That’s not circumstantial evidence. It’s faulty logic. The question has always been about HOW
you get to your conclusions not what you conclude.
Yes, you have given me several things to explain as you misread (Willingly?) my arguments.
To wit,
“I feel very safe about the conclusion that the sword story is fictional , and I have given
two reasons, that you need to counter.”
Not only have I never claimed the story is true, but I’ve also indicated that whether its true doesn’t matter here. My contention, AGAIN is how you get to that conclusion. You offer,
“Another objection to the sword story is that the stroke was directed against a “servant of the high priest”. This does not sound authentic and scholars have doubted the presence of any
such person during a nightly, armed raid”
1.) Mark says nothing about what “the stroke was directed against” he states in 14:47 “Then one of those standing near drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest,
cutting off his ear.” As I speculated to MikeyS on whether it was a master stroke, that
very much depends on what you’re trying to do. If I am an unskilled swordsmen trying to
slash at someone, I might very well hit the ear rather than the arm , shoulder or head.
2.) a “servant of the high priest”? Scholarly doubt is not proof or even evidence. Bart
Ehrman, for example, in questioning why Judas was given 30 pieces of silver to follow
Jesus, pointed out that you could have a slave follow him for free.
Does that mean it happened or that a slave was actually there? Not at all, but it does
give a good reason for a slave to have been there, if he was.
3.) No circumstantial evidence that one of his followers “would have expected Jesus to lead
an armed rebellion? If the charges against him aren’t evidence, what are they? Ehrman’s
explanation for why Judas recieved 30 pieces of silver is that he told the authorities
about teachings like Mathew 19:28 “”Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”
Further, according to James Still at Infidels.org
” It was Caiaphas who sent out the Temple police to arrest Jesus, most certainly on grounds that Jesus was seditious (rebellious) against Roman authority. Our evidence is good that Jesus did act politically seditious against Roman authority:
Several of Jesus’ disciples were known Zealots, e.g., Simon the Zealot (Lk. 6:15); Simon Peter who was known as “Bar-jona” (Mt. 16:17) a derivation of of “baryona” Aramaic for “outlaw” which was a common name applied to Zealots; James and John shared the nickname “Boanerges” or in Hebrew “benei ra’ash” which is to say “sons of thunder” another common Zealot reference; and the most famous Zealot was Judas Iscariot, “Iscariot” a corruption of the Latin “sicarius” or “knife-man” which was a common Roman reference to Zealots.”
Personally, I think Still’s argument is incredibly thin and if he has good evidence, “that Jesus did act politically seditious against Roman authority”, he kept it a secret, but the forgoing seems to rise to the level of what you call “circumstantial evidence”
I never argued that the story didn’t have an apologetic purpose, but
1.) apologetic purpose doesn’t disprove historicity and
2.) I claimed the story doesn’t ACCOMPLISH an apologetic goal. Instead of just looking like cowards the story makes them look like Keystone Disciples: Completely Incompetent.
Mathew 19:28 “”Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”
Isn’t this a clear indication that when Jesus said he came only to save the lost sheep of Israel the above proves that point?
ie the Preaching and teaching of Jesus was never ever intended for non Jews and the great commission was an after thought by gentile Christians and of course the Chief Deceiver, Paul?
Its rather ironic that the Christian Church that developed over 2000 years consisted mostly of non Jews. Is that what Jesus OR God intended? Somehow, I don’t think so!
I’m not sure what Jesus meant by saving the lost sheep of Israel? The Samaritans were part of the original 12 tribes and yet they were hated by the Judian Jews included Jesus himself. If they weren’t the ‘lost’ sheep, I don’t know who were?
MikeyS said
Mathew 19:28 “”Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”Isn’t this a clear indication that when Jesus said he came only to save the lost sheep of Israel the above proves that point?
ie the Preaching and teaching of Jesus was never ever intended for non Jews and the great commission was an after thought by gentile Christians and of course the Chief Deceiver, Paul?
Its rather ironic that the Christian Church that developed over 2000 years consisted mostly of non Jews. Is that what Jesus OR God intended? Somehow, I don’t think so!
I’m not sure what Jesus meant by saving the lost sheep of Israel? The Samaritans were part of the original 12 tribes and yet they were hated by the Judian Jews included Jesus himself. If they weren’t the ‘lost’ sheep, I don’t know who were?
No, Mike- at least not in the context of whether Jesus was guilty of the crimes he was accused of. A man teaching his followers that he will sit “on his glorious throne” , effectively challenges Caesar. The Romans weren’t going to let that boil away on the front burner. STILL, I don’t see how you can describe the gospels as fictitious and then talk about what they prove
Hi Spiker, I use the Gospels as a debating point, that’s all as I still think most was made up by later writers who’s only interest was self preservation in power and influence and increasing the numbers. Its probably why the Jews decided it was not for them.
Having said that, you can spot a changing doctrine from Jesus as the essentially Jewish teacher/Rabbi who’s only interest was saving his own people to one where Paul was more interested in saving the Gentiles and an emerging Gentile Church that was to start persecuting the Jews for killing Christ and sucking up to the Roman Authorities. Paul was good at doing that.
The problem is that even if Jesus was gay or he had a relationship with Mary Magdelene, it would have been censored. The Gospel of Mary is quite illuminating in some respects but alas was considered heretical and was ordered to be destroyed.
Any idea what Jesus meant by saving the ‘Lost sheep of Israel’?
@MikeyS
A relationship with Mary?
If there was a relationship with Mary, there would be no reason to censor it.
there would simply be no reason to insist on celibacy etc unless it was believed to be
true. It’s likely that Jesus was both unmarried and celibate. Could he have had a relationship with Mary? Absolutely, but where is the evidence? we can’t just posit a theory because
we like it.
I don’t doubt that there was a great deal made up. The question again is what can I prove.
Christians aren’t the only ones guilty of ignoring evidence distorting information etc.
It’s a fact of human nature that we prefer pleasing conclusions and that we will rationalize
away inconvenient information.
But if your arguments are going to amount to anything, it’s because they can be based in solid evidence and reasoning: Christians today cant deny contradictions and discrepancies in the bible. All they can do is call them “Apparent” etc. This is because of people like Bart Ehrman who have done the leg work and have not allowed distaste, bitternace etc to affect their conclusions.
Solid evidence and sober reasoning are the antidote. In short, bad intellectual habits are the underlying problem whether in religion, politics, etc.
If your conclusions are going to stick, there’s no short cut. A nail only gets driven home one way. Bending the nail because you hit it too hard or didn’t hold it properly doesn’t help. Your critics can (ok could) point to faulty logic etc and dismiss it. The Gay or Mary chasing Jesus are products of this failure. My question is why give them ammo? If Jesus was gay, it’s likely he would have hidden it, what value does it have? Since there’s no evidence why entertain the idea, why argue some hypothetical point? If Jesus was gay they would ban it? its just sour grapes.
Lastly your conclusions about what Jesus real concerns were, assume certain parts of the bible are true. It only
makes it look like you’re cherry picking. Admittedly very few Fundies understand what that means and they will throw that at you because you disagree. I was once debating some fundy who accused me of cherry picking. The fact that I used his own definition as part of my analysis didn’t phase him. I had to point it out repeatedly and explain that cherry picking was about selecting evidence that is favorable to your conclusions. How could I be cherry picking if i used his own definition when the very definition of cherry picking is that you IGNORE information contrary to what you favor. How could I be ignoring a definition I used? After 6 to 8 times of making that argument, I must have cracked the cement because he stopped accusing me of it.
Nobody cherry picks more than believers in their own faith. I don’t have to elaborate how.
Logic and reason are based on trying to understand how the world works and how people think and why most atheists think religious people are anything but as most of what they believe is based on assumption, presumption and drawing conclusions that make no sense but they do it anyway. Religion is responsible for immense suffering in the world and by God, there is lots to be distastable about. That is not fantasy or imagined, its real. Most people are too respectful of myth and legend even though it contradicts logic and reason and why people like Richard Dawkins are hated when they point out the lack of logic and reasoning that most relogious people have. How many people in the USA still think the universe is less than 10,000 years old?
Women were second class citizens and still are today based on male dominated societies and the bible reinforces that and you will know that the biggest Christian Church in the world today as we write condemns homosexual behaviour as evil and intrinsically disordered and that means condemning a large number of men and women. You know people were jailed for that and even today they are killed or murdered is the better term. That is fact not fantasy. Will they ever change because its in the holy text? No! Its the word of God, see!
Jesus could have done a far better job in dealing with many issues. I would have liked for Jesus to have being gay or married actually as it would have changed the whole ethos of the Church as nobody really can deny that being celibate is against the natural order of human instinct and evolution and yet is claimed to have a moral superiority over millions of people. Yet these unmarried bachelors think they have some moral and biblical insight in telling married people how to live their lives. I would guess that even if Jesus was gay or Paul or any of the disciples, it would have been airbrushed out as many things were to suit a bunch or weirdos, some who thought that women were evil because of the sin of Eve in the Garden.
I accept that deism is a fringe belief with little or no evidence of God or the supernatural but that is no different from most religions that have ever existed and so in essence defy logic and reason which cannot be used really in discussions like this one
ie Religious text and historicity is important but not as important as people using their own intelligence and brains to see that the morality of 2000 years ago is almost irrelevant and we are a more ‘moral’ world than was ever the case in the past and in Jesus’s day as society do accept homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice but part of our makeup from birth. And there are no demons to exorcise and people have mental incapacity and disorders. Marriage was not made in heaven and adultery cannot be the sole reason for divorce when mental and physical abuse can be far worse.
Jesus as a young MAN never understood the real world and so could never and should never have been elevated to the eternal deity he has been where even today, few believers will question anything in the Gospels because its the ‘word of God’!
Now that my friend is not cherry picking or being selective. The bible is upheld as the great moral code that its adherents believe was and is essential for society to live by. I have shown that is not the case, far from it!
The great conspiracy nowadays within the church is that most now have moved towards accepting the logic and reason that science has brought to the table about the natural world and evolution BUT they cannot bring themselves into accepting that as Adam and Eve were myths, so was the fall and original sin and so no need for redemptive sacrifice. Or in Jesus as God.
Its only when their eyes are opened that we can safely say, logic and reason are making progress within the Church. It took 600 years to accept that Galileo was right and they were wrong. As far as I am concerned, ALL so called holy text can be safely binned or burned with hardly a ripple felt on the morality of an evolving world that most have decided is way past its sell by date for teaching anything.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)