Robert (to my understanding):
There seems to be a contradiction.
On the one hand, some would say that the chief priests, elders, and scribes of the whole Sanhedrin in Mark’s story are a stand-in for the revolutionaries who opposed in Rome in the Judean War
hence their inciting the crowd to prefer Barabbas, who was in prison with the rebels who had committed murder during the insurrection (15,7.11), but as you point out the priests and upper class supported Rome,
and
they condemned apocalypticism and opposed war against Rome.
Also, if, as you say, Rome found no fault with Jesus, then why does Pilate, the representative of Rome in this story, hand him over to be crucified (15,15)?
Steefen
Because Rome’s political supporters asked for it.
Robert:
Do you see the difficulty?
Steefen:
Unfortunately, that’s how corrupt politics work – doing favors for your supporters despite what you know is right. Now, if there weren’t corruption, the world would be a better place.
Robert:
Wouldn’t a story created by the Flavians want to portray the priests, the upper class of Rome, and Pilate as all favoring Jesus?
Steefen:
If Jesus were with the in-crowd of those who spoke against him to Rome.
I agree with Steefen:post 28.
Pilate does not have a good choice in the story because of the Jewish custom to release a prisoner during the holiday. Either release Barabbas the insurrectionist and murderer, or release Jesus. Releasing Barabbas will please the Jews:Sanhedrin and crowd. Releasing Jesus would create an insurrection against Pilate. Barabbas will probably begin another insurrection.
This story is what will superlatively created The Jewish Problem and Final Solution in Europe over the next 2000 years and forever.
[Anti-Semitic content deleted and reported]
I opened this thread because when I looked at the ‘All Online Activity’ page one of our “Guest” bot friends was here. (I’m tracking them down one by one. I went down to the courthouse and got a ‘bot’ hunting license.)
Then, I see this.
[Anti-Semitic content, a quotation from Colin’s post above, deleted]
What is not anti-Semitic about this statement? Colin, I suggest you get your sh*t together. If Robert showed this statement to Prof Ehrman you’d be out on your ear.
Good lord. I’m struggling to see how that can be read as anything but a justification of genocide. I think the line before your quotation began is important context: this comment was explicitly made in reference to historical persecution of the Jews, including the Final Solution by name.
I’ve been watching these exchanges. I was going to say something but geez what is there to say? Think and say whatever hateful and damaging thought that comes to mind I guess it’s a free forum. Vomit it up. Maybe once you get it put you can heal.
Least ways you could try to be coherent. I hate to see this kind of mentality riding along blindly believing that it all comes down to whose right. What’s the old song go nobody’s right if everybody’s wrong. Isn’t that profound? Blah, get a life. Hopefully a productive one not spent behind bars.
Post 26, the discussion entered in the “gospels have Roman prominence” conspiracy category. Which is all fantasy academic garbage. But anyways, so in the Bible one of the reasons Jesus was on trial was because of the temple destruction prophecy. One of the reasons that Jesus was considered to be God, or a prophet, was because of this prophecy being fulfilled during the Jewish Roman Wars. And of course, the resurrection is another reason why. A resurrection of the dead is not normal things to be happening.
However, someone would maliciously construe a mention of the Jewish Roman Wars and following history as all being an ANTI SEMITIC remark is harassment. At least, it’s below the standards of honest academics. This ain’t kindergarden class or the Disney channel. Maybe it is, though. I’m not very impressed so far.
Looks like someone just started the old trick called a witch-hunt disguised as hunting down anti-semitism.
I’ve mentioned this before,
Mark 1:1 ΝΑ28
Αρχη του ευαγγελιου Ιησου Χριστου υιου Θεου
with a variant: υιου του Θεου
I don’t think that’s the same statement as υιος του θεου, or υιος Θεου which by far more common to see in the NT.
Mark 1:1 in the very first verse, expresses Jesus Christ as being the Son, and Son as being God; through the genitive case. The good messenger, the Christ, the Son, the God.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)