Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by rivergator, Jul 29, 2013.
I haven't read it either, but he discussed this in the video linked in the OP.
I get the claimed historical perspective, and I heard the guy say that.
There are many ways to approach a historical perspective, no matter how sanitized from bias the scholarly author thinks himself to be.
Not suggesting bias - haven't read the book - but I have read other "historical" works questing to find the life and history of Jesus, and the point of view of the author always and in every case, bleeds through the summoning forth of the "historical" fact.
Some are better than others.
Look, the interview stunk to high jihad, and if I had been conducting it, it would not have looked anything like it does.
Yeah I wasn't saying "historical means unbiased," but just complaints about faith-based reporting seem misplaced here.
I don't understand your second clause.
Some religion writers reactions:
I think we all get the "stunt" aspect of the "interview."
Here's a good synopsis of the trial and execution:
Led Him to Pilate: The Jews had no authority to administer the death penalty, so they went to Pilate, who was the Roman governor over the region of Judea.
i. The Jewish leaders had reason to expect a favorable result when they went to Pilate. Secular history shows us that he was a cruel, ruthless man, completely insensitive to the moral feelings of others. Surely, they thought, Pilate will put this Jesus to death.
b. We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar, saying that He Himself is Christ, a King: At the same time, they know Pilate would be unconcerned with what they had "convicted" Jesus of - blasphemy. So, they blatantly lied and brought up other charges.
i. Essentially, these are their charges:
That Jesus was a revolutionary (perverting the nation).
That Jesus incited the people not to pay their taxes (forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar).
That Jesus claimed to be a king in opposition to Caesar (saying that He Himself is Christ, a King).
c. Then Pilate asked Him, saying, "Are You the King of the Jews?" We can only wonder what Pilate thought when he first laid eyes on Jesus, when he saw this beaten and bloodied Man before him. Jesus didn’t look especially regal or majestic as He stood before Pilate, so the Roman governor was probably sarcastic or ironic when he asked, "Are You the King of the Jews?"
d. Though Pilate was a cruel, ruthless man; he wasn’t stupid. He could see through the motives of the Jewish leaders, and had no problem in sizing up Jesus and the whole situation, and returning a verdict: I find no fault in this Man.
i. By any stretch of the imagination, that was a "not guilty" verdict. Pilate knows and declares that Jesus is innocent of any crime, and that He should be set free.
e. But they were the more fierce: In response, the Jewish leaders became more fierce, and emphasized their accusation that Jesus was a leader of insurrection. This was a crime that any Roman governor had to be very careful of.
f. And as soon as he knew that He belonged to Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent Him to Herod: Pilate remained perplexed and unwilling to make a hard choice for Jesus; so he tried to do nothing - he sends Jesus on to Herod, because Jesus was from Galilee, the area where Herod ruled.
It seemed that was what you were doing with regards to NPR? Perhaps I misunderstood.
There are multiple examples in Scripture citing the chief priests and Sanhedrin for the persecutions against Jesus and his followers. At the time of Jesus the high priests were Sadducees and most of the Sanhedrin judges were Sadducees. The Sadducees were the political and religious elite of 1st century Judea but under Roman rule the Sanhedrin had no authority to execute anyone found guilty of blasphemy or any other crime. They kept their nominal power in the Temple and over the people by cooperating with Rome - the real political power.
Many Jews of the 1st century CE believed the Messianic prophecies predicted a political savior/leader. Jesus was attracting much attention and many believed him to be that Messiah. Because of his great appeal among the masses the Sadducees and the Sanhedrin consequently regarded him as a threat to their control and took steps to eliminate him.
Jesus correctly condemned the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, but there were likely to be found in that class many sincere Jews such as Nicodemus and Gamaliel.
My understanding of what he is claiming (again, based on the NPR interview since I haven't read the book) is that the only reason one could be crucified was for sedition/treason/etc. against the Roman Empire. Essentially his argument is that overturning the tables of the money changers in the temple and attacking the authority of the high priests (who were the de facto arms of the Roman government in Israel) were plainly what would be viewed as seditious or treasonous acts under the Roman authorities, and were the acts that precipitated the crucifixion of Jesus.
Where it gets controversial is his contention that the Gospels exaggerate the roles of the Jews and downplay the roles of the Roman authorities in bringing about the crucifixion. He bases this in part on the fact that crucifixion was solely a punishment for treason/sedition, could solely be handed down by the Roman government, and was entirely in keeping with the actual historical record of Pilate executing huge numbers of "Jewish rabble rousers" with little thought, and that the Biblical story of how it happened thus wouldn't be in keeping with how history tells us the Roman occupation government actually worked. His contention as to why the Bible supposedly downplays the role of the Romans and plays up the role of the Jews is essentially pointing to the political climate when the Gospels were written, when the Jewish rebellion had just been crushed, Jerusalem sacked, and thousands upon thousands of Jews killed with the rest "scattered to the wind" by the Roman authorities, and that the new followers of Christ sought to downplay the connection of their religion to Judaism and avoid being overly accusatory towards Rome to keep from bringing the wrath of Rome down on themselves as well.
This! Not only was she not going to let it go, but she only continued to make herself look like an idiot and argumentive.
I haven't read the book either and probably won't. Too little time; too many books. It probably would add little to what I already have learned about that historic era.
From what I have read of the book on this thread I think it likely confirms what I wrote above and you fleshed out in your subsequent post. And I'm pretty much in agreement with what you added.
Scripture from the Gospel of John is often cited as source for the claims Jesus is the "only begotten son" of God in reference to the claims he is the the incarnation of God in the flesh, but those claims are rightly disputed when the original language of the Greek is closely examined. I won't get into that, I've done it before on other threads. It's worth mentioning again that John's esoteric gospel has NO mention of a virgin conception. I think that myth was likely added in a misguided effort to boost the reputation of the incipient faith by contrasting the humble nativity and ancestry of the Christ with that of the divine Caesars who were promoted as gods throughout the Roman empire.
You're hitting points in his interview I hadn't even brought up, guess you don't need to read the book :laugh:
He also discusses that the idea of being God incarnate would have been anathema to everything about the Jewish faith (to the degree that he would not have had Jewish followers if he claimed to have been God incarnate) and asserts that Jesus almost certainly never claimed to be God incarnate and likely didn't believe himself to be such, and that story arises from the fact that the people who recorded the Gospels and spread Christianity after his death were largely urban, Hellenized Jews. Essentially that those urban Jews would have been familiar with Greco-Roman theology, the idea of a man-god would have been intimately familiar since the Romans were loudly proclaiming Caesar Augustus to be one, etc., and that in the 20 years following Jesus's death the story of Jesus evolved from being a Judaic faith about a revolutionary Jewish Messiah to a different kind of religion with Jesus being described in terms far more in-line with a Romanic demigod than that of what the Jews would have understood to be the Messiah.
All reasons as to why I am not a Trinitarian Christian.
Chapter 23 of Acts would seem to dispel that the Pharisees were in much, if any, of a minority in the full Council, as evidenced by Paul's - perhaps the most prominent if not notorious, Pharisee, himself - experience in being accused of blasphemy. Always the clever man, Paul in fact caused a disruption in the proceeding by claiming to be a Pharisee who believed in the resurrection, which in turn led to a division in between the two sects, and quite the tumult.
I do not know where the population density of Sadducee vs. Pharisee on the Sanhedrin might come from, but I would be curious to see the stats.
Before his conversion, as we know, Paul admittedly pursued, persecuted, and killed (whether only by aiding and abetting, or by actual perpetration of murder, is somewhat unclear) people of "The Way," with the blessing of the High Priest in Jerusalem. He was at the murder of Stephen, and approved.
Gamaliel is mentioned by Paul as having been his teacher, but was not mentioned in Paul's writings (letters), or by the contemporaneous Jewish writers, Philo and Josephus.
Just bible chat.
I would think, you would have more of a bias if you were writing about your own personal faith
If the interview had taken place on any other network, crickets!
It was an interview by a person who did not like what she heard. Some are making a mountain out of a molehill. Why the pettiness?
Yeah, and that's pretty much all wrong.
So, I dredge up an old study I did in one of the "religion argued here" threads, a while back, and post hereinafter:
Jesus in fact, claimed to be co-equal with God.
Fugitabout the mystical Gospel of John.
In the synoptics. :whoa:
Or . . . was He was merely speaking metaphorically in the synoptics when He said He judges all mankind ? When He claimed to know the thoughts, the inner nature, the hypocrisies of people (Matt 9:4; 12:25; 22:18) ? When He said that He would judge mankind on the last day (7:22-23) ? When He said He will send his angels (a mere man sending angels ? Pshaw !) to remove evildoers from His kingdom (13:41), and will reward each person according to what he has done (16:27) ? I mean, what mere man has: 1) a kingdom with angels . . . 2) capable of removing evildoers . . . and 3) gives out rewards for deeds in the judgment of all mankind ?
Did He continue in that metaphor when He said that He will tell the wicked "Depart from me, you who are cursed" - implying that the essence of that punishment is not simply separation from God - but separation from Him, i.e., Jesus (25:34, 41) ? This is metaphorical language ?
Or how about . . . was He speaking metaphorically in the synoptics when He forgave sins ? (Luke 5:17-26; 7:36-50). Or when He also determined who might and who might not be forgiven (18:9-14) ?
For instance, in healing the paralytic lowered through the roof, He declared: "Friend, your sins are forgiven." Jewish thinking was that either the man was born into sin (like the blind man) and thus was cursed of God, or that only an offended party can forgive an offense. But since God - only - is offended by every sin, it made no sense for a mere man to grant forgiveness to a stranger whom Jesus had never met. So, it was blasphemous to claim to have the authority to forgive sins only God could forgive, which the Pharisees immediately grasped: "This fellow is blaspheming. Who can forgive sins but God alone?" (Matt 9:3; Luke 5:21).
Knowing the Jews’ thinking, Jesus incited a showdown over whether He had the authority to forgive sins (only God can do that), asking the Pharisees: "Which is easier: to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up and walk?' [must have been a long pause after that one]. But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins. . . . " Then he said to the paralytic, "Get up, take your mat and go home" (Matt 9:4-6), and the man got up and went home. Make no mistake: Jesus the Messiah, the Christ, is saying, "I have forgiven him, I am showing you that I claim the authority of God to be able to forgive sins by healing him, and I have proven both." Thus, He did not claim to heal or forgive on God’s authority, but on the authority that God had given Him. Was Jesus’ claim to be co-equal with God and to have the authority that only God has to forgive sins . . . merely metaphorical ?
Was Jesus speaking metaphorically in the synoptics when He said that the eternal destiny of humans depends on their response to Him ? When He said eternal life comes to those who know and confess Him and who are known and confessed by Him (Matt 7:21-27; 10:32-33) ? He said that His disciples must love him more than father or mother, son or daughter, more than life itself, and anyone unwilling to forfeit his life for Christ will lose it forever (10:37-39; 16:24-26; Luke 14:26-27; Mark 8:34-38). Metaphorical language ?
Or is He saying to love Him more than anyone or anything else, and to keep his commands even if the keeping entails death ? For those who know Him and publicly confess allegiance to him, He says they will live forever; if not, they will experience God's eternal wrath. More metaphors ?
How about when Jesus applied to himself OT texts that describe God. More metaphors ? After the triumphal entry riding on a colt, the Jewish leaders complain to Jesus that the children of Jerusalem are welcoming him with cries of "Hosanna to the Son of David." He replied by quoting Ps 8:2: "From the lips of children and infants you have ordained praise." Since Psalm 8 is addressed "O LORD, our Lord," He thus unmistakably applies an OT passage about God . . . to Himself. Also, when Jesus declares that heaven and earth will pass away before His words pass away (Matt 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33), He claims that His words have the same permanence as God's (Isa 40:8). Was He just metaphorically saying that He knew that people would be talking about the wonderful things He said for a long time . . . or was He ascribing to His own words co-equivalence with God ?
Sounds like the need to read scriptures for metaphors comes and goes and depends on when one needs them to fit a prejudged view of a broken theology. Especially so if the need for metaphors exceeds the obedience to recognize what Jesus claimed about Himself . . . in the synoptic gospels . . . and not in the Gospel of John.
He said He was God.
But that is Orthodox, Trinitarian Christianity for you.
And He is.
It was an interview by someone who had never even looked at the book she was interviewing about. One would think that if you are the religion correspondent for a network and booked a religious scholar to discuss his book (which is the #1 non-fiction e-book and in the top 5 non-fiction list on the NY Times best seller lists) you would be prepared to ask some question other than "How can a Muslim write a book about Jesus?"
It's my sincere hope that any network which produced and aired an interview that dumb and pointless would be mocked for it.
Yet he says the following in Mark 10:18.
17 Now as He was going out on the road, one came running, knelt before Him, and asked Him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?”
18 So Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. 19 You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery,’ ‘Do not murder,’ ‘Do not steal,’ ‘Do not bear false witness,’ ‘Do not defraud,’ ‘Honor your father and your mother.’”[c]