Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Sexualisation of very young girls - US style

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post

    No wonder you are not of an orthodox form of Christianity. You whitewash scriptures to come to your views. And you are accusing Jewish writers of the NT of being anti-Jewish. Why is it that a documentation of the events must be seen as polemical? However, I assume you have something about Christianity that you accept.
    Down mike, keep it Christian or at least humane. I simply read (and study) and it is not simply my view.

    Are you serious about anti-Judaism (anti-semitism is a more modern issue) in the gospels? Simply put read the gospels in chronological order and consider the growing innocence of Pilate and the increasing guilt of the Jews for the death of Jesus to the point where they accept full responsibility down through the generations. And consider also what was going on in the communities of the writers. There was a polemic.

    I accept more than you realize and I understand it :+}

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post

      You Catholics are the ones who claim it is really his body and blood. Us protestants just believe it represents his body and blood.

      Also even Christians are advise to "refrain from blood" - which seems to put Catholics in a bind.

      Acts 15:49

      Catholics accept that it is the 'real presence' but the idea of symbolism is also involved in this. And I guess it depends which Protestant expression you belong to as high Protestantism seems to be real close to Catholicism. Also. if someone says it 'represents' the body and blood, it is at least worth asking what they understand by representation.

      As for blood, even with the idea of transubstantiation, the accidents (like taste, smell, feel, etc.) remains while the substance (bread 'to' body) is that which changes. So if the accidents remain, just as you taste bread and wine, so do Catholics. I, speaking for all Catholics, have always refrained from blood :+}

      I find the more modern explanation of tran-signification (a change in significance or, if you will, a change in representation) to be easier to explain and to understand.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sparko View Post

        The animal sacrifices took the place of the punishment the Israelites would have to pay for because of their sins. Jesus just took it to the ultimate level and made one sacrifice for all. But you are right, the Jews had a hard time accepting Jesus as the Messiah for a number of reasons, including he died a shameful death hung on a tree.
        Do you know anything about the religions of the ancient near East and in particular the religious practises of Canaan that include those of the early Hebrews?
        "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" Attrib. Seneca 4 BCE - 65 CE

        Comment


        • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post

          I'm not sure what this term encompasses. This term makes it sound like an annual event. It just sounds like a single event.
          It never happened. It is a literary invention. No mob. No amnesty. No "trial". Most likely merely an interrogation with the sentence duly passed. This man, Jesus of Nazareth, was a member of the humiliores i.e. one of the lower orders in society.
          "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" Attrib. Seneca 4 BCE - 65 CE

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

            It never happened. It is a literary invention. No mob. No amnesty. No "trial". Most likely merely an interrogation with the sentence duly passed. This man, Jesus of Nazareth, was a member of the humiliores i.e. one of the lower orders in society.
            Funny how you find all sorts of things wrong with the testimony of the gospels but you find certainty in an undocumented theory.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post

              Funny how you find all sorts of things wrong with the testimony of the gospels but you find certainty in an undocumented theory.
              It is based on known historical evidence. You seem to forget that the four canonical gospels were never intended to be dispassionate historical [as we understand the term] records of the events they purport to depict.

              What we know of Pilate comes from Josephus and Philo [and neither account can be be excused a degree of bias]. However, given that he was in post for around ten years he was clearly, insofar as Rome was concerned, good at his job. Furthermore, this was not a peaceful region where people lived in harmony and quietly went about their daily lives with barely a Roman official or soldier in sight - although from those gospel accounts you would never know that.

              So let us look at the known history. This region was seething with discontent and resentment and had recently seen uprisings primarily directed at Roman targets.

              Although technically independent, the new province was to a large extent under the guidance of the powerful and strategically important neighbouring province of Syria. The Syrian Legate, a man of consular standing, had three Roman legions at his disposal to which a fourth was added after 18 CE.

              However, during the first six years of Pilate’s governorship the Syrian legate was not in post. Tiberius had appointed Lucius Aelius Lamia but had kept him in Rome. Therefore had any trouble broken out in Judaea during those years there was no Legate in the region [Vitellius was not in post as Governor of Syria until 35 CE] to issue the order to mobilise the legions. Hence despite the nearest legionary garrison being at Raphanea Pilate would have had only his auxiliaries to rely upon.

              Then there was the question of time. Had a serious insurrection broken out a message would have had to have been sent from Jerusalem to Antioch and thence from Antioch to, Raphanea to mobilise those troops. In the intervening period the garrison at Jerusalem could have been annihilated as happened some thirty or so years later in 66 CE.

              We also need to consider the population of Jerusalem during major festivals when pilgrims from around the region flocked to the city thereby hugely increasing the population and increasing existing tensions. For that reason during Jewish festivals the governor/praefectus came to Jerusalem from his capital at Caesarea Maritima bringing with him additional troops to reinforce the Jerusalem garrison.

              Furthermore, being acclaimed as, or claiming Messianic status was a capital offence. Mark’s gospel tells us that there had been an uprising and hence it is quite likely that Pilate made the decision to execute the ringleader[s] or perceived ringleader[s] to prevent any further disturbances. It is not improbable that the two "bandits/robbers" crucified with Jesus of Nazareth were members of the same group.

              "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" Attrib. Seneca 4 BCE - 65 CE

              Comment


              • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post

                Funny how you find all sorts of things wrong with the testimony of the gospels but you find certainty in an undocumented theory.
                H A is correct on this. Check some biblical scholars.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post


                  It is based on known historical evidence. You seem to forget that the four canonical gospels were never intended to be dispassionate historical [as we understand the term] records of the events they purport to depict.

                  What we know of Pilate comes from Josephus and Philo [and neither account can be be excused a degree of bias]. However, given that he was in post for around ten years he was clearly, insofar as Rome was concerned, good at his job. Furthermore, this was not a peaceful region where people lived in harmony and quietly went about their daily lives with barely a Roman official or soldier in sight - although from those gospel accounts you would never know that.

                  So let us look at the known history. This region was seething with discontent and resentment and had recently seen uprisings primarily directed at Roman targets.

                  Although technically independent, the new province was to a large extent under the guidance of the powerful and strategically important neighbouring province of Syria. The Syrian Legate, a man of consular standing, had three Roman legions at his disposal to which a fourth was added after 18 CE.

                  However, during the first six years of Pilate’s governorship the Syrian legate was not in post. Tiberius had appointed Lucius Aelius Lamia but had kept him in Rome. Therefore had any trouble broken out in Judaea during those years there was no Legate in the region [Vitellius was not in post as Governor of Syria until 35 CE] to issue the order to mobilise the legions. Hence despite the nearest legionary garrison being at Raphanea Pilate would have had only his auxiliaries to rely upon.

                  Then there was the question of time. Had a serious insurrection broken out a message would have had to have been sent from Jerusalem to Antioch and thence from Antioch to, Raphanea to mobilise those troops. In the intervening period the garrison at Jerusalem could have been annihilated as happened some thirty or so years later in 66 CE.

                  We also need to consider the population of Jerusalem during major festivals when pilgrims from around the region flocked to the city thereby hugely increasing the population and increasing existing tensions. For that reason during Jewish festivals the governor/praefectus came to Jerusalem from his capital at Caesarea Maritima bringing with him additional troops to reinforce the Jerusalem garrison.

                  Furthermore, being acclaimed as, or claiming Messianic status was a capital offence. Mark’s gospel tells us that there had been an uprising and hence it is quite likely that Pilate made the decision to execute the ringleader[s] or perceived ringleader[s] to prevent any further disturbances. It is not improbable that the two "bandits/robbers" crucified with Jesus of Nazareth were members of the same group.
                  What she said :+}

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                    We do not know he was a Jew. He may have been, but he never calls himself one.
                    I've done some re-looking and I can find no critical biblical scholar who suggests that Paul was not a Jew (or doubts that he was).

                    In addition, it does seem that Saul persecuted the early Christian communities and it is apparent he did so because he was incensed that Jesus, a crucified criminal, would be considered the expected Jewish Messiah. It seems that no pagan would be so insulted or incensed at such a recognition - only a Jew.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by thormas View Post

                      I've done some re-looking and I can find no critical biblical scholar who suggests that Paul was not a Jew (or doubts that he was).
                      Robert Eisenman contests it -see James the Brother of Jesus. I think Maccoby had his doubts as well particularly as it was extremely unusual for a Jew to be a Roman citizen [see A.N. Sherwin-White]. I cannot remember if it was Maccoby or someone else who contended that possibly part of the falling out between Paul and the Jerusalem Movement was that Paul used some of the money he was collecting for the group to buy his citizenship.

                      Originally posted by thormas View Post
                      In addition, it does seem that Saul persecuted the early Christian communities and it is apparent he did so because he was incensed that Jesus, a crucified criminal, would be considered the expected Jewish Messiah. It seems that no pagan would be so insulted or incensed at such a recognition - only a Jew.
                      I doubt most pagans were even aware of a Jewish Messiah. However, someone working for Herod Antipas would be.

                      We also need to remember that the Idumean Jews were converts. Herod the Great was not especially popular with some Jews [and I am not referring to his bloody-thirsty behaviours] because although he was both a pious and observant Jew and rebuilt the Temple etc, his family were recent converts.
                      "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" Attrib. Seneca 4 BCE - 65 CE

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                        Robert Eisenman contests it -see James the Brother of Jesus. I think Maccoby had his doubts as well particularly as it was extremely unusual for a Jew to be a Roman citizen [see A.N. Sherwin-White]. I cannot remember if it was Maccoby or someone else who contended that possibly part of the falling out between Paul and the Jerusalem Movement was that Paul used some of the money he was collecting for the group to buy his citizenship.

                        I doubt most pagans were even aware of a Jewish Messiah. However, someone working for Herod Antipas would be.

                        We also need to remember that the Idumean Jews were converts. Herod the Great was not especially popular with some Jews [and I am not referring to his bloody-thirsty behaviours] because although he was both a pious and observant Jew and rebuilt the Temple etc, his family were recent converts.
                        I will consult these two but still I have not seen it, even as a remote consideration, in the writings of top biblical scholars, among them a mix of Christians (of different expressions), an Atheist and a Jew.

                        There is debate about whether or not Paul/Saul was a Roman citizen, seemingly not all agree. There were 'issues' and perhaps a falling out (temporary? permanent?) but the Council of Jerusalem went in his favor. Also, have never, ever, heard about his using (i.e. stealing) charitable contributions for his own purposes. I took a quick look at Maccoby and remembered that I didn't buy his premise that Paul created or invented Christianity or that he used gnosticism and mystery cults to 'flesh' out or on which to build Christianity. I think Hurtado and others have made a compelling case that Paul inherited much from the early communities - as opposed to inventing it (although, as mentioned in an earlier post, he did innovate but from what he had previously received).

                        I agree with your comment about pagans but again, none of the critical biblical scholars have suggested that Saul worked for Antipas.

                        Also, Paul does boast of his 'Jewish credentials' in Philippians.
                        Last edited by thormas; 10-22-2020, 12:07 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post


                          It is based on known historical evidence. You seem to forget that the four canonical gospels were never intended to be dispassionate historical [as we understand the term] records of the events they purport to depict.

                          What we know of Pilate comes from Josephus and Philo [and neither account can be be excused a degree of bias]. However, given that he was in post for around ten years he was clearly, insofar as Rome was concerned, good at his job. Furthermore, this was not a peaceful region where people lived in harmony and quietly went about their daily lives with barely a Roman official or soldier in sight - although from those gospel accounts you would never know that.

                          So let us look at the known history. This region was seething with discontent and resentment and had recently seen uprisings primarily directed at Roman targets.

                          Although technically independent, the new province was to a large extent under the guidance of the powerful and strategically important neighbouring province of Syria. The Syrian Legate, a man of consular standing, had three Roman legions at his disposal to which a fourth was added after 18 CE.

                          However, during the first six years of Pilate’s governorship the Syrian legate was not in post. Tiberius had appointed Lucius Aelius Lamia but had kept him in Rome. Therefore had any trouble broken out in Judaea during those years there was no Legate in the region [Vitellius was not in post as Governor of Syria until 35 CE] to issue the order to mobilise the legions. Hence despite the nearest legionary garrison being at Raphanea Pilate would have had only his auxiliaries to rely upon.

                          Then there was the question of time. Had a serious insurrection broken out a message would have had to have been sent from Jerusalem to Antioch and thence from Antioch to, Raphanea to mobilise those troops. In the intervening period the garrison at Jerusalem could have been annihilated as happened some thirty or so years later in 66 CE.

                          We also need to consider the population of Jerusalem during major festivals when pilgrims from around the region flocked to the city thereby hugely increasing the population and increasing existing tensions. For that reason during Jewish festivals the governor/praefectus came to Jerusalem from his capital at Caesarea Maritima bringing with him additional troops to reinforce the Jerusalem garrison.

                          Furthermore, being acclaimed as, or claiming Messianic status was a capital offence. Mark’s gospel tells us that there had been an uprising and hence it is quite likely that Pilate made the decision to execute the ringleader[s] or perceived ringleader[s] to prevent any further disturbances. It is not improbable that the two "bandits/robbers" crucified with Jesus of Nazareth were members of the same group.
                          Thanks for the additional bits of information you have provided on the Roman Empire and Jerusalem.

                          Not much of what you say is controversial in this post. But of course you deviate from that on the last paragraph. It is improbable that that those two bandits/robbers were related to Jesus. There is no record of that.

                          It is interesting that Divine providence had put this bubble of protection (i.e., of having the presence or availability of a Legion) until AD 35.

                          The gospels don't have to record the whole context of the Roman Empire since the Roman Empire did not have the messages of justification and salvation. In this sense you are accurate namely that the gospels were not a broad history of the Roman Empire.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post

                            Thanks for the additional bits of information you have provided on the Roman Empire and Jerusalem.
                            Gern geschehen.

                            Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                            Not much of what you say is controversial in this post
                            Why should it be?

                            Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                            . But of course you deviate from that on the last paragraph. It is improbable that that those two bandits/robbers were related to Jesus. There is no record of that.
                            Outside of the four canonical gospels there is no record of any of it. However, given the situation in the region it is quite likely that more than one individual from a particular group was arrested.

                            Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                            It is interesting that Divine providence had put this bubble of protection (i.e., of having the presence or availability of a Legion) until AD 35.
                            Why do you think that? The legions were in Syria.

                            Of course the legions that came later under Titus destroyed the city.


                            "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" Attrib. Seneca 4 BCE - 65 CE

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                              Gern geschehen.

                              Why should it be?
                              You were making it sound like the precarious situation of Jews and Judea were unknown and thus controversial. I was mainly noting that you filled in some technical details.


                              Outside of the four canonical gospels there is no record of any of it. However, given the situation in the region it is quite likely that more than one individual from a particular group was arrested.
                              Nothing has to follow the "likely" option. We don't have to be able to anticipate the circumstances from broader historical trends. Jesus' situation was a rash andpolitically motivated judgment against him. Nor had Jesus formed a riotous group that would demand the arrest of several people in order to restore the peace.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post

                                Thanks for the additional bits of information you have provided on the Roman Empire and Jerusalem.

                                Not much of what you say is controversial in this post. But of course you deviate from that on the last paragraph. It is improbable that that those two bandits/robbers were related to Jesus. There is no record of that.

                                It is interesting that Divine providence had put this bubble of protection (i.e., of having the presence or availability of a Legion) until AD 35.

                                The gospels don't have to record the whole context of the Roman Empire since the Roman Empire did not have the messages of justification and salvation. In this sense you are accurate namely that the gospels were not a broad history of the Roman Empire.

                                Did Paul, the first NT writer, mention the two thieves? What are we to make of the issue that the thieves (or at least one of them) were not named until the 4th C? Was that a literary device? Could the thieves themselves have been literary creations?

                                Why didn't Pilate go after the disciples as accomplices (Peter supposedly feared this)? If Jesus preached what we thought he preached, he had no connection to the Zealots and was not part of an uprising - given that his Kingdom was not of this world.

                                And, I agree there is no record or critical scholarly finding that the two were connected to Jesus or connected to the Zealots (but the latter is within the realm of possibility if the two ever existed).
                                Last edited by thormas; 10-22-2020, 02:14 PM.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Mountain Man, Yesterday, 10:00 AM
                                20 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 06:45 AM
                                72 responses
                                372 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Cow Poke, 01-21-2021, 03:35 PM
                                40 responses
                                266 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by Ronson, 01-21-2021, 09:45 AM
                                34 responses
                                185 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 01-21-2021, 09:10 AM
                                4 responses
                                44 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Working...
                                X