We All Live On Stolen Land...

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Mark 14:

It seems that the blasphemy also includes the claim that he was THE Son of God. Not merely a son of God. Why wouldn't they see that as blasphemy, even if it is not in the strictest sense.

It's a metaphor. Every pious Jew was believed to be a son of God. The phrase did not carry the same meaning in Jerusalem as it would have done in Corinth, Alexandria, or Ephesus.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Please note that in my post, I didn't attribute a motive or reason for the Jewish leaders wanting Jesus dead. You are imposing 'blasphemy' on to my post and I resent that.

My apologies if I caused offence but that is the standard riposte that is received - see post #75.

[seer]

It's a metaphor. Every pious Jew was believed to be a son of God. The phrase did not carry the same meaning in Jerusalem as it would have done in Corinth, Alexandria, or Ephesus.

Metaphor for what? Christ did not say he was a son of God, but THE Son of God - definite article. That is why in John they picked up stones to stone him for the same claim. And there would be no reason for the high priest to even ask the question if they did not see that as something different than merely being a son of God...It was part of the accusation.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Metaphor for what? Christ did not say he was a son of God, but THE Son of God - definite article. That is why in John they picked up stones to stone him for the same claim. And there would be no reason for the high priest to even ask the question if they did not see that as something different than merely being a son of God...It was part of the accusation.

son of GodMessiah equals Son of God.

As I noted in my previous reply, within the Gentile Hellenistic world that phrase did not carry the same meaning as it did in Jerusalem.

[seanD]

Actually it was the Jewist leaders and elites that did this. There's no indication that the common Jew was involved in the plotting. (Yes, I know about the mob that chanted crucify him. I also know how easy it easy to form a mob and direct them at what you want.)

The trials occurred during the Passover when hundreds of thousands of Jewish pilgrims came to Jerusalem for the feasts. The mob was probably not locals, they probably never heard about Jesus or very little, so they were easily influenced by the Jewish elites (the ones orchestrating the feasts at the time) and how they described Jesus.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The trials occurred during the Passover when hundreds of thousands of Jewish pilgrims came to Jerusalem for the feasts. The mob was probably not locals, they probably never heard about Jesus or very little, so they were easily influenced by the Jewish elites (the ones orchestrating the feasts at the time) and how they described Jesus.

The story of the Passover Amnesty is a fiction that has to be viewed within the context of when the earliest canonical gospel came to be written.

[seer]

We know that there were various individuals, prior to the First Jewish War who claimed, or were acclaimed as, the Messiah. In the second century CE Simon Bar Kokhbah was spoken of in the same terms but none of them were ever accused of, or tried for, blasphemy.

It wasn't his claim to be the Messiah that got him killed, though it was said that he was the King of the Jews or the King of Israel - which in itself was probably enough for the elite Jewish rulers to want him gone.

son of GodIn short, the writer of Mark [and those of Luke and Matthew] appear to be ascribing to Caiaphas their own understanding of Messiah equals Son of God.

Sorry that is just speculation, we know what the text say and that was a claim of Sonship. Since you could not refute it now you just call it a tale. I have no reason to assume that.

As I noted in my previous reply, within the Gentile Hellenistic world that phrase did not carry the same meaning as it did in Jerusalem.

But we are speaking of the Jewish understanding. By Jews like Mark, John and Matthew.

[seanD]

The story of the Passover Amnesty is a fiction that has to be viewed within the context of when the earliest canonical gospel came to be written.

No it wasn't. And we don't know when the earliest was written. The max date is around 70 at the latest, but that's just an assumption; there's no clear evidence.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

No it wasn't.

What extraneous first century CE sources are you citing in support of that statement?

The max date is around 70 at the latest, but that's just an assumption; there's no clear evidence.

Once again, what extraneous sources are you citing?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

It wasn't his claim to be the Messiah that got him killed

Oh yes it was. Claiming, or being acclaimed to have, messianic status was punishable by crucifixion.

Sorry that is just speculation

What extraneous first century sources are you citing in support of that comment?

, we know what the text say and that was a claim of Sonship.

But not of divinity. See Psalm 110.

Since you could not refute it now you just call it a tale. I have no reason to assume that.

Consider when the first canonical gospel was written. Consider what had just taken place in Judaea. Consider the parody of Pilate we are presented with in the four canonical gospels where he is portrayed as a vacillating figure who finds "no fault" but who is compelled to acquiesce to the bloodthirsty demands of the Jews.

But we are speaking of the Jewish understanding. By Jews like Mark, John and Matthew.

Those texts were all written anonymously.

[seanD]

What extraneous first century CE sources are you citing in support of that statement?

Once again, what extraneous sources are you citing?

That you don't even know most critical scholars (I'm not even talking Christian scholars here) give Mark a max late date of 70 tells me I'm wasting my time. Plus, it is the civics forum after all.

[seer]

Oh yes it was. Claiming, or being acclaimed to have, messianic status was punishable by crucifixion.

So you at least agree that the Jews pushed for the death of Christ.

What extraneous first century sources are you citing in support of that comment?

Why would I need an extraneous source? You just labeled these claims as "tales." An assertion.

But not of divinity. See Psalm 110.

What does that have do do with the claim of Sonship?

Consider when the first canonical gospel was written. Consider what had just taken place in Judaea. Consider the parody of Pilate we are presented with in the four canonical gospels where he is portrayed as a vacillating figure who finds "no fault" but who is compelled to acquiesce to the bloodthirsty demands of the Jews.

So?

Those texts were all written anonymously.

And, the earliest text are those of Paul, and Sonship is right there. Agreeing with the Gospels.

[Sparko]

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

That you don't even know most critical scholars (I'm not even talking Christian scholars here) give Mark a max late date of 70

The date of Mark is generally agreed to have been no earlier than 70/71 CE.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

So you at least agree that the Jews pushed for the death of Christ.

Where have I written as much?

Why would I need an extraneous source?

You wrote "Sorry that is just speculation" it therefore follows that you must have to hand some extraneous source evidence to support that statement. Otherwise you are simply making an unfounded comment.

What does that have do do with the claim of Sonship?

The King is the Messiah. He is not divine.

So?

Thus writes someone with absolutely no idea of the impact of those events on fledgling Christianity which at the time was a clandestine sect with known Jewish antecedents.

And, the earliest text are those of Paul, and Sonship is right there. Agreeing with the Gospels.

Paul does not equate Jesus with God. I also repeat that the meaning of the phrase "son of God" was somewhat different for the residents of Corinth or Ephesus, from that of Jews in Jerusalem.