We All Live On Stolen Land...

[seer]

Where have I written as much?

You said:Oh yes it was. Claiming, or being acclaimed to have, messianic status was punishable by crucifixion. So was that the reason for Christ's crucifixion or not?

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.

I'm going by the text that we have.

The King is the Messiah. He is not divine.

Where does it say that he is not divine?

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.

Paul was a Jew, a Pharisee. And again, it is THE Son of God. If all Jews were sons of God then calling Jesus the son of God would have been meaningless. The high priest asking him that question would have been meaningless. There would be nothing special in that title - but Paul and the Gospel writers certainly did see that title as important, definitive.

[rogue06]

I think most Americans are ashamed at the antics of some of our ancestors, specifically things like the Trail of Tears and the smallpox blanket fiasco.

The latter of which IIRC was carried out by the British.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular Movements in the Time of Jesusson of Godshoe-hornprophecyThe Trial and Death of Jesus.

The basic point still remains. Jesus of Nazareth had committed no crime against Jewish religious law. His offence [perceived or actual] was that he had claimed, or was believed to have claimed messianic status [King of the Jews]. It was this political charge alone,[sedition] that would have been significant to the Roman administration in Judaea. The Romans in general [and their provincial magistrates in particular] had no interest at all in disputes regarding matters pertaining to Jewish religious belief or practice.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You said:Oh yes it was. Claiming, or being acclaimed to have, messianic status was punishable by crucifixion. So was that the reason for Christ's crucifixion or not?

See my reply above to Sparko on that issue.

I'm going by the text that we have.

In other words you are using the gospel passion narratives to "prove" the gospel passion narratives.

Where does it say that he is not divine?

Might I remind you of the first two commandments? In Judaism there is only one ineffable, unseen, immanent deity.

Paul was a Jew, a Pharisee.

Paul never calls himself a Jew and we only have his word he was a Pharisee. If he was one then he seems remarkably unfamiliar with his scriptures in their original language. He always quotes the Septuagint never the Hebrew.

And again, it is THE Son of God. If all Jews were sons of God then calling Jesus the son of God would have been meaningless.

The phrase had entirely different connotations in the Gentile world with its mythologies about anthropomorphic deities that often included miraculous births.

The high priest asking him that question would have been meaningless. There would be nothing special in that title - but Paul and the Gospel writers certainly did see that title as important, definitive.

Again, see my reply above to Sparko on the "trial".

[seanD]

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

That's what I JUST said.

Max period of 40 years (and that's based on the ASSUMPTION it was written that late; there's no evidence against the assumption it was written earlier) after the event is the "context" of which you spoke of.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

That's what I JUST said.

You wrote "The max date is around 70 at the latest " [my emphasis]. That suggests earlier datings are also under consideration. They are not.

Max period of 40 years (and that's based on the ASSUMPTION it was written that late; there's no evidence against the assumption it was written earlier)

The text contains the "prophecy" of the event to which I was referring, namely the First Jewish War 66- 71 CE which resulted in the siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple, thereby indicating that this text was written post eventum i.e.after 70/71 CE.

[seanD]

You wrote "The max date is around 70 at the latest " [my emphasis]. That suggests earlier datings are also under consideration. They are not.

Yes, there are. They're of the "apologetic" variety, but their education and scholarly experience is no less credible.

The text contains the "prophecy" of the event to which I was referring, namely the First Jewish War 66- 71 CE which resulted in the siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple, thereby indicating that this text was written post eventum i.e.after 70/71 CE.

Duh. That is the criteria secular scholars insist, which is an assumption that the supernatural doesn't exist, therefore prophecy doesn't exist. That's an assumption. And btw, it doesn't necessarily have to based on the supernatural, as Josephus pointed out there were others who apparently made that prediction.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Yes, there are. They're of the "apologetic" variety, but their education and scholarly experience is no less credible.

Bearing mind that such theories will have a degree of bias what sources are you citing?

Duh. That is the criteria secular scholars insist, which is an assumption that the supernatural doesn't exist, therefore prophecy doesn't exist. That's an assumption.

Historical research does not deal with superstitions and folklore as reliable souces. Of course someone researching the background to folktales will try and put such tales into their socio-historical context but that does not presume that such tales are believed to be entirely factual.

And btw, it doesn't necessarily have to based on the supernatural, as Josephus pointed out there were others who apparently made that prediction.

Could you provide the citation from Josephus?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular Movements in the Time of Jesusson of Godshoe-hornprophecyThe Trial and Death of Jesus.

The basic point still remains. Jesus of Nazareth had committed no crime against Jewish religious law. His offence [perceived or actual] was that he had claimed, or was believed to have claimed messianic status [King of the Jews]. It was this political charge alone,[sedition] that would have been significant to the Roman administration in Judaea. The Romans in general [and their provincial magistrates in particular] had no interest at all in disputes regarding matters pertaining to Jewish religious belief or practice.

Edited to add: For further reading I also recommend Paul Winter's On the Trial of Jesus. This is an another excellent work and also from a Jewish scholar.

[Sparko]

Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular Movements in the Time of Jesusson of Godshoe-hornprophecyThe Trial and Death of Jesus.

The basic point still remains. Jesus of Nazareth had committed no crime against Jewish religious law. His offence [perceived or actual] was that he had claimed, or was believed to have claimed messianic status [King of the Jews]. It was this political charge alone,[sedition] that would have been significant to the Roman administration in Judaea. The Romans in general [and their provincial magistrates in particular] had no interest at all in disputes regarding matters pertaining to Jewish religious belief or practice.

[seanD]

Bearing mind that such theories will have a degree of bias what sources are you citing?

Historical research does not deal with superstitions and folklore as reliable souces. Of course someone researching the background to folktales will try and put such tales into their socio-historical context but that does not presume that such tales are believed to be entirely factual.

Could you provide the citation from Josephus?

HA it's apparent to me you're out of your league here when it comes to knowledge about the subject. I've also grown weary debating this with skeptics and regret even starting here (as I used to do this in the past with vigor until it dawned on me it's kind of pointless), and it's just way off topic from Civics, so I'm bowing out after this.

John A. T. Robinson, Carsten Peter Thiede, Gunther Zuntz, Bernard Orchard, Harold Riley, Allen P. Wikgren, Eta Linnemann, D.A. Carson, Joseph S. Exell, David A. Fiensy, Robert H. Gundry, Gary R. Habermas, Simon J. Kistemaker, and Claude Tresmontant have all argued pre-70 dates of the gospels, in some cases even the gospel of John.

From Josephus War 4.6.3 -- "For there was a certain ancient oracle of those men, that "The city should then be taken, and the sanctuary burnt, by right of war, when a sedition should invade the Jews: and their own hands should pollute the temple of God.""

[Thoughtful Monk]

And so goes the trope. No we did not steal the land per se, we conquered it. Exactly what native tribes were doing to each other long before the white man showed up. We just happened to be the bigger more advanced tribe. And I wonder if the leftists who are complaining about us living on stolen land are willing to give their houses and lands back to the American Indians. Or will they remain blatant hypocrites.

This 5-4 SCOTUS decision handed down today declares that half of Oklahoma including Tulsa is reservation. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN24A268. I'll be interested to see how this one plays out.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

HA it's apparent to me you're out of your league here when it comes to knowledge about the subject.

Your withdrawal from the exchange is duly noted and leaves me feeling rather as Charles Martel must have felt in 732 CE.

In point of fact I am no more out of my"league" than are you or anyone else. However, I do endeavour to approach these topics from a critical perspective.

From Josephus War 4.6.3 -- "For there was a certain ancient oracle of those men, that "The city should then be taken, and the sanctuary burnt, by right of war, when a sedition should invade the Jews: and their own hands should pollute the temple of God.""

From the Loeb edition of Josephus' War the translator comments in a footnote " I can quote no " ancient " authority for the saying." Nor does this quote from Josephus provide any further illumination as to the veracity of the various Synoptic verses pertaining to this alleged "prophecy".

Attempts at dating these canonical gospels remains a contentious issue among New Testament scholars. There is no overall consensus on this matter.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I love how you handwave away anyone's evidence, but do it in such a patronizing way. It's hilarious.

Where precisely have I patronised you? Where have I belittled or demeaned you?

I am more direct and speak more plainly (Probably because of my hillbilly upbringing:)

As far as I am concerned you are free to "speak

You are wrong. Yes, I know there were many false messiahs, but none were crucified

Oh yes they were as were thousands of other Jews both before and after the execution of Jesus of Nazareth. Or do you imagine he was the only Jew to be crucified by the Romans?

and none claimed to be divine. Jesus did.

And yes, Daniel IS relevant since Jesus directly referenced Daniel 7 in regards to himself on multiple occasions,

. This personage is not a divinity but is being acknowledged by the god of Israel as the future Messianic king and the text then continues to describe the Kingdom over which this King will rule.

and in fact did it during his trial before the Sanhedron which is what caused them to charge him with blasphemy. He was claiming divinity, equality with God. That he was worthy of worship and would lead God's eternal kingdom

pseudomartyriaAre you the Christ the Son of the BlessedAre you the Messiah the promised royal deliverer of Israel?Son of GodYou are my son, today I have begotten youI will be his father and he shall be my son" [2 Sam.7.14]. Indeed in the commonly used metaphorical terminologyMessiahSon of GodThe PassionFurthermore, the Synoptic version of the trial of Jesus occurring at Passover night [or in the morning of Passover according to Luke] seems to be intrinsically vitiated. Both the timing of this hearing and the charge of blasphemy create apparently insoluble legal difficulties. According to the Mishnah , no capital sentence could be pronounced by the Sanhedrin on the day of the court hearing itself. It had to wait until the following day to allow the judges a night to reflect on their verdict Therefore trials involving death penalty may not be held on the eve of Sabbath or on the eve of a feast day

(not just the earthly kingdom of Judea which did not even exist at that time.)

For someone as intelligent as you seem to be, you are mindbogglingly ignorant to the evidence before you.

To employ your own words and "be more direct and speak more plainlyevidence

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Where precisely have I patronised you? Where have I belittled or demeaned you?

As far as I am concerned you are free to "speak pseudomartyriaAre you the Christ the Son of the BlessedAre you the Messiah the promised royal deliverer of Israel?Son of GodYou are my son, today I have begotten youI will be his father and he shall be my son" [2 Sam.7.14]. Indeed in the commonly used metaphorical terminologyMessiahSon of GodThe PassionFurthermore, the Synoptic version of the trial of Jesus occurring at Passover night [or in the morning of Passover according to Luke] seems to be intrinsically vitiated. Both the timing of this hearing and the charge of blasphemy create apparently insoluble legal difficulties. According to the Mishnah , no capital sentence could be pronounced by the Sanhedrin on the day of the court hearing itself. It had to wait until the following day to allow the judges a night to reflect on their verdict Therefore trials involving death penalty may not be held on the eve of Sabbath or on the eve of a feast daybe more direct and speak more plainlyevidence

NB The following sentence has been corrected - Psalm 27 was initially cited and it should read Psalm 2.7Son of GodYou are my son, today I have begotten you