Gary & Rhinestone's Thread on Burial and Resurrection of Christ

[Adrift]

This is his claim. EDITED: #233. Sorry, apparently it didn't quote the whole post.

If I had to guess, he's referring to those scholars he googled who support that Jesus was charged for claiming to be King of the Jews, which is a strawman, and not something Evans denies, so it's neither here nor there.

[Gary]

I never said that Jesus was crucified for being a violent insurrectionist. He was crucified for claiming to be the King of the Jews: a statement of treason; a capital offense. This is not just my opinion. This is the opinion of the overwhelming majority of scholars.

[Gary]

If I had to guess, he's referring to those scholars he googled who support that Jesus was charged for claiming to be King of the Jews, which is a strawman, and not something Evans denies, so it's neither here nor there.

So you admit that the crime for which Jesus was crucified was: Claiming to be the King of the Jews.

Excellent. Now all you need to do is admit that such a claim in first century Palestine would be considered an act of high treason.

Look it up. Ask the experts. It was an act of high treason.

NT scholar Ben Witherington states in his comment below that the crime given publically by the Romans for crucifying Jesus was for claiming to be the King of the Jews, a political crime, a crime of high treason against Caesar:

https://books.google.com/books?id=Bg...reason&f=false

[shunyadragon]

What on earth makes you think Jesus claimed to be Messiah?

For starters, here . . .

[shunyadragon]

The claim of being the Messiah, and the King of Jews is an act of treason in Rome regardless. It was known that he had apostles and followers. It is obvious in cases of rebellion it would be obvious that they would not be openly armed until they rebel. To allow some one to go around and make the claim without judgement, which is crucifixion for treason, would be a sign of weakness by the Roman authorities.

[psstein]

Do you believe that the passages regarding the trial before Pilate in the Gospel of Mark are historically reliable? If so, Pilate only questions Jesus regarding the Jews' charge of having claimed to be the King of the Jews. Jesus refuses to deny that he had ever claimed this. Why would Pilate spend so much time interrogating Jesus about the claim of being the true ruler of the Jews (and not Caesar) and then execute him for violating some Jewish religious law about which the text is silent??

Based on what we know from historical records, do you think Pilate would wring his hands over the life of one Jew?

Depends what you mean by "reliable." Do I believe that Pilate probably spoke to Jesus? Yes. Do I believe that the Markan account is completely historical? No, I don't. I think Crossan goes too far in dismissing the historicity of the trial wholesale. I think Brown and Meier are correct when they argue for something similar to the text, but more limited in scope.

I see Pilate speaking with some of the aggrieved leaders. I don't think the full Sanhedrin showed up... there are a few reasons why that is (primarily, it's Passover).

[Meh Gerbil]

For starters, here . . .

You cannot take the bits of Matthew's and Mark's narrative the support your case (claiming the narrative is reliable) while at the same time dismissing the parts of the narrative that don't support your case (claiming the narrative is unreliable). Either Matthew and Mark are a good source for details concerning the trial of Jesus or they are not. Pick one.

[shunyadragon]

You cannot take the bits of Matthew's and Mark's narrative the support your case (claiming the narrative is reliable) while at the same time dismissing the parts of the narrative that don't support your case (claiming the narrative is unreliable). Either Matthew and Mark are a good source for details concerning the trial of Jesus or they are not. Pick one.

These are not bites and pieces. Are you claiming these citations are unreliable? They are direct quotes, deal with it and respond.

[Meh Gerbil]

These are not bites and pieces. They are direct quotes, deal with it and respond.

Direct quotes from a source that both you and Gary consider to be unreliable.
Do you have another source that proves Jesus claimed to be the Messiah or that he was convicted of treason?

[One Bad Pig]

You cannot take the bits of Matthew's and Mark's narrative the support your case (claiming the narrative is reliable) while at the same time dismissing the parts of the narrative that don't support your case (claiming the narrative is unreliable). Either Matthew and Mark are a good source for details concerning the trial of Jesus or they are not. Pick one.

Critical scholars are quite adept at picking and choosing what parts of the narrative they'll accept as reliable. Sometimes they persuade other critical scholars.

[shunyadragon]

Direct quotes from a source that both you and Gary consider to be unreliable.
Do you have another source that proves Jesus claimed to be the Messiah or that he was convicted of treason?

The problem question is do you believe the citations are reliable?

The citations clearly answers your question. Jesus Christ clearly and specifically claimed to be the Messiah and the King of the Jews.

[psstein]

He claimed (or at least refused to deny he had claimed) of being the Jewish Messiah. Anyone in Palestine who knew anything about Jews and their religion would know that they were waiting for a messenger from God who would destroy their enemies and re-establish the Davidic throne. If Jesus was claiming to be this Messiah, he was therefore claiming that he was going to overthrow Roman rule. The idea that the Romans understood that Jesus' "kingdom" was spiritual in nature only is preposterous. Even the disciples were expecting up until the last minute to overthrow Rome and sit on real thrones with Jesus in the new Kingdom of Israel.

First, that's not totally true. Josephus tells us of several Messianic claimants (most notably Theudas) who do little of the sort.

Jesus spoke of the Kingdom of God, both future and present. I don't see that as an earthly kingdom. Jesus was likely referring to his belief about the incoming apocalypse.

[Meh Gerbil]

The problem question is do you believe the citations are reliable?
The citations clearly answers your question. Jesus Christ clearly and specifically claimed to be the Messiah and the King of the Jews.

You are the one citing the gospels as a source.
Do you believe the source is reliable concerning the trial of Jesus Christ?

[Gary]

http://www.jcrelations.net/The+Trial...268.0.html?L=3

[shunyadragon]

Do you believe the gospels are a reliable source concerning the trial of Jesus Christ?

Your playing Duck, Bob and Weave. DO YOU BELIEVE THE CITATIONS ARE ACCURATE AND THAT JESUS CLAIMED TO BE THE MESSIAH AND THE KING OF THE JEWS?

Based on this quote below you are doubting the text of the gospels as reliable.

What on earth makes you think Jesus claimed to be Messiah?