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

[Meh Gerbil]

What is your source material for Jesus being tried for treason?
What is your source material for Jesus being called the King of the Jews?

[Meh Gerbil]

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?

No.
I reject only that portion of the gospels that state Jesus made that claim.
Because Jesus never made that claim your nonsense about 'treason' cannot possibly be true.

[Adrift]

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.

including plotting the death of the emperor, plotting or attempting to assassinate a Roman official, raising an army, failing to relinquish command of an army, siding with an enemy of the empire, fomenting armed rebellion, turning an ally against Rome, etc. Jesus did nothing that approximated these kinds of actions."

Gary, put your reading glasses on and read the bolded underlined bit.

[psstein]

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.

There are generally good reasons for accepting certain parts of the narrative and rejecting others. In recent years, the anti-miracle bias has significantly faded and modern scholars have published works on the miracle accounts.

[psstein]

including plotting the death of the emperor, plotting or attempting to assassinate a Roman official, raising an army, failing to relinquish command of an army, siding with an enemy of the empire, fomenting armed rebellion, turning an ally against Rome, etc. Jesus did nothing that approximated these kinds of actions."

Gary, put your reading glasses on and read the bolded underlined bit.

Where is this passage from?

[Gary]

What is your source material for Jesus being tried for treason?
What is your source material for Jesus being called the King of the Jews?

You describe yourself as a "circular balloonist". We now understand why. Your arguments are circular.

[shunyadragon]

What is your source material for Jesus being tried for treason?

The claim of being the Messiah and thus the King of the Jews is treason under Roman law, and punishable by crucifixion.

What is your source material for Jesus being called the King of the Jews?

The claim of being the Messiah is the specific fullfilment of the prophesy for being the King of the Jews.

[Meh Gerbil]

You describe yourself as a "circular balloonist". We now understand why. Your arguments are circular.

I think asking for sources for your ridiculous claims that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah and all the 'treason' nonsense is reasonable.
Got any sources, Gary?

[Meh Gerbil]

The claim of being the Messiah and thus the King of the Jews is treason under Roman law, and punishable by crucifixion.
The claim of being the Messiah is the specific fullfilment of the prophesy for being the King of the Jews.

It's a good thing Jesus didn't claim to be the Messiah.

[Adrift]

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

Why should I do that? As far as I know Evans hasn't said that Jesus wasn't charged for claiming to be King of the Jews. Rather, Evans is claiming that Jesus wasn't charged for high treason. The two are not necessarily synonymous. Jesus' movement was non-violent and non-militaristic. For what reason would Pilate assume that Jesus was committing high treason? If Pilate assumed Jesus was committing high treason then it's suspicious that he would replace him on the cross with Barabbas. If he knew that Jesus' movement was militaristic, he would have rounded up his followers. No, instead, he was executed for being a political nuisance.

Evans protest isn't that Jesus wasn't charged for claiming to be King of the Jews, his protest is that Jesus was not plotting "serious violence against the state", which is the type of charge that, according to the Digesta, Roman law would not allow the release of bodies. Jesus was most certainly not plotting serious violence against the state, which included "plotting the death of the emperor, plotting or attempting to assassinate a Roman official, raising an army, failing to relinquish command of an army, siding with an enemy of the empire, fomenting armed rebellion, turning an ally against Rome, etc." (Digesta chapter 4 of book 48)

Do you drive? If so, I'm terrified to think how many red lights and stop signs you breeze by in day.

[Gary]

including plotting the death of the emperor, plotting or attempting to assassinate a Roman official, raising an army, failing to relinquish command of an army, siding with an enemy of the empire, fomenting armed rebellion, turning an ally against Rome, etc. Jesus did nothing that approximated these kinds of actions."

Gary, put your reading glasses on and read the bolded underlined bit.

fomenting armed rebellion: Guilty!

Jesus entered Jerusalem on "Palm Sunday" to the cheering multitudes as the triumphant King of Israel. The people and even his disciples expected this act to be the beginning of the revolt against Rome.

Just because the people were not carrying swords and spears that day does not mean Rome would not have seen this as a threat.

Your argument fails and goes against the position of the overwhelming majority of scholars. I will continue to quote them individually until you admit the folly of your argument.

[psstein]

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

Whoever this guy is can't read Greek. The Greek in the Synoptic tradition reads "su legeis," meaning "you say." Jesus is not accepting the claim. He is merely stating that Pilate says he is the King of the Jews (ho Basileus ton Joudaion). IF Jesus were accepting the claim, he would say "eimi," meaning "I am."

This is actually the same issue that McGrew ran into during his (second?) debate with Ehrman.

[psstein]

fomenting armed rebellion: Guilty!

Jesus entered Jerusalem on "Palm Sunday" to the cheering multitudes as the triumphant King of Israel. The people and even his disciples expected this act to be the beginning of the revolt against Rome.

Just because the people were not carrying swords and spears that day does not mean Rome would not have seen this as a threat.

Your argument fails and goes against the position of the overwhelming majority of scholars. I will continue to quote them individually until you admit the folly of your argument.

Find critical scholars who think Jesus had that kind of triumphal entrance. I can wait.

[Gary]

Do you drive? If so, I'm terrified to think how many red lights and stop signs you breeze by in day.

You continue to quote ONE scholar's opinion. If he is the only scholar who holds this position then he is a fringe minority, at best. Please quote more than one NT scholar who believes that Jesus was NOT charged with high treason.

[Meh Gerbil]

fomenting armed rebellion: Guilty!
Jesus entered Jerusalem on "Palm Sunday" to the cheering multitudes as the triumphant King of Israel. The people and even his disciples expected this act to be the beginning of the revolt against Rome.
Just because the people were not carrying swords and spears that day does not mean Rome would not have seen this as a threat.

Source for the events of Palm Sunday, please, or simply admit you made it up.
Thanks.