Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

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

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

  • Originally posted by Gary View Post
    The fact that your ONE NT scholar wants to claim that Jesus actions did not meet the criteria for treason is irrelevant.
    That isn't his claim. His claim is that he didn't meet the criteria of high treason as described in the Digesta.

    The overwhelming majority of NT scholars believe that Jesus was executed for the crime of treason, regardless of whether or not Pilate believed him to be truly guilty of that crime.
    Well, first of all, you have no idea what the overwhelming majority of NT scholars think on this issue, because you haven't provided a survey on the subject (how could you? You don't read NT scholars), nor have you produced a survey yourself, but regardless, this is straw man argument. You know what a straw man argument is, right? It's when you attempt to refute an argument that was not advanced by the other side. Evans himself claims that "Jesus had been condemned as one who did not deny that he was King of the Jews and accordingly was guilty of maiestas in Roman eyes." (The Historical Jesus: Jesus' mission, death, and Resurrection, pg. 247)

    Therefore, since Jesus was publically executed for the crime of treason, it would be against Roman protocol to allow his body to be given a proper burial, as stated in the Digesta.
    Nope. The Digesta outlines that only for those who were involved in "serious violence against the state" (The Resurrection of Jesus in the Light of Jewish Burial Practices).

    Probability says that Jesus was not given a proper burial in some rich man's tomb due to the fact that he was executed for the crime of treason against Caesar himself.
    To the contrary, the probability that Jesus was given over to a member of the Sanhedrin is a sure thing.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
      That isn't his claim. His claim is that he didn't meet the criteria of high treason as described in the Digesta.



      Well, first of all, you have no idea what the overwhelming majority of NT scholars think on this issue, because you haven't provided a survey on the subject (how could you? You don't read NT scholars), nor have you produced a survey yourself, but regardless, this is straw man argument. You know what a straw man argument is, right? It's when you attempt to refute an argument that was not advanced by the other side. Evans himself claims that "Jesus had been condemned as one who did not deny that he was King of the Jews and accordingly was guilty of maiestas in Roman eyes." (The Historical Jesus: Jesus' mission, death, and Resurrection, pg. 247)



      Nope. The Digesta outlines that only for those who were involved in "serious violence against the state" (The Resurrection of Jesus in the Light of Jewish Burial Practices).



      To the contrary, the probability that Jesus was given over to a member of the Sanhedrin is a sure thing.
      "His claim is that he didn't meet the criteria of high treason as described in the Digesta."

      It doesn't matter whether or not Evans, you, or Pontius Pilate believe(d) that Jesus was guilty of treason. The overwhelming evidence and the opinion of the overwhelming majority of NT scholars (and Nick Peters) strongly indicates that regardless of his reservations as to Jesus' guilt, Pilate sentenced and condemned him to crucifixion for TREASON.

      Guilty or not, Jesus went to his death publically labeled and sentenced as a traitor to Rome and specifically as a traitor to Caesar. Such a sentence, whether just or unjust, would have precluded the handing over of his body for proper burial, as stated in the Digesta.

      "To the contrary, the probability that Jesus was given over to a member of the Sanhedrin is a sure thing."

      Hillarious fundamentalist silliness.

      If the Gospels are correct, Jesus entered Jerusalem on "Palm Sunday" to the cheers of massive crowds of tens of thousands of frenzied Jews declaring Jesus the "King of the Jews" who had come to Jerusalem to re-establish the kingdom of David. (See passages quoted above). At least one of Jesus' disciples was carrying a sword. To top it off, Jesus refused to deny that he WAS the King of the Jews. In view of these facts, any occupying military force would see him as an insurrectionist and leader of an ARMED rebellion.

      Jesus therefore met the Digesta criteria for "fomenting an armed rebellion".

      The Romans did not need to wait until Jesus and his armed forces attacked Pilate's residence prior to deeming him guilty of this crime. His triumphal entry to cries of "Hail the King of the Jews"; his disciples carrying weapons; and his refusal to deny his Kingship were more than sufficient evidence.

      Your argument fails.
      Last edited by Gary; 05-15-2016, 01:35 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Gary View Post
        Nick Peters, of Mike Licona Ministries, believes that Jesus was crucified for treason:

        "No King of the world would be crucified. That’s ridiculous. Also, someone crucified under Rome was seen as a traitor to Rome. To be a Christian was to identify with Jesus which meant you were marking yourself out as a traitor to Rome."

        Source: http://www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com...apologist.html
        If Nick Peters believes that based upon the testimony of the Gospels then he believes it based on sources that you've claimed are unreliable.
        Per your standard Nick Peter's source is unreliable; hence, his views must be discarded.
        Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Gary View Post
          The Romans did not need to wait until Jesus and his armed forces attacked Pilate's residence prior to deeming him guilty of this crime. His triumphal entry to cries of "Hail the King of the Jews"; his disciples carrying weapons; and his refusal to deny his Kingship were more than sufficient evidence.
          What is your source for the Triumphal Entry?
          If it is the Gospels you've already declared that source to be unreliable.

          If your source is unreliable then so is your argument and it must be disregarded.
          I reject this argument based on your assessment of the source documents.
          Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
            That isn't his claim. His claim is that he didn't meet the criteria of high treason as described in the Digesta.



            Well, first of all, you have no idea what the overwhelming majority of NT scholars think on this issue, because you haven't provided a survey on the subject (how could you? You don't read NT scholars), nor have you produced a survey yourself, but regardless, this is straw man argument. You know what a straw man argument is, right? It's when you attempt to refute an argument that was not advanced by the other side. Evans himself claims that "Jesus had been condemned as one who did not deny that he was King of the Jews and accordingly was guilty of maiestas in Roman eyes." (The Historical Jesus: Jesus' mission, death, and Resurrection, pg. 247)



            Nope. The Digesta outlines that only for those who were involved in "serious violence against the state" (The Resurrection of Jesus in the Light of Jewish Burial Practices).



            To the contrary, the probability that Jesus was given over to a member of the Sanhedrin is a sure thing.
            Your argument is no different than someone today making the following claim:

            If a man is convicted of first degree murder, but the judge doubts his guilt, the judge can sentence the man to community service! That isn't how the legal system works today or in the Roman Empire. If you are convicted of a crime you must pay the penalty for that crime, whether you committed that crime or not.

            Jesus was convicted for claiming to be the King of the Jews, which is treason. Therefore, as a person convicted of treason, Pilate was obligated to treat him...and his body...as a traitor to Caesar. It would be highly implausible that Pilate would allow a man executed for treason against Caesar to have a proper burial, as stated in the Digesta.

            You are grasping at straws.

            Jesus was executed for high treason.
            The Digesta and Philo's writings indicate that persons executed for high treason were not given a proper burial.
            Therefore, it is highly implausible that Jesus body was given a proper burial in a rich man's tomb.
            Last edited by Gary; 05-15-2016, 02:32 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Gary View Post
              It doesn't matter whether or not Evans, you, or Pontius Pilate believe(d) that Jesus was guilty of treason. The overwhelming evidence and the opinion of the overwhelming majority of NT scholars (and Nick Peters) strongly indicates that regardless of his reservations as to Jesus' guilt, Pilate sentenced and condemned him to crucifixion for TREASON.
              Source: The Historical Jesus: Jesus' mission, death, and Resurrection by Craig A. Evans, pg. 229

              In Luke the whole business is worked out systematically. There is a plot to trick Christ into treasonable utterances, so as to hand him over to the 'government and the power of the governor'. After the arrest there is a somewhat incoherent and allusive account of the session of the Sanhedrin, without a clear statement about a condemnation: merely 'What need have we of further witness? We have heard it from his own mouth'. Then comes the transfer to the tribunal of Pilate on explicit charges of treason. Later, in the epilogue to Luke's Gospel, Cleophas says to the risen Christ, before the recognition: 'Our priests and rulers handed him over to judgement of death and crucified him.'

              © Copyright Original Source



              Originally posted by Gary View Post
              Guilty or not, Jesus went to his death publically labeled and sentenced as a traitor to Rome and specifically as a traitor to Caesar. Such a sentence, whether just or unjust, would have precluded the handing over of his body for proper burial, as stated in the Digesta.
              Source: The Resurrection of Jesus in the Light of Jewish Burial Practices by Craig Evans

              But what about Ulpian’s comment, “sometimes it [burial] is not permitted, especially where persons have been convicted of high treason?” Was Jesus “convicted of high treason” (maxime maiestatis causa damnatorum) and therefore permission might not have been granted for the burial of his corpse? It seems most unlikely that Jesus was condemned for “high treason,” given the discussion of treason (maiestas) in Digesta 48.4.1–11.

              © Copyright Original Source



              Originally posted by Gary View Post
              If the Gospels are correct, Jesus entered Jerusalem on "Palm Sunday" to the cheers of massive crowds of tens of thousands of frenzied Jews declaring Jesus the "King of the Jews" who had come to Jerusalem to re-establish the kingdom of David. (See passages quoted above). At least one of Jesus' disciples was carrying a sword. To top it off, Jesus refused to deny that he WAS the King of the Jews. In view of these facts, any occupying military force would see him as an insurrectionist and leader of an ARMED rebellion.

              Jesus therefore met the Digesta criteria for "fomenting an armed rebellion".

              The Romans did not need to wait until Jesus and his armed forces attacked Pilate's residence prior to deeming him guilty of this crime. His triumphal entry to cries of "Hail the King of the Jews"; his disciples carrying weapons; and his refusal to deny his Kingship were more than sufficient evidence.
              Source: The Resurrection of Jesus in the Light of Jewish Burial Practices by Craig Evans

              Some have contended that Jesus’s demonstration in the temple precincts (Mark 11:15–18 parr.) may well have been viewed as an attempt to overthrow Jewish authority and Roman government. For several reasons this argument has persuaded few. For one, Jesus had no armed following. Had he and his following attempted a violent takeover, many would have been killed and injured, which would have been mentioned by Josephus and other writers. But all we have is the crucifixion of Jesus, not the rounding up and execution of dozens, if not hundreds of followers. Josephus describes Jesus as a teacher and wonder-worker (Ant. 18.63–64). There is no hint that Jesus had engaged in violence. Had Jesus been involved in some treasonable action, especially one involving arms, one would have expected Josephus to tell a very different story. It is likely too that the Roman writers who mention Jesus and the rise of Christianity (e.g., Suetonius and Tacitus) would have mentioned a violent takeover attempt had there been one.

              © Copyright Original Source



              Source: The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth by Ben Witherington

              Jesus was not seen by the Romans, or for that matter by the priestly authorities, as a revolutionary or military leader, for had that been the case his followers would very likely have been sought out and killed. He was rather seen as a present nuisance and a potentially dangerous threat, particularly if he was allowed to continue to act or teach in the temple precincts during a festival, remembering how volatile, vibrant and massive the crowd could be in Jerusalem during festival time. This makes it doubtful that Jesus had undertaken anything so drastic in Galilee as the reordering of society, and in particular of village life, along egalitarian lines. However, within his circle of followers he may well have reordered things to comport with his vision of the in breaking kingdom.

              © Copyright Original Source



              Source: Jesus and Judaism by E. P. Sanders

              It is crucial to remember that the disciples formed a messianic group, one which claimed Jesus as Messiah and expected his return, and one which was steadfastly apolitical. Thus not only was Jesus executed as would-be king even though he had no secular ambitions, his disciples also combined the same two points: Jesus was Messiah, but his kingdom was 'not of this world'.

              ...

              Jesus' execution as 'king' does not show that he had an army, nor that the Romans thought he had. We can understand it simply by knowing that he spoke of a kingdom and stirred the hopes of the people. His miracles also produced excitement, and excitement carries its own dangers. The explanation of Jesus' death must follow what at first appears to be a very narrow path between the fact that he was executed as 'king' and the fact that neither he nor his disciples were perceived to constitute any real threat to Rome: they were not rounded up and executed. I think in fact that the path is not all that narrow. A man who spoke of a kingdom, spoke against the temple, and had a following was one marked for execution; but no one need have regarded him as a military leader.

              ...

              Jesus and his followers thought of there being a kingdom in which Jesus was the leader, and he was executed as 'king of the Jews', while his disciples went free. This shows that the Romans regarded him as dangerous at one level but not at another: dangerous as one who excited the hopes and dreams of the Jews, but not as an actual leader of an insurgent group.

              © Copyright Original Source



              Source: Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium by Bart D. Ehrman

              In that apocalyptic sense (and I would say, only in that sense) did Jesus think of himself as the Messiah. He wasn't a cosmic judge, an authoritative priest, or a military leader. He was the one sent from God to proclaim the good news of the coming Kingdom, who would be the ultimate ruler when the end arrived.

              © Copyright Original Source

              Last edited by Adrift; 05-15-2016, 02:47 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                Your argument is no different than someone today making the following claim:

                If a man is convicted of first degree murder, but the judge doubts his guilt, the judge can sentence the man to community service! That isn't how the legal system works today or in the Roman Empire. If you are convicted of a crime you must pay the penalty for that crime, whether you committed that crime or not.

                Jesus was convicted for claiming to be the King of the Jews, which is treason. Therefore, as a person convicted of treason, Pilate was obligated to treat him...and his body...as a traitor to Caesar. It would be highly implausible that Pilate would allow a man executed for treason against Caesar to have a proper burial, as stated in the Digesta.

                You are grasping at straws.

                Jesus was executed for high treason.
                The Digesta and Philo's writings indicate that persons executed for high treason were not given a proper burial.
                Therefore, it is highly implausible that Jesus body was given a proper burial in a rich man's tomb.
                Source: The Historical Jesus: Jesus' mission, death, and Resurrection by Craig Evans

                Jesus had been condemned as one who did not deny that he was King of the Jews and accordingly was guilty of maiestas in Roman eyes.

                © Copyright Original Source



                Source: The Resurrection of Jesus in the Light of Jewish Burial Practices by Craig Evans

                Was Jesus “convicted of high treason” (maxime maiestatis causa damnatorum)?...It seems most unlikely that Jesus was condemned for “high treason,” given the discussion of treason (maiestas) in Digesta 48.4.1–11.

                © Copyright Original Source

                Comment


                • Originally posted by psstein View Post
                  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."
                  I'm not sure what you're disputing here, as the text you're quoting is "Thou sayest." Jesus was certainly not denying the charge; it is usually translated "It is as you say." A look at the same reply before Caiaphas is instructive. Jesus continues in the same oblique vein to talk of the "Son of Man" - which the Jewish leaders clearly see as Jesus refering to himself. The only unambiguous response is in John, where Jesus tells Pilate that his kingdom is not of this world - which clearly implies that Jesus accepts the title.
                  Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                  Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                  sigpic
                  I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                    Source: The Historical Jesus: Jesus' mission, death, and Resurrection by Craig A. Evans, pg. 229

                    In Luke the whole business is worked out systematically. There is a plot to trick Christ into treasonable utterances, so as to hand him over to the 'government and the power of the governor'. After the arrest there is a somewhat incoherent and allusive account of the session of the Sanhedrin, without a clear statement about a condemnation: merely 'What need have we of further witness? We have heard it from his own mouth'. Then comes the transfer to the tribunal of Pilate on explicit charges of treason. Later, in the epilogue to Luke's Gospel, Cleophas says to the risen Christ, before the recognition: 'Our priests and rulers handed him over to judgement of death and crucified him.'

                    © Copyright Original Source





                    Source: The Resurrection of Jesus in the Light of Jewish Burial Practices by Craig Evans

                    But what about Ulpian’s comment, “sometimes it [burial] is not permitted, especially where persons have been convicted of high treason?” Was Jesus “convicted of high treason” (maxime maiestatis causa damnatorum) and therefore permission might not have been granted for the burial of his corpse? It seems most unlikely that Jesus was condemned for “high treason,” given the discussion of treason (maiestas) in Digesta 48.4.1–11.

                    © Copyright Original Source





                    Source: The Resurrection of Jesus in the Light of Jewish Burial Practices by Craig Evans

                    Some have contended that Jesus’s demonstration in the temple precincts (Mark 11:15–18 parr.) may well have been viewed as an attempt to overthrow Jewish authority and Roman government. For several reasons this argument has persuaded few. For one, Jesus had no armed following. Had he and his following attempted a violent takeover, many would have been killed and injured, which would have been mentioned by Josephus and other writers. But all we have is the crucifixion of Jesus, not the rounding up and execution of dozens, if not hundreds of followers. Josephus describes Jesus as a teacher and wonder-worker (Ant. 18.63–64). There is no hint that Jesus had engaged in violence. Had Jesus been involved in some treasonable action, especially one involving arms, one would have expected Josephus to tell a very different story. It is likely too that the Roman writers who mention Jesus and the rise of Christianity (e.g., Suetonius and Tacitus) would have mentioned a violent takeover attempt had there been one.

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    Source: The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth by Ben Witherington

                    Jesus was not seen by the Romans, or for that matter by the priestly authorities, as a revolutionary or military leader, for had that been the case his followers would very likely have been sought out and killed. He was rather seen as a present nuisance and a potentially dangerous threat, particularly if he was allowed to continue to act or teach in the temple precincts during a festival, remembering how volatile, vibrant and massive the crowd could be in Jerusalem during festival time. This makes it doubtful that Jesus had undertaken anything so drastic in Galilee as the reordering of society, and in particular of village life, along egalitarian lines. However, within his circle of followers he may well have reordered things to comport with his vision of the in breaking kingdom.

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    Source: Jesus and Judaism by E. P. Sanders

                    It is crucial to remember that the disciples formed a messianic group, one which claimed Jesus as Messiah and expected his return, and one which was steadfastly apolitical. Thus not only was Jesus executed as would-be king even though he had no secular ambitions, his disciples also combined the same two points: Jesus was Messiah, but his kingdom was 'not of this world'.

                    ...

                    Jesus' execution as 'king' does not show that he had an army, nor that the Romans thought he had. We can understand it simply by knowing that he spoke of a kingdom and stirred the hopes of the people. His miracles also produced excitement, and excitement carries its own dangers. The explanation of Jesus' death must follow what at first appears to be a very narrow path between the fact that he was executed as 'king' and the fact that neither he nor his disciples were perceived to constitute any real threat to Rome: they were not rounded up and executed. I think in fact that the path is not all that narrow. A man who spoke of a kingdom, spoke against the temple, and had a following was one marked for execution; but no one need have regarded him as a military leader.

                    ...

                    Jesus and his followers thought of there being a kingdom in which Jesus was the leader, and he was executed as 'king of the Jews', while his disciples went free. This shows that the Romans regarded him as dangerous at one level but not at another: dangerous as one who excited the hopes and dreams of the Jews, but not as an actual leader of an insurgent group.

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    Source: Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium by Bart D. Ehrman

                    In that apocalyptic sense (and I would say, only in that sense) did Jesus think of himself as the Messiah. He wasn't a cosmic judge, an authoritative priest, or a military leader. He was the one sent from God to proclaim the good news of the coming Kingdom, who would be the ultimate ruler when the end arrived.

                    © Copyright Original Source

                    "It seems most unlikely that Jesus was condemned for “high treason,” given the discussion of treason (maiestas) in Digesta 48.4.1–11."

                    I have asked you to provide more than just this ONE scholar who believes that Jesus was not condemned for high treason. You have not.

                    " Jesus had no armed following."

                    False. If the gospels are correct, Peter was carrying a sword. Pacifists do not carry swords. Not only did Peter carry a sword he assaulted and injured a subject of Caesar with his sword, a violation of Roman law. Your argument that Jesus and his followers did nothing to be viewed by the Romans as potential armed insurrectionists is proven false.

                    "It is crucial to remember that the disciples formed a messianic group, one which claimed Jesus as Messiah and expected his return, and one which was steadfastly apolitical. Thus not only was Jesus executed as would-be king even though he had no secular ambitions, his disciples also combined the same two points: Jesus was Messiah, but his kingdom was 'not of this world'."

                    False. The disciples did not view "the kingdom" as strictly spiritual until Pentecost...if the Bible is correct. Even in the account of the Ascension, the disciples were still asking about the coming political kingdom. The disciples deserted Jesus because their expected political coup failed. They did not expect Jesus to be taken prisoner. They expected God to give Jesus the power to destroy and overthrow the Romans. Everyone but Jesus viewed Jesus as the soon-to-be liberator of Israel, in political and military terms, as well as, a spiritual sense. To say that all of Palestine in 30 AD viewed the Jesus movement as a solely pacifist, spiritual renewal movement flies in the face of the stories in the four gospels. Also, pacifists do not destroy the center of commerce and trade in the city---the Temple---with violence using a whip and possibly other weapons.

                    For your position to be true, we need to rip multiple passages from the Gospels out of our Bibles.

                    "Jesus' execution as 'king' does not show that he had an army, nor that the Romans thought he had."

                    Preposterous. If some loon is claiming to be the King of the country and tens of thousands of Rome's embittered, subjugated people are cheering him on, the Romans aren't going to wait until he has fully equipped an army to snuff him out.

                    "Jesus and his followers thought of there being a kingdom in which Jesus was the leader, and he was executed as 'king of the Jews', while his disciples went free. This shows that the Romans regarded him as dangerous at one level but not at another: dangerous as one who excited the hopes and dreams of the Jews, but not as an actual leader of an insurgent group."

                    The Bible says that the disciples went into hiding. Why would they do that if their lives and liberty were not in danger? The idea that the Jesus movement was not seen as a threat completely contradicts the stories in the Gospels. The idea that the Romans "let the disciples go free" has no evidence to support it. The disciples were in hiding. For all we know, the Romans were searching for them to crucify them too.
                    Last edited by Gary; 05-15-2016, 04:29 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                      Source: The Historical Jesus: Jesus' mission, death, and Resurrection by Craig Evans

                      Jesus had been condemned as one who did not deny that he was King of the Jews and accordingly was guilty of maiestas in Roman eyes.

                      © Copyright Original Source



                      Source: The Resurrection of Jesus in the Light of Jewish Burial Practices by Craig Evans

                      Was Jesus “convicted of high treason” (maxime maiestatis causa damnatorum)?...It seems most unlikely that Jesus was condemned for “high treason,” given the discussion of treason (maiestas) in Digesta 48.4.1–11.

                      © Copyright Original Source

                      Craig Evans. Craig Evans. Craig Evans.

                      You would be howling if the only scholar I quoted to support my position was Ehrman, over and over and over again.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                        I have asked you to provide more than just this ONE scholar who believes that Jesus was not condemned for high treason. You have not.
                        Better than that, I've provided three other scholars who agree that Jesus was not a military leader. Jesus does not fit the bill of someone who has committed maxime maiestatis causa damnatorum as outlined in the Digesta. Here's another one for ya.

                        Source: Pondering the Passion by Philip A. Cunningham

                        Crucifixion was public terror used by the Romans to maintain control of subject populations...They reserved this barbaric treatment for "deserters, rebels, and those guilty of high treason." The fact that Jesus was sent by the Romans to such a death, along with two other violent men, with a charge of kingship attached to his cross, all suggest that, to the Romans, the three men crucified were in the same category...The Romans were concerned with public order. To them, Jesus and the rebels had disturbed it. We have no way of knowing whether Pilate made much of a distinction between Jesus and the other two. We have no report from him. We have only the memory of the three men killed by a means reserved for "deserters, rebels, and those guilty of high treason." Neither Jesus nor the others were soldiers or high-ranking officials, so to the Romans they were some kind of rebels.

                        © Copyright Original Source




                        " Jesus had no armed following."

                        False. If the gospels are correct, Peter was carrying a sword. Pacifists do not carry swords. Not only did Peter carry a sword he assaulted and injured a subject of Caesar with his sword, a violation of Roman law. Your argument that Jesus and his followers did nothing to be viewed by the Romans as potential armed insurrectionists is proven false.

                        "It is crucial to remember that the disciples formed a messianic group, one which claimed Jesus as Messiah and expected his return, and one which was steadfastly apolitical. Thus not only was Jesus executed as would-be king even though he had no secular ambitions, his disciples also combined the same two points: Jesus was Messiah, but his kingdom was 'not of this world'."

                        False. The disciples did not view "the kingdom" as strictly spiritual until Pentecost...if the Bible is correct. Even in the account of the Ascension, the disciples were still asking about the coming political kingdom. The disciples deserted Jesus because their expected political coup failed. They did not expect Jesus to be taken prisoner. They expected God to give Jesus the power to destroy and overthrow the Romans. Everyone but Jesus viewed Jesus as the soon-to-be liberator of Israel, in political and military terms, as well as, a spiritual sense. To say that all of Palestine in 30 AD viewed the Jesus movement as a solely pacifist, spiritual renewal movement flies in the face of the stories in the four gospels. Also, pacifists do not destroy the center of commerce and trade in the city---the Temple---with violence using a whip and possibly other weapons.

                        For your position to be true, we need to rip multiple passages from the Gospels out of our Bibles.

                        "Jesus' execution as 'king' does not show that he had an army, nor that the Romans thought he had."

                        Preposterous. If some loon is claiming to be the King of the country and tens of thousands of Rome's embittered, subjugated people are cheering him on, the Romans aren't going to wait until he has fully equipped an army to snuff him out.

                        "Jesus and his followers thought of there being a kingdom in which Jesus was the leader, and he was executed as 'king of the Jews', while his disciples went free. This shows that the Romans regarded him as dangerous at one level but not at another: dangerous as one who excited the hopes and dreams of the Jews, but not as an actual leader of an insurgent group."

                        The Bible says that the disciples went into hiding. Why would they do that if their lives and liberty were not in danger? The idea that the Jesus movement was not seen as a threat completely contradicts the stories in the Gospels. The idea that the Romans "let the disciples go free" has no evidence to support it. The disciples were in hiding. For all we know, the Romans were searching for them to crucify them too.
                        Be sure to let us know when your peer-reviewed work contra Evans, Witherington, and Sanders is published. Looking forward to it.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                          Craig Evans. Craig Evans. Craig Evans.

                          You would be howling if the only scholar I quoted to support my position was Ehrman, over and over and over again.
                          Wipe the grime from your glasses, I just cited Witherington, Sanders, and Ehrman in the post directly preceding the one that this was a reply to.

                          I cite Evans in the post that this one was a reply to to show that Evans both acknowledges the charge of some sort of treason, and that he believes it is unlikely that he was charged with the sort of treason that would prevent permission to bury the corpse.

                          Gary, your arguments (actually, Ehrman's arguments) have been dealt with. Deal with it.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                            Wipe the grime from your glasses, I just cited Witherington, Sanders, and Ehrman in the post directly preceding the one that this was a reply to.

                            I cite Evans in the post that this one was a reply to to show that Evans both acknowledges the charge of some sort of treason, and that he believes it is unlikely that he was charged with the sort of treason that would prevent permission to bury the corpse.

                            Gary, your arguments (actually, Ehrman's arguments) have been dealt with. Deal with it.
                            Yeah, I think your response was frankly rather devastating. This is a textbook example of Ehrman talking out of his field of expertise.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                              Wipe the grime from your glasses, I just cited Witherington, Sanders, and Ehrman in the post directly preceding the one that this was a reply to.

                              I cite Evans in the post that this one was a reply to to show that Evans both acknowledges the charge of some sort of treason, and that he believes it is unlikely that he was charged with the sort of treason that would prevent permission to bury the corpse.

                              Gary, your arguments (actually, Ehrman's arguments) have been dealt with. Deal with it.
                              Treason is treason, and punishable by crucifixion. In the time of Pilate and Roman Law would not technically deal with details and nuances you appeal to.

                              Jesus committed treason by claiming to be the Messiah and the King of the Jews. He would be convicted and crucified with a wave of the hand by Pilate, along with anyone else who made the claim.
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by psstein View Post
                                Yeah, I think your response was frankly rather devastating. This is a textbook example of Ehrman talking out of his field of expertise.
                                Ridiculous. You and Drifty are grasping at straws. Neither Witherington nor Sanders deny that Jesus was executed for treason, punishable by crucifixion. They simply assert that the Romans did not view Jesus as a serious threat. That does not change the fact that he was convicted of high treason and therefore his body would most probably NOT be given over to family or friends for a proper burial.

                                Erhman' statement is a statement of how JESUS saw himself, not how the Romans saw him.

                                Keep grasping for those straws, guys. The overwhelming majority of scholars believe that Jesus was charged with the crime of treason and was crucified for that charge. You are only trying to squirm out of the charge of treason to avoid having to admit that the bodies of most persons executed for treason were not given to family or friends for proper burial.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                155 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                426 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X