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

Paul’s basket escape from Damascus (Robert Eisenman)

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

  • Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
    Not just Josephus. No other contemporary writer mentions such a custom, either.
    The reason Lane highlighted Josephus is because he's the only historian we'd expect to cover the subject of Paschal amnesty in the 1st century. I don't imagine that its a topic Philo would cover, and it seems unlikely that a non-Jewish historian would discuss an obscure provincial custom.

    No one is disputing that pardons and acquittals could occur, or that it could happen in response to popular demand.
    Good.

    Then we don't have corroboration of Mark's statement.
    Not specifically, no.

    But not because it was his custom to do so during a certain religious holiday.
    Probably not. According to Philo it wasn't completely out of the ordinary for the Romans to observe customs during certain religious holidays, but I'm not aware of a specific custom for the release of criminals during a religious holiday.

    Does the Mishnah offer any suggestion that the custom was followed by the Roman governor?
    Not that I'm aware of.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by NormATive View Post
      I'm not worshipping a book that makes up these stories. The burden is on the fantastic, not the usual. There is nowhere in either Jewish or Roman law that says you can trade one murderer for one blasphemer. I mean: just look at that sentence! It's ridiculous to even imagine such a thing. Unless, you are trumping up some sort of conspiracy story against the Jews.

      You should get your facts straight. It wasn't a "trade", nor was the charge before Pilate against Jesus of blasphemy.

      Comment


      • Doug: do you see any reason to doubt that Pilate had a custom of releasing a prisoner at Passover? If so, what is it?

        Comment


        • This clemency seems odd to me. Jesus never was the type to incite a riot, so why does Rome or Pilate fear huge violence will break out? Besides Peter's proclivity to violence, were any of Jesus' other disciples violent to such a degree?

          Barabbas seems manifestly more dangerous than Jesus or a murderer, since anyone who incites a riot has created a situation in which dozens could be murdered. If the crowd was so eager to get Barabbas out, that would imply their support for a riotous revolutionary--amplifying the danger of the act. Who knows what new plans and collisions might result from Barabbas being let loose?

          I agree with Doug, there are many doubtful elements of this story.

          If this has already been answered, my apologies. Some if the posts aren't rendering on my device.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by whag View Post
            This clemency seems odd to me. Jesus never was the type to incite a riot, so why does Rome or Pilate fear huge violence will break out?
            Where do the texts say that Pilate feared violence from Jesus?
            Besides Peter's proclivity to violence, were any of Jesus' other disciples violent to such a degree?
            Simon the Zealot, probably.

            Barabbas seems manifestly more dangerous than Jesus or a murderer, since anyone who incites a riot has created a situation in which dozens could be murdered. If the crowd was so eager to get Barabbas out, that would imply their support for a riotous revolutionary--amplifying the danger of the act. Who knows what new plans and collisions might result from Barabbas being let loose?
            Matthew has
            And they had then a notorious prisoner called Barabbas.
            Mark has
            A man called Barabbas was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the uprising.
            Luke has
            Barabbas - a man who had been thrown into prison for an insurrection started in the city and for murder.
            John has
            Now Barabbas was a lestai.
            Yes, Barabbas was as you say, more dangerous to Pilate - insurrection doesn't mean any plain riot but a revolt against Roman rule. I reconstruct Pilate's thoughts as follows: he didn't want to execute Jesus. Thus, he offered the priests and the Sanhedrin (what seemed to Pilate an obvious a choice) between a harmless Jesus accused of sedition and a convicted revolutionary who was actually guilty of it, thinking that because Barabbas was a greater political threat to the priests and Sanhedrin, they would naturally choose the release of Jesus (remember, Barabbas sought to upset the status quo of political rule which would have dire implications for the priests who cooperate with the Romans). However, having made that offer of a choice between the release of Jesus or Barabbas in public, he cannot retract it without great loss of honour, which is likely one major reason why Pilate kept his word.
            Last edited by Paprika; 04-29-2014, 11:04 AM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
              Yes, Barabbas was as you say, more dangerous to Pilate - insurrection doesn't mean any plain riot but a revolt against Roman rule. I reconstruct Pilate's thoughts as follows: he didn't want to execute Jesus. Thus, he offered the priests and the Sanhedrin (what seemed to Pilate an obvious a choice) between a harmless Jesus accused of sedition and a convicted revolutionary who was actually guilty of it, thinking that because Barabbas was a greater political threat to the priests and Sanhedrin, they would naturally choose the release of Jesus (remember, Barabbas sought to upset the status quo of political rule which would have dire implications for the priests who cooperate with the Romans). However, having made that offer of a choice between the release of Jesus or Barabbas in public, he cannot retract it without great loss of honour, which is likely one major reason why Pilate kept his word.
              Raymond Brown suggested in The Death of the Messiah that because Mark never actually states directly that Barabbas did the killing and rioting he was imprisoned for (Mark 15:7 The man named Barabbas had been imprisoned with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the insurrection. -NASB), that his guilt might not have been established in the original/historical pre-Markan version of events.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Paprika View Post

                You should get your facts straight. It wasn't a "trade", nor was the charge before Pilate against Jesus of blasphemy.
                Facts? There are zero facts anywhere in this whole story. Not one source other than the Bible can corroborate this whole sham from the alleged "trial" before the Sanhedrin over Jesus' blasphemy, and the releasing of Barrabas "as is customary" as a substitute for Jesus.

                Applying Occam's Razor would lead one to the logical explanation: Jesus was executed by Roman authorities for sedition.

                Period.

                Christians who wanted to put distance between their new Roman buddies and the old-timey Jews with all of their weird Laws (what; I have to LOVE my neighbor???) created these stories to "prove" just how wicked the Jews really were: they "murdered our God!"

                NORM
                When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land. - Bishop Desmond Tutu

                Comment


                • Originally posted by NormATive View Post
                  Facts? There are zero facts anywhere in this whole story. Not one source other than the Bible can corroborate this whole sham from the alleged "trial" before the Sanhedrin over Jesus' blasphemy, and the releasing of Barrabas "as is customary" as a substitute for Jesus.

                  Applying Occam's Razor would lead one to the logical explanation: Jesus was executed by Roman authorities for sedition.

                  Period.

                  Christians who wanted to put distance between their new Roman buddies and the old-timey Jews with all of their weird Laws (what; I have to LOVE my neighbor???) created these stories to "prove" just how wicked the Jews really were: they "murdered our God!"

                  NORM
                  I can understand your passion, norm. Anti-semitism boggles my mind, too. But let's be reasonable. You don't need to exaggerate by saying it was consciously inserted. Yes, it probably existed early on, or a prototype version of it, but we should steer clear of saying the intent was to call Jews evil.

                  You know whose anti semitism really gets my goat? Martin Luther's. For some reason, his vexes me especially.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by NormATive View Post
                    Facts? There are zero facts anywhere in this whole story. Not one source other than the Bible can corroborate this whole sham from the alleged "trial" before the Sanhedrin over Jesus' blasphemy, and the releasing of Barrabas "as is customary" as a substitute for Jesus.
                    Not that I actually take you seriously on the subject, but if you can't even represent what the gospels say in your critique, it's hard for anyone to do so.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by whag View Post
                      You know whose anti semitism really gets my goat? Martin Luther's. For some reason, his vexes me especially.
                      I know what you're talking about. Given his reputation for such, I was surprised reading something of his yesterday which complained that too many people think of Jesus' sacrifice in terms of a reason to dislike Jews. If I recall correctly, early in his reforming work he saw Jews as natural allies against the Roman hierarchy but became miffed when they saw things differently.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                        Doug: do you see any reason to doubt that Pilate had a custom of releasing a prisoner at Passover? If so, what is it?
                        It would have been inconsistent with what we hear about him from Philo and Josephus.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by RBerman View Post
                          I know what you're talking about. Given his reputation for such, I was surprised reading something of his yesterday which complained that too many people think of Jesus' sacrifice in terms of a reason to dislike Jews.
                          One is too many!

                          Originally posted by RBerman View Post
                          If I recall correctly, early in his reforming work he saw Jews as natural allies against the Roman hierarchy but became miffed when they saw things differently.
                          Maybe it was a mechanical failure of the brain. Turning from friendly to enraged so quickly would be evidence of that. Either that or God allows elect people to wallow in Satan's feces.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                            The question remains as to whether and how the events make sense, and I hope I have managed to sketch such a possible set of circumstances that it would make some sense.
                            Yes, it could have happened that way, if we assume a few specific details that the extant accounts don't mention. But we must assume those details only if we must assume in the first place that the trial (or interrogation) actually occurred. I don't think that last assumption is well founded.

                            Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                            by the time of the second-Temple period many Jews (though not all) anticipated a messiah who would defeat the pagans etc and thus the usage of the word 'messiah' seems to have focused onto this expectation.
                            That's the warrior messiah. Yes, I know it was a prevalent meme in early-first-century Judea. The issue is whether it was so prevalent as to have become a kind of default meaning of the word "messiah." I don't think that has been demonstrated.

                            If the priests wanted to frame Jesus as a seditionist, they needed credible evidence that he was saying or doing things constituting a credible threat to the Roman empire. The mere assertion "I am God's anointed one," elicited during a third-degree interrogation, was no such threat. Pilate was not going to take that seriously, and the priests would have known he was not.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by whag View Post
                              One is too many!
                              Hey, no argument here. My grandfather was a Ukranian Jew. The KKK burned crosses on his lawn in Alabama.

                              Maybe it was a mechanical failure of the brain. Turning from friendly to enraged so quickly would be evidence of that. Either that or God allows elect people to wallow in Satan's feces.
                              I wish "elect" mean "always right." The Bible shows God's people doing some pretty terrible things.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                                It would have been inconsistent with what we hear about him from Philo and Josephus.
                                That is for you to demonstrate.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                185 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                428 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                305 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,517 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X