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
    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.
    As you will.
    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.
    The converse has not been demonstrated either.
    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.
    If all convictions were secured solely on the basis of evidence and law, this objection might have force.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by whag View Post
      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.
      I don't think it an exaggeration. Even the Christian Testament alludes to friction between the followers of Paul and the followers of James.

      Think about it. After Constantine institutionalized Christianity, they had half a century to monkey with the documents they confiscated. The laity couldn't read, and even if they could, The Church hierarchy kept the Holy Writ to themselves. All the original documents are long gone. Who would know the difference?

      The only thing they couldn't purge from the Gospels were the sayings of Jesus that were common knowledge even among the mostly illiterate followers. I think that explains much of the disconnect between what Jesus says and what the official Christian Church teaches.

      That story of the so-called trial of Jesus serves no other purpose than to blame the death of Jesus on the Jewish leadership. I think it's bogus.

      Martin Luther turned on the Jews because they had the gaul to reject his new and improved version of Christianity.

      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 Paprika View Post
        That is for you to demonstrate.
        You asked a question. I answered it.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Doug Shaver
          I don't think that has been demonstrated.
          Originally posted by Paprika View Post
          The converse has not been demonstrated either.
          In that case, either you and I are both justified in our belief, or neither of us is.

          Originally posted by Paprika View Post
          If all convictions were secured solely on the basis of evidence and law, this objection might have force.
          The appearance of a legal execution needs the appearance of evidence and law. So far, you not have shown me how the priests had any evidence that even apparently warranted his execution. Even a kangaroo court needs evidence, even if it's phony evidence.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
            You asked a question. I answered it.
            You claimed that it would be inconsistent, but have not shown otherwise.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
              In that case, either you and I are both justified in our belief, or neither of us is.
              I don't see how that quite follows. Your stance is that the gospel stories of the trials are improbable given (I assume) all the available evidence. As I see it, you would have to rule out that existence of any explanations that render it probable. My stance that the event likely happened, needs only that there be at least one probable explanation, that is, one that is plausible given the historical context and with few or no possible evidence that counts against the explanation.

              As you say, the warrior Messiah "meme" was prevalent during that time. It suffices for my explanation that thus the priests could likely thus have expected Jesus to follow the same route.
              The appearance of a legal execution needs the appearance of evidence and law. So far, you not have shown me how the priests had any evidence that even apparently warranted his execution. Even a kangaroo court needs evidence, even if it's phony evidence.
              According to the story, they accused him of claiming to be king, which Jesus confirmed to Pilate.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by NormATive View Post
                Think about it. After Constantine institutionalized Christianity,
                Constantine didn't institutionalize Christianity, that was Theodosius I.

                they had half a century to monkey with the documents they confiscated. The laity couldn't read, and even if they could, The Church hierarchy kept the Holy Writ to themselves. All the original documents are long gone. Who would know the difference? The only thing they couldn't purge from the Gospels were the sayings of Jesus that were common knowledge even among the mostly illiterate followers. I think that explains much of the disconnect between what Jesus says and what the official Christian Church teaches.
                Do you have evidence for any of this? Earlier when I asked you for major redactions and interpolations that you felt substantially altered Church doctrine, you really couldn't name any. You mentioned the Johannine Comma, which we don't find until the late medieval period (its not commonly found in manuscripts till the 16th century), and it doesn't appear to substantially alter earlier views on the trinity (we see trinitarian attestation in church writings as early as the 2nd century). You also mentioned the Pericope Adulterae, but that doesn't really effect any doctrine, and church writers were familiar with a similar story by the early 2nd century (some scholars even argue that it may have originated with the author of Luke). There's longer Mark, but there's not much there that we don't have in other gospels in one form or another.
                Last edited by OingoBoingo; 04-30-2014, 09:40 AM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                  where do the texts say that pilate feared violence from jesus?
                  we can't infer that rome ultimately worried about revolt?

                  Originally posted by Paprika
                  simon the zealot, probably.
                  i don't think so, unless zeal is violence. none of the disciples is described as the sort who'd incite insurrection.

                  Originally posted by Paprika
                  yes, barabbas was as you say, more dangerous to pilate - insurrection doesn't mean any plain riot but a revolt against roman rule.*
                  I'm not following. Does that mean Barabbas was little more than a mere rioter (ultimately harmless) or that he sought full revolt?


                  Originally posted by Paprika
                  i reconstruct pilate's thoughts as follows: he didn't want to execute jesus.
                  When Jesus told Pilate off, do you think Jesus didn't know he was saying something provocative? Something that might make Pilate want to kill him?

                  Originally posted by Paprika
                  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.
                  wouldn't political stability take precedence over honor loss? if barnabas was little more than a stooge in the sedition movement, as has been argued, i understand the decision. but if he really threatened stability, i don't see why worried about honor loss so much. it's not like pilate couldn't threaten the jews with violence or cessation of privileges or both.

                  and that's another point. if the jews were so worried about what barabbas would do to their authority, why wouldn't they worry about inflaming the prefect by demanding he do his job right?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                    Your stance is that the gospel stories of the trials are improbable given (I assume) all the available evidence.
                    Yes.

                    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                    As I see it, you would have to rule out that existence of any explanations that render it probable.
                    I don't see why. I think I'm justified in going with my prima facie judgment until I am confronted with an explanation that renders the story probable. So far, all the explanations I have seen only make it possible. Possibility does not entail probability.

                    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                    My stance that the event likely happened, needs only that there be at least one probable explanation, that is, one that is plausible given the historical context and with few or no possible evidence that counts against the explanation.
                    Your reasoning seems to be that if it is plausible, then it is probable. I can't go there.

                    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                    It suffices for my explanation that thus the priests could likely thus have expected Jesus to follow the same route.
                    I am trying not to attack your explanation, but only to explain why I consider it insufficient.

                    Originally posted by Doug Shaver
                    The appearance of a legal execution needs the appearance of evidence and law. So far, you not have shown me how the priests had any evidence that even apparently warranted his execution. Even a kangaroo court needs evidence, even if it's phony evidence.

                    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                    According to the story, they accused him of claiming to be king, which Jesus confirmed to Pilate.
                    According to the story, Jesus told Pilate, "My kingdom is not of this world." I don't see that as a confirmation of the priests' accusation.

                    And I'm still looking for the evidence that the priests were using to support their accusation. Real evidence. Manufactured evidence. Whatever. Or did they expect Pilate to just take their word for it when they said, "This man claims to be our rightful king"?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by whag View Post
                      we can't infer that rome ultimately worried about revolt?
                      Rome of course didn't want revolt. But, again, where do the texts say that Pilate feared violence from Jesus?

                      i don't think so, unless zeal is violence. none of the disciples is described as the sort who'd incite insurrection.
                      Go look up what zealots were in that time and place. Your ignorance is showing.

                      I'm not following. Does that mean Barabbas was little more than a mere rioter (ultimately harmless) or that he sought full revolt?
                      The texts don't seem very specific.
                      When Jesus told Pilate off, do you think Jesus didn't know he was saying something provocative? Something that might make Pilate want to kill him?
                      Possibly, but quote the texts, and show that it is the case.

                      wouldn't political stability take precedence over honor loss? if barnabas was little more than a stooge in the sedition movement, as has been argued, i understand the decision. but if he really threatened stability, i don't see why worried about honor loss so much. it's not like pilate couldn't threaten the jews with violence or cessation of privileges or both
                      According to John, the Jewish leaders were threatening Pilate (“If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar.”) We do know from Philo that the Jews had the avenue of appealing to higher Roman authorities about Pilate's deeds and and records one incident in which they did so, resulting in a chastisement by Pilate of Tibeius Caesar.

                      and that's another point. if the jews were so worried about what barabbas would do to their authority, why wouldn't they worry about inflaming the prefect by demanding he do his job right?
                      I have never said they were worried. It seems rather clear Pilate thought that they would be sufficiently concerned about Barabbas so that they would not choose him to be released, but that, as the texts show, he was wrong.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                        According to the story, Jesus told Pilate, "My kingdom is not of this world." I don't see that as a confirmation of the priests' accusation.

                        And I'm still looking for the evidence that the priests were using to support their accusation. Real evidence. Manufactured evidence. Whatever. Or did they expect Pilate to just take their word for it when they said, "This man claims to be our rightful king"?


                        Matthew has
                        Now Jesus stood before the governor. And the governor asked Him, saying, “Are You the King of the Jews?”

                        Jesus said to him, “It is as you say.”
                        Mark has
                        “Are you the king of the Jews?” asked Pilate.

                        “You have said so,” Jesus replied.
                        Luke has
                        Then Pilate asked Him, saying, “Are You the King of the Jews?”

                        He answered him and said, “It is as you say.”
                        John has
                        So Pilate entered his headquarters again and called Jesus and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus answered, “Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?” Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered you over to me. What have you done?” Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                          I don't see why. I think I'm justified in going with my prima facie judgment until I am confronted with an explanation that renders the story probable. So far, all the explanations I have seen only make it possible. Possibility does not entail probability.


                          Your reasoning seems to be that if it is plausible, then it is probable. I can't go there.
                          I might be missing something, but aren't you guilty of the same? If you don't think plausibility = probability, shouldn't your view be agnosticism rather than denial?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by OingoBoingo View Post
                            I might be missing something, but aren't you guilty of the same? If you don't think plausibility = probability, shouldn't your view be agnosticism rather than denial?
                            He might be considering the sum of implausible elements, not just this one. Denial doesn't sound like the right word here, unless we all should be agnostic about everything.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by whag View Post
                              He might be considering the sum of implausible elements, not just this one. Denial doesn't sound like the right word here, unless we all should be agnostic about everything.
                              Couldn't that be true for Paprika as well? He might be considering the sum of plausible elements, and then coming to a conclusion. I don't see what's wrong with the use of the word "denial". Doug does not accept the probability of the narrative, and he isn't neutral about its probability. He denies its probability. What do you think would be a better word than "deny"?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by OingoBoingo View Post
                                Couldn't that be true for Paprika as well? He might be considering the sum of plausible elements, and then coming to a conclusion.
                                In which case, both their views, for all intents and purposes, are legit and rationally justified.


                                Originally posted by OingoBoingo
                                I don't see what's wrong with the use of the word "denial". Doug does not accept the probability of the narrative, and he isn't neutral about its probability. He denies its probability. What do you think would be a better word than "deny"?
                                You're right. I read more into the word denial than you meant. Apologies.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                192 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
                                2,518 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X