The Passion rotten so far

[Datajack Franit]

Do you understand that most of you are all discussing about a movie you haven't seen yet?

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Don't you mean, "cruci-fiction?"

Boris- my statement was something like "There is no serious scholarly debate as to whether or not Jesus existed."

I stand by my statement. You have tossed me, what I consider to be a couple of quacks. I do not believe they are serious scholars, and do not believe they hold such standing in the scholarly community.

If you want to suggest that softening the statement a bit: "There is very little scholarly debate as to the existence of Jesus; what debate there is, at best, is no the fringe of serious scholarship; and is centred on whether or not events and actions of others may also have been attributed to Jesus." I would agree that this is more accurate. It is also five times longer, and I think my first statement really captures the essence.

And The History of the World also mentions the debate over the world being flat.

[The Mad Viking]

Ned

The Jewish religious authority, as your quotes point out, were APPOINTED by the Romans. They answered to the Romans, did their will, and were the local, native intermediaries needed for foreign rule.

Let me put it to you this way.

If the Pharisees had wanted Jesus dead, and the Romans had not, Jesus would not have been killed.

If the Romans had wanted Jesus dead, and the Pharisees had not, Jesus would still have been killed.

This establishes, through logic, the causal force behind Jesus death.

The rest is justification.

Are the Pharisees COMPLICIT, for aiding and abetting, if you will? ABSOLUTELY.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
And The History of the World also mentions the debate over the world being flat.

Which precisely proves my point. At one point, this was common opinion, was it not? My argument isn't about the rightness of any position, but rather about whether or not there is debate.

So consider the current debate akin to that point in time where the vast majority believed the world was flat, but a daring minority posited the notion that it was round.

And dismissing all of those folks as quacks without addressing their fundamental arguments is logically unsound. I forget the latin name fore that fallacy, but it's a variant on ad hominem, attacking the people rather than the position.

I'd like to point out that I myself am quite undecided on the issue, as I think it's possible either way. I certainly don't believe the gospels give a particularly accurate representation of the events that occured in Judea surrounding the central figure, be he Jesus of Nazareth or some other messianic hero.

[GePap]

I am sure jesus existed- I am sure he was one of the many jewish activist of the era- I am sure he was put to death, and given that crucifixion was a very common form of execution, he was probably crucified. It's the part about him being the son of God, half-man half devine, part of a trinity and that he was resurrected (or born to a virgin) that i don't particularly believe.

[Ned]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Ned

The Jewish religious authority, as your quotes point out, were APPOINTED by the Romans. They answered to the Romans, did their will, and were the local, native intermediaries needed for foreign rule.

Let me put it to you this way.

If the Pharisees had wanted Jesus dead, and the Romans had not, Jesus would not have been killed.

If the Romans had wanted Jesus dead, and the Pharisees had not, Jesus would still have been killed.

This establishes, through logic, the causal force behind Jesus death.

The rest is justification.

Are the Pharisees COMPLICIT, for aiding and abetting, if you will? ABSOLUTELY.

He was also brought first before Annas, the high priest deposed by the Romans. Together, Annas and Caiphas tried Jesus. Together they went to Pilate.

All the Gospels tell of Pilate repeatedly trying to get Jesus off, but, in the end, giving in to the repeated demands that he be crucified.

You have no evidence that the Romans wanted Jesus dead. That is a statement unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.

[The Mad Viking]

Ned

I am talking about the greater HISTORICAL reality at the time - who was in control? The Romans.

After the fact, if you want to demonize your opponents, you can pretend it was all their idea.

Did they want to get rid of Jesus? Absolutely.

Did the Romans want to get rid of Jesus? Absolutley.

Could the Romans have got rid of Jesus w/o the Pharisees' help? Absolutely.

Could the Pharisess have gotten rid of Jesus w/o the Romans' help? NO!

[Ned]

TMV, as to the last point, the quoted article on the Sanhedrin questions whether or not the Sandhedrin could impose the death penalty, citing several examples where it had.

Be that as it may, if the Sanhedrin needed to go to the Romans to get a death penalty imposed, as described in the Gospels, it does not follow that the death penalty was "advocated" or even desired by the Romans.

So, I do not understand why you say the Romans wanted to get rid of Jesus.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Which precisely proves my point. At one point, this was common opinion, was it not? My argument isn't about the rightness of any position, but rather about whether or not there is debate....And dismissing all of those folks as quacks without addressing their fundamental arguments is logically unsound. I forget the latin name fore that fallacy, but it's a variant on ad hominem, attacking the people rather than the position.

Whose strawman?

MY ARGUMENT was whether or not the debate was SERIOUS and SCHOLARLY.

My point cannot be argued WITHOUT "attacking" the credentials of the people! My whole point was ABOUT THEIR CREDENTIALS!!!

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Ned
TMV, as to the last point, the quoted article on the Sanhedrin questions whether or not the Sandhedrin could impose the death penalty, citing several examples where it had.

Be that as it may, if the Sanhedrin needed to go to the Romans to get a death penalty imposed, as described in the Gospels, it does not follow that the death penalty was "advocated" or even desired by the Romans.

So, I do not understand why you say the Romans wanted to get rid of Jesus.

Maybe because they CHOSE to kill him???

Maybe because they sent SOLDIERS to get him?

Maybe because the HIGH PRIEST ANSWERED TO PILATE AND WAS HIS "RIGHT HAND JEW".

Look, if you want to read the gospels as verbatim truth, go ahead.

I tend to look at the power structure and politics that were in place. To me, it is very unlikley that Jesus is arrested and crucified by Roman soldiers, working as lap dogs of their subject peoples.

Don't you think it is more likely the subject peoples are doing the will of their sovereigns?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
My point cannot be argued WITHOUT "attacking" the credentials of the people! My whole point was ABOUT THEIR CREDENTIALS!!!

First, that is not the case. The credentials of the person vetting an argument don't deem the debate "scholarly" or not--the scholarship of the argument itself does. While not likely to happen often, a layman can compose a scholarly argument as well as a degreed "scholar."

Second, your attacks on one person's credentials don't remotely make your case. Otherwise, I'd have ammunition in pointing out that folks like Ken Hovind are neither scholarly nor unbiased in their attempts to find "proof" for the account of the gospels being factual.

[Ben Kenobi]

Missed your post Berz,

My apologies.

The NT, there is an episode in which some of the disciples are sitting around and one laments how Jesus' affection for Mary is greater, different, than his affection for the disciples. One of the disciples hears this envious talk and chastises the guilty party...

Still need the citation, Berz. You seem to be confusing passages. I know that the disciples fight over who is to be the greatest, and Christ rebukes them by saying that the greatest among you must be servant to all. Nothing in that passage about Mary Magdalene.

To which Jews?

To all Jews. His disciples believed him to be the Son of God, and those who rejected him, believed him to be a madman or a blasphemer. There is no middle ground of 'good teacher'. Christ never accepts the title without the affirmation that he is the Son of God.

Go see Luke, chapter 18. "Why do you call me good? For it is only God who is good."

And? Yet Jesus asked John to baptise him. Why?

Good question. Let's go to the account.

Matthew 4:13-5

Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. But John tried to deter him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?"

Jesus replied, "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness."

Because John the Baptist viewed Jesus as a greater teacher.

Not according to the accounts. Again,

Matthew 4:11-2

"I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me, will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit, and with fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquencheable fir."

Now. This I ask you. John believed that Christ was this man, that he fulfilled the prophecies of the OT, for the promised Messiah. But take careful note of this passage, 'gathering his wheat.' He claims that Christ would have ownership over men, and the power to judge them in the last days. This power is one given only to God, not to man, or to any prophet.

What Christians now believe is irrelevant to what Jesus was then. Many Jews in the OT were referred to either as "messiah" or sons of God. Jesus himself told his disciples to pray to God as "our father", were they sons of God too? If you are a son of God, does that mean you can't be a priest.

Confusion of terms.

"For you shall be called, sons of God," is different from being the one Son of God. You should know that Berz. The same with the term Messiah. The Jews still await their promised Messiah, in rejecting Christ, so your claim falls flat that they saw others as their Messiah during the time of Christ.

[Ned]

I've already pointed out that they took Jesus to Annas, the deposed high priest, first. Then Annas and Caiphas together tried him. They both went to Pilate.

You cannot say with a straight face that this was the work of the Roman lapdog Caiphas alone.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
"For you shall be called, sons of God," is different from being the one Son of God. You should know that Berz. The same with the term Messiah. The Jews still await their promised Messiah, in rejecting Christ, so your claim falls flat that they saw others as their Messiah during the time of Christ.

You miss the point- back in this day Messianic movements were a dime a dozen- there were numerous Jewish sects many of which, in the turbulent times, and turned messianic which like the apocalyptic Christian sects that turn up at all time of crisis. The movement that saw Jesus as the Messiah just happened to be the longest lasting and most powerful.

[Ben Kenobi]

back in this day Messianic movements were a dime a dozen- there were numerous Jewish sects many of which, in the turbulent times, and turned messianic which like the apocalyptic Christian sects that turn up at all time of crisis.

I don't dispute their claims of a promised Messiah. It is just that I dispute that the other groups ever declared the promised Messiah as being someone other than Christ during the time of Christ.

In fact, some of the Jews thought Christ to be Elijah, after John denied being Elijah because that was the prophesy in Malachi, that Elijah would come and restore all things before the coming of the promised Messiah.