Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Thu Oct 21, 2021 4:03 pm





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 62 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Who Killed Jesus? 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor
Book Discussion Leader

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 6923
Location: Luray, Virginia
Thanks: 2252
Thanked: 2455 times in 1850 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Who Killed Jesus?
Since stahrwe and I aren't getting anywhere in our discussion on the Acts thread, and since it hasn't been that much about Acts, anyway, a different thread might be in order. I'd like to make the topic of this one: who was responsible for Jesus' death? Obviously, there are only two suspects, the Jewish authorities and the Romans. Traditionally, the view has been that the Jews (or at least the power structure) agitated for Jesus to die and the Romans did what that community was demanding. But this view isn't unchallenged, and the challenge appears to have grown with recent scholarship.

So how does the evidence look? Here is a look by a writer who leans to the side of "the Romans did it." Provide your own if you find a better one. Let's keep whatever we post no longer than a couple of pages worth of text.

Question 16.5: Did the Jews kill Jesus?

Answer:

Official Christian doctrine no longer holds that Jews killed Jesus,
although it once spread that lie. Where did the notion come from? In
the "New Testament", Jews are held in part responsible for Jesus'
death. Some of this position comes from the fact that the disciples
were Jewish, and it was a disciple, Judas, who betrayed him to the
Roman authorities. Some Christian sources depict a scene in which "the
Jews," given the choice of saving Barrabas or Jesus from crucifixion,
chose Barrabas. However, the text doesn't tell us who :"the Jews"
were; further, assuming this took place (which is historically
unlikely given the Roman's behavior), they all couldn't have been
gathered in one place. So, again, there is only indirect
responsibility. Finally, politically, we know that some Jewish leaders
(who were appointed by Roman Government) may have seen Jesus as a
political threat. However, the threat was more to the Romans, and the
Jewish leaders may have been pressured to silence him. The final
decision lay with the Romans, who alone used crucifixion as a means of
killing criminals and who alone had authority to impose the death
penalty.

The New Testament accounts do not agree on the story of who killed
Jesus. The Encylopedia Judaica summarizes this as follows. In the
first three books, the Pharisees are not mentioned in connection with
the trial, and in John, only once (18:3). Only Mark (14:53-65;
followed by Matt. 26:59-68) records a formal, Jewish, "night" trial
with accusations, witnesses, and a sentence. Luke records a morning
hearing before the Sanhedrin (Luke 22:66-71) without formal
sentencing, and John has separate appearances before Annas (at night)
and Caiaphas (in the morning) who conducts an interrogation (18:12-
24). In the entire book of Luke (not just in his description of the
Passion) there is no mention of the Sanhedrin's verdict against Jesus,
and John records nothing about an assembly of the Sanhedrin before
which Jesus appeared. Hence, it seems very probable that no session of
the Sanhedrin took place in the house of the high priest where Jesus
was in custody, and that the "chief priests and elders and scribes"
who assembled there were members of the Temple committee (see also
Luke 20:1): the elders were apparently the elders of the Temple and
the scribes were the Temple secretaries. The deliverance of Jesus into
the hands of the Romans was, it seems, the work of the Sadducean "high
priests," who are often mentioned alone in the story. A man suspected
of being a messianic pretender could be delivered to the Romans
without a verdict of the Jewish high court. In addition, the high
priests were interested in getting rid of Jesus, who had spoken
against them and had predicted the destruction of the Temple. Mark
offers some clues to the historical situation. The public reason given
in the placard on the cross (Mark 15:26), recorded in all four
Gospels, was that Jesus claimed to be a king, which for the Romans was
tantamount to sedition. Those crucified with Jesus are called
"revolutionary bandits". Jesus teaching on the kingdom, his
association with marginal groups in his society, and his attacks on
abuses associated with the Temple made him suspect to both Romans and
the Jerusalem aristocracy. Though some interrogation may have taken
place before Jewish authorities, the Romans bear the responsibility
for any formal trial. All the texts agree that the Roman prefect,
Pontius Pilate (a.d. 26- 36), ordered the execution (also attested by
the Roman historian Tacitus, Annals 15.44). The execution was in the
Roman way, by crucifixion. All the books indicate that on the third
day after the crucifixion Jesus' tomb was found empty. According to
Mark an angel announced that Jesus had risen, and the other books
state that Jesus appeared before his believers after his death.

Jewish laws on capital trials are found in texts almost two centuries
after the death of Jesus (M. Sanh. 4-11), so it is not known whether
they reflect first-century practice. By these norms the trial in Mark
is not legal, since according to the Mishnah capital trials could not
be held at night or on the eve of a Sabbath or feast day (M. Sanh.
4:1). The sentence of death could not be pronounced on the same day as
the trial (M. Sanh. 4:1); prior examination of witnesses, as well as
independent agreement of their testimony, was required (M. Sanh. 4:5;
cf. Deut. 19:15-18); the charge of blasphemy required the explicit
pronouncing of the divine name (M. Sanh. 7:5); and trials were to be
held in the official chamber, not in the house of the high priest (M.
Sanh. 11:2; cf. Mark 14:54). Also uncertain is whether the Sanhedrin
had the power to execute for capital offenses during Roman occupation
(see John 18:31). If so, Jesus should have been stoned, which was the
Jewish penalty for blasphemy.

We also know that the early Christians who wrote the story wanted to
make the Romans appear less guilty.

Another factor to consider: It was Jesus' resurrection that began
Christianity. If the Roman's hadn't killed Christ, he wouldn't have
had the opportunity to rise (if you hold with the resurrection). In
fact, in the texts, Jesus claims all responsibility, and is explicitly
the "willing Suffering Servant" Christian theology is that Jesus'
entire purpose was to come to die.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/FAQ/09 ... on-10.html



Sat Feb 19, 2011 6:28 am
Profile
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
So many e-books my reader is overweight!


Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 114
Thanks: 2
Thanked: 32 times in 27 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Who Killed Jesus?
Thanks for posting all that; it's a good overview.

I'm not convinced that it's a one-or-other answer; in my view both parties share responsibility, as well as Jesus and his followers.

The jewish religious leadership weren't puppets of Rome, they were in place because the romans' policy was to allow occupied populations to follow their own religions and customs. They'd found out the hard way that forcing people at pilum-point to do what you wanted took impartctical amounts of manpower. It's much easier to co-opt the existing local leaders with promises of technology, wealth and comfort and get them to rule for you.

The roman authorities' responsibility was to maintain the pax romana. To that end they had authority to prosecute serious criminals and control potential dissidents, backed by a local garrison and the main weight of the legions on demand.

It's clear from the biblical account that Pilate's main concern was to create a peaceful outcome with as little fuss as possible. He didn't want to execute Jesus and went to considerable lengths to avoid that scenario: he had Jesus beaten up in the hope that would satisfy his accusers, then challenged them to prove that he was really dangerous by offering to release a really nasty piece of work, Barabas, in his place.

The Jewish authorities levereged him very effectively: they gave him a choice between upsetting Jesus' followers and upsetting theirs. They provided a howling mob to make their point and implied that if they didn't play ball, they'd create a serious uprising. Pilate had good reason to want to avoid that scenario; he would be held personally responsible if a bloody revolt broke out and could himself be punished severely.

We know all this; the Jewish leadership wanted him dead and the Romans came to the same conclusion to keep the peace.

But there's a third group whose contribution I think is often overlooked: Jesus' own followers. Many of his immediate circle were from pretty tough backgrounds and he apparently spent a lot of time with prostitutes, tax collectors and other rough characters. In short, these were not very nice people and we know that by the time Jesus was arrested they were going around armed with swords.

Similarly, there's no point in pretending that Jesus himself was looking for peace and harmony with the religious authorities. He'd spoken out in public and condemned many of them roundly, and wasn't afraid to say it their faces either. Some or all of what he said may well have had real substance, but the way he went about it was extremely provocative and deliberately so. For a really good exposition of this, listen to Jesus Christ Superstar - the song "Heaven on Their Minds" is constructed as a monologue by Judas in which he warns Jesus that the Roman and Jewish authorities are starting to get riled; that his followers have become fanatical and are going to cause serious trouble. He concludes by saying, "it was beautiful, but now it's sour" and telling Jesus in no uncertain terms that he's afraid they're attracting the wrong kind of attention and they're going to end up dead.

He was right, but this is a good practical point: Jesus and his followers would have known very well where all this was heading. They could see the effects of their actions and would have been under no illusions about how the romans would treat them if it got out of hand. That's why I think they'd taken to arming themselves; they knew it was going to get bloody. They could have gone about it differently, but they didn't and the events which followed became inevitable.

Clearly if you're a believer, this is explicable as inevitable or preordained, but that's not my interest here. In a purely practical sense the events were simply precipitated by the fact that no one would back down. That's not a new story.



The following user would like to thank Squelch for this post:
DWill
Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:41 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Diamond Contributor

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4898
Location: Florida
Thanks: 177
Thanked: 344 times in 294 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Who Killed Jesus?
DWill wrote:
Since stahrwe and I aren't getting anywhere in our discussion on the Acts thread, and since it hasn't been that much about Acts, anyway, a different thread might be in order. I'd like to make the topic of this one: who was responsible for Jesus' death?


Your definition of not getting anywhere is to ask me to agree with you. When I don't you ask the same question again and ask me to agree with you. It's like an infinite loop.


DWill wrote:
Another factor to consider: It was Jesus' resurrection that began
Christianity. If the Roman's hadn't killed Christ, he wouldn't have
had the opportunity to rise (if you hold with the resurrection). In
fact, in the texts, Jesus claims all responsibility, and is explicitly
the "willing Suffering Servant" Christian theology is that Jesus'
entire purpose was to come to die.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/FAQ/09 ... on-10.html[


The above quote is wrong on so many levels! Jesus did not have to die in order for mankind to be saved. Had he been accepted during His incarnation, His death and resurrection would have been unnecessary. The idea that He HAD to die is a total misunderstanding of free will.

I have no idea who sponsors the url you post from. An introduction of them would be nice.

Quote:
Edit 2/22/11 by Stahrwe: My comment above about Jesus death not being necessary is an extreme exaggeration and should not be taken seriously. The plan of the Gospel from Genesis was that Jesus would die for our sins. I did not intend for the speculation regarding a different outcome of the Triumphal Entry to conflict with God's plan and I apologize if I have confused or offended anyone with that speculation.


As to the question: Who killed Jesus, you have misphrased it.
The Romans killed Jesus. It was a Roman hand which arrested Him, a Roman hand that scourged Him, a Roman hand that condemned Him, and a Roman hand which nailed Him to the cross. Answer: Romans.

What I think you meant, was who was responsible for Jesus dieing on the cross? The answer to that question is easy: Me.


_________________
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.


Last edited by stahrwe on Tue Feb 22, 2011 8:45 am, edited 1 time in total.



Sat Feb 19, 2011 10:23 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor
Book Discussion Leader

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 6923
Location: Luray, Virginia
Thanks: 2252
Thanked: 2455 times in 1850 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Who Killed Jesus?
Thanks for your input, Squelch. I'm hoping that I can learn something about this tantalizing subject, and your approach here is just what I had in mind. I'm not a religious believer, which sometimes makes it hard for me to have the intellectual patience to understand the more minute but important details, and to appreciate where people back then were coming from.
Quote:
I'm not convinced that it's a one-or-other answer; in my view both parties share responsibility, as well as Jesus and his followers.

I agree that it's bound to be unclear and complicated. The last element is one I've never heard about, so I'm quite curious about it.
Quote:
The jewish religious leadership weren't puppets of Rome, they were in place because the romans' policy was to allow occupied populations to follow their own religions and customs. They'd found out the hard way that forcing people at pilum-point to do what you wanted took impartctical amounts of manpower. It's much easier to co-opt the existing local leaders with promises of technology, wealth and comfort and get them to rule for you.

Maybe that will be the no. 1 foundational point in this investigation.
Quote:
We know all this; the Jewish leadership wanted him dead and the Romans came to the same conclusion to keep the peace.

When you say "we know all this," do you mean that we know the Bible gives us this account, or that we can be sure of it because it is also somehow corroborated by other evidence? A key disagreement out there seems to be over who felt most threatened by Jesus, the Romans or the Jews. Was Jesus in fact executed to appease the Jewish power structure, or did the Romans have cause of their own to nab him and put him to death? It makes such a large difference in view of later writings that seem to almost absolve the Romans of responsibility.
Quote:
But there's a third group whose contribution I think is often overlooked: Jesus' own followers. Many of his immediate circle were from pretty tough backgrounds and he apparently spent a lot of time with prostitutes, tax collectors and other rough characters. In short, these were not very nice people and we know that by the time Jesus was arrested they were going around armed with swords.

Similarly, there's no point in pretending that Jesus himself was looking for peace and harmony with the religious authorities. He'd spoken out in public and condemned many of them roundly, and wasn't afraid to say it their faces either. Some or all of what he said may well have had real substance, but the way he went about it was extremely provocative and deliberately so. For a really good exposition of this, listen to Jesus Christ Superstar - the song "Heaven on Their Minds" is constructed as a monologue by Judas in which he warns Jesus that the Roman and Jewish authorities are starting to get riled; that his followers have become fanatical and are going to cause serious trouble. He concludes by saying, "it was beautiful, but now it's sour" and telling Jesus in no uncertain terms that he's afraid they're attracting the wrong kind of attention and they're going to end up dead.

He was right, but this is a good practical point: Jesus and his followers would have known very well where all this was heading. They could see the effects of their actions and would have been under no illusions about how the romans would treat them if it got out of hand. That's why I think they'd taken to arming themselves; they knew it was going to get bloody. They could have gone about it differently, but they didn't and the events which followed became inevitable.

Another question would be to what extent Jesus would have been anti-Pharisee. He is often extremely vehement against them in the Gospels. Perhaps the thrust of his real message would have been generally anti-authority, as you're suggesting. It's hard for me to imagine that he would not have been more motivated by the elephant in the room, the Roman occupation, though he'd have to approach that in a veiled way in order to avoid being instantly seized. That he had followers who could "take care of themselves" makes sense when we think about the real world. The disciples aren't fully flesh-and-blood characters in the writings; in reality, they must have had some of the qualities of toughness you indicate, and just like the men (and now women) behind a presidential candidate, they would help their leader call the shots.
Quote:
Clearly if you're a believer, this is explicable as inevitable or preordained, but that's not my interest here. In a purely practical sense the events were simply precipitated by the fact that no one would back down. That's not a new story.

Generally, the losing side is never heard from again. In this case, the losers won, and that is the enduring puzzle for me.



Sun Feb 20, 2011 9:38 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Diamond Contributor

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4898
Location: Florida
Thanks: 177
Thanked: 344 times in 294 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Who Killed Jesus?
DWill wrote:
Another question would be to what extent Jesus would have been anti-Pharisee. He is often extremely vehement against them in the Gospels. Perhaps the thrust of his real message would have been generally anti-authority,


I have to wonder how much of John and Acts you have actually read. Jesus was not anti-Pharisee. There is a long section in John where Jesus has an interaction with a Pharisee named Nicodemis. That contact is very pleaseant. Joseph of Arimatheia was also a Pharisee. I spent some time today comparing the amount of text in John and Acts dealing with Pharisess and Jews in a negative context and found it relatively small. I will post the comparison when I have a chance. As for the Romans, provided that Jesus was not advocating the overthrow of Rome, and he wasn't, they would have had no interest in getting involved. Finally, the perenial request for extra-Biblical 'evidence' wears thin. The Bible has been and continues to be a relaible record of the events and attempts to discount its veracity are not defensible.


_________________
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.


Sun Feb 20, 2011 3:10 pm
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
One with Books

Silver Contributor

Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2751
Thanks: 2298
Thanked: 731 times in 626 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Who Killed Jesus?
to me asking the question who killed jesus is like asking the question how did humpty dumpty fall from the wall.

jesus is just a personification or literary metaphor for the transcendant within and the cross is just a metaphor for matter or your body

these metaphors when literalised, as they have been, lead to all sorts of confusion.

jesus is being metaphorically put to death in each one of us and also rising from the dead in each one of us, just as the sun sinks below the earth at evening and rises again each morning so the christ sinks into matter and rises out of it.

belief in a literal historic jesus is infantile and that's ok if you are a kid but when you grow up you are supposed to put away infantile things.

assuming someone rejects the metaphor and insists on the literal meaning that kills understanding, then the literal biblical answer would be ......... wait for it ......

Act 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

God is responsible according to the bible.

Psa 115:3 But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.

but what goes down must come up

Act 2:24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

ditch the literalism if you want to enjoy life.



Sun Feb 20, 2011 9:45 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor
Book Discussion Leader

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 6923
Location: Luray, Virginia
Thanks: 2252
Thanked: 2455 times in 1850 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Who Killed Jesus?
youkrst wrote:
ditch the literalism if you want to enjoy life.

It's completely off-base, in my opinion, to label as "literalism" the assumption that a person named Jesus, not a fictional character, is the subject of the New Testament writings. How would all these writings have possibly come together without there being an actual subject to base them on? Can you name anything comparable in mythology, where the god has a complete life as a human and gets involved in society in the way Jesus is shown to do? Even the inconsistencies and differences between the four accounts are strong evidence that they are about a person. The general outline is the same in each story, but there are differences, just as you would expect from four authors, writing at different times.



The following user would like to thank DWill for this post:
Chris OConnor, Dawn
Sun Feb 20, 2011 10:08 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor
Book Discussion Leader

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 6923
Location: Luray, Virginia
Thanks: 2252
Thanked: 2455 times in 1850 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Who Killed Jesus?
stahrwe wrote:
DWill wrote:
Another question would be to what extent Jesus would have been anti-Pharisee. He is often extremely vehement against them in the Gospels. Perhaps the thrust of his real message would have been generally anti-authority,


I have to wonder how much of John and Acts you have actually read. Jesus was not anti-Pharisee. There is a long section in John where Jesus has an interaction with a Pharisee named Nicodemis. That contact is very pleaseant. Joseph of Arimatheia was also a Pharisee. I spent some time today comparing the amount of text in John and Acts dealing with Pharisess and Jews in a negative context and found it relatively small. I will post the comparison when I have a chance. As for the Romans, provided that Jesus was not advocating the overthrow of Rome, and he wasn't, they would have had no interest in getting involved. Finally, the perenial request for extra-Biblical 'evidence' wears thin. The Bible has been and continues to be a relaible record of the events and attempts to discount its veracity are not defensible.

Please take the time to note that I spoke of a question as to what extent Jesus was against the Pharisees. I don't have to tell you about the several passages in which he denounces them, or at least members of that group. So is it so unreasonable to consider there to be a matter to be looked into?

I don't know about amounts of text, but if you count up verses in which Jews or Pharisees are spoken of negatively, the number is quite high. Allowance would have to be made for opinion about what constitutes negativity.

If the Romans thought that Jesus could sway a significant portion of the population to believe in the coming kingdom of God, don't you think that in itself could be a great worry to Rome? Destabilizing Jewish society wouldn't have been seen as a good thing.

The scarcity of written accounts in parallel with the Bible doesn't mean that the Bible must be accurate by default. A "source" can also be considered archaeological, and such sources have sometimes cast doubt on the Bible's history.



Last edited by DWill on Sun Feb 20, 2011 10:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Sun Feb 20, 2011 10:36 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Diamond Contributor

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4898
Location: Florida
Thanks: 177
Thanked: 344 times in 294 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Who Killed Jesus?
DWill wrote:
Please take the time to note that I spoke of a question as to what extent Jesus was against the Pharisees. I don't have to tell you about the several passages in which he denounces them, or at least members of that group. So is it so unreasonable to consider there to be a matter to be looked into?


You asked if after reading Acts and other NT books one would feel negatively towards the Jews and/or Pharisees. My point is that it not s statment that is supported by the text. Jesus was not against the Pharisees per se. He objected to the perversion of some Pharisees with respect to application of the law. It was the abuse by some that He objected to.

DWill wrote:
I don't know about amounts of text, but if you count up verses in which Jews or Pharisees are spoken of negatively, the number is quite high. Allowance would have to be made for opinion about what constitutes negativity.


Your statement is not correct. First of all Jews were Jesus's people, including His mother, disciples, friends, etc. He did not speak of them negatviely. In fact He raised several from the dead. As for the Pharisees, His complaint wasn't necessarily agains them but certain corrupt elements.

DWill wrote:
If the Romans thought that Jesus could sway a significant portion of the population to believe in the coming kingdom of God, don't you think that in itself could be a great worry to Rome? Destabilizing Jewish society wouldn't have been seen as a good thing.


Not the way you phrase this, no. Provided that Jesus was not promoting insurrection against Rome.

DWill wrote:
The scarcity of written accounts in parallel with the Bible doesn't mean that the Bible must be accurate by default. A "source" can also be considered archaeological, and such sources have sometimes cast doubt on the Bible's history.


We have been through this over and over and over, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


_________________
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.


Mon Feb 21, 2011 12:06 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor
Book Discussion Leader

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 6923
Location: Luray, Virginia
Thanks: 2252
Thanked: 2455 times in 1850 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Who Killed Jesus?
stahrwe wrote:
You asked if after reading Acts and other NT books one would feel negatively towards the Jews and/or Pharisees. My point is that it not s statment that is supported by the text. Jesus was not against the Pharisees per se. He objected to the perversion of some Pharisees with respect to application of the law. It was the abuse by some that He objected to.

I, personally, don't feel negatively toward the Jews and Pharisees reading those texts, any more than I feel negatively toward Pharaoh when reading Genesis. I separate myself from those texts because they are of historical and human interest, only, to me. From my distance, though, I recognize the dramatic stances they take toward the Jews and Pharaoh. When it comes to believers who took these writings as literally true, the effect would be far different. If it was only some Pharisees that Jesus was against, and if it could be argued that "the Jews" means some particular group and not Jews in general, this is a distinction that isn't apparent on the surface of the text, which is what people would read, or what they would be told about. Anti-Judaism has clear roots in the words of the New Testament.
Quote:
Your statement is not correct. First of all Jews were Jesus's people, including His mother, disciples, friends, etc. He did not speak of them negatviely. In fact He raised several from the dead. As for the Pharisees, His complaint wasn't necessarily agains them but certain corrupt elements.

I never said that Jesus spoke against the Jews as a people. That would be truly inexplicable if it were shown in the writngs.
stahrwe wrote:
DWill wrote:
If the Romans thought that Jesus could sway a significant portion of the population to believe in the coming kingdom of God, don't you think that in itself could be a great worry to Rome? Destabilizing Jewish society wouldn't have been seen as a good thing.


Not the way you phrase this, no. Provided that Jesus was not promoting insurrection against Rome.

That's what demands proof, though, doesn't it, that the Romans wouldn't have had an interest short of Jesus saying they should be overthrown? There must be a source of some kind that you use in order to be so certain about this.



Last edited by DWill on Mon Feb 21, 2011 4:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Mon Feb 21, 2011 4:18 pm
Profile
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
One with Books

Silver Contributor

Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2751
Thanks: 2298
Thanked: 731 times in 626 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Who Killed Jesus?
Hi DWill

my comment "ditch literalism if you want to enjoy life" was directed more at literalist believers who may suffer acutely trying to make a literalist interpretation actually work as a viable belief system. It's just a paraphrase of two bible verses.

the letter (literalism) kills but the spirit (metaphoric reference) gives life

and

if the blind follow the blind will they not both fall into a ditch

many have fallen into that ditch of literalism and it is not a pretty sight let alone a life affirming experience.
so to the christian i meant to say if you want to enjoy life more then ditch literalism and study the origins of your faith.

but that was not so much what you were saying so please let me address that, you said

DWill wrote:
Can you name anything comparable in mythology, where the god has a complete life as a human and gets involved in society in the way Jesus is shown to do?


i think it will suffice to stop short with the question

Can you name anything comparable in mythology

i know that was not your question but indeed comparative mythology will unravel the whole confusing jesus mess.

the egyptians had the krst then the hindus have Krishna then we have the Christ of christianity then the Christ of the gnostics and the buddhists have the buddha

so if we study side by side krishna buddha christ and horus (just these four for starters) we find absolutely striking parallels

moreover if we then examine how the gnostics mythical christ who was a metaphoric reference to the transcendant within became literalised into the "literal historical christ" we then begin to see how this whole blunder got started.

then if we study mithra, attis, apis, tamuz, etc etc etc then mystery religions etc etc it all becomes clear that orthodox doctrine citing a literal historic christ is a perversion of an ancient doctrine that was pre-extant thousands of years before the supposed literal historic christ was even said to exist.

i've studied and lived this subject for getting on to 30 years and it wasnt until i got to comparative mythology and comparative religion that i began to untangle the unholy mess of literalism

not just christian literalism, there is buddhist literalism, hindu literalism, islamic literalism, jewish literalism etc etc etc

then there is understanding the metaphors

ok, if you insist on a literal jesus, prove it... (if you will)

a guy walks on water (literally) but no-one outside the bible mentions it hmmmmmm could it be jesus walking on the water is a metaphor for the christ (transcendant within) triumphing over adversity in matter (your body).

ok, what about the story of the slaughter of the infants

we read in hindu mythology that an evil King heard that the eighth child of a woman would be his undoing so he killed babies to prevent the prophecy from coming true, to no avail, the baby was hidden from him and indeed was his undoing...

here is a link to the story

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQBH1UoyyLI

this mythological motif is also echoed in the story of moses

so we have a major motif attributed to the historical jesus that was told many many years before the supposed historical christ was even supposed to have been born

the only reason literalism survives is because people do not know the sheer volume of parallels in the various ancient mythologies

go looking for the evidence for an historical jesus and you may just catch my point. Everyone just assumes that the case is open shut and that is a big mistake that a con-man will often use to advantage, people used to assume the earth was flat, another blunder.

after reading much material from many many authors it soon becomes obvious that the jesus of orthodox belief is a literalisation of the mythical christ who is a metaphor whose reference is to the immanent divine within us.

the bible itself is full of gnostic doctrine that predates the historical christ

christ in you the hope of glory
the kingdom is within
i am the vine you are the branches

so on and so forth

i know this subject well and i am convinced that once comparative religion and comparative mythology are studied for awhile only a willfully ignorant imbecile will fail to see the blindingly obvious.

to all those who insist on a literal historic jesus without having taken any time to know the subject in the histories and origins of the christian faith i can only hope that one day they will look and see for themselves that orthodox christianity can be reconstructed from materials that pre-date it by sometimes thousands of years.



The following user would like to thank youkrst for this post:
DWill
Tue Feb 22, 2011 12:43 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor
Book Discussion Leader

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 6923
Location: Luray, Virginia
Thanks: 2252
Thanked: 2455 times in 1850 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Who Killed Jesus?
Thanks, youkrst, for taking the time to reply. On at least one point, I don't think you answered the question I addressed, which was whether you could name gods whose lives as humans are chronicled the way Jesus' life is. This seems to me a very important difference, one that indicates to me that we have a person here getting the ball rolling. We wouldn't have these four looks at who this person was, so full of social and political conflict very similar to what we see every day, if these stories were written as enactments of mythic motifs. What gets into the stories as they develop over the years from the core of a person having made an impression of some kind, is a different matter. Then you can talk about what influenced the myth of Jesus. Viewing the New Testament as solely mythical tends to cover up the real and convincing historical facts and conflicts we see within those writings.



Tue Feb 22, 2011 8:07 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Diamond Contributor

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4898
Location: Florida
Thanks: 177
Thanked: 344 times in 294 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Who Killed Jesus?
DWill wrote:
I, personally, don't feel negatively toward the Jews and Pharisees reading those texts, any more than I feel negatively toward Pharaoh when reading Genesis.


The bad 'Pharoah' is not mentioned in Genesis. He shows up in Exodus. The Pharoah in Genesis is friendly toward the Jews.


_________________
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.


Tue Feb 22, 2011 8:37 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor
Book Discussion Leader

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 6923
Location: Luray, Virginia
Thanks: 2252
Thanked: 2455 times in 1850 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Who Killed Jesus?
stahrwe wrote:
DWill wrote:
I, personally, don't feel negatively toward the Jews and Pharisees reading those texts, any more than I feel negatively toward Pharaoh when reading Genesis.


The bad 'Pharoah' is not mentioned in Genesis. He shows up in Exodus. The Pharoah in Genesis is friendly toward the Jews.

Sorreee!



Tue Feb 22, 2011 8:57 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Owner
Diamond Contributor 3

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 16513
Location: Florida
Thanks: 3673
Thanked: 1399 times in 1099 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Who Killed Jesus?
Stahrwe wrote:
In fact He raised several from the dead.


Thank you for making my morning coffee so much more enjoyable. I don't know why I find the concept of Jesus raising people up from the dead so funny, but I almost spit my coffee on my laptop as I read your words. I can see you believing this if you were 5 - 11 years old, but hearing a grown man say something so silly is humorous.



Tue Feb 22, 2011 1:21 pm
Profile Email WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 62 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:



Site Resources 
HELPFUL INFO:
Community Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Author Interview Transcripts
Book Discussion Leaders

IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
Banned Books
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Coming Soon!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Coming Soon!

PROMOTE YOUR BOOK!
Advertise on BookTalk.org
Promote your FICTION book
Promote your NON-FICTION book





BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSOUR BOOKSAUTHOR INTERVIEWSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICYSITEMAP

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism Books

Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2021. All rights reserved.

Display Pagerank