|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 28, 2013 0:41:46 GMT -5
He was crucified for sedition. That was quite clear. He challenged the positions of the Sanhedrin and the Romans and anyone who did that was crucified. There were many Messiahs crucified for exactly that right around the same time as Jesus was crucified. It was quite common actually. Snow That opinion conflicts with Biblical accounts that rulers washing their hands of responcibility. Saying they found no fault in Jesus. ken Then you might consider believing that Obama sent Mrs. bin Laden a sympathy card! Do you think the Roman church is going to permit mention of a Roman official's bloodthirsty appetite in their holy scriptures?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2013 2:08:37 GMT -5
Jesus was respected by the Romans. Jesus was seen as a decent, law abiding person. The theological rift between Jesus and the Jews wasn't their quarrel. However, Judea was one of two serious "hot spots" in the Roman Empire and those rulers who were not able to keep the "Roman peace" were removed from office. So the pressure was on Pilate for that reason alone. What Romans thought of Christian scripture was of no concern to Christians, anymore than the Old Testament was concerned for Roman thought. Indeed, Christians condemned Pagan practices, and the idolatry of Emperor worship.
nb my gut feeling is that John's Gospel was written as it happened. Luke compiled his Gospel as a contemporary to Paul and Peter. And Mark came before Luke. These authors were not into Grecian Roman politics - they wrote it as they recalled, or were told by first hand witnesses.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 28, 2013 4:40:44 GMT -5
Jesus was respected by the Romans. Jesus was seen as a decent, law abiding person. The theological rift between Jesus and the Jews wasn't their quarrel. However, Judea was one of two serious "hot spots" in the Roman Empire and those rulers who were not able to keep the "Roman peace" were removed from office. So the pressure was on Pilate for that reason alone. What Romans thought of Christian scripture was of no concern to Christians, anymore than the Old Testament was concerned for Roman thought. Indeed, Christians condemned Pagan practices, and the idolatry of Emperor worship. nb my gut feeling is that John's Gospel was written as it happened. Luke compiled his Gospel as a contemporary to Paul and Peter. And Mark came before Luke. These authors were not into Grecian Roman politics - they wrote it as they recalled, or were told by first hand witnesses. Wow -- you talk like a fundamentalist Mormon!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 28, 2013 11:55:41 GMT -5
Jesus was respected by the Romans. Jesus was seen as a decent, law abiding person. The theological rift between Jesus and the Jews wasn't their quarrel. However, Judea was one of two serious "hot spots" in the Roman Empire and those rulers who were not able to keep the "Roman peace" were removed from office. So the pressure was on Pilate for that reason alone. What Romans thought of Christian scripture was of no concern to Christians, anymore than the Old Testament was concerned for Roman thought. Indeed, Christians condemned Pagan practices, and the idolatry of Emperor worship. nb my gut feeling is that John's Gospel was written as it happened. Luke compiled his Gospel as a contemporary to Paul and Peter. And Mark came before Luke. These authors were not into Grecian Roman politics - they wrote it as they recalled, or were told by first hand witnesses. That's not what I have discovered from my reading.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 28, 2013 23:12:22 GMT -5
You are terrible people. You execrate the soul or the living essence (the I of every human being) of any hope of living again in whatever form that may be. More than that you teach that life is a uni-dimensional, non-referential, linear progression .... "Only what happened" as Rational says, without a hint of curiosity over the "What happened?". Big call, terrible. More importantly the two reasons given don't fit. How can anyone extricate anothers soul? In theory, as well as the actual influence of wrong ideas or the absence of good ones upon the soul, or upon the ability of a person to grow into a person more real or more true to their highest Self. The best anyone can do is limit or control the belief structure someone grows up and resides in. Now that may be a 'bad', but it does seem to be the way of the world, whatever belief system you hold on to. Everyone preaches their own, everyone indoctrinates their own. The difference is that atheists pretend to be offering an alternative to theists but in reality atheism is anti-belief by nature, not just of specific beliefs but of belief in general, because our deepest beliefs and concerns extend into eternity past and eternity future. Who teaches life is simply a linear progression? Atheists. Atheists don't believe anything or anyone is directing reality. Atheists who will be consistent in their confession will not speak qualitatively of life because they can not admit of a point of reference. Quantitatively they can. The mouse stepped forward three steps and four steps backward, and so on. The 'law' of cause and effect does not explain the universe as we know it. Teaching an understanding of cause and effect does not imply it describes all that is. Don't blame all atheists for the views or actions of individuals, rational or otherwise. Atheists teach that cause and effect is all that might be known or observed in the way of a formative agency. Atheists and adherents of false religion are both guilty of perpetuating wrong ideas and actions.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 29, 2013 0:02:48 GMT -5
Just wondering, Some time ago, I noticed a discussion of whether or not Jesus actually died for our sins. Took our place and so forth. I was surprised at a number of individuals whom I've felt are deep abiding Christians felt that no, he didn't actually die the death of our sins. God raised him up again as we sing. Yikes! it's sort of like "He died for our sins!!! All praise and thanksgiving" And then later, Uhhhm, well not exactly. Anyway, just was wondering. Any conclusions here, any doubts? Almost seems like all the "doctrine" issues are insignificant compared to this one. I don't believe in Jesus as the son of god who walked on earth and will lead us to the promised land. I don't believe there was a person on that cross as described that knew and was actually dying for all humanities sins. Further, I can't see why a god would believe that relevant. On the otherhand I can see why symbolically that is significant to human beings. In that sense I am a total believer. Jesus did not need to die for our sins or even exist, his power in giving faith/hope/direction to humans is real. Faith does not require a 'historically true' belief system to work. It requires the first and foremost important historical truth: the desire or faith to believe something could be true. Theists believe this state can be assisted by Divine suspension and intervention of reality, and/or involuntary alterations to the perceptions of the observer.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 29, 2013 0:12:16 GMT -5
Hell no. Again, who or what were the Roman government that they should define sedition? Are you smoking something tonight? Are you saying Jesus wasn't put to death an innocent man?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 29, 2013 0:16:14 GMT -5
Inciting a revolt against the governing Romans. He had the plaque above his head saying King of the Jews. This tells us what the Romans crucified him for. They felt he was trying to oust them and become the governing leader of his people. Whether that was his true goal doesn't matter. The Romans thought it was and they crucified many so called Messiahs for it. Jesus had a big enough following that he came to the attention of the Romans. The incident in the temple where he overturned the vendors tables etc. was an open confrontation against the right for the Sanhedrin to take money for their 'services'. He felt their healing, ritual purification etc should have been done for free and he was doing that himself. Most who went around 'healing' as Messiahs actually charged for their services. However, when he did that he drew attention to himself and jeopardized the Sanhedrin's right to collect money and they didn't want that. They turned him in and the Romans would not have thought twice about executing him for sedition. That would be how they viewed it because they dipped into the coffers of the temple priests quite often themselves. So he was a guilty man and if he wasn't it doesn't matter anyway. What'chu been smoking?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 29, 2013 0:18:18 GMT -5
No he wasn't. His concept of a kingdom, God's Kingdom, involved but transcended this world's immediate kingdoms at once. That's actually inaccurate. It is the spin the gospels put on things after the fact when he went and got himself crucified. It is actually one of the reasons why he was the one of many Messiahs that weren't just forgotten when he was crucified like all the rest. Paul is responsible for that spin actually. He didn't know Jesus and he really didn't care because he was pretty much making things up as he went along. That is why he made the original apostles so upset with his teachings. He wasn't interested in who or what Jesus really was. He was only interested in forming a religion. However, having a Messiah that got himself killed wouldn't be all that good at establishing much of a following. So Paul changed it up to say Jesus was talking about a spiritual kingdom, and he wasn't trying to overthrow the Roman government. That was important because Paul had to live among the Romans and to blame the Romans for what they did would have been suicide for him and his followers. Keep reading your revisionist bullsh-!
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 29, 2013 0:21:33 GMT -5
Hell no. Again, who or what were the Roman government that they should define sedition? Lee do you know nothing about the conditions when Jesus was alive? The Roman Empire ruled the Jews. They taxed them, governed them, killed them if they tried to revolt. So their definition of sedition mattered a lot because it is what killed Jesus. Their definition of what they felt he was doing. He was challenging their right of rule. They didn't allow that and death was the penalty. Duh. Obviously you don't appreciate that nations are measured by the number of innocents they step over. Unless it happens to be Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 29, 2013 2:18:21 GMT -5
Are you smoking something tonight? Are you saying Jesus wasn't put to death an innocent man? Not having been a juror at that trial, thus not having evaluated all the evidence presented against him there -- and not knowing the exact language of the pertinent Roman law, it is impossible for me to decide whether Jesus was guilty or not. But I do know this -- it doesn't matter what God's will or law is, that does not matter one whit in the courts of law of temporal nations. And I also know this -- courts do not punish persons for crimes that are out of the jurisdiction of the court. And if the Bible is a true account, Jesus did indeed commit crimes against the Roman government at the time (which Christians praise him for to this day). And also from the Bible, I also understand that the Romans punished him according to the normal judgment of the court where he was tried. I also notice that, according to the Bible, Jesus was not punished by the Sanhedrin for any of the crimes in their own jurisdiction to punish -- which would include blasphemy and all the other fantasy accusations that Christians propose were made against Jesus by the Jews. For someone who knows the politics of the day, the most obvious question of all is this: Why in one's wildest dreams would anyone think the Sanhedrin let him go if they had no satisfactory claims against him. After all, the Sanhedrin would have the full backing of the Roman government. But no -- THEY SENT HIM TO A ROMAN COURT, where Jewish crimes were not dealt with. So who cares what the Bible doesn't say -- Jesus was punished for a ROMAN crime, and the evidence against him appears to be nothing other than sedition. Of course, this was perfectly logical -- the more the Sanhedrin cooperated with the Roman occupation the greater opportunity they had to make themselves rich at the expense of the Jewish peasants. Of course they turned him over to the Romans because they had a vested interest in promoting Roman authority. But if one counters with the comment that: "Jesus was the Son of God, a perfect man in all respects, who did not sin against God or man, and was therefore killed an innocent man." I say: "Pull your head out of wherever you've been hiding it." And of course the Romans said he washed Jesus' blood from his hands. The scripture's first purpose is to honor Jesus, not tell the truth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2013 5:53:15 GMT -5
Lee posted:
"Atheists teach that cause and effect is all that might be known or observed in the way of a formative agency. Atheists and adherents of false religion are both guilty of perpetuating wrong ideas and actions."
Right, ok. The thing is a lot of people I know would describe themselves as atheists. Most of them would have no idea of what you meant by what you wrote and probably wouldn't have much idea of what cause and effect is all about. Not many of them teach much at all. Maybe it is a regional thing. Maybe the people I know are not 'proper' atheists. Wonder if that makes them ok in your eyes or are they still terrible?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 29, 2013 12:03:28 GMT -5
Inciting a revolt against the governing Romans. He had the plaque above his head saying King of the Jews. This tells us what the Romans crucified him for. They felt he was trying to oust them and become the governing leader of his people. Whether that was his true goal doesn't matter. The Romans thought it was and they crucified many so called Messiahs for it. Jesus had a big enough following that he came to the attention of the Romans. The incident in the temple where he overturned the vendors tables etc. was an open confrontation against the right for the Sanhedrin to take money for their 'services'. He felt their healing, ritual purification etc should have been done for free and he was doing that himself. Most who went around 'healing' as Messiahs actually charged for their services. However, when he did that he drew attention to himself and jeopardized the Sanhedrin's right to collect money and they didn't want that. They turned him in and the Romans would not have thought twice about executing him for sedition. That would be how they viewed it because they dipped into the coffers of the temple priests quite often themselves. So he was a guilty man and if he wasn't it doesn't matter anyway. What'chu been smoking? Nothing, just letting people know what the history of that time was. You don't want to read, you've told me that before. So, don't be surprised if there are some things that you don't know. Lots I don't know too, but that's why I continue reading. Learning more is important to me.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 29, 2013 12:07:57 GMT -5
That's actually inaccurate. It is the spin the gospels put on things after the fact when he went and got himself crucified. It is actually one of the reasons why he was the one of many Messiahs that weren't just forgotten when he was crucified like all the rest. Paul is responsible for that spin actually. He didn't know Jesus and he really didn't care because he was pretty much making things up as he went along. That is why he made the original apostles so upset with his teachings. He wasn't interested in who or what Jesus really was. He was only interested in forming a religion. However, having a Messiah that got himself killed wouldn't be all that good at establishing much of a following. So Paul changed it up to say Jesus was talking about a spiritual kingdom, and he wasn't trying to overthrow the Roman government. That was important because Paul had to live among the Romans and to blame the Romans for what they did would have been suicide for him and his followers. Keep reading your revisionist bullsh-! It's not bullsh-. Just because you can't believe in it doesn't make it inaccurate.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 29, 2013 12:11:59 GMT -5
Lee do you know nothing about the conditions when Jesus was alive? The Roman Empire ruled the Jews. They taxed them, governed them, killed them if they tried to revolt. So their definition of sedition mattered a lot because it is what killed Jesus. Their definition of what they felt he was doing. He was challenging their right of rule. They didn't allow that and death was the penalty. Duh. Obviously you don't appreciate that nations are measured by the number of innocents they step over. Unless it happens to be Jesus. Well then Rome has a lot of dead innocents on their record. Not just in Palestine. They never got to be the huge Empire they were by letting the people they defeated revolt against them.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 29, 2013 12:29:14 GMT -5
Are you saying Jesus wasn't put to death an innocent man? Not having been a juror at that trial, thus not having evaluated all the evidence presented against him there -- and not knowing the exact language of the pertinent Roman law, it is impossible for me to decide whether Jesus was guilty or not. But I do know this -- it doesn't matter what God's will or law is, that does not matter one whit in the courts of law of temporal nations. And I also know this -- courts do not punish persons for crimes that are out of the jurisdiction of the court. And if the Bible is a true account, Jesus did indeed commit crimes against the Roman government at the time (which Christians praise him for to this day). And also from the Bible, I also understand that the Romans punished him according to the normal judgment of the court where he was tried. I also notice that, according to the Bible, Jesus was not punished by the Sanhedrin for any of the crimes in their own jurisdiction to punish -- which would include blasphemy and all the other fantasy accusations that Christians propose were made against Jesus by the Jews. For someone who knows the politics of the day, the most obvious question of all is this: Why in one's wildest dreams would anyone think the Sanhedrin let him go if they had no satisfactory claims against him. After all, the Sanhedrin would have the full backing of the Roman government. But no -- THEY SENT HIM TO A ROMAN COURT, where Jewish crimes were not dealt with. So who cares what the Bible doesn't say -- Jesus was punished for a ROMAN crime, and the evidence against him appears to be nothing other than sedition. Of course, this was perfectly logical -- the more the Sanhedrin cooperated with the Roman occupation the greater opportunity they had to make themselves rich at the expense of the Jewish peasants. Of course they turned him over to the Romans because they had a vested interest in promoting Roman authority. But if one counters with the comment that: "Jesus was the Son of God, a perfect man in all respects, who did not sin against God or man, and was therefore killed an innocent man." I say: "Pull your head out of wherever you've been hiding it." And of course the Romans said he washed Jesus' blood from his hands. The scripture's first purpose is to honor Jesus, not tell the truth. Yes, which was exactly what Jesus was so upset about with the temple priests. He didn't feel they should charge for their ritual purifications, healings etc. He felt that was very wrong and he wanted them out of there and replaced by priests that were not corrupt. The Sanhedrin were very corrupt and in alliance with the Romans. They charged huge money for their 'services'. Jesus apparently healed for free, unlike many of the Messiahs wandering around the country at the same time as him.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 29, 2013 12:29:33 GMT -5
Atheists. Atheists don't believe anything or anyone is directing reality. I believe that the laws of nature direct reality. When I drop something it is accelerated toward the center of the earth, exactly as predicted. When cells are deprived of oxygen they die. Exactly as predicted.I can admit to many points of reference. Perhaps you could explain what you mean.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 1, 2013 22:52:08 GMT -5
Are you saying Jesus wasn't put to death an innocent man? Not having been a juror at that trial, thus not having evaluated all the evidence presented against him there -- and not knowing the exact language of the pertinent Roman law, it is impossible for me to decide whether Jesus was guilty or not. But I do know this -- it doesn't matter what God's will or law is, that does not matter one whit in the courts of law of temporal nations. False. The formal and informal knowledge of God has informed the consciences of courts from time indefinite. And I also know this -- courts do not punish persons for crimes that are out of the jurisdiction of the court. And if the Bible is a true account, Jesus did indeed commit crimes against the Roman government at the time (which Christians praise him for to this day). And also from the Bible, I also understand that the Romans punished him according to the normal judgment of the court where he was tried. Uh, Palestine was under Roman control. Seems elementary that the Roman government might act where the local court couldn't or wouldn't. I also notice that, according to the Bible, Jesus was not punished by the Sanhedrin for any of the crimes in their own jurisdiction to punish -- which would include blasphemy and all the other fantasy accusations that Christians propose were made against Jesus by the Jews. Really? Where's your evidence Jesus didn't roll some heads in Jerusalem. The Bible's just a load-of-it huh? Seems like some Jews were guilty of making up fantasy accusations as well. For someone who knows the politics of the day, the most obvious question of all is this: Why in one's wildest dreams would anyone think the Sanhedrin let him go if they had no satisfactory claims against him. After all, the Sanhedrin would have the full backing of the Roman government. But no -- THEY SENT HIM TO A ROMAN COURT, where Jewish crimes were not dealt with. That's an interpretation but its varies from scripture. So who cares what the Bible doesn't say -- Jesus was punished for a ROMAN crime, and the evidence against him appears to be nothing other than sedition. Of course, this was perfectly logical -- the more the Sanhedrin cooperated with the Roman occupation the greater opportunity they had to make themselves rich at the expense of the Jewish peasants. Of course they turned him over to the Romans because they had a vested interest in promoting Roman authority. In your opinion then, was he seditious with respect to the government you would want to have, or only the Roman-Jewish government of the time? But if one counters with the comment that: "Jesus was the Son of God, a perfect man in all respects, who did not sin against God or man, and was therefore killed an innocent man." I say: "Pull your head out of wherever you've been hiding it." And of course the Romans said he washed Jesus' blood from his hands. The scripture's first purpose is to honor Jesus, not tell the truth. How do you know?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 1, 2013 23:01:59 GMT -5
Atheists. Atheists don't believe anything or anyone is directing reality. I believe that the laws of nature direct reality. When I drop something it is accelerated toward the center of the earth, exactly as predicted. When cells are deprived of oxygen they die. Exactly as predicted. What can you predict that isn't local or short-term in scope? Relatively little with any degree of certainty. Atheists who will be consistent in their confession will not speak qualitatively of life because they can not admit of a point of reference. I can admit to many points of reference. Nothing with eternal significance.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 1, 2013 23:04:44 GMT -5
Yes, which was exactly what Jesus was so upset about with the temple priests. He didn't feel they should charge for their ritual purifications, healings etc. He felt that was very wrong and he wanted them out of there and replaced by priests that were not corrupt. The Sanhedrin were very corrupt and in alliance with the Romans. They charged huge money for their 'services'. Jesus apparently healed for free, unlike many of the Messiahs wandering around the country at the same time as him. But you said he was prosecuted for sedition like the next criminal. Remember?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 1, 2013 23:07:15 GMT -5
Duh. Obviously you don't appreciate that nations are measured by the number of innocents they step over. Unless it happens to be Jesus. Well then Rome has a lot of dead innocents on their record. Not just in Palestine. They never got to be the huge Empire they were by letting the people they defeated revolt against them. So who's side are you on? Obviously neither Rome nor the innocent man.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 1, 2013 23:14:17 GMT -5
So he was a guilty man and if he wasn't it doesn't matter anyway. What'chu been smoking? Nothing, just letting people know what the history of that time was. You don't want to read, you've told me that before. I believe I said I'm not widely read and I've joked about being a bigot by preference. So, don't be surprised if there are some things that you don't know. Lots I don't know too, but that's why I continue reading. Learning more is important to me. Publications about history and modernity spin this way and that. Ultimate ideas precede facts and not the other way around. Know that what you hold true for the Bible, *that it was spun around this need and that need or this vice and that*, holds true for everything else you will ever read.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 1, 2013 23:16:42 GMT -5
I worked hard for it. To date 49 credit hours of history and 15 credit hours in Christian History/Scriptures. Afraid I'll never catch up with you.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 1, 2013 23:21:02 GMT -5
I worked hard for it. To date 49 credit hours of history and 15 credit hours in Christian History/Scriptures. Afraid I'll never catch up with you. Oh that's right .... the gospel accounts were cherry-picked to present a Jesus favorable of the RCC. Except in so many ways it isn't. Explain this.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 1, 2013 23:32:08 GMT -5
Lee posted: "Atheists teach that cause and effect is all that might be known or observed in the way of a formative agency. Atheists and adherents of false religion are both guilty of perpetuating wrong ideas and actions." Right, ok. The thing is a lot of people I know would describe themselves as atheists. Most of them would have no idea of what you meant by what you wrote and probably wouldn't have much idea of what cause and effect is all about. Not many of them teach much at all. Maybe it is a regional thing. Maybe the people I know are not 'proper' atheists. Wonder if that makes them ok in your eyes or are they still terrible? They're less terrible.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 1, 2013 23:32:30 GMT -5
I believe I said I'm not widely read and I've joked about being a bigot by preference Might it really be true that you weren't "joking about being a bigot by preference" and possible that it is also true that you really aren't that "widely read ?"
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 1, 2013 23:36:45 GMT -5
I worked hard for it. To date 49 credit hours of history and 15 credit hours in Christian History/Scriptures. Afraid I'll never catch up with you. Oh that's right .... the gospel accounts were cherry-picked to present a Jesus favorable of the RCC. Except in so many ways it isn't. Explain this. When you get that many hours of credit in what you keep talking about, maybe YOU could "Explain" it for yourself!
You can't expect everyone else to do your research for you!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 1, 2013 23:44:47 GMT -5
Lee posted: "Atheists teach that cause and effect is all that might be known or observed in the way of a formative agency. Atheists and adherents of false religion are both guilty of perpetuating wrong ideas and actions." Right, ok. The thing is a lot of people I know would describe themselves as atheists. Most of them would have no idea of what you meant by what you wrote and probably wouldn't have much idea of what cause and effect is all about. Not many of them teach much at all. Maybe it is a regional thing. Maybe the people I know are not 'proper' atheists. Wonder if that makes them ok in your eyes or are they still terrible? They're less terrible. You know, you just could be on to something there!
Maybe the people you know aren't 'proper' atheists!
Do you know, are they "card carrying atheists?"
Maybe you should have them show you the "atheist" cards.
Or could it be that you have labeled them as "atheists" when they aren't?
|
|