Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-07-2016, 01:10 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-07-2016 11:30 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(07-07-2016 10:21 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  And Jews of the first-century did tell the Romans what to do, regardless if the Romans complied with their request or not,

That is not 'telling them what to do. Facepalm

Quote: such as when appealing to Rome when it came to idols in the temple, or the appointment of Herod Archelaus. In fact in the James passage it indicated that the Jews at the time had to get permission from Rome to execute someone, and this is part of the reason why James' death was illegal, because it lacked Roman consent.

How is asking permission of Rome the equivalent of telling the Romans what to do?

You make less an less sense as time goes on.


The difference would be semantics.

The claim is that Romans killed Jesus under instigation by Jewish authorities, whether you want to call "asking them politely," or demanding them to do so, is irrelevant. Either or would do.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2016, 01:12 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-07-2016 01:00 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(07-07-2016 11:01 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  The bit of Talmud that you quoted earlier said nothing about the trial, only the death.

No, the Talmud passage isn't speaking about the Romans conducting this trial of Jesus, but the jews themselves, holding him accountable for trying to lead Israel astray, and into apostasy. They were not describing the sort of charges the Romans would have held him on. They go over the allegations, the request for other to speak on their behalf, if that's not a description of a trial, or makeshift trial, i'm not sure what it is then.

Unless they held him in some sort of makeshift prison for some period of time, it's safe to assume that the trial and execution took place during the passover.

Secondly the Talmud source is written about 500 years later, while it's possible they were using earlier sources of their own, it seems more likely they were also going by the information readily known by that period. So no particular significant as you suggest was placed by these writers on the date in which the death and trial were said to have occurred, they appear to take those points at face value.

The points you and others raise that would have been significant for them, were relegated to insignificances by the jews you want to speak on behalf of here.

Nice try, but it says the herald announced the charges 40 days earlier. This is nowhere near Passover, and thus is irrelevant to the present argument. Furthermore, if the Jews had executed him, it would have been by stoning, as that very passage implies. Crucifixion was a uniquely Roman method of execution. The Romans executed him, not the Jews. And they executed him because he was a rabble-rouser and claimed to be "King of the Jews". The Romans couldn't have cared less whether or not he was a heretic or sorcerer.

Also, the Babylonian Talmud was hardly a contemporary account (read the thread title) -- it was compiled 500 years later. Therefore it is entirely irrelevant to the argument Bucky and I have been making. Contemporary Jews would have noticed and commented on the Sanhedrin trying someone on Passover weekend. And they didn't. Therefore it probably didn't happen. Nothing you have said addresses that point.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Grasshopper's post
07-07-2016, 02:40 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-07-2016 01:00 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(07-07-2016 11:01 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  The bit of Talmud that you quoted earlier said nothing about the trial, only the death.

No, the Talmud passage isn't speaking about the Romans conducting this trial of Jesus, but the jews themselves, holding him accountable for trying to lead Israel astray, and into apostasy. They were not describing the sort of charges the Romans would have held him on. They go over the allegations, the request for other to speak on their behalf, if that's not a description of a trial, or makeshift trial, i'm not sure what it is then.

Unless they held him in some sort of makeshift prison for some period of time, it's safe to assume that the trial and execution took place during the passover.

Secondly the Talmud source is written about 500 years later, while it's possible they were using earlier sources of their own, it seems more likely they were also going by the information readily known by that period. So no particular significant as you suggest was placed by these writers on the date in which the death and trial were said to have occurred, they appear to take those points at face value.

The points you and others raise that would have been significant for them, were relegated to insignificances by the jews you want to speak on behalf of here.

If you think it was not important to Jews, with literally hundreds of laws about what EXACTLY they were allowed or not allowed to do on the Sabbath, you're sadly mistaken.
Waiting for answers about theism and atheism : http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...pid1027414

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
07-07-2016, 02:49 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-07-2016 01:12 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Nice try, but it says the herald announced the charges 40 days earlier. This is nowhere near Passover, and thus is irrelevant to the present argument.

Ah yes, you're right I missed that, according to the Talmud Jesus was in Jewish custody for 40 days, insuring ample time was given to hear from witnesseses, and such before they strung him up.

Quote:Furthermore, if the Jews had executed him, it would have been by stoning, as that very passage implies. Crucifixion was a uniquely Roman method of execution.

The Talmud passage claims he was hung. He was set to be stoned, but ended up being hung. And judging that the Talmud passage was written 500 years after the fact, the "hung" part would be a reference to the crucifixion, because at the time in which it was written, that would have been the common information at the time.

Quote:The Romans executed him, not the Jews. And they executed him because he was a rabble-rouser and claimed to be "King of the Jews". The Romans couldn't have cared less whether or not he was a heretic or sorcerer.

The Romans did execute Jesus, not the Jewish authorities who just instigated it. He, and his following would have been an annoyance to many Jews and Romans at the time, as those who would lead their followers astray and into apostacy would be to Jewish authorities, and any messiah claimant, developing a following would be to the Romans.

Quote:Also, the Babylonian Talmud was hardly a contemporary account (read the thread title) -- it was compiled 500 years later. Therefore it is entirely irrelevant to the argument Bucky and I have been making. Contemporary Jews would have noticed and commented on the Sanhedrin trying someone on Passover weekend. And they didn't. Therefore it probably didn't happen. Nothing you have said addresses that point.

It's entirely relevant contemporary or not, regardless of it was derived from primarily Christian sources or not, because it negates your claims about as to what Jews at the time would have found "significant".

You and Bucky both attempted to argue for their mindset and values, imagining that Jews at the time would have been astonished by the the events occurring during the passover. Yet the Talmud treats the passover date as insignificant, at least in regards to the death, of no shock, no surprise, no doubts cast upon that at all. If you and what Bucky claimed were true, they wouldn't be treating the date as a sort insignificant detail in the life of Jesus.

You may imagine that it would have been significant for Jews at the time, that they would have recorded all that in their own writing, but this has no real support, in fact passages like the one in the Talmud negate this.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2016, 03:02 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
HANGED.

Pictures get hung; people get hanged. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
07-07-2016, 03:06 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-07-2016 02:49 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  The Talmud passage claims he was hung. He was set to be stoned, but ended up being hung. And judging that the Talmud passage was written 500 years after the fact, the "hung" part would be a reference to the crucifixion, because at the time in which it was written, that would have been the common information at the time.

You have no clue what you're talking about. The Talmud wasn't "written" 500 years later. It was edited and transcribed later. The notes were WRITTEN at the time. Do try to take a class sometime from a real university.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
07-07-2016, 03:19 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-07-2016 02:49 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(07-07-2016 01:12 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Nice try, but it says the herald announced the charges 40 days earlier. This is nowhere near Passover, and thus is irrelevant to the present argument.

Ah yes, you're right I missed that, according to the Talmud Jesus was in Jewish custody for 40 days, insuring ample time was given to hear from witnesseses, and such before they strung him up.

Quote:Furthermore, if the Jews had executed him, it would have been by stoning, as that very passage implies. Crucifixion was a uniquely Roman method of execution.

The Talmud passage claims he was hung. He was set to be stoned, but ended up being hung. And judging that the Talmud passage was written 500 years after the fact, the "hung" part would be a reference to the crucifixion, because at the time in which it was written, that would have been the common information at the time.

Quote:The Romans executed him, not the Jews. And they executed him because he was a rabble-rouser and claimed to be "King of the Jews". The Romans couldn't have cared less whether or not he was a heretic or sorcerer.

The Romans did execute Jesus, not the Jewish authorities who just instigated it. He, and his following would have been an annoyance to many Jews and Romans at the time, as those who would lead their followers astray and into apostacy would be to Jewish authorities, and any messiah claimant, developing a following would be to the Romans.

Quote:Also, the Babylonian Talmud was hardly a contemporary account (read the thread title) -- it was compiled 500 years later. Therefore it is entirely irrelevant to the argument Bucky and I have been making. Contemporary Jews would have noticed and commented on the Sanhedrin trying someone on Passover weekend. And they didn't. Therefore it probably didn't happen. Nothing you have said addresses that point.

It's entirely relevant contemporary or not, regardless of it was derived from primarily Christian sources or not, because it negates your claims about as to what Jews at the time would have found "significant".

You and Bucky both attempted to argue for their mindset and values, imagining that Jews at the time would have been astonished by the the events occurring during the passover. Yet the Talmud treats the passover date as insignificant, at least in regards to the death, of no shock, no surprise, no doubts cast upon that at all. If you and what Bucky claimed were true, they wouldn't be treating the date as a sort insignificant detail in the life of Jesus.

You may imagine that it would have been significant for Jews at the time, that they would have recorded all that in their own writing, but this has no real support, in fact passages like the one in the Talmud negate this.

You're not making much sense here. The Babylonian Talmud, compiled 500 years after Jesus, cannot help but be colored by 500 years of antagonism between Christians and Jews (including 500 years of Christians blaming the Jews for Jesus's death). It says a lot about Jewish attitudes circa AD 500, not so much about the first century. Christianity and Judaism were both very different in the first century than in AD 500. The difference in dates is extremely relevant.

Remember, the whole point of this thread is contemporary accounts of Jesus. AD 500 is most definitely not contemporary.

ETA: I see Bucky is claiming that the Babylonian Talmud is basically contemporary. So now I'm confused. Bucky certainly knows more about this stuff than I do, so I will bow out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
07-07-2016, 03:26 PM
Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-07-2016 03:19 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(07-07-2016 02:49 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Ah yes, you're right I missed that, according to the Talmud Jesus was in Jewish custody for 40 days, insuring ample time was given to hear from witnesseses, and such before they strung him up.


The Talmud passage claims he was hung. He was set to be stoned, but ended up being hung. And judging that the Talmud passage was written 500 years after the fact, the "hung" part would be a reference to the crucifixion, because at the time in which it was written, that would have been the common information at the time.


The Romans did execute Jesus, not the Jewish authorities who just instigated it. He, and his following would have been an annoyance to many Jews and Romans at the time, as those who would lead their followers astray and into apostacy would be to Jewish authorities, and any messiah claimant, developing a following would be to the Romans.


It's entirely relevant contemporary or not, regardless of it was derived from primarily Christian sources or not, because it negates your claims about as to what Jews at the time would have found "significant".

You and Bucky both attempted to argue for their mindset and values, imagining that Jews at the time would have been astonished by the the events occurring during the passover. Yet the Talmud treats the passover date as insignificant, at least in regards to the death, of no shock, no surprise, no doubts cast upon that at all. If you and what Bucky claimed were true, they wouldn't be treating the date as a sort insignificant detail in the life of Jesus.

You may imagine that it would have been significant for Jews at the time, that they would have recorded all that in their own writing, but this has no real support, in fact passages like the one in the Talmud negate this.

You're not making much sense here. The Babylonian Talmud, compiled 500 years after Jesus, cannot help but be colored by 500 years of antagonism between Christians and Jews (including 500 years of Christians blaming the Jews for Jesus's death). It says a lot about Jewish attitudes circa AD 500, not so much about the first century. Christianity and Judaism were both very different in the first century than in AD 500. The difference in dates is extremely relevant.

Remember, the whole point of this thread is contemporary accounts of Jesus. AD 500 is most definitely not contemporary.


You made a claim regarding the Jewish mindset in the first century, regarding what they would have found "significant". Which is entirely unsupported, other then by projecting onto them, what you yourself might find significant.

We know that when the Jews did get around to commenting on Jesus in the Talmud, they placed no significance to the Passover date, so unless we're suppose to believe that the Jews five hundred years prior to them would have, for no other reason then because you want them to, the point still stands.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2016, 03:32 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-07-2016 03:26 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  We know that when the Jews did get around to commenting on Jesus in the Talmud, they placed no significance to the Passover date, so unless we're suppose to believe that the Jews five hundred years prior to them would have, for no other reason then because you want them to, the point still stands.

It does not stand. The Talmud SAID it was the eve of Passover, as I have quoted and the Talmud was NOT WRITTEN 500 years later, as you have been told. You were dead wrong. You know nothing about the Talmud.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2016, 03:34 PM
Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-07-2016 03:06 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(07-07-2016 02:49 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  The Talmud passage claims he was hung. He was set to be stoned, but ended up being hung. And judging that the Talmud passage was written 500 years after the fact, the "hung" part would be a reference to the crucifixion, because at the time in which it was written, that would have been the common information at the time.

You have no clue what you're talking about. The Talmud wasn't "written" 500 years later. It was edited and transcribed later. The notes were WRITTEN at the time. Do try to take a class sometime from a real university.


Clearly you're the one who doesn't here.

Let's quote an actual scholar for you:

“The core of the Talmud is the “Mishnah, a collection of rabbinic teachings about the Jewish law, based on oral traditions that had long been in circulation, and written in the early third century, some two hundred years after Jesus would have died. Most of the Talmud, however, consists of a series of commentaries by later rabbis on the Mishnah, called the Gemara. There are two different sets of these commentaries, one produced in the fourth century by Jewish scholars who lived in Palestine, the other produced in the fifth century by scholars of Babylon. The latter is considered the more authoritative.

For a long time scholars treated the Talmud as if it presented historically accurate information about Jewish life, law, and custom from a “much earlier period, all the way back to the first century. Few critical scholars take that view today. In both its iterations, it is a product of its own time, even though it is based on earlier oral reports.

Jesus is never mentioned in the oldest part of the Talmud, the Mishnah, but appears only in the later commentaries of the Gemara.”

Excerpt From: Bart D. Ehrman. “Did Jesus Exist?.” HarperCollins, 2012. iBooks.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: