King of the Jews
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-12-2013, 09:42 PM
RE: King of the Jews
(21-12-2013 09:33 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(21-12-2013 06:27 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  It was the only title the actual Yeshua ben Josef claimed (if there was such a person) all of his actions make much more sense if you remove the miracle bullshit and just look at him as a wannabe usurper with dubious ties to the throne of David. Remember crucifixion was not a punishment for upsetting the Jewish temple (he would have been stoned if that was what he was executed for) Yeshua was executed for sedition and violation of Pax Romana, the only crimes that crucifixion was the proscribed punishment for.

I disagree. Crucifixion was done by the thousands for any common trouble-maker who usurped the Pax Romana in occupied countries. They were not afforded trials. If he existed, the kernel of truth seems to lie with the ruckus in the temple, (with the ritual money changers), in a city whose economy was ENTIRELY, COMPLETELY built on the temple and the cycle of festivals and fees for the sacrificial offering. He was a clear and present threat to the priests and the cash-cow the temple was in the status quo. Since the trial was entirely a mythical concoction, (many inconsistencies, NO Galilean peasant/nobody was EVER brought in front of Roman aristocrats, the Sanhedrin was NEVER ONCE called into session on Passover weekend), seems to me the "king of the Jews" was cooked up later to make the trial look real. Whatever happened, that part is VERY fishy.

The trial is complete bullshit. You can tell because there are 2 versions of it that don't match up in any of the details (one he was silent, one he had a long speech) in addition to all the reasons you list. The narrative is just haphazard and put together by people who had no idea how the Roman Aristocracy actually behaved to be told to people who had even less of an idea.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2013, 11:51 PM
RE: King of the Jews
(21-12-2013 09:33 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I disagree. Crucifixion was done by the thousands for any common trouble-maker who usurped the Pax Romana in occupied countries. They were not afforded trials. If he existed, the kernel of truth seems to lie with the ruckus in the temple

Well, *common* trouble-makers likely just got a gladius in their guts. The Romans wouldn't have bothered with a crucifix unless you'd done something to get their attention and there was no lack of crucifictees in recently conquered Judea.

The Romans viewed the Judean religious beliefs as batshit crazy. Ironically, they coined the term "atheist" to describe these wierdos who would piss off all the other gods by denying their existence. The notion that they'd hold a trial over some minor religious difference is laughable. Roman religions blended, merged and changed all the time. Having a Messiah pop up would have made the Judeans seem more normal to them if anything.

You may be right, the "ruckus in the temple" may well have been the reason Jesus met a nasty end. The Romans were big on respecting the gods. On the other hand, I've always felt that that tale was a little over-dramatized and the Romans didn't care too much for Judean monotheism. The Judeans had this pesky habit of denying the divinity of the Roman Emperor so it's likely that the Romans scuffed up the temple themselves a few times.

I still maintain that declaring himself king of an occupied Roman province is the downward career move that got Jesus a post with a view. It seems to escape the notice of most Christians that he failed to fulfill that prophecy. The only coronation he ever got was the apocryphal crown of thorns that a couple of Roman soldiers bestowed upon him.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Paleophyte's post
22-12-2013, 12:27 AM
RE: King of the Jews
(21-12-2013 11:51 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Well, *common* trouble-makers likely just got a gladius in their guts. The Romans wouldn't have bothered with a crucifix unless you'd done something to get their attention and there was no lack of crucifictees in recently conquered Judea.

Nope. There is evidence for massive crucifixions, as "lessons" to other would-be trouble-makers. Causing trouble DID get their attention, in the Pax Romana, keeping civil order was the JOB of the Roman governor. There is no evidence he ever claimed to be a king, except in the completely fabricated trial. IF he had, and reports of him being alive had circulated, they would have attempted to locate him. They did nothing. In Acts, both the Jews and the Romans had NO idea who Peter was talking about when he attempted to say they had liked him.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2013, 08:35 PM
RE: King of the Jews
Son of God was a common term for all Jews, and particularly for righteous preachers. The literal "son" as Christians have come to understand it, was a Greek misinterpretation of this Jewish phrase, as they saw it through the lens of their own culture of Olympian gods having sex with mortals (Zeus, Leda, Persephone, Perseus...).

Quote:‘In the decades following Jesus’ death and resurrection Christians would give Jesus both titles (Messiah and Son of God) and interpret them in ways that some Jews considered blasphemous. ‘Son of God’ in particular would come to mean that Jesus was not a mere mortal.’
- Professor E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus

In none of his teachings does he ever refer to himself in this regard, as either a king or the Messiah. Both Professors Ehrman and Sanders make the point that in his public ministry Jesus never claimed titles for himself and that many other preachers made the same claims of being Sons of God or the Messiah. These claims were not considered blasphemous by Jews in any case, as they were quite common throughout the prophetic history of Judah.

Professor Ehrman hypothesizes that in the private teachings to his inner circle, is where Jesus claimed to be the king of the Jews. His disciples would be judges over the twelve tribes, but he would rule over them as God’s regent on Earth in the new Kingdom. Professor Ehrman went on to state:

Quote:‘In that apocalyptic sense (and I would say, only in that sense) did Jesus think of himself as the Messiah. He wasn’t a cosmic judge, an authoritative priest, or a military leader. He was the one sent from God to proclaim the good news of the coming Kingdom, who would be the ultimate ruler when the end arrived.’

Manifest Insanity @ Amazon
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2013, 02:29 AM
RE: King of the Jews
(21-12-2013 11:51 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(21-12-2013 09:33 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I disagree. Crucifixion was done by the thousands for any common trouble-maker who usurped the Pax Romana in occupied countries. They were not afforded trials. If he existed, the kernel of truth seems to lie with the ruckus in the temple

Well, *common* trouble-makers likely just got a gladius in their guts. The Romans wouldn't have bothered with a crucifix unless you'd done something to get their attention and there was no lack of crucifictees in recently conquered Judea.

The Romans viewed the Judean religious beliefs as batshit crazy. Ironically, they coined the term "atheist" to describe these wierdos who would piss off all the other gods by denying their existence. The notion that they'd hold a trial over some minor religious difference is laughable. Roman religions blended, merged and changed all the time. Having a Messiah pop up would have made the Judeans seem more normal to them if anything.

You may be right, the "ruckus in the temple" may well have been the reason Jesus met a nasty end. The Romans were big on respecting the gods. On the other hand, I've always felt that that tale was a little over-dramatized and the Romans didn't care too much for Judean monotheism. The Judeans had this pesky habit of denying the divinity of the Roman Emperor so it's likely that the Romans scuffed up the temple themselves a few times.

I still maintain that declaring himself king of an occupied Roman province is the downward career move that got Jesus a post with a view. It seems to escape the notice of most Christians that he failed to fulfill that prophecy. The only coronation he ever got was the apocryphal crown of thorns that a couple of Roman soldiers bestowed upon him.

"I still maintain that declaring himself king of an occupied Roman province is the downward career move that got Jesus a post with a view." Love it!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2013, 02:49 AM (This post was last modified: 23-12-2013 03:36 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: King of the Jews
(22-12-2013 12:27 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(21-12-2013 11:51 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Well, *common* trouble-makers likely just got a gladius in their guts. The Romans wouldn't have bothered with a crucifix unless you'd done something to get their attention and there was no lack of crucifictees in recently conquered Judea.

Nope. There is evidence for massive crucifixions, as "lessons" to other would-be trouble-makers. Causing trouble DID get their attention, in the Pax Romana, keeping civil order was the JOB of the Roman governor. There is no evidence he ever claimed to be a king, except in the completely fabricated trial. IF he had, and reports of him being alive had circulated, they would have attempted to locate him. They did nothing. In Acts, both the Jews and the Romans had NO idea who Peter was talking about when he attempted to say they had liked him.

I agree with you there were multiple crucifixions...for eg after the revolt of Judas the Galilean in 6 CE and in the first Jewish War.

I reckon Jesus did think he was a king. He was anointed with oil. He rode into Jerusalem on a donkey like a king. I think he tried to start a war, and he wanted to be in charge of Jews, as king.

It's possible that Jesus thought that he was to be the next king of Israel and John the Baptist the new high priest. This would fit with the fact that Jesus was said to be a descendent of David and John a descendant of Aaron.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2013, 03:17 AM
RE: King of the Jews
Did he do all those things? Or did later writers just attribute those things to him, in order to make him fit past narratives from the Hebrew Bible?

Manifest Insanity @ Amazon
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2013, 03:33 AM
RE: King of the Jews
(22-12-2013 08:35 PM)Diogenes of Mayberry Wrote:  Son of God was a common term for all Jews, and particularly for righteous preachers. The literal "son" as Christians have come to understand it, was a Greek misinterpretation of this Jewish phrase, as they saw it through the lens of their own culture of Olympian gods having sex with mortals (Zeus, Leda, Persephone, Perseus...).

Quote:‘In the decades following Jesus’ death and resurrection Christians would give Jesus both titles (Messiah and Son of God) and interpret them in ways that some Jews considered blasphemous. ‘Son of God’ in particular would come to mean that Jesus was not a mere mortal.’
- Professor E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus

In none of his teachings does he ever refer to himself in this regard, as either a king or the Messiah. Both Professors Ehrman and Sanders make the point that in his public ministry Jesus never claimed titles for himself and that many other preachers made the same claims of being Sons of God or the Messiah. These claims were not considered blasphemous by Jews in any case, as they were quite common throughout the prophetic history of Judah.

Professor Ehrman hypothesizes that in the private teachings to his inner circle, is where Jesus claimed to be the king of the Jews. His disciples would be judges over the twelve tribes, but he would rule over them as God’s regent on Earth in the new Kingdom. Professor Ehrman went on to state:

Quote:‘In that apocalyptic sense (and I would say, only in that sense) did Jesus think of himself as the Messiah. He wasn’t a cosmic judge, an authoritative priest, or a military leader. He was the one sent from God to proclaim the good news of the coming Kingdom, who would be the ultimate ruler when the end arrived.’

I must say I disagree with Bart on this particular point. Its pretty obvious to me that Jesus thought of himself as a military leader, someone who would rid Israel of the pesky Romans. He was a poor xenophobic Jew from a backwater part of Palestine, Gallilee. He associated with zealots. His cousin John was killed because he looked like a zealot. He tramped around the countryside trying to drum up support for himself and had to avoid getting arrested in the process. The Romans sent 600 soldiers to the garden of Gethsemane to arrest him. The goddamn Romans couldn't give a toss about him if he was just some wannabe apocalyptic prophet. They had to use considerable resources to collar him. Jesus was in Jerusalem at Passover when he was trying to rally hotheaded patriotic Jews against the Romans. He failed, as they got to him first. Crucifixion was a very public degrading death designed to discourage other rebellious rascals from having their own patriotic dreams.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2013, 03:35 AM
RE: King of the Jews
(23-12-2013 03:17 AM)Diogenes of Mayberry Wrote:  Did he do all those things? Or did later writers just attribute those things to him, in order to make him fit past narratives from the Hebrew Bible?

yeah. good point. Noone knows.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2013, 03:41 AM
RE: King of the Jews
Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.
- Zech 9:9

Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.
- Matthew 21:5

And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.
- Zech 11:12

And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver.
- Matthew 26:15; 27:3, 9

Coincidence? Me thinks not.

Manifest Insanity @ Amazon
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: