buckeyegrad;810565; said:
First, there would be no contradiction between the ban on entering a gentile's house and Jesus being taken before Pilate (also, it should be noted that this ban does not come from Torah, but from additional laws added by the Jews over time). If you look at the passages that you cited and those surrounding them, the only time I am aware of it naming a place is in John 18:33 where it mentions a judgment hall. There is no way we can conclude that this was at Pilate's home in Jerusalem (which was not his main residence--if I remember correctly he only traveled to Jerusalem 2 or 3 times a year, typically during the Jewish holy festivals due to Roman fear of political rebellion during these times). I don't know if archeology can or has confirmed this, but my guess would be that the Romans would have had a specific place to interact with the Jews that would have been acceptable to the Jews. Therefore, I see no reason to believe a contradiction exists.
Somewhere along the way, you and I have apparently started talking about different things. As this portion of the discussion goes, it was my understanding that it went like this:
I said:
BKB said:
I was watching a program last night called "the lost years of Jesus" on... the History Channel, I think it was... anyway... a interesting point was brought up with respect to the "testimonies" regarding the life and times of Jesus, and is one which I would attempt to elicit in this trial.... here's the jist of the point that was made:
Despite the fact that there were historians on the Emporer's payroll (charged with recording all sorts of important things) in Jesus' time, and despite the fact that the authors of the Gospels spend so much time outlining the relative importance of the man Jesus, his life and death, there is no mention of Jesus in any other texts from the time. What is the signifigance of this silence?
In response to that, to counter my assertion regarding a lack of "official" texts that recognize Jesus at all, you said,
Bgrad said:
Furthermore, we need to keep in mind that Jesus said he had come to minister specifically to the Jews. His earthly ministry did not concern the Romans or any other gentiles, that only occurred after his resurrection. Therefore, it can be assumed that his contact with these Roman historians would have been non-existent. (In fact, it was against Jewish law to enter into the house of a gentile, so we can see how limited his contact would have been.)
To which I argued
BKB said:
But, if what you're saying is true (Can't enter the house of a gentile) why would the Gospels mention him being brought before Pilate? See, Mt. 27:24; Mk 15:9-11; Lk 23:14; Jn 18:33-40; 19:12 You can't have it both ways. He had contact with Pilate, if your Gospels are to be believed. And yet, Pilate's historian? No mention whatsoever.
Showing that it is impossible for you to argue the contact was non-existant, owing to the Gospel's openly acknowledging contact. I have to say, I don't follow your interpratation of this exchange.
bgrad said:
As for Pilate's historians and record keepers. Again, why would they consider Jesus worth noting, especially if he some peasant from an insignificant region (i.e. Galilee). Pilate's main concern was maintaing the peace and preventing any political rebellions in the region. As long as Jesus is not seen as a leader of a political rebellion, he is not worth noting from the Roman perspective. Also, it is important to note that there were many false messiahs that also arose during Jesus' time (which I think was prophesized in Daniel, but I'll have to research that one). Hence, Jesus' claim to be the messiah, which again was only done in private settings or before small groups of Jewish leaders, would not likely have been known to Pilate, but even if it was, it was not that uncommon at that time.
Don't get me wrong, I am surely in agreement that it's possible that Jesus wouldn't be recorded by roman historians. But, You're choosing to believe this "excuse" because it affords you the ability to maintain the remainder of your belief system. My position is not that I am able to prove Jesus is not real because of this silence, only that the silence opens up legitimate reason to question the story of the Gospels.
[FONT=helvetica,arial,sans-serif]Philo describes Pilate as a harsh, spiteful and brutal man. A recent PBS documentary called him as a "thug." According to Josephus, he antagonized the Jews almost as soon as he assumed office. He broke all precedent by allowing Roman troops to carry their regimental standards, bearing images of the emperor, into Jerusalem. This infuriated the Jews because they felt that their Holy City had been desecrated by these idolatrous symbols (the Romans paid homage to the emperor as a god). Pilate removed the standards only when the Jews offered to die at the hands of the soldiers rather than consent to such blasphemy. Also, according to Philo, the Jews violently objected to some inscribed golden shields placed by Pilate in his praetorium*, his temporary residence while in Jerusalem (Herod's palatial palace on the west side of the city). This time Pilate refused to remove them, but the Jews appealed to the emperor Tiberius, who ordered them taken to Caesarea, the seat of Roman rule and Pilate's official residence. Josephus reported a third incident, arising from Pilate's plan to use money from the Temple treasury to finance the construction of an aqueduct to supply water to Jerusalem from a spring 25 miles away. He suppressed this mass protest by placing armed soldiers, disguised as civilians, among the Jewish crowds. Many Jews died. This may be the incident related in Luke 13:1-3:
[/FONT]
[FONT=helvetica,arial,sans-serif]"Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, 'Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.'"[/FONT]
[FONT=helvetica,arial,sans-serif]Each of the Gospels records the trial of Jesus before Pilate. Mark tells the basic story; Luke adds Jesus audience before Herod Antipas, and Pilate's three assertions of Jesus' innocence; Matthew relates the dream and plea of Pilate's wife Prickly, Pilate's disclaimer of responsibility for Jesus' death and his placing a guard at the tomb; John supplies the fullest details of the trial because he was present during the proceedings. In view of Pilate's record, it is surprising that he allowed himself to be pressured by Jewish religious authorities into allowing Jesus to be executed. In any event, the inscription placed on Jesus' cross according to the Gospels was Pilate's grim joke at Jewish expense: "Jesus of Nazareth, the king of the Jews." Anti-Semitic to the end, Pilate was really saying, "What a pitiful race this is, with such a sorry figure for a king."[/FONT]
This description does not sound to me to be of a man who would choose to ignore Jesus... especially when he was - according to the Gospel's - actually brought before Pilate. While I have to concede it's possible it went down as you're describing, it seems equally as valid to assume Pilate - who was no fan of the Jews - would take the opportunity to make his point in his description of history (via his historians) I think you'll agree that part of the role of these histories was to advance propaganda - in this case, Roman propaganda - and I think you're dismissing the unimportance (to the Romans) of your savior too quickly.
bgrad said:
I'm not sure why you call them my experts. I am perfectly aware of biblical minimalists and secular historians who try to dismiss the authorship, but I would not call them "my" experts.
I call them "your experts" because we had earlier had a discussion about experts and their authority over these matters, as that went you were more reliant on these biblical scholars than I was, and so I attributed their scholar expertiese to your side of the argument. So, if they are not to be believed, I think it's fair to ask you why shouldn't they (the experts) not be believed here and now when they are to be believed in other contexts?
bgrad said:
Here is an article that I guess you could say comes from "my experts", which does present the best argument for John's authorship and dismisses many of the claims by those who argue otherwise:
http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/johndef.html
Thanks for the link. So, now what we have is a classic "Battle of Experts" and it seems to me - in that we have not been provided with any credentials for these people, etc. we have no reason to choose one opinion on the issue over another. While there is reason to believe what you believe - and it's not my intention to take that from you (nor could I, if it were my intention) - Im simply illustrating how believing something quite different is also supportable, and with like-kind appeals to authority. Again, this project began as you asking me how I'd attack the Gospel's in a court, and I'm trying to demonstrate that.
Of course it was a common practice, but that alone does not tell us if this was what occurred with the Gospel of John. It might be nice to use it to raise doubt, but in itself it does nothing to show that this was what occurred with John.
But, that is the whole point of this exercise, isn't it? You asked me how I'd raise doubt... not if I could prove the contrary. I have not embarked on proving the contrary, only to show that under the standard you alluded to (Beyong a reasonable doubt) that the Bible/Gospels fails that standard.
And this is the problem with I have with the trial court exercise and why ultimately it is an insufficient means to judging the trustworthiness of the New Testament. One can raise doubt on anything (back to philosphical games, which if I remember you don't like), but doubt alone does not prove it incorrect. Granted, you may say I don't have to prove anything incorrect, the burden is on you to prove it being correct. And yes, to a certain degree this is true; but if the argument is the best one being made (which I contend is the case) why assume it is wrong? In other words, until somone can provide a better argument based on the evidence we have, I am going to stick with the one presented in the Bible. Simply because there may be a reason to doubt it does not mean it is wrong.
Well, I agree that providing doubt does not
establish that whatever event did or did not occur. But, I don't intend to establish it did not occur as the Gospels say.... only that there is reasonable doubt, and thus it is reasonable to believe something different. In making this argument I have:
1 - Attacked the credibility of the witnesses on various levels, including bias, suffering from hallucinations, and so on.
2 - I believe I have appealed also to people's "common sense" in that the Gospel's usage of miracles defies common expierence, and in fact tends to show the witness is suffering from some sort of mental infirmary and not truth telling
3 - Offering a counter theory on what Jesus may have been (a phantom) by usage of testimonies from the Gnostic authors.
And other things...
Again, I didn't do those things to "prove" that what I am arguing is "right" so much as I am merely poking holes in the strength of your position.. showing it is really just a matter of choosing what to believe and is not based on any more reason than believing something completely different.
Apply the same principle to the evolution debate that occurs here. Many of the non-evolutions attack it because they say there is reason and evidence to doubt it. I agree that there are reasons to doubt it, but I don't rely on them in my argument because in themselves they don't prove evolution incorrect. Furthermore, most of the pro-evolutions here agree that doubts exist about the theory, but until a better explanation is proposed there is no reason to not accept the theory.
The issue isn't the existence of doubt itself... it is the reasonableness of that doubt. I get your point though, and just to re-state it - again, my intention isnt to establish the Gospels are lying, but instead to demonstrate they are not so iron clad as to be believed without question.
Healing someone on the Sabbath is not a violation of Exodus 20:8-11, neither in the letter of the law or the spirit of law. Jesus is pretty clear on this in the scriptures you quoted from Luke.
Well, here again... you've elected who's authority you're going to go with. It seems to me the Orthodox Jews of the time took issue with it. It would seem you're saying they had no idea what they were talking about. Like I said, I don't think God much cares if I do work on the Sabbath. But, I'm not under scrutiny here, Jesus is... I just find it odd that Jesus could deny the expertise of his day and that's all well and good with Christians, but when someone denies the expertise inherent in Jesus, you can't understand how or why anyone would do that. Not sure if I"m beng clear here. I'm basically showing something of a double standard... Orthodoxy is to be believed... but only if its Christian orthodoxy, all other Orthodoxy is wrong (in the case of the Jews of Jesus' day who accused him of working on the sabbath in the passage I quoted.)
Edit 4/24/07: I should have also added that in the posture of this exercise, appealing to what Jesus is "Clear" about is akin to asking an accused murderer "Did you do it?" and him saying "Nope." Who among us is surprised that Jesus would support his "breaking of the law" with an appeal to an alleged higher understanding of that law?
If you are to understand my statement that Jesus never contradicted or violated Torah, and more importantly, if you are to understand Jesus' teachings, you must understand that Jewish law during his time and still today is more than just what the Torah states. However, Torah (first five books of the Bible) is the only Law that comes from God (granted, a Jew would argue against this, but I don't want to get into that argument). The other parts of Jewish law (i.e. Talmud) was added over time by men as additional restrictions on behavior in order to prevent people from accidently violating Torah. As a result, the Jews became so legalistic in their behaviors, they missed to point of Torah, which Jesus was trying to show them: Love God and Love Thy Neighbor.
But, Bgrad, I thought by using Exodus (I'm not sure, but I think I may have quoted Deut. and Lev. too - which are also Torah) I was quoting Torah. Am I incorrect in believing the Exodus is one of the 5 books?
Go back to Luke, you will see that the synagogue ruler was only partially quoting Torah. There is nothing in Torah that says because the Sabbath is a holy day of rest and convocation that one should stop loving thy neighbor, which I think we could all agree that an act of healing would entail. As Jesus says, if it is okay to show an act of love to an animal by taking it to water on the Sabbath (and not be in violation of Torah), then how ridiculous is it to claim that an act of love to a fellow Jew is a violation.
Well, as I said, I happen to agree with Jesus' interpretation and believe it is more pleasing to God to help (Love thy neighbor) than to ridgidly adhere to the commandment that thou shalt not wok on the Sabbath. My point is, the orthodox of the time took it to mean no work at all and that according to the story as told in the NT, those Orthodox jews came to believe healing was work. (and, of course, those people were pretty serious about what they believed and were themselves "orthodox" and Jesus the maverick.) Again, I thnk those orthodox people were wrong in this point... but my point in focusing on this part of the story isn't to establish healing is work when done on the sabbath and thus Jesus was a maverick. I'm trying to establish that .... kinda like I was trying to say above... It's hard for me to understand how Christians can require that we adhere to the New Testiment when the NT itself did not adhere in full to that which was considered "the truth" before it. Paired with my attempts to raise reasonable doubt, I just think Christians have to base their belief on a large amount of assumptions and excuses. I don't use those words to indicate any judgment, but instead to show that Christianity isn't as iron clad a theory as I think you make it out to be.
You're obviously welcome to believe whatever you want to believe, and you can have whatever reasons you'd like... or no reason at all to so believe. As I've said before, it is more imporant (to God) that one give an honest exploration of the issue at all - even if they end up wrong on things, than it is that we follow any one of the world's "major" religions.
In short, it is my current conclusion that the institution of religion - as an identifiable entity, Islam, Judaism, Christianity, etc. - are only tangentially related to God. That is, I think God is indeed the inspiration for a lot of the things in the Bible, but Religion has perverted it so as to get us to "join them" in whatever they believe. True Religion is a personal belief that is held regardless of who believes with you, and held without compulsion to somehow elevate one's self over someone who believes otherwise. To be clear, I'm not accusing
you of this, just entities like "the church" and many of the folks who attend those services. But, I must also confess that one is perfectly free to believe exactly what they're being fed in Church, and because they sought to explore the nature of God at all, are just as "saved" as I think I am... or you think you are.
) you are studying God. That is to say, when I say "God is the very fiber of the universe" I literally mean everything.... and certainly everything that Man knows or pretends to know. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think a lot of people, when they hear the word everything, sell the word short.. meaning "almost everything" I mean God is EVERYthing. (including that which man would label evil)
