Judaism and Eden and Eve

[shunyadragon]

They had the chance , under Roman Law , if one offended the Tample , Jews were able to implement justice.
They did not , the question is why?


True.
The question is how it became Roman problem , since military force around Jesus is no where to be found.

The Romans were brutal , but not stupid.


How?
The Romans themselfs gave the title 'King of the Jews' to Herod.It just meens one who leads the Jews.

There are two possibilities here.
Military or religious.
If there was any Military movement then the crucifixion would be justified , since that means clear threat to Roman Authority.


Well you should read more about Roman Law and religion , and then come back here and we can have meaningfull discussion.

Claims of being the Messiah and the King of the Jews is advocating rebellion against Rome, The unrest and agitation among the people in response to the claims of Jesus were sufficient for Rome to act. ALL who made such claims at the time, and there were others, received the same Roman justice.

 

[shunyadragon]

You have provided not one record of earliest writings.You just used someone's explenation based on interpretation.

So your 'proof' becomes 'poof'

ALL the later secondary sources well after the life of JEsus are simply Jesus was crucified under Roman authority, The Roman punishment for rebellion against Rome.

You have absolutely no evidence to support your case during the life of Jesus other than the few secondary sources wll after Jesus was crucified. Where is your is your evidence during the life of Jesus. POOF!!!!!!!

Still waiting . . . .

 

[Dimi95]

Claims of being the Messiah and the King of the Jews is advocating rebellion against Rome, The unrest and agitation among the people in response to the claims of JEsus were sufficient for Rome to act.

You need to cite Roman law to support this claim since you said Messiah.
'King of the Jews' is a title that was given to Herod by the Romans before Jesus was even born.It meant one who leads the Jews.

But the thing is that you won't find anything in Roman law suporting this non-sense.

But do it on yourself , maybe then you will find a way to reason.

ALL who made such claims at the time, and there were others, received the same Roman justice.

Ok
Where is the evidence?

 

[Dimi95]

ALL the later secondary sources well after the life of JEsus are simply Jesus was crucified under Roman authority, The Roman punishment for rebellion against Rome.

Josephus tells more about Jesus then just crucifixion.
You just ignore that.

You have absolutely no evidence to support your case during the life of Jesus other than the few secondary sources wll after Jesus was crucified.

You have ignored the sources i provided.
Few is better then nothing.

Where is your is your evidence during the life of Jesus. POOF!!!!!!!

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
It just shows more of your ignorance towards the question.
It tells that you know very little..

 

[shunyadragon]

You need to cite Roman law to support this claim since you said Messiah.
'King of the Jews' is a title that was given to Herod by the Romans before Jesus was even born.It meant one who leads the Jews.

But the thing is that you won't find anything in Roman law suporting this non-sense.

But do it on yourself , maybe then you will find a way to reason.


Ok
Where is the evidence?

Known history of those that rebelled against Rome and the limited second and third hand later references that Jesus was crucified under Roman Law.

Crucifixion Definition, History & Examples | Study.com

Learn about the history of crucifixion and its definition. Discover the most famous crucifixion, Jesus on the cross, along with other examples of...

study.com

Why did people get crucified?​

Crucifixion was used as a method of capital punishment, or execution, to punish a variety of different crimes in different cultures. Examples of crimes that were punished with crucifixion include murder, theft, treason, slave rebellion, religious transgressions, and more. Also, sometimes military generals would crucify their enemies.

Why Romans Crucified People (The Story Beyond the Cross & Nails)

Roman crucifixion was more than a cross and nails story. Learn the process and methods the Romans deployed in crucifixion and why it was such an effective punishment.

ehrmanblog.org

Who Was Crucifixion Reserved For​

Crucifixion was reserved for special cases.

But there were lots of special cases. Two of the most common were low-life criminals and enemies of the state. These are two very different matters – they are not the same thing. Low-life criminals would include, for example, slaves who had escaped from their masters and committed a crime. If caught, a slave could be crucified. There were two reasons they were subjected to such a tortuous, slow, and humiliating death.

They were receiving the “ultimate” punishment for their crime. But possibly more important, they were used as a spectacle to warn any other slave who was thinking about escaping or committing crimes about what could happen to *them*.

 

[shunyadragon]

Josephus tells more about Jesus then just crucifixion.
You just ignore that.

Third and highly edited source. Josephus only describe Jesus was crucified,

You have ignored the sources i provided.
Few is better then nothing.

No first sources provided during the life of Jesus.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
It just shows more of your ignorance towards the question.
It tells that you know very little..

Though absence of evidence demonstrates that your argument ahs no basis in fact.

Note reasons for crucifixion: Jesus was not an escaped slave or common thief he was guilty of treason against Rome.

The demands of crucifixion in the crowd were likely more Romans and not necessarily Jews, because it was a Roman punishment.

 

[metis]

If Jesus offended the Tample , then why he was not punished by the Jews , since they have the authority to do so in that case?

Because the moneychangers worked for the Romans.

How is 'King of the Jews' any threat to Roman Law

Kings, and those serving them don't like competition, plus Jesus was agitating at the Temple.

Do you think that Romans crucified people just for claiming titles?

Possibly.

The arguments that are builded up upon this case do not match with earliest History records.

Wrong.

What's missing with your statements is that you seem to be looking at scripture as if it's objective history. It's not. Roman historians realize that there are problems with taking the scriptural accounts as being objective, and even objective history has its problems as well.

 

[Dimi95]

Because the moneychangers worked for the Romans.

Tample events are under Jewish jurisdiction , that means that anything that offends the tample , Romans gave the right to the Jews to execute justice.
So they had the right to stone him to death.
They did not!

It seems that fact is not so important in the discussion.

Kings, and those serving them don't like competition, plus Jesus was agitating at the Temple.

The Romans gave that title to Harod.
'King of the Jews' is not mentioned first by Jesus.

That title was of no importance to Roman Authority, since they gave it to the Jews to have some kind of spiritual significance.
The authority that Romans gave to that person tells enough about the case.
There is no reason to belive in any kind of political treason , since there is no military cause.

Possibly.

Can you explain why do you think that?

Wrong.

Doesn't seem so.

What's missing with your statements is that you seem to be looking at scripture as if it's objective history.

This is biased and it means that Scripture is in no way reliable.You know yourself that is not true.

I have used sources mostly outside of Scripture , never talked about it except the quote of gospel of John.
It seems that others are more concern about my personal beliefs rather then adressing the questions.

It's not. Roman historians realize that there are problems with taking the scriptural accounts as being objective, and even objective history has its problems as well.

Can you give me any example ?

 

[Dimi95]

Known history of those that rebelled against Rome and the limited second and third hand later references that Jesus was crucified under Roman Law.

Crucifixion Definition, History & Examples | Study.com

Learn about the history of crucifixion and its definition. Discover the most famous crucifixion, Jesus on the cross, along with other examples of...

study.com

Why did people get crucified?​

Crucifixion was used as a method of capital punishment, or execution, to punish a variety of different crimes in different cultures. Examples of crimes that were punished with crucifixion include murder, theft, treason, slave rebellion, religious transgressions, and more. Also, sometimes military generals would crucify their enemies.

Why Romans Crucified People (The Story Beyond the Cross & Nails)

Roman crucifixion was more than a cross and nails story. Learn the process and methods the Romans deployed in crucifixion and why it was such an effective punishment.

ehrmanblog.org

Who Was Crucifixion Reserved For​

Crucifixion was reserved for special cases.

But there were lots of special cases. Two of the most common were low-life criminals and enemies of the state. These are two very different matters – they are not the same thing. Low-life criminals would include, for example, slaves who had escaped from their masters and committed a crime. If caught, a slave could be crucified. There were two reasons they were subjected to such a tortuous, slow, and humiliating death.

They were receiving the “ultimate” punishment for their crime. But possibly more important, they were used as a spectacle to warn any other slave who was thinking about escaping or committing crimes about what could happen to *them*.

This is generelized opinion again.
What you don't know is that Bart Ehrman has been debunked many , many , many times.

None of this adresses the questions that are on the table.And you continue ignoring them.

I bet that you have not read any Roman law.

Here is how Bart debates History.

 

[shunyadragon]

This is generelized opinion again.
What you don't know is that Bart Ehrman has been debunked many , many , many times.

None of this adresses the questions that are on the table.And you continue ignoring them.

I bet that you have not read any Roman law.

Here is how Bart debates History.

Clearly an extreme religious agenda. This does not change the the facts that are known as opposed to assertions based on an ancient tribal agenda.

 

[Dimi95]

Third and highly edited source. Josephus only describe Jesus was crucified,

Name the sources , explain the point.

What kind of academic knowledge do you represent when you adress the questions like a 20 - year old teenager on a date.

No first sources provided during the life of Jesus.

So?

Though absence of evidence demonstrates that your argument ahs no basis in fact.

How ?
Explain , if you want it to be considered.
Your generilized opinion does not matter .

Note reasons for crucifixion: Jesus was not an escaped slave or common thief he was guilty of treason against Rome.

Ok
Prove it how that is possible.
I don't care about generalized opinions who don't adress the issues.

The demands of crucifixion in the crowd were likely more Romans and not necessarily Jews, because it was a Roman punishment.

This demonstrates that you have not read anything by yourself , and your position is mainly on what others say.
So your morality is based on what society has given you.
If tomorow someone tells you jump in the river , you will jump.

 

[Dimi95]

Clearly an extreme religious agenda. This does not change the the facts that are known as opposed to assertions based on an ancient tribal agenda.

You responded in 4 minutes and the video is 13.
This shows that you have no interest in discussing

 

[shunyadragon]

Tample events are under Jewish jurisdiction , that means that anything that offends the tample , Romans gave the right to the Jews to execute justice.
So they had the right to stone him to death.
They did not!

It seems that fact is not so important in the discussion.


The Romans gave that title to Harod.

So. it remains Harod had only limited authority over local affairs.

'King of the Jews' is not mentioned first by Jesus.

It is claimed by Jesus with the claim of the fulfillment of the prophesies to be the MEsiah.

That title was of no importance to Roman Authority, since they gave it to the Jews to have some kind of spiritual significance.
The authority that Romans gave to that person tells enough about the case.
There is no reason to belive in any kind of political treason , since there is no military cause.

There is a claim nonetheless. The agitation and disruption caused by Jesus is sufficient for the Romans to convict him of treason against. Rome Jesus did not commit any other offense that would warrant crucifixion. Even Biblically the crowd and JEwish authorities believed he made the claim.

Doesn't seem so.

Seems so is not an argument.

This is biased and it means that Scripture is in no way reliable.You know yourself that is not true.

Actually the reliability od scripture is very seriously open to question. First it completely lacks provenance to time or authorship and it is more than obvious it is edited and redacted over time.

I have used sources mostly outside of Scripture , never talked about it except the quote of gospel of John.
It seems that others are more concern about my personal beliefs rather then adressing the questions.

I do not believe you have cited any reliable sources outside scripture.

 

[Dimi95]

So. it remains Harod had only limited authority over local affairs.

Jews had only right to implement justice if one offended the Tample.
It seems that you refuse to understand that.
That was given to the Jews by the Romans.

It is claimed by Jesus with the claim of the fulfillment of the prophesies to be the MEsiah.

Messianic title has religious backround.
Your mistake is that you think that Romans did not know that.
They were well aware of Jewish religious tradition.

By Roman law , religious claims were personal if they do not have military backround.

There is a claim nonetheless. The agitation and disruption caused by Jesus is sufficient for the Romans to convict him of treason against. Rome Jesus did not commit any other offense that would warrant crucifixion. Even Biblically the crowd and JEwish authorities believed he made the claim.

No one denies what he claimed.
The problem is the motive.
It is not only political however.

Seems so is not an argument.

Ok , but you ignored everything else.

Actually the reliability od scripture is very seriously open to question.

I did not say otherwise.
Feel free to question what you consider worth of questioning.

First it completely lacks provenance to time or authorship and it is more than obvious it is edited and redacted over time.

You need to check that with archeology and historians.

Your answers just reflect a charachter of retired salesman.

I do not believe you have cited any reliable sources outside scripture.

Why i should consider what you belive as relevant , since you refuse to adress the main issue of the conversation and you are consistent on generalizing the point.

If you don't know how to adress them , just say i don't know.
It is not shamefull to not know.

 

[Spice]

No one has mentioned the political aspects of the Jewish leadership cozying up to the Roman leadership. Crucifixion was somewhat a standard with little regard to true guilt when it came to execution of Jews. But why this particular man, Jesus? The Sadducees of the council were not pleased with this preacher:

Matthew 26:3-5
3Then the chief priests and the elders of the people gathered in the palace of the high priest, whose name was Caiaphas, 4and plotted together in order to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill him. 5But they said, “Not during the feast, lest there be an uproar among the people.”
57-68
57Then those who had seized Jesus led him to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders had gathered. 58And Peter was following him at a distance, as far as the courtyard of the high priest, and going inside he sat with the guards to see the end. 59Now the chief priests and the whole councilh were seeking false testimony against Jesus that they might put him to death, 60but they found none, though many false witnesses came forward. At last two came forward 61and said, “This man said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to rebuild it in three days.’” 62And the high priest stood up and said, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?”i 63But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” 64Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 65Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy. 66What is your judgment?” They answered, “He deserves death.” 67Then they spit in his face and struck him. And some slapped him, 68saying, “Prophesy to us, you Christ! Who is it that struck you?”

Read more about Caiaphas in John 11, John 18, and Acts 4. He and his successors remained very powerful and scholars have noted his true participation in the incident was not likely known.

 

[metis]

Tample events are under Jewish jurisdiction , that means that anything that offends the tample , Romans gave the right to the Jews to execute justice.
So they had the right to stone him to death.
They did not!

Only what's inside the Temple, and even that could have ended if the Romans had reason to go in. The moneychanger area was not in the Temple.

'King of the Jews' is not mentioned first by Jesus.

He talked about his "kingdom".

This is biased and it means that Scripture is in no way reliable.You know yourself that is not true.

I did not say nor imply that, so if you can't be honest about what you post, then there are other people who are.

 

[Dimi95]

Only what's inside the Temple, and even that could have ended if the Romans had reason to go in. The moneychanger area was not in the Temple.

There is Inner Court and Outer Court.
Both of them are part of the Tample.

I would ask you to show me where does it say that is only in the Inner Court.

He talked about his "kingdom".

In his ministry he preached spiritual kingdom.
That is religious claim.

I did not say nor imply that, so if you can't be honest about what you post, then there are other people who are.

Ok , i apologize to you.
This is not about honesty, i am not here to preach,I have no personal issue with any member here and wish everyone the best.
However i will answer the way i am answered.

We are talking about what is Historically verifiable.

The other people have failed in demonstrating their arguments as they are just generalizing the issue.

I have seen that is more easy to put an agenda to my argument then to actually adress the points that i made.

 

[metis]

There is Inner Court and Outer Court.
Both of them are part of the Tample.

I would ask you to show me where does it say that is only in the Inner Court.

In his ministry he preached spiritual kingdom.
That is religious claim.

This has been explained to you, so there's no reason why I should need to answer these questions.

 

[Balthazzar]

Branched from the Abrahamic source, the same set of texts have been available to me in my religious systems of faith. I'm in agreement with the mental aspect of temptation as opposed to literal snake-like creatures being responsible for the tempting. It's part of our nature inherently to question, to be curious, and to sometimes disobey rules or rather challenge them at times ... if only to validate or verify purpose or legitimacy. It's an obligation as I understand it, particularly if and when the laws, rules, or regulations are unjust. Defiance is also natural to us, and so is the need to feel equal to others.

Anyway, this natural characteristic can be deceiving and can lead us into a lot of trouble. I think it less about the fruit and more so about the experience that came from the action. Most households have rules and consequences in place when they are ignored. This is called parenting. So, they got into some trouble, experienced some negative consequences for the negation of an ordinance that was apparently just enough to have been established, given the consequence that came after or maybe just a natural progression of the coming of age experience when it's time for the little ones to leave the community and make lives of their own.

In any case, I don't think it was anything supernatural or evil or anything of that sort, but rather a very natural everyday type "wake up" to the realities of life.

 

[Dimi95]

This has been explained to you, so there's no reason why I should need to answer these questions.

In post #93 you said:
"It was most likely due to Jesus' actions at the Temple and his claim about the Roman kingdom being replaced by God's kingdom. The Romans did not allow any of that, and the persistent fear of the Sanhedrin was that if they allowed one of their own to cause any ruckus, the Romans would come in with their notorious heavy-handed approach, which they eventually did in 70 c.e."



So here you say 'At the Tample'.

In post #96 you said:
"I think one would be hard-pressed to sell this to learned theologians because it defies logic based on how the Romans reacted to any threat of insurgency, plus you're forgetting Jesus' actions at the Temple. Pilate was notoriously brutal to the point whereas he was recalled to Rome to account for his actions, and taking the Barabbas story at face value gets the Roman historians laughing.

You're feeding into the "Jews are the Christ killers" myth, btw. Jesus was crucified, and that was not a form of Jewish execution."

Again we see this actions at the Tample , but no explenation on Inner and Outer Court.

In post #110 again you replied:
"If he hadn't broke what the Romans were continuously concerned about, then this position simply ignores Jesus' action at the Temple."

In your last responces you said "Only what's inside the Temple", so if it is in the Inner Court then please explain how do you know this is so?
I don't , i am asking for proof of why that might be so.