The Sacrifice of Jesus from a Non-Religious Perspective.

[fallingblood]

LOL

but not the only one. and guess what others have a more modern take and it goes against his guesses in many places

Okay, supply these other scholars. If you have better scholars, that can show that Sanders is wrong, I would be more than happy to read them. So cite some sources.

false and its why your losing credibility in this debate.

I havnt dismissed scholars, I only put them into context as having a opinion

You did dismiss scholars. By saying that is only their opinion, and not dealing with what is said, is a dismissal. Saying that they are only one scholar, and others disagree with him who have a more modern take, yet never citing them, is a dismissal.

So I don't see how I'm losing credibility. To me, it seems like nothing more than attacking the messenger, instead of the message.

 

[fallingblood]

tisk tisk tisk flushing credibility again??

No, I simply actually read the passages. I posted a response to that verse right above your comment.

 

[outhouse]

To me, it seems like nothing more than attacking the messenger, instead of the message.

its what you have been doing.

not only that we are dealing with unknown areas you claim as having solid historicity. you know they dont.

 

[fallingblood]

its what you have been doing.

not only that we are dealing with unknown areas you claim as having solid historicity. you know they dont.

No, I have been addressing what you've said. I don't dismiss your arguments, or ignore them, as I don't like when that is done to me. If there is a point of yours I haven't covered, post it and I will cover it right away.

When did I claim something had solid historicity? I have been presenting my opinion, which is informed by my research. I'm presenting what I think is the most probable, and arguing as to why it is. Many of these areas do have historicity though. If we treat the Gospels as we would with any other historical work of their kind, I see no reason why we can't find historicity in them.

 

[outhouse]

If we treat the Gospels as we would with any other historical work of their kind, I see no reason why we can't find historicity in them

well in that case

he was questioned for not paying taxes
messed with the bank tellers calling them robbers
and charged with tax evasion

 

[fallingblood]

well in that case

No, not in that case. You have to apply those methods to the work, not just guess.

he was questioned for not paying taxes

He was asked if he paid taxes, and his disciples said yes, he does.

messed with the bank tellers calling them robbers

The Temple wasn't a bank

and charged with tax evasion

He was charged with sedition. That is the charge that stuck. It was him claiming to be the King of the Jews. That is the charge that stuck.
No, no, and no. Here, why not start here:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2788638-post159.html

 

[Nakosis]

here is direct reffernce to a tax crime

"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites ... in the synagogues ... But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray ... Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." - Matthew 6:5

This one is not hard to figure out

stop going to the temple and the treasury would have dried up and taxes wouldnt be paid.

right there is perfect reason for this scripture "We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ/Messiah, a king." (Luke 23:1-4

Well that's an interesting take. Ok, so granting that Jesus was a tax rebel. I can respect that. He was also at odds with the Pharisees. I can see why the religious hierarchy would want him out of the way. However do you think this dislike or being at odds with the Pharisee was a complete fiction created by the gospel authors?

 

[outhouse]

The Temple wasn't a bank

would you prefere the treasury department?

 

[fallingblood]

would you prefere the treasury department?

I would prefer a place of worship. Just because they have money, that doesn't make them a bank. Especially if that money is used for maintaining the Temple. Paraphrasing E.P. Sanders, the notion that the Temple would be used for anything other than worship was foreign. The Temple was a place of worship and the sellers, money changers, etc helped in maintaining proper worship. You might want to respond to the link I provided you though.

 

[outhouse]

Well that's an interesting take. Ok, so granting that Jesus was a tax rebel. I can respect that. He was also at odds with the Pharisees. I can see why the religious hierarchy would want him out of the way. However do you think this dislike or being at odds with the Pharisee was a complete fiction created by the gospel authors?

Good question. There is so much of this area that is not known. its guesses at best.

Even the temple incident and tipping over the tables has no historicity. Riding in on a donkey has no historicity.

As I stated earlier even the mention of taxes reflects more of a later addition to represent the view of taxes on the culture more so after the fall of the temple.

The simple fact their is so much gospel surrounding tax collectors and temple tax and money tables, to me suggest there was some tolk of jesus and money for them to base their stories on.

heres some good reading.

Review of The Historical Figure of Jesus

In Jesus' Temple Act Revisited: A Response to P. M. Casey (2000), David Seeley states some of the practical obstacles that Jesus would have had to countenance. For example, at least one of the moneychangers would have been angry at having his table overturned and wrestled with Jesus. It would have been next to impossible for an individual to prohibit hundreds of people from carrying vessels. And if his disciples helped out, that would have been tantamount to an insurrection, which the Roman soldiers would have crushed brutally, and Jesus would not have been crucified alone.[77]
It should be clear at this point that at every unit and narrative sequence, the incident narrated in the Gospels as temple cleansing was a remote possibility, if not impossible. This impairs its historicity.
Further, Josephus mentions several messianic claimants and the prophecies that they made. He never mentions Jesus making a 'prophetic threat' through such an incident, though Sanders reads the purported incident as such. Considering the thousands of witnesses that would have been present, and the extent to which it could have disrupted the trading activities, an event of this magnitude would not have missed Josephus' radar. Even Paul does not mention it. This lack of corroboration outside of the Gospels further argues against its historicity.

Tip over a table and the money changer would have tried to wrestle him to the ground, and they had their own guards.

the whole account didnt happen as stated, so to define in detail it as a demonstration is ludicrous.

 

[outhouse]

I would prefer a place of worship. Just because they have money, that doesn't make them a bank. Especially if that money is used for maintaining the Temple. Paraphrasing E.P. Sanders, the notion that the Temple would be used for anything other than worship was foreign. The Temple was a place of worship and the sellers, money changers, etc helped in maintaining proper worship. You might want to respond to the link I provided you though.

So you deny it was a treasury?

 

[outhouse]

I would prefer a place of worship. Just because they have money, that doesn't make them a bank. Especially if that money is used for maintaining the Temple. Paraphrasing E.P. Sanders, the notion that the Temple would be used for anything other than worship was foreign. The Temple was a place of worship and the sellers, money changers, etc helped in maintaining proper worship. You might want to respond to the link I provided you though.

your link relies mostly on one scholar heavily criticized by modern scholarships.

it was more then a place of worship.

It was a treasury

Review of The Historical Figure of Jesus

The moneychangers undoubtedly had their own guards and servants, and so did the local priests. It is therefore unlikely that Jesus could have generated an incident there that was prolonged enough for anyone to notice. There were too many warm bodies to squelch it before it got rolling. A further problem, as Buchanon (1991) points out, is that the Temple was not merely the main religious institution of the Jewish religion; it was also the national treasury and its best fortress.

and you keep discounting the pilate put caiaphas in their only to colect taxes for himself. he was a roman appointed leader.

 

[outhouse]

I like this on Sanders, it clearly shows he is picked a part like a carcass after a vulture finished


I highly reccomend anyone following this thread to read the whole article as to wash the taste of misrepresentation of facts out of their mouths.

Review of The Historical Figure of Jesus


Five main weaknesses in Sanders' approach have been demonstrated in this review. The first one is treating the existence of a historical Jesus as an axiom. Second is approaching the Gospels with a preconception that Jesus was an eschatological prophet and not a revolutionary, a reformer, an itinerant teacher, or a cynic. His preoccupation with supporting his portrait and refuting the other portraits of Jesus limits his perspective and undermines his objectivity. Third is his failure to give due regard to redaction, tendenz, and literary criticism, and relying largely on historical criticism. The fourth one is his failure to consider the Pauline Christ, which anteceded the Gospel Jesus that had been embellished through historicization and scripturalization. Fifth is the lack of a reliable methodology. "Common sense" and a "good feel for sources" are not methods, but purely subjective approaches that are doomed to yield invalid results.
As noted earlier, Sanders' book is otherwise useful for anyone interested in New Testament scholarship. But it must be approached carefully with the above weaknesses in mind.

 

[fallingblood]

So, you refuse to actually address what I say and instead attack Sanders credibility. Why not just address my points?

 

[outhouse]

So, you refuse to actually address what I say and instead attack Sanders credibility. Why not just address my points?

because so far in this thread you have not defined, exactly how jesus made a sacrifice.

Nor one that has any historicity.


my whole point with taxes, is that anyone can run in a gray area and make what he want stick with a biased view. And a biased view is all you have to claim jesus made a sacrifice by creating historicity that isnt there.

 

[outhouse]

So, you refuse to actually address what I say and instead attack Sanders credibility. Why not just address my points?

Oh and this isnt attacking his credibility

it is finishing his work where he left off or didnt go into detail.


the man did amazing work on the subject and is still a must read

 

[fallingblood]

your link relies mostly on one scholar heavily criticized by modern scholarships...

The review you quoted is from Jacob Aliet, who is a computer programmer. Not really a modern scholar.

 

[fallingblood]

Oh and this isnt attacking his credibility

it is finishing his work where he left off or didnt go into detail.


the man did amazing work on the subject and is still a must read

So, and I quote,"I like this on Sanders, it clearly shows he is picked a part like a carcass after a vulture finished," is not attacking his credibility? Not to mention the "modern scholarship" you cite is actually written by a computer programmer. And doing a quite Google search, was probably one of the first link that showed up on your search of E.P. Sanders The Historical Jesus.

So, if he does amazing work, why not address it instead of avoid it? You keep avoiding it. Here is the link again: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2788638-post159.html Please address the points that I made there.

because so far in this thread you have not defined, exactly how jesus made a sacrifice.

Nor one that has any historicity.


my whole point with taxes, is that anyone can run in a gray area and make what he want stick with a biased view. And a biased view is all you have to claim jesus made a sacrifice by creating historicity that isnt there.

In the initial OP, I define what the sacrifice is. Here is the article in its entirety: The Sacrifice of Jesus in a Non-Religious Perspective. | Belzian

I'm not creating any historicity. I'm simply looking at the story in a historical manner. You can try to make excuses, avoid points, dismiss scholars, or what not; however, it won't convince anyone that my argument is wrong. If it is wrong, show why. Don't attack my credibility, attack the message.

 

[outhouse]

The review you quoted is from Jacob Aliet, who is a computer programmer. Not really a modern scholar.

what a joke this is :biglaugh:

you should try reading the article

he doesnt refute Sanders, he has a handful of scholars do it for him.

 

[outhouse]

heres a scholar from the same article saying what I was about the amount of people

One scholar who has doubted the authenticity of this temple incident is Paula Fredriksen, who writes in From Jesus to Christ that she learnt quite a bit about the temple from Sanders' book Judaism: Practice and Belief (1992), including the temple's measurements, which she describes as follows: "The total circumference of the outermost wall ran to almost 9/10ths of a mile; twelve soccer fields, including stands, could be fit in; when necessary (as during the pilgrimage festivals, especially Passover) it could accommodate as many as 400,000 worshipers."[73]
When Fredriksen visited the Temple Mount, she was aghast at how huge it was, and its size "shrank" Jesus' alleged action, prompting her to ask herself:
If Jesus had made such a gesture, how many would have seen it? Those in his retinue and those standing immediately around him. But how many, in the congestion and confusion of that holiday crowd, could have seen what was happening even, say, twenty feet away? Fifty feet? The effect of Jesus' gesture at eye-level would have been muffled, swallowed up by the sheer press of pilgrims. How worried, then, need the priests have been?[74]
Needless to say, her confidence in the historicity of the temple scene diminished as she contemplated these questions, and she states as much in the referenced article.
Had Jesus' action been as disruptive as portrayed in the Gospels, the Roman soldiers would have arrested Jesus or forcefully restored order because, as Josephus intimates in Antiquities of the Jews 20.5.3 and Wars Of The Jews 2.12.1, the Romans always had soldiers on stand-by during Passover because riots were particularly likely then. The Roman administration also needed the taxes that the moneychangers and other traders paid, and they would not watch idly as the temple activities were disrupted by a lone man.