why did they want to crucify jesus

[Bunyip]

I agree...... He did not have that much military back-up..... a base at Caesarea and the small fortress beside the Temple. He could never have quelled a full-on uprising........ that would have been difficult for the Syrian Legate, even...... and so...... diplomacy.... cunning...... yeah....


I've just been winging through the gospels, looking for the mention of this,..... I've found mention of the pools of Bethesda and Siloam...... just need to root about a bit. This has not been mentioned before...... and I do want to find it.

Cheers. All good stuff.

I'll be back in a few hours to see how this is developing....

John 5:1,2 is an example. The Pool of Bethesda outside of the Sheeps Gate seems to be a place Jesus frequented. It is also where the sacrificial lambs were washed.

 

[outhouse]

I agree...... He did not have that much military back-up..... a base at Caesarea and the small fortress beside the Temple. He could never have quelled a full-on uprising........

He had 6000 armed troops, 30000 more in Syria, and 600 in the fortress. Against unarmed attendants.

Please learn what your talking about.

We have plenty of examples of Jews being slaughtered by the tens of thousands during civil unrest at Passover.

We also have the example of full on war in the late 60's.


The Romans handled the situation just fine every time.

 

[outhouse]

As to the pool, it's the bit where JC was bathing whores and beggars and telling them that they were no longer unclean. To be unclean excluded a person from most of Jewish society, the law, the temple etc. To be washing people and telling them that their banning from the temple was now over, in a pool about 30 ft away from the temple alter is about as provocative a stunt as is possible to imagine.

Supply sources, links that is.

Your personal interpretation is unsubstantiated.

 

[oldbadger]

He had 6000 armed troops, 30000 more in Syria, and 600 in the fortress. Against unarmed attendants.

Please learn what your talking about.

We have plenty of examples of Jews being slaughtered by the tens of thousands during civil unrest at Passover.

We also have the example of full on war in the late 60's.

The Romans handled the situation just fine every time.

What a load of rubbish...... pleaase read just how difficult it was to really quell a full-on Jewish uprising:-
wiki:-
The Roman military garrison of Judaea was quickly overrun by rebels, while the pro-Roman king Agrippa II, together with Roman officials, fled Jerusalem. As it became clear the rebellion was getting out of control, Cestius Gallus, the legate of Syria, brought in the Syrian army, based on XII Fulminata and reinforced by auxiliary troops, to restore order and quell the revolt. Despite initial advances and conquest of Jaffa, the Syrian Legion was ambushed and defeated by Jewish rebels at the Battle of Beth Horon with 6,000 Romans massacred and the Legion's aquila lost - a result that shocked the Roman leadership.

You just didn't know....... did you?

I do get fed up with your insults.

You're finally on ignore

 

[oldbadger]

John 5:1,2 is an example. The Pool of Bethesda outside of the Sheeps Gate seems to be a place Jesus frequented. It is also where the sacrificial lambs were washed.

Yep...... I have a map which (clearly wrong) shows Bethesda pool outside the city gates. But I did find another with same just outside the Temple. This is another interesting point .......

cool...............

 

[paarsurrey]

@ outhouse :

You are not participating in this debate sparky, you just whine, accuse, pontificate and evade.

I endorse you.

Regards

 

[oldbadger]

I endorse you.

Regards

...this to.....

Originally Posted by Bunyip View Post
@ outhouse :
You are not participating in this debate sparky, you just whine, accuse, pontificate and evade.

YEP! ME TOO!

 

[outhouse]

What a load of rubbish...... pleaase read just how difficult it was to really quell a full-on Jewish uprising:-

That was a war against ARMED jews

Not a passover holiday feast. with unarmed attendants.

 

[outhouse]

...this to.....


YEP! ME TOO!

You only hold an obscure position that doesnt match historians or scholars, so of course you jump on that bandwagon

I expected no less out of you. :cover:

 

[nash8]

Yes and 'getting me to explain the evidence' is ABDUCTIVE REASONING, it shows that you are drawing your conclusion fromthe inference to the best evidence and thus are commiting a fallacy.

Please inform me how abductive reasoning is akin to committing a fallacy, especially with regard to historical research, where no hypothesis can be physically tested? Did you even read section of the book I posted a link to which was part of your suggested google search on "inference concerning historical Jesus".

What reasoning method would suggest be used with regard to historical research?

More examples of abductive reasoning. And it is a fallacy to draw conclusions from abductive reasoning.

Again, please explain how using abductive reasoning is akin to committing a fallacy?

You and outhouse need to catch uo to the conversation and learn about abductive reasoning ajd its limitations BEFORE either of you question anybody elses knowledge.

Sooner or later both of you are going to finally figure out that my position on this issue has in fact been correct all along.

I think it is you who need to learn about abductive reasoning, because you seem to lack the knowledge that it is a logical process that is used in many forms of research investigation.

Abductive reasoning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I found the part concerning Pierce's quote on abductive validation very interesting.

"Looking out my window this lovely spring morning, I see an azalea in full bloom. No, no! I don't see that; though that is the only way I can describe what I see. That is a proposition, a sentence, a fact; but what I perceive is not proposition, sentence, fact, but only an image, which I make intelligible in part by means of a statement of fact. This statement is abstract; but what I see is concrete. I perform an abduction when I so much as express in a sentence anything I see. The truth is that the whole fabric of our knowledge is one matted felt of pure hypothesis confirmed and refined by induction. Not the smallest advance can be made in knowledge beyond the stage of vacant staring, without making an abduction at every step."

You are essentially "vacantly staring" in my opinion. That's cool, but don't try to make it out like you are coming to some extraordinary conclusion when, in reality, you are not making progressing anything.

If you are talking about your conclusion that "we don't know" being correct than I won't now, nor have I ever argued that it was not the most accurate conclusion. I agree with the quote above with regard to life in general. Everything else other than direct personal experience is not a "fact", and even in direct personal experience you must rely on your senses, which can be easily deceived, and even if your senses are not deceived, you have to ask yourself what is the "true nature" of the "reality" that you are seeing.

Was the azalea seen by Pierce truly an azalea? What is an azalea Truly? A specific arrangement of atoms? A specific arrangement of sub-atomic particles within the atoms of the azalea? How can we be sure that any of these particles actually exist in reality? Have you ever had direct experience and/or observation of atoms or subatomic particles, or are you relying the words of a quantum physicist? How can you be sure that they are not lying? How can we be sure that the azalea, or the particles within the azalea are actually real? And finally, what is "reality"?

You make an abduction in every thought or statement that you make in my opinion. You are making an inference based on the evidence that has been presented to you. You, in all honesty, have no idea if the totality of the evidence you have been presented to you is true. This is especially present in historical research, where no hypothesis can be tested, and thus inductive, nor deductive conclusion can be made.

If you want to debate that we can never truly know what happened with regard to Jesus, and whether he was a real character at all. I won't argue with you, but in making that statement, you allow no room for any type of ABDUCTIVE reasoning, and therefore no debate. So why be on a religious debate forum, where the majority of the reasoning used is adductive. It seems counter-productive, pointless, and most of all boring to me.

Yes....... we can't overlook all these interesting reports. The more I think about it, so the more I wonder whether Pilate could have had a motive for keeping Jesus alive. ..........
I wonder what Pilate thought about 20,000 priests all reaping (not so?) little backhanders off the Temple visitors. Did he like to see the priesthood just a little shaken and stirred....from time to time?
Pilate had to be a businesss-man, managing a steady flow of funds back to Rome.... if he was achieving that without high risk of civil commotion then Rome would have been pleased.
Did Pilate wonder whether he could use the Temple commotion to propose to the Chief Priest that a little more Roman involvement would help?

I'm beginning to feel that Pilate enjoyed this situation. He actually rekindled a relationship with Antipas over this by sending Jesus off to have a chat with Antipas... who clearly wanted some inclusion in the event.

This is not clear cut at all.......

I was thinking the same thing. Pilate definitely would not have wanted a strong centralized priesthood with strong cultural and religious ties to the population. Granted, they probably were not that tied to the populace, but as you said if you could cut out people that were making a significant sum of money off the people, while maintaining an equal, if not higher, level of social order, why would you not do it. Jesus obviously would have been popular amongst the lower classes, which contrarily would have been the population that Pilate would have been most worried about. And that you also have that the ruling priest class would most likely have been despised, in general, by that lower class.

He's killing an entire flock of birds with one stone, in my opinion.

One thing is clear from the NT, and that is that Jesus had no fear of the priesthood whatsoever. He was perfectly happy to provoke them. I would imagine that Pilate could have seen the possibilities that such a wedge beteeen the populace and the established might of the priesthood would offer him. The baptisms in the lambs pool, at the very foot of the temple were as deliberate an affront to the priesthood as was his casting out of the money lenders.

Indeed, I would agree. In my opinion, the priesthood was his main point of interest. I believe he saw Roman occupation and oppression as an almost inevitable fact of life, as was evidenced later by the Roman's crushing the Jewish uprising. I believe he saw the aristocratic priesthood is the straw breaking the camel's back so to speak, both financially by taking that little extra off the top of what Rome already taxed, and by corrupting the laws by enforcing the idea that Jews must go through the priests, and pay to do so on top of that, in order to "worship correctly". I think Jesus saw the priesthood as Jews suppressing their own people, and did not care for what he saw at all, and was happy to point this out every chance he got.

My dear Sir, look at Pilate's job.

Were he not a cunning schemer he would not be both alive and thus employed. He was far from home in an alien culture in the midst of a multifaceted sectarian conflict of brobdingnabian proportions and subtlety.

As to the pool, it's the bit where JC was bathing whores and beggars and telling them that they were no longer unclean. To be unclean excluded a person from most of Jewish society, the law, the temple etc. To be washing people and telling them that their banning from the temple was now over, in a pool about 30 ft away from the temple alter is about as provocative a stunt as is possible to imagine.

Can you cite some more evidence for this as well. It seems as though I recall a story like this in the gospels, but I can't seem to find much regarding it.

What a load of rubbish...... pleaase read just how difficult it was to really quell a full-on Jewish uprising:-
wiki:-
The Roman military garrison of Judaea was quickly overrun by rebels, while the pro-Roman king Agrippa II, together with Roman officials, fled Jerusalem. As it became clear the rebellion was getting out of control, Cestius Gallus, the legate of Syria, brought in the Syrian army, based on XII Fulminata and reinforced by auxiliary troops, to restore order and quell the revolt. Despite initial advances and conquest of Jaffa, the Syrian Legion was ambushed and defeated by Jewish rebels at the Battle of Beth Horon with 6,000 Romans massacred and the Legion's aquila lost - a result that shocked the Roman leadership.

You just didn't know....... did you?

I do get fed up with your insults.

You're finally on ignore

Indeed this is correct, but as outhouse pointed out, it was an entirely different situation. However, with regard to outhouse's statement. There were A TON more Jews in one place, than there were in the subsequent rebellion. I believe you said something like 500,000 people. And in a time were there were no guns, I'm sure they're were plenty of "weapons" within reach of the people within, and directly around, the temple. Hell, I'll take the odds of 6000 "unarmed" Jews against 600 armed Roman guards all day.

 

[Bunyip]

Supply sources, links that is.

Your personal interpretation is unsubstantiated.

I supplied sources you dishonest little troll, several times.

I am under no obligation to supply links, citations are perfectly acceptable.
I have provided citations that are perfectly sound, you have somehow imagined yourself to be he emperor here and are simply rejecting the citations on the pathetically self serving pretext that you only accept links.

Get over yourself buddy, you got thr sources.

 

[Bunyip]

Please inform me how abductive reasoning is akin to committing a fallacy, especially with regard to historical research, where no hypothesis can be physically tested? Did you even read section of the book I posted a link to which was part of your suggested google search on "inference concerning historical Jesus".

The question is, did you read it?

Abductive reasoning is formally equivalent to the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Look up the wiki page on abductive reasoning.(The one you just referred to but can not have been bothered to read.

What reasoning method would suggest be used with regard to historical research?



Again, please explain how using abductive reasoning is akin to committing a fallacy?



I think it is you who need to learn about abductive reasoning, because you seem to lack the knowledge that it is a logical process that is used in many forms of research investigation.

Abductive reasoning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I found the part concerning Pierce's quote on abductive validation very interesting.

"Looking out my window this lovely spring morning, I see an azalea in full bloom. No, no! I don't see that; though that is the only way I can describe what I see. That is a proposition, a sentence, a fact; but what I perceive is not proposition, sentence, fact, but only an image, which I make intelligible in part by means of a statement of fact. This statement is abstract; but what I see is concrete. I perform an abduction when I so much as express in a sentence anything I see. The truth is that the whole fabric of our knowledge is one matted felt of pure hypothesis confirmed and refined by induction. Not the smallest advance can be made in knowledge beyond the stage of vacant staring, without making an abduction at every step.

Wow. Just like jaywalker, you insult my integrity and yet have just supplied a reference that you can not have read. Yes mate, read the wiki page on abductive reasoning - at least until you get to the bit where it explains how it is a formal fallacy and CAN NOT BE USED TO DRAW CONCLUSIONS.

You are essentially "vacantly staring" in my opinion. That's cool, but don't try to make it out like you are coming to some extraordinary conclusion when, in reality, you are not making progressing anything.

If you are talking about your conclusion that "we don't know" being correct than I won't now, nor have I ever argued that it was not the most accurate conclusion. I agree with the quote above with regard to life in general. Everything else other than direct personal experience is not a "fact", and even in direct personal experience you must rely on your senses, which can be easily deceived, and even if your senses are not deceived, you have to ask yourself what is the "true nature" of the "reality" that you are seeing.

Was the azalea seen by Pierce truly an azalea? What is an azalea Truly? A specific arrangement of atoms? A specific arrangement of sub-atomic particles within the atoms of the azalea? How can we be sure that any of these particles actually exist in reality? Have you ever had direct experience and/or observation of atoms or subatomic particles, or are you relying the words of a quantum physicist? How can you be sure that they are not lying? How can we be sure that the azalea, or the particles within the azalea are actually real? And finally, what is "reality"?

You make an abduction in every thought or statement that you make in my opinion. You are making an inference based on the evidence that has been presented to you. You, in all honesty, have no idea if the totality of the evidence you have been presented to you is true. This is especially present in historical research, where no hypothesis can be tested, and thus inductive, nor deductive conclusion can be made.

EXACTLY. BINGO!!!!!! And that is why you never see historians (real ones) writting that "Julius Ceaser is a proven historical fact! The historicity of Julius Ceaser is a proven historical fact, the scholarly consensus says so!" Because real historians understand what abductive reasoning is and that history is largely drawn from inferences to the best evidence. It is also why you never see desperate apologists trying to shift the burden of proof by trying to pretend that anyone who does in fact understand how historical research is done prove that Julius Ceaser was a myth.

If you want to debate that we can never truly know what happened with regard to Jesus, and whether he was a real character at all. I won't argue with you, but in making that statement, you allow no room for any type of ABDUCTIVE reasoning, and therefore no debate. So why be on a religious debate forum, where the majority of the reasoning used is adductive. It seems counter-productive, pointless, and most of all boring to me.



I was thinking the same thing. Pilate definitely would not have wanted a strong centralized priesthood with strong cultural and religious ties to the population. Granted, they probably were not that tied to the populace, but as you said if you could cut out people that were making a significant sum of money off the people, while maintaining an equal, if not higher, level of social order, why would you not do it. Jesus obviously would have been popular amongst the lower classes, which contrarily would have been the population that Pilate would have been most worried about. And that you also have that the ruling priest class would most likely have been despised, in general, by that lower class.

He's killing an entire flock of birds with one stone, in my opinion.



Indeed, I would agree. In my opinion, the priesthood was his main point of interest. I believe he saw Roman occupation and oppression as an almost inevitable fact of life, as was evidenced later by the Roman's crushing the Jewish uprising. I believe he saw the aristocratic priesthood is the straw breaking the camel's back so to speak, both financially by taking that little extra off the top of what Rome already taxed, and by corrupting the laws by enforcing the idea that Jews must go through the priests, and pay to do so on top of that, in order to "worship correctly". I think Jesus saw the priesthood as Jews suppressing their own people, and did not care for what he saw at all, and was happy to point this out every chance he got.



Can you cite some more evidence for this as well. It seems as though I recall a story like this in the gospels, but I can't seem to find much regarding it.



Indeed this is correct, but as outhouse pointed out, it was an entirely different situation. However, with regard to outhouse's statement. There were A TON more Jews in one place, than there were in the subsequent rebellion. I believe you said something like 500,000 people. And in a time were there were no guns, I'm sure they're were plenty of "weapons" within reach of the people within, and directly around, the temple. Hell, I'll take the odds of 6000 "unarmed" Jews against 600 armed Roman guards all day.

 

[outhouse]

Get over yourself buddy, you got thr sources.

Your sources have been proven to be wrong.

You need to supply links period.

 

[outhouse]

It is also why you never see desperate apologists trying to shift the burden of proof by trying to pretend that anyone who does in fact understand how historical research is done prove that Julius Ceaser was a myth.



.

Desperate apologist LOL

:biglaugh:


Does not exist. Apologist are theologians not scholars. They focus on religion NOT history! :slap:



You posted falsely that William Lane Craig was a scholar when in fact he is an apologist, and even in error he is not desperate.


If I was so biased that I started calling an apologist a scholar, I would find another hobby then derailing threads on a subject I knew so little about, that I didn't know basic classifications.

 

[Moishe3rd]

So I was searching the internet for an answer to this question.

Why there was a need to crucify Jesus peace be upon him.

Couldn't they just have just killed him.


According to what I found, it all begins with Jesus peace be upon him saying that he came to fulfill the law.

According to the law, everything that is crucified would be cursed.

Deuteronomy 21:23 His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God that thy land be not defiled, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

So being able to crucify Jesus peace be upon him would disprove who he was because if he did come to fulfill the law, he can't be cursed by that law.

This is a video that explains it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMat9Iz8dPE

Thoughts please on that and especially on why do you believe they wanted to crucify Jesus.

Wow. Busy thread. Didn't read it.
Answer - Because that is how the Romans executed those whom they wanted to disgrace in order to keep the rest of the populace cowed under Roman rule.
That's what the Romans did.
No belief system or theology is necessary.
Just read a bit of the history of the Romans and how they executed rebels; slaves; and other undesirables.

 

[Desert Snake]

Wow. Busy thread. Didn't read it.
Answer - Because that is how the Romans executed those whom they wanted to disgrace in order to keep the rest of the populace cowed under Roman rule.
That's what the Romans did.
No belief system or theology is necessary.
Just read a bit of the history of the Romans and how they executed rebels; slaves; and other undesirables.

The narrative has heavy involvement from the Pharisees the Jewish Temple authority.

 

[fantome profane]

The narrative has heavy involvement from the Pharisees the Jewish Temple authority.

Another one of those details that makes no sense in the historical setting.

 

[Desert Snake]

Another one of those details that makes no sense in the historical setting.

Good subject for a thread. I'm not sure of that, either way.

 

[Moishe3rd]

The narrative has heavy involvement from the Pharisees the Jewish Temple authority.

Okay.
The Christian bible narrative that indicates the above is historically inaccurate.

There was No independent "Jewish Temple Authority" that had anything to do with the Pharisees.
Any "authority" associated with the Temple was largely up for sale during the lifetime of Jesus and was largely in the hands of the Sadducees.
This Temple "authority" was totally subservient to the Roman puppet King of the time, which would have been a non Jew, one of the Herodians.
Which means that the Temple and whatever authority it had was controlled by a heretic sect that bought the office from a non Jewish king that was totally controlled by Rome.

The Pharisees did not achieve significant recognition until after the Destruction of the 2nd Temple; after the death of Jesus.

 

[Sleeppy]

Another one of those details that makes no sense in the historical setting.

Good subject for a thread. I'm not sure of that, either way.

Siblings fight. Parents fight. Parents fight their own offspring.. And the offspring rebel against their parents.. Are you questioning something natural? They may be generalizations, or over-exaggerations-- but it makes more sense to believe Jesus had enemies everywhere, as do people to this day.

The thing about Jesus' death isn't that the Jews or Romans have exclusive responsibility. If you read Isaiah 53, as everyone should be sure the authors had also, you'd see that everyone who accepts Jesus' crucifixion is guilty of his death as well. The gospels name everyone from Simon Peter, to Judas, to the entire world, responsible for his death. Everyone is hypocritical.