why did they want to crucify jesus

[Desert Snake]

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.

Okay, but Jesus 'rebuked' the Pharisees in the narrative, we get the impression there was trouble there. I don't think 'Pharisee' is accurate for 'blame' either, but we just look at the entire scenario, the whole narrative.

 

[Moishe3rd]

Okay, but Jesus 'rebuked' the Pharisees in the narrative, we get the impression there was trouble there. I don't think 'Pharisee' is accurate for 'blame' either, but we just look at the entire scenario, the whole narrative.

Yes, and that would be a different scenario than the crucifixion.
However, as you bring it up - from a Jewish point of view, the reason that Jesus would have been antagonistic towards the Pharisees is that he was a renegade student of one of the Rabbis who were the Pharisees at the time.
From a Jewish point of view, he was a heretic who was angry with his teachers so, even though he knew better - he knew that the Pharisees were opposed to both the Sadducees and Herod - he purposely lumped them all together, making the Pharisees the particular target of his ire.

 

[Bunyip]

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.

You wear your ignorance like some form of medal

Theologians ARE SCHOLARS. APOLOGISTS CAN BE SCHOLARS ALSO. Any good book on historical research, let alone on the subject of HJ will tell you that history is all about inferences to the best evidence, and that relying on an jnference to the best evidence to claim to have concluded something to be historical fact is fallacious.

Look up inference to the best evidence and abductive reasoning and educate yourself before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.. Your ego has lead you to keep picking at the wrong bone, far beyond the point where a more rational person would have thought to cut their losses and at the very least work out what the big fuss is about inference to the best evidence. By the way WL Craig is a scholar, he is a professor - professors are by definition scholars - your objections stopped making sense some time ago.

 

[fantome profane]

You wear your ignorance like some form of medal

Theologians ARE SCHOLARS. APOLOGISTS CAN BE SCHOLARS ALSO. Any good book on historical research, let alone on the subject of HJ will tell you that history is all about inferences to the best evidence, and that relying on an jnference to the best evidence to claim to have concluded something to be historical fact is fallacious.

Look up inference to the best evidence and abductive reasoning and educate yourself before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.. Your ego has lead you to keep picking at the wrong bone, far beyond the point where a more rational person would have thought to cut their losses and at the very least work out what the big fuss is about inference to the best evidence. By the way WL Craig is a scholar, he is a professor - professors are by definition scholars - your objections stopped making sense some time ago.

I would be very skeptical of any history coming from an apologist unless it is backed up solid. That is a clear conflict of interest. The job of an historian is to try to determine what is most likely to have happened. It is the job of an apologist to defend the traditional biblical view.

 

[Bunyip]

I would be very skeptical of any history coming from an apologist unless it is backed up solid. That is a clear conflict of interest. The job of an historian is to try to determine what is most likely to have happened. It is the job of an apologist to defend the traditional biblical view.

Sure, I agree completely. But of course that does not mean that an apologists can not be a scholar, or that a full professor of philosophy and theology (WL Craig) is not a scholar. Outhouses objections are absurdities.

In history books, say on the subject of Julius Ceaser - the authors make their points and write their histories giving the sources and interpretations of those sources that they are using. They also very often discuss alternate views from other sources. What you do not see are books like 'The Historicity of Julius Ceaser a proven fact: All reputable scholars agree".

And why do we not see such titles?

Because that is just not how historical research works.

 

[fantome profane]

Sure, I agree completely. But of course that does not mean that an apologists can not be a scholar, or that a full professor of philosophy and theology (WL Craig) is not a scholar. Outhouses objections are absurdities.

In history books, say on the subject of Julius Ceaser - the authors make their points and write their histories giving the sources and interpretations of those sources that they are using. They also very often discuss alternate views from other sources. What you do not see are books like 'The Historicity of Julius Ceaser a proven fact: All reputable scholars agree".

And why do we not see such titles?

Because that is just not how historical research works.

Some apologists, such as Craig, are highly educated and intelligent. But as apologists they are just simply in a different business than historians. I think when Outhouse talks about scholars he is talking about historical scholars. I will let him confirm that, but in any case it is the opinion of historical scholars that is relevant.

 

[Bunyip]

Some apologists, such as Craig, are highly educated and intelligent. But as apologists they are just simply in a different business than historians. I think when Outhouse talks about scholars he is talking about historical scholars. I will let him confirm that, but in any case it is the opinion of historical scholars that is relevant.

Please answer. Professors are scholars, correct?

And the opinion of the historical scholars is that the historicity of jesus is the inference to the best explanation, correct?

 

[outhouse]

Some apologists, such as Craig, are highly educated and intelligent. But as apologists they are just simply in a different business than historians. I think when Outhouse talks about scholars he is talking about historical scholars. I will let him confirm that, but in any case it is the opinion of historical scholars that is relevant.

Scholars are historians. Biblical scholars are the ones who determine biblical history.

Apologist deal with religious issues, and are not qualified, nor do they have anything to do with what is considered historical.

Apologist like Craig who want to prove religious concepts are true, does not make him a scholar. It means he is has wishful thinking.

 

[outhouse]

Please answer. Professors are scholars, correct?

No, they are not. professors are teachers of many different subjects, who can be scholars.


It is nothing more then perverting the different kinds of scholars, and different kinds of professors, not from a point of ignorance, but one of desperation to prove personal bias.

 

[Bunyip]

No, they are not. professors are teachers of many different subjects, who can be scholars.


It is nothing more then perverting the different kinds of scholars, and different kinds of professors, not from a point of ignorance, but one of desperation to prove personal bias.

You are either insane, or pretending to be. Professors are scholars. And historians argue for inferences, not facts. Only propogandists, apoligists and con artists pretend that historical research yields conclusions of fact.

 

[Desert Snake]

Yes, and that would be a different scenario than the crucifixion.
However, as you bring it up - from a Jewish point of view, the reason that Jesus would have been antagonistic towards the Pharisees is that he was a renegade student of one of the Rabbis who were the Pharisees at the time.
From a Jewish point of view, he was a heretic who was angry with his teachers so, even though he knew better - he knew that the Pharisees were opposed to both the Sadducees and Herod - he purposely lumped them all together, making the Pharisees the particular target of his ire.

Well, 'heretic' almost has no meaning in that context. It's clear that Jesus was familiar with Essenes, they already differed in belief, and I think 'Nazarene' might hold a distinction in similarity, as difference to others in the region. But, in any case, we have a 'story' of disagreement but a reality of crucifixion, so it's sort of beside the point. Seems like the Romans were the main persecutors of early Christians, I haven't studied this.

 

[outhouse]

You are either insane, or pretending to be. Professors are scholars..

Provide sources with links.

Perversion of words out of context helps nothing here.


Because math professors, are not biblical scholars.

 

[outhouse]

The job of an historian is to try to determine what is most likely to have happened. It is the job of an apologist to defend the traditional biblical view.

Exactly

And apologist do not have the education scholars do. They are ignorant to the historical methods used by scholars.

 

[Bunyip]

Provide sources with links.

Perversion of words out of context helps nothing here.


Because math professors, are not biblical scholars.

I'm not going to provide you with a link to prove that professors are scholars, you just need a dictionary. It is also a pathetic attempt on your part to divert the conversation away from a point you have patently lost.

Now please, either contribute to the discussion or go away and launch into your endless, mindless complaints elsewhere.

 

[Desert Snake]

Muslims don't believe Jesus/Yeshua/Isha/Eshu was crucified, Christians believe in the Resurrection. These parallel each other in a Jesus who ultimately is not crucified, is not a 'sacrifice exchange'* in any sense, because of his divine nature. I believe that regardless of what happened, we have a Jesus teaching after the crucifixion episode, probably why Christianity rose in popularity and adherence, actually, I think that a big impetus, and the reason the Resurrection narrative is important. It's sort of chicken before the egg here, inherent glory of Jesus later refined in text, but notes taken all along, strengthening the spoken religion as well.


*red heifer sacrifice parallel

 

[outhouse]

I'm not going to provide you with a link to prove that professors are scholars, you just need a dictionary. It is also a pathetic attempt on your part to divert the conversation away from a point you have patently lost.

Now please, either contribute to the discussion or go away and launch into your endless, mindless complaints elsewhere.

It is you who is choosing to use the term scholar and professor, out of context.

You cannot claim apologist are scholars.

Its why you wont provide links, your error would be in the spotlight at that point.

 

[outhouse]

Maybe you need some help understanding all this.

They have an article just for you

Why Most Apologists Cannot Be Honest Historians. | ReligionThink

Why Most Apologists Cannot Be Honest Historians.

Romanticized History:



“Historical reality is always more complex and fascinating than the orthodox of any tradition would like us to believe. The winners rewrite history, and the rewrite is almost always a simplification. Simplifications are helpful to give us an initial grasp, but we should never content ourselves with them.”
-David Noel Freedman, What are the Dead Sea Scrolls and Why They Matter (p. 69).

Every belief system has a romanticized history of its origins and influence in the world. At times these belief systems attribute and embellish certain contributions they believe they made to society. The apologists need to stay within the framework of this romanticized theological view of history in order to be true to the tenants of the belief system. If he strays he is seen as no longer part of the group and may be labeled heretical in some cases.

Eisegesis:



Eisegesis is another issue that I have come across. This term means when one places ones own ideas of interpretation, or bias rather then the meaning of the text. However this can also be applied to historical interpretation as well. It is most humorous that many groups charge each other with such claims, and some, while doing it themselves. Below are a few examples on the topic. The first link is to a video where the produce of the video point out the issue using the Hebrew texts of the creations story and the controversy surrounding the plural name of the Hebrew deity “Elohim”


Theological World View.



Many in belief system hold a theological world view. The reader may have heard of such views such as the Biblical world view or Islamic world view due to the topics in the media within the last decade. How ever such theological views have shaped how we think about the world and views history. One of the popular debates is the creation verses evolution debate. Also debates on the historical Jesus.

 

[Bunyip]

Maybe you need some help understanding all this.

They have an article just for you

Why Most Apologists Cannot Be Honest Historians. | ReligionThink

Why Most Apologists Cannot Be Honest Historians.

Romanticized History:



“Historical reality is always more complex and fascinating than the orthodox of any tradition would like us to believe. The winners rewrite history, and the rewrite is almost always a simplification. Simplifications are helpful to give us an initial grasp, but we should never content ourselves with them.”
-David Noel Freedman, What are the Dead Sea Scrolls and Why They Matter (p. 69).

Every belief system has a romanticized history of its origins and influence in the world. At times these belief systems attribute and embellish certain contributions they believe they made to society. The apologists need to stay within the framework of this romanticized theological view of history in order to be true to the tenants of the belief system. If he strays he is seen as no longer part of the group and may be labeled heretical in some cases.

Eisegesis:



Eisegesis is another issue that I have come across. This term means when one places ones own ideas of interpretation, or bias rather then the meaning of the text. However this can also be applied to historical interpretation as well. It is most humorous that many groups charge each other with such claims, and some, while doing it themselves. Below are a few examples on the topic. The first link is to a video where the produce of the video point out the issue using the Hebrew texts of the creations story and the controversy surrounding the plural name of the Hebrew deity “Elohim”


Theological World View.



Many in belief system hold a theological world view. The reader may have heard of such views such as the Biblical world view or Islamic world view due to the topics in the media within the last decade. How ever such theological views have shaped how we think about the world and views history. One of the popular debates is the creation verses evolution debate. Also debates on the historical Jesus.

Engaging with you is an exercise in pointless futility. IGNORE

 

[outhouse]

Engaging with you is an exercise in pointless futility.

I can see that, when one chooses to shut his mind to what everyone else claims is credible.


Since you never have debated the topic in context in these threads, I don't see a great loss here.

 

[columbus]

Before RF I didn't realize that Islam teaches that Jesus was not crucified. I'd heard this from Muslims before, but I thought it was just a personal opinion from people who were unfamiliar with Christianity. Possibly this is because I live in Jesustan, where Muslims would be smart not to say that too loudly.

So I am left with three possibilities.

1) Jesus never existed, and so was not crucified. Christians and Muslims are both wrong. I don't think that is true. But it doesn't matter.

2) Muhammad had access to a supernatural source of information and Jesus' following was either mistaken or lying.

3) Muhammad got wrong information, centuries after the event, and had no real connection to God. So he put something wrong into what became the Quran.

I find option 3 the most likely by far. This is another reason to believe that the Quran and Islam is a human invention.

Tom