|
|
|
|
|
| The noose or the cross.....which is it? Acts 10:39
Posted: 9/4/2008 12:11:34 PM |
JC was killed by hanging him on a tree!......this is in clear contrast to being nailed or tied onto a cross! It said "hanging on a tree". Not from a tree.
I presume that "hanging on a tree" meant: being nailed, or tied, to a large wooden object. | |
|
| The noose or the cross.....which is it? Acts 10:39
Posted: 9/4/2008 1:20:38 PM |
Would you settle for the statement that the gospels were written during and after the Jewish-Roman conflict?
Sure. As long as by that you mean all but John were "during' and John was "after". Didn't think we'd quite agree on Luke. But this is OK. We can agree to disagree. The dating of the gospels is not my main point.
As for your opinion that the gospel writers chose sides and thus their writing are influenced by their choice to "side' with the Romans, I disagree. I don't think it's a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence of the writings. YMMV. Neither of us were there, so we can never know for sure. Again, I think it's OK for us to disagree, and I realize that the majority of Christians will disagree with my hypothesis. Nevertheless, I feel that it is a reasonable conclusion. Whether it is correct or not, we'll never know.
Before proceeding, let me say that I am aware that in analyzing and questioning the gospels I run the risk of offending many Christians who feel that these must be taken literally, or Christianity is endangered. I respectfully disagree. Nothing of what I say ought to shake the faith of a sincere Christian. Those of you who choose can disagree. I also think another course is to agree, and realize that Christianity is not primarily based on these verses, but on more fundamental principals, which I will review later.
Let me go through my line of reasoning: I do believe that Jesus existed and taught. From what I read in the gospels, His teachings seem to be within the mainstream of Jewish thought of the time, although progressive. These are consistent with what a good religious person, concerned with the issues facing both the Jews of the day, but people eternally, and in particular concerned with the direction that the Priesthood was taking, being corrupted by Roman appointees, would write. It seems unlikely to me that the gospel writers just made this up.
As several who have been on this forum may know, I have been one of those diligently searching for any actual evidence for a historical Jesus. There has been absolutely nothing found, although much belief. But the teachings, as stated in the gospels, are very consistent with what would be expected, had an actual person existed. And there is no reason to think that a teacher, a Rabbi, a wise person, whether or not He was divine, messianic, or any of the other things claimed, probably existed.
Furthermore, I think He taught wisely. There's very little, if anything He said that I disagree with.
Probably worth noting is that the gospel of John was written much later than the other gospels, and probably is an exception. Whole passages claim to be word-for-word quotes from Jesus, which seems unlikely. I simply don't believe this. Sorry. OK if you do.
As for the accounts of the crucifixion, the four gospel accounts differ from one another. Also the account portraying Pontius Pilate's generous offer is completely out of character of what is known of him historically, and what is known about Roman law. That this could have occurred, in the midst of shouting crowds, in a literate society, from which hundreds of other contemporary documents are preserved, without a single mention is beyond belief. This did not occur in a vacuum. Both the Jews and the Romans were literate. Someone would have commented at the time, had things gone as the gospels stated. Particularly since the gospels portray an injustice, and Jews, despite gospel accounts to the contrary, are sensitive to those things. Remember, that's one of the reasons why Jesus' writings appear to be valid.
The principal effect of the gospel accounts as we read them today is to absolve the Romans and blame the Jews. Or as I read the original Greek translations, in many cases, the "Jewish leaders". This may refer to the Sanhedrin, the corrupt, Roman appointed Priesthood, which seems possible. But the screaming Jewish crowds? Why would they do that? What would they have against Jesus? The gospel writers reflect the split between Christanity and Judaism back to a time where there was no split.
As to His claiming to be the messiah, this was common enough. Many Jewish boys at the time hoped they might be the messenger who would usher in the Messianic Age. Many Jewish boys since have hoped the same. I, myself, briefly thought it might be me, and I assure you, I am much less qualified than Jesus was. What Christians don't realize is that the messiah, in Judaism, has two possible meanings. First is literal translation "annointed", in which the connotation is Governmental Authority. A King is annointed. The Jews would not have objected to any claims of Jesus in this sense. Romans obviously would! The second is as a messenger, heralding the Messianic Age. No special qualifications are required, although the messenger was expected to be holy. But he's just a messenger. The proof there, however, is that the Messianic Age has arrived. It is quite possible that Jesus hoped that He was the messiah in the second sense, but when the Messianic Age did not occur, the Jews of course rejected that claim.
The third meaning of messiah, a divine person, does not occur within Judaism. I do realize that this is the most common way for Christians to think of the word.
So where would that leave a thoughtful, sincere Christian? In my opinion, it does notinvalidate the main points of Christianity. The teachings of Jesus remain as always, clear for us all.
And the crucifixion probably happened as well. Rome used this as a form of execution quite liberally. It doesn't take much imagination to think that a guy running around claiming to be a possible messiah ("messenger") might well run afoul of the Romans who knew Hebrew, and knew that the word means "annointed", a possible claim to Governmental Authority. The Romans used crucifixion for much smaller offenses.
So those Christians who see the crucifixion as the central part of Christianity will find me in agreement. What difference does it make if the Romans did it instead of the Jews?
But it did make a vital difference when the gospels were written. It was dangerous to write in favor of the Jews. Christians had enough problems. Rome was powerful and growing more powerful. The gospels reflect this trend. John, the last gospel to be written is the one that most highly favors Rome and condemns the Jews. Personally, I think that there seems to be a trend in this direction according to time written.
But we were not there, and all we can do is present evidence. Evidence is not proof.
Again I ask those Christians who disagree to understand that I definitely do not intend this as a general attack on Christianity, which I deeply respect. Nor as I said, do I see this as a reason for any Christian to abandon their faith. | |
|
| The noose or the cross.....which is it? Acts 10:39
Posted: 9/4/2008 2:34:55 PM | consigliere31, I thank you for you concern. As you have guessed, I am indeed satisfied with my present religion Judaism, and am not interested in converting to Christianity. However, am fortunate to have frequently been in contact people of many backgrounds. As you have somewhat pointed out, both Christianity and Judaism today are widely diverse. I don't see that in quite as a negative a light as I think you may. Judaism is a faith where doubts and questions are encouraged.
So I think your characterization of the Jewish religion, as a faith that "has gone cold and a legalistic self righteous requirement is sought after instead" is much too narrow. Yes, I've been in congregations in which this is true. Frankly, where I find this, I can't get away fast enough! My own congregation is vibrant, as well as deeply religious. The young people are interested. We have a group that has been going over scripture line-by-line and discussing in detail. We've been going 11 years and are up to Joshua. But you should see what we've found! As you know, many scriptural passages relate to other passages. Get a good group together, and a lively discussion results.
In our congregation is a professor at the College for Reform Rabbis. As it happens he is one of the leading experts on the New Testament. He even speaks 1st century Aramaic (as he says, "to who?" ).
Anyway, I think it's safe to say we're anything but cold , legalistic self righteous. In addition, we have a long tradition of occasional interfaith services with 3 other Churches. We find we have much in common. Less frequently, we have discussed our differences. I find these discussions even more interesting, but that's just me.
As to the idea of a successor, obviously as you say much too big a topic for this thread, but interesting. I see no indication that there ought to be a successor, but if you'd like to start a thread, we can discuss it.
Peace to you as well. | |
|
| The noose or the cross.....which is it? Acts 10:39
Posted: 9/5/2008 2:14:15 PM | Thought I'd look up Acts 10:39. Since I've often said I think you need to go back to the original on these things, I went to the Greek. The word is "ξύλου", (xulou), which occurs 8 times in the New Testament. In 4 of these the context is "hanging him on ....", but the other 4 are clearly references to trees or wood. The preposition "ἐπὶ", (epi), means "on", not "from", so the assumption would be, as ferruginous stated,
being nailed, or tied, to a large wooden object.
Hope you all don't mind my getting into this side of the thread. Inquiring minds want to know!  | |
|
| The noose or the cross.....which is it? Acts 10:39
Posted: 9/5/2008 8:10:50 PM | bear: Would you settle for the statement that the gospels were written during and after the Jewish-Roman conflict?
Me: Sure. As long as by that you mean all but John were "during' and John was "after".
bear: Didn't think we'd quite agree on Luke. But this is OK. We can agree to disagree. The dating of the gospels is not my main point.
Me: As for your opinion that the gospel writers chose sides and thus their writing are influenced by their choice to "side' with the Romans, I disagree. I don't think it's a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence of the writings. YMMV
bear: Neither of us were there, so we can never know for sure. Again, I think it's OK for us to disagree, and I realize that the majority of Christians will disagree with my hypothesis. Nevertheless, I feel that it is a reasonable conclusion. Whether it is correct or not, we'll never know.
I'm totally in support of your right to have a different opinion. I trust that you are seeking Truth and as such you must stay with what you believe is a reasonable conclusion. As must I. Exchanges like this cause us to evaluate what we believe and maybe strengthen or modify those beliefs. And that's a Good Thing. I have a great deal of respect for the depth (and breadth) of your knowledge and thoughtfulness. I also assume a 'given' that you respect the beliefs of others, and that makes yours worthy of respect and thoughtful consideration. So, no problem at all. Mutual respect and consideration shines through in this exchange -- disagreeing without being disagreeable, eh?
As I read the Gospel accounts and the later references to events and the life of Jesus in the Epistles, I just don't see an absolving of "the Romans" and a blaming of "the Jews". As I've pointed out, the use of the phrase "the Jews" is archaic and carries a strong anti-Semitic tone that isn't present in the original as far as I can tell. I read that "the Jewish religious leaders" demanded Jesus' execution by Pilate (Rome), and that Rome carried it out by crucifixion, and did so with their typical cruelty and harshness. The Gospels seem to clearly lay the blame for Jesus' death at the feet of ALL mankind, and the actual mechanics of the deed at the feet of Pilate (Rome) for allowing it and the Jewish religious leaders for demanding it. | |
|
| The noose or the cross.....which is it? Acts 10:39
Posted: 9/6/2008 8:45:06 AM |
The Gospels seem to clearly lay the blame for Jesus' death at the feet of ALL mankind, and the actual mechanics of the deed at the feet of Pilate (Rome) for allowing it and the Jewish religious leaders for demanding it.
Romanticoptimist just a quick thought.....I don't see that all of mankind is blamed for the death of Christ...in fact I don't put any of this on mankind at all whatever nationality may have been included in the actual carrying out of the event. As I understand it was God who orchestrated the death of Christ, and this from the foundation of the world.
Acts 2:23
This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.
Other versions of scripture say ' have crucified and slain'...and in this paticular phrase, 'crucify' is used for the original phrase...."to fasten to" | |
|
| The noose or the cross.....which is it? Acts 10:39
Posted: 9/6/2008 1:06:54 PM | I think those who understand Christian theology ought to realize that fundamental to Christian belief is as, consigliere31 points out
it was God who orchestrated the death of Christ Nevertheless, there is considerable discussion in the gospels as to the manner of Jesus death. Indeed, that's the topic of this thread.
RomanticOptimist, I thank you again for disagreeing without being disagreeable, and for realizing that I am not attacking Christianity in general. I had some doubts about putting forth the premise that "the gospels might not be gospel ."
Perhaps not surpisingly at this point, I partially agree with some of your points. In John, where many of the English translations use the words "the Jews", John of course wrote in Greek. The words in Greek are "hoi ioudaioi", literally, "the Jews", but as I have cautioned about word-for-word Hebrew translations, those who fail to take nuance into account do so at their peril. In other cases in the New Testament, "hoi ioudaioi" seems to mean "Jewish leaders", and may refer only to the Sanhedrin, the corrupt Priesthood, who by that time were Roman appointees. Many modern English translations do, in fact translate it so. Who knows what the Sanhedrin may have done. Had Rome wanted Jesus out of the way, there is no doubt they would have cooperated. By the time we are talking about, they were simply a rubber-stamp (well before thier time  .)
This still leaves the stories of the shouting mobs, and of Pontius Pilate. Let's go over the passage in Matthew and check again if we
just don't see an absolving of "the Romans" and a blaming of "the Jews". Matthew 15
Now it was the governor's custom at the Feast to release a prisoner chosen by the crowd. No such custom is recorded except for in the gospels. This is completely different from what we know historically of Roman law, and what we know of Pontius Pilate as a Proconsul.
16At that time they had a notorious prisoner, called Barabbas. 17So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, "Which one do you want me to release to you: Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?" 18For he knew it was out of envy that they had handed Jesus over to him. 19While Pilate was sitting on the judge's seat, his wife sent him this message: "Don't have anything to do with that innocent man, for I have suffered a great deal today in a dream because of him."
20But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed. Possible, but unlikely that the Chief Priests would have been able to persuade the crowd, as portrayed. By that time, they were known to be out of touch with the ordinary Jewish people. Who knows what is meant by "elders"? Most of the actual elders of the Jewish people would have been against such an action. Possibly these may have been other Sanhedrin? The whole scene seems implausable to me.
21"Which of the two do you want me to release to you?" asked the governor.
"Barabbas," they answered. But why would they do that? Who's kidding who?
22"What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called Christ?" Pilate asked.
They all answered, "Crucify him!"
23"Why? What crime has he committed?" asked Pilate.
But they shouted all the louder, "Crucify him!" Kind, innocent Pontius Pilate, that history records as one of the most brutal of rulers in the midst of a howling, shouting mob. But in a literate society from which many record survive to this day. But nobody takes it upon themselves to comment on it, until the gospel writers, years later when no contemporary account can contradict.
24When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. "It is your responsibility!" "Who me?" You must be thinking of someone else! 
25All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!" Just in case you didn't get the drift of the story, Matthew wants to make his point crystal clear.
Well sorry. Matthew wasn't there any more than you or I were. How does he know? The account does not appear to be consistent. There was no tradition to release a prisoner to the crowds. This would have been strictly against Roman law, and unheard of. It would probably have resulted in the loss of Pilate's Proconsulship. Pontius Pilate was historically on of the harshest of the Roman Proconsuls. The thought of him following this scenario, even to follow his wife's wishes, is simply incredible. And of course, the thought that such a scene could pass unnoticed and uncommented upon until the gospel writers is also incredible. As is the behavior of the crowd.
No, too many holes in this swiss cheese for me. As I said, I think this leaves the primary Christian belief intact. We both believe in Jesus teachings. We both believe that Jesus was crucified. We can politely agree to disagree as to the reason for Jesus' crucifixion. I realize that it is basic to Christian belief, and have no intention of attacking that.
Again I want to thank everyone who allowed this discussion to be a civil one. And I wish you all the best. | |
|
| The noose or the cross.....which is it? Acts 10:39
Posted: 9/7/2008 6:12:20 AM | I did want to mention, for those sincere Christians who think that the gospels are inerrant and God given, that this is a matter of belief. I certainly have no problem with those who believe differently than I do, and hope you feel the same. In explicitly outlining my position, it is not my intention to offend you. You are, of course, free to believe differently. Most of what I have said may be taken simply as another belief.
This is one of the things I find is so interesting about a forum where not everybody believes as I do. You find a diversity of views, and learn things. But you are not obligated to agree with them all.
Thanks. | |
|
| The noose or the cross.....which is it? Acts 10:39
Posted: 9/7/2008 8:44:14 AM |
I did want to mention, for those sincere Christians who think that the gospels are inerrant and God given, that this is a matter of belief.
bear45408 If you are interested, this article has opened some deeper understandings for myself, as I also had some difficulties with what seemed to be contradictions in the gospel accounts.....As always I don't resonate with everything that is suggested, but it has helped me to at least look into a nother perspective on why this is so...
There are some fundamental differences between the Gospel of John and the first three Synoptic Gospels. What they attempt to do is to give an historical treatment, a doctrinal treatment to the teachings of Christ while He was here on earth. John does the same thing, but the Gospel of John is fundamentally different. It is composed differently than the other three Gospels. Anybody who looks at John even superficially is able to see that without any doubt.
John had something else in mind than the other three evangelists when he wrote. That is why it is possible to talk about the “new apostle John.” 1 John’s way of looking at things differed tremendously from the other three writers. Does that mean that the other three writers are inferior to John? Not at all. But it means that John had something different to give, and he wanted to give a different slant to the teachings of Christ.
http://askelm.com/doctrine/d070701.htm
| |
|
| The noose or the cross.....which is it? Acts 10:39
Posted: 9/7/2008 1:28:57 PM | consigliere31, good article! I'd also had concerns with the gospel of John. It is good to see that there are some rational explanations being given.
If you, by any chance, know of an explanation as to why John places Jesus' episode with the Temple moneylenders at the beginning of His ministry, rather than at the end, like the other gospels, I'd be interested.
Thanks | |
|
| The noose or the cross.....which is it? Acts 10:39
Posted: 9/8/2008 8:00:18 AM |
If you, by any chance, know of an explanation as to why John places Jesus' episode with the Temple moneylenders at the beginning of His ministry, rather than at the end, like the other gospels, I'd be interested.
Thanks
Bear45408
After reading the article (3 parts) I have to agree that John is placing all emphasis in his gospel on the breaking of material and physical customs that had been held religiously for thousands of years, and turning the attention into the new aspects of life in the Spirit. The first Apostles didn't really separate themselves too far from the customs and practices of the Mosaic law,...As Peter had to be revealed in a vision regarding the gentiles being made clean by God as well...and many of the first christians( Jews) kept the practices of the law..
from the 2 part of the article....
What John emphasizes in his Gospel is how the customs of the Jews, even biblical ones such as feasts, sabbaths, rites of purification, and all of these things, were no longer relevant in the worship of God. That is what John is really trying to show.
In this lecture I want to emphasize that point, because John is emphasizing the overthrow of all rituals and all ceremonies, even those ceremonies which God Himself had formerly ordained. The Jews were still staying with them, some Christians were still staying with them, but John in his Gospel is emphasizing their complete overthrow for something that is better.
His Gospel shows an emphasis away from anything Jewish coming out of Jerusalem. By that I do not mean for a moment that he is angry with the Jewish people from a racial point of view. He is not angry with them at all, let us put it that way. He is not thinking of the Jews as being bad, evil, or anything from a racial point of view. In fact he is not thinking of them being bad at all. What he is trying to show throughout this entire Gospel is that what the Jews back in John’s day, some 1900 years ago, were looking on as absolutely essential for salvation, was not essential at all.
He is not hitting or disparaging Jewish customs or the Jews from a racial point of view because of who they were. No. But John is emphasizing getting away from everything or anything Jewish in a religious point of view, as though it is necessary. That is why he continually calls the feasts of the Old Testament, which obviously were God’s feasts at one time, “the Jews’ Feast of Tabernacles” (John 7:2), “the Jews’ Passover” (John 2:13, 11:55). He calls the purification rites of the Old Testament coming from the Book of Numbers “the purifying of the Jews” (John 2:6). He talks about the law itself as being “their law” (John 15:25), and even puts in the mouth of Christ the statement “your law” (John 8:17, 10:34) says this and that, speaking to the Jews.
The whole emphasis of John is to show that what the Jews were saying — not that they are bad, that is not the point — but that what they were saying and what they were relying on, their physical ceremonies, rituals, and all such things, albeit though they were of the Old Testament, yet he is emphasizing in his Gospel that none of them are necessary.
John's purpose in his gospel is not to be concerned with the order in which the events surrounding Christ occured, as the other three gospel writers have placed....but instead John is about revealing Christ's life in a way that will demonstrate who Jesus was and what His purposes were.. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 