RE: The Big Debate -- Price versus Ehrman
November 25, 2016 at 11:07 pm
(This post was last modified: November 25, 2016 at 11:08 pm by Minimalist.)
(November 25, 2016 at 10:02 pm)abaris Wrote:(November 25, 2016 at 9:33 pm)Minimalist Wrote: No. The jesus that emerges from the fucking gospels tells slaves to be good little slaves, tells the sheep to obey their masters because they are appointed by fucking god, tells them to render unto caesar, yada, yada, yada. The idea of jesus as a "revolutionary" figure is from Reza Aslan, not Ehrman. J. D. Crossan sees him as a "social revolutionary." Ehrman sees him as a failed apocalyptic prophet.
The idea is not as far fetched if you go by the narrative. According to the gospels he's inciting unrest, calls himself King of the Jews, throws the money lenders out of the temple. If that had been true, the Romans would have done away with him swiftly. If it had been true, that is. But it wouldn't have gone down in accordance with the narrative, since for one there wouldn't have been any involvement of the priests, who were just Roman puppets, and secondly it would have left at least some traces in Roman records. Other, again according to the narrative, less important figures have. Also the grave story is entirely out of the window, since someone deserving of cruzifixion would have been thrown into the nearest ditch. After having been left to rot for a few months at the very least.
But.... that's not what is says, Abs.
Quote:5 Then Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. And Pilate said to them, “Behold the Man!”
6 Therefore, when the chief priests and officers saw Him, they cried out, saying, “Crucify Him, crucify Him!”
Pilate said to them, “You take Him and crucify Him, for I find no fault in Him.”
John 19
The Romans appointed the high priest, its true, although Caiaphas had been appointed by Valerius Gratus and Pilate apparently saw no reason to remove him. I'm sure they had a very cozy hand-in-glove relationship but that hardly made them puppets. In fact, the Sanhedrin had a degree of autonomy within the city and Pilate had a very nice villa in Caesarea where he could run his prefecture away from all those smelly jews. The whole fucking story makes no sense at all. Don't forget the whole reason that Pilate and his 4 predecessors as prefect were there was because the jewish nobility petitioned Augustus to remove Archilaus and become a Roman prefecture. I can't recall if it was Suetonius or Tacitus who wrote that when Tiberius died "all was quiet in the East." Those crimes you list are crimes against the Jews....not the Romans. I'm sure the Romans didn't give a flying fuck about the temple.
If fuckface jesus had started a riot in the temple courtyard - an enormous area, btw, the temple guard would have had no compunction about shoving a spear up his ass. That's why they were there.
(November 25, 2016 at 9:42 pm)Jehanne Wrote: The historical evidence is that Jesus of Nazareth was a Jewish apocalyptic prophet, who likely had epilepsy, schizophrenia or some other disorder, perhaps, a lesion on his brain. He started out in northern Galilee, where he was born, but after awhile, his friends and followers encouraged him to take his "message" to Jerusalem. The end came quickly for him; a short time after his arrival, there was an altercation in the Temple, and he was arrested by the Romans. After a short hearing and consultation with the Jewish authorities, the Romans executed him. Perhaps, or perhaps, not, the Jewish leaders allowed a burial as an appeasement to some of his distraught followers, which the Roman authorities were completely indifferent to.
The rest is history...
Actually what you mainly have there is fantasy.
