20 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioYes to be openminded you would need to suspend judgement until you've learnt the true.
The person who [b]needs the Bible to be literally true at all times is
by definition blinded to all other arguments.
I have no problem with any one part of the Bible's being true, or any one
part of its being false.
That is not blindness. That is opened-mindedness to revelation and Truth.
Nemesio[/b]
By having this "maturity of faith" by definition, would mean that you would still have to believe in something that you could not prove to be true (in this case the greater theological presentation).
So who is the greater fool, the person who believes in the theory of the event, or the person who believes in the conspiracy theory of the event?
22 Nov 05
Originally posted by NemesioThe high priests ruled the empire second only to the emperor. Jesus claimed to be the son of God, declared the ruling church body to be corrupt, and sacked the church when they turned it into a flea market.
Originally posted by The Chess Express
[b]I disagree. The Romans very much saw Jesus as a threat to the entire empire. Jesus condemned the Pharisees and the Sadducees who both controlled the church that controlled the empire along with the holy emperor. There was no seperation between church and state back then.
Your understanding of history i ...[text shortened]... e fact of the matter is, he barely
registered on the radar for the Roman government.
Nemesio[/b]
His many miracles gave him a following and influence that did not go unnoticed by the Romans. Why is it that none of those other guys are remembered the way Jesus is?
22 Nov 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageHe is showing an abysmal ignorance of real history and a desire to replace it with "Christian" mythology. There is no mention of Jesus or Christ in Roman records until Tacitus who was writing 30 years after Jesus' death and only mentions him in relation to his followers ("a pernicious superstition" in his words). Even the Bible makes it clear that Pilate couldn't have cared less about Jesus and had obviously never heard of him. Maybe some day the "Christians" on this site will actually take out the Gospels and read them.
Which high priests are you talking about? The Emperor was the High Priest of Jupiter. The influence of the Jewish priests was limited to the backwater of Judaea.
22 Nov 05
2 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIf the emperor was a priest than he would have been troubled all the more by Jesus. This just goes to show how much power the church had, and why they would feel threatened by one such as Jesus.
Which high priests are you talking about? The Emperor was the High Priest of Jupiter. The influence of the Jewish priests was limited to the backwater of Judaea.
22 Nov 05
4 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderThe Romans tried to destroy Jesus. One doesn’t do this by legitimizing and glorifying the work of the one whom you are trying to destroy.
He is showing an abysmal ignorance of real history and a desire to replace it with "Christian" mythology. There is no mention of Jesus or Christ in Roman records until Tacitus who was writing 30 years after Jesus' death and only mentions him in relation to his followers ("a pernicious superstition" in his words). Even the Bible makes it clear that P ...[text shortened]... Maybe some day the "Christians" on this site will actually take out the Gospels and read them.
If Roman accounts are accurate, Jesus would never have become what he is today. As Nemesio pointed out, the Romans had plenty of “sedititious persons” around. None have gained the world wide acceptance and popularity that Jesus has.
I don’t have access to a Bible right now, but I believe that Pilate washed his hands of the matter as a way to avoid accountability for crucifying the Christ. How many other prisoners did he wash his hands of?
22 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressWell they're two possibilities: one is that there was some mass conspiracy by all the Romanb historians who wrote during the period to whitewash the critical nature of Jesus. Or secondly, that none of them bothered to write about the execution of a person in Judea because it was of little or no importance to Rome. You figure out which is more plausible.
The Romans tried to destroy Jesus. One doesn’t do this by legitimizing and glorifying the work of the one whom you are trying to destroy. If Roman accounts are accurate, Jesus would never have become what he is today. As Nemesio pointed out, the Romans had plenty of “sedititious persons” around. None have gained the world wide acceptance and popula ...[text shortened]... oid accountability for crucifying the Christ. How many other prisoners did he wash his hands of?
I suggest you get a Bible and read all four Gospels concerning Pilate's actions towards Jesus. It is obvious that Pilate had never heard of him and really couldn't have cared less if he was executed or not. The idea that Roman officials had some terror of a minor league preacher in Judea is laughable, non-historic, non-Biblical and a complete fantasy.
22 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderIt’s been awhile since I’ve read the passages involved, so I’ll go back and check the gospels.
Well they're two possibilities: one is that there was some mass conspiracy by all the Romanb historians who wrote during the period to whitewash the critical nature of Jesus. Or secondly, that none of them bothered to write about the execution of a person in Judea because it was of little or no importance to Rome. You figure out which is more plausible. f an iternant preacher in Judea is laughable, non-historic, non-Biblical and a complete fantasy.[/b]
The idea that Roman officials had some terror of an iternant preacher in Judea is laughable, non-historic, non-Biblical and a complete fantasy.
This is just not accurate. In order to make Jesus out as an “iterant preacher in Judea” that the Romans couldn’t have cared less about, it is necessary to dismiss the many biblical accountants of the things that Jesus did and said.
Freedom of speech was not as appreciated in ancient Rome as it is today. They would have appreciated it even less if somebody went into one of their churches and sacked it. Even today this would be enough to get somebody arrested, and yet Jesus wasn’t touched.
I guess it just depends on what you choose to believe.
22 Nov 05
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressBTW, ChessExpress, Jesus didn't go into a Roman "church" and sack it; if he did, he probably wouldn't have had to wait for a crucifixion. He went into a JEWISH temple and knocked over some tables. See the difference?
It’s been awhile since I’ve read the passages involved, so I’ll go back and check the gospels.
[b]The idea that Roman officials had some terror of an iternant preacher in Judea is laughable, non-historic, non-Biblical and a complete fantasy.
This is just not accurate. In order to make Jesus out as an “iterant preacher in Judea” that the ...[text shortened]... rested, and yet Jesus wasn’t touched.
I guess it just depends on what you choose to believe.[/b]
22 Nov 05
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressReminds me of something from Chesterton's Orthodoxy:
It’s been awhile since I’ve read the passages involved, so I’ll go back and check the gospels.
[b]The idea that Roman officials had some terror of an iternant preacher in Judea is laughable, non-historic, non-Biblical and a complete fantasy.
This is just not accurate. In order to make Jesus out as an “iterant preacher in Judea” that the ...[text shortened]... ed, and yet Jesus wasn’t touched.
I guess it just depends on what you choose to believe.[/b][/b]
... The madman is not the man who has lost
his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except
his reason.
The madman's explanation of a thing is always complete, and often
in a purely rational sense satisfactory. Or, to speak more strictly,
the insane explanation, if not conclusive, is at least unanswerable;
this may be observed specially in the two or three commonest kinds
of madness. If a man says (for instance) that men have a conspiracy
against him, you cannot dispute it except by saying that all the men
deny that they are conspirators; which is exactly what conspirators
would do. His explanation covers the facts as much as yours.
Or if a man says that he is the rightful King of England, it is no
complete answer to say that the existing authorities call him mad;
for if he were King of England that might be the wisest thing for the
existing authorities to do. Or if a man says that he is Jesus Christ,
it is no answer to tell him that the world denies his divinity;
for the world denied Christ's.
Nevertheless he is wrong. But if we attempt to trace his error
in exact terms, we shall not find it quite so easy as we had supposed....
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/130/130.txt
22 Nov 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerVery cryptic. I’m left wondering were you stand on this discussion…
Reminds me of something from Chesterton's Orthodoxy:... The madman is not the man who has lost
his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except
his reason.
The madman's explanation of a thing is always complete, and often
in a purely rational sense satisfactory. Or, to speak more strictly,
the insane exp ...[text shortened]... nd it quite so easy as we had supposed....
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/130/130.txt
22 Nov 05
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressPersonally, I don't think anyone in the upper strata of power in Rome had any idea who Jesus was until they heard about this sect growing in Rome called "Christians"* - and worried whether they had a seditious group on their hands.
Very cryptic. I’m left wondering were you stand on this discussion…
---
* Or was it "Followers of the Way" or something like that?