This is not true. The Romans had many, many gods and goddesses, of which the current emperor was not one. They frowned upon worshipping a man as a god while he still lived. Such proclivities got Caligula assassinated. Even the great Augustus found opposition to his premature deification. There was a Cult to the Emperor's Genius but not to him being a god while he still lived.
You make a valid point here. But what you have to remember, history wise, is that the Jews believed that their "coming King" would be the "Christ" the "Son of God". Again, this is just a matter of opinion, but when they referred to Jesus as their King(which they did for a time) their were referring to Him as their God." So for the Jews, the ones who wanted him crucified, when they said they had no King but Caesar, to them, they were saying, "Hes not our God." Which, if you believe all four gospels, this is exactly what they were claiming Him to be just a week earlier, at His triumphant entry.
When I say Christianity indeed blew up before His death, I simply refer to Matthew 10:6-7, where he sent out the ten disciples, saying " Go preach to the lost sheep of Isreal. Preach the message, The Kingdom of God is near". When the disciples asked him who gave him such authority, he asked them who they believed he was. Peters response was " You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God." He responded, as He did later to Pilate "I am who you say i am." It wasn't the Jews who frowned upon human beings being Gods, it was the Romans/. The Jews just happened to believe there was only one God, who the believed Jesus was at the Triumphant Entry(which we call Palm Sunday, See Mark 11), and caved to the pressure of punishment by the Romans a week later when they denied Him. (Mark 15)
The Romans crucified Jesus because the Jewish Sanhedrin threatened civil disorder if they did not. The Romans were more likely to dislike Jesus' supposed claim to be King of the Jews, which could have been seen as seditious but Pontius Pilate famously could find nothing wrong with what Jesus had done or said, washing his hands of the situation, symbolically absolving himself of guilt for ordering the death of an innocent man.
True. But this is due to tremedous pressure from the majority of the Jews, who one week acknowledged Jesus as their King and Christ, and a week later, denounced him. The Sanhedrein found problem with Him because he spoke of destroying their temple and rebuilding it, which he meant symbolically, which they took as being figuratively. Pilates hand was forced because Jesus simply acknowledged he was the "king of the jews" and didnt answer any other questions. Your assessment of Pilate, according to the scripture, is 100% correct.
Even this is not 100% correct. The Jewish ruling classes were scared of Jesus' teachings and how much the lower classes seemed to listen to Him. He was a threat to their wealth and their dominant position at the top of the Jewish hierarchy. The accusation of Him claiming to be the 'Son of God' was a convenient way of turning the populace against Him, therefore forcing Pilate to act to prevent a civil revolt.
We agree to disagree. I guess. It wasn't their wealth they were threatened by, but rather, his disagreement with their own religious beliefs. In fact, Jesus acknoweldged that the lower class should follow their financial decrees, stating, "Pay unto Caesar that which is Ceasers".(Matthew 22:16) Rather, he challenged their religious hierarchy, the Sanhedrein, which lead to the Jewish rebellion and ultimately him being handed over to Pilate.
And yet I believe that Jesus of Nazareth existed and so did other contemporary, non-Christian writers -
Many people believe that Jesus, existed, and was a great man. Alot of people believe that he even performed miracles, but wasn't the Son of God. The Jews believe that Jesus the Christ, the Son of God, is still coming. They're still waiting. Im not speculatying as to what you believe, or donnot. All Im saying is, there are various beliefs when it comes to who Jesus is. What matters is what you believe.
Originally Posted by Antiquitates Judaicae XVIII.3.3 (Whiston, W. translation, 1987)
Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works - a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews , and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
While a Roman pagan scholar called Publius Cornelius Tacitus wrote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annales XV.44 (Grant, M. translation, Penguin Classics, 1957)[/I
]But neither human resources, nor imperial munificence, nor appeasement of the gods, eliminated sinister suspicions that the fire [the Great Fire of Rome] had been instigated. To suppress this rumour, Nero fabricated scapegoats - and punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were popularly known). Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius' reign by the governor of Judaea, Pontius Pilate. But in spite of this temporary setback the deadly superstition hd broken out afresh, not only in Judaea (where the mischief had started) but even in Rome.
Both of these men seemed to believe that Jesus existed but neither believed that Jesus was the "Son of God." Although it must be said that the passage from Josephus is widely-believed to have been either added later or at least largely embellished by Christian translators as it seems to make out that Josephus was a believer in Jesus' divine powers, which he most certainly was not.
Although it must be said that the passage from Josephus is widely-believed to have been either added later or at least largely embellished by Christian translators as it s to make out that Josephus was a believer in Jesus' divine powers, which he most certainly was not.
But again, this comes down to what you believe Jesus is to you, which is the point of this thread. These men, at least at first, did not believe that Jesus was the "Son of God". It's worth noting that the pagan scholar Cornelius that you quoted was later converted by Peter, according to the Scriptures. In fact, he was the first non-Jew(Gentile)n that was converted to Christianity itself.(Acts 10) So, if you believe the Bible, he simply changed his mind based upon the witness of Peter. Both of these men seemed to believe that Jesus existed but neither believed that Jesus was the "Son of God."
However, Cornelius later changed his mind. He specifically asked for Peter, according to Scripture, and Peter divulged to Cornelius his experiences with Jesus. Again, according to the Scripture, the Cornelius you referred to converted and changed his beliefs. Peter was afraid to go to him and even dine with Cornelius because he was a pagan, and believed anything that Pagans ate was unclean. But he was spoken to by God, and went to Cornelius, dioned with him, and converted him to Christianity. The Cornelius passage you quoted was before his conversion, not after.
I also wonder what was meant by Josephus' saying of Jesus being a man doing "wonderful works". What works was he talking about? The written works of Jesus that one would would consider "wonderful" would be turning water into wine, raising the man of authorities daughter, healing the blind, and raising Lazarus, amongst others. works don't refer to his teachings, they refer to his actions. He may have believed him a man, but I question what works he could have even been talking about.
Have a quick read of the Lord's Prayer. It starts "Our Father who art in Heaven." I am pretty certain I know that He is not my father but the meaning as the "Father of all Humanity" is implied. Why could it not be applied to a carpenter from Nazareth?
This prayer had everything to do with forgiveness, and asking God's help to keep us from "sinning." Say Jesus was only a man. He devoted his entire life to doing what was right, encouraging others to do so, publicly making examples of how to do so, and sending out others to do so. He was the most single-minded man that ever existed. Could it apply to a carpenter in Nazareth? Sure, but its far fetched that a carpenter could somehow become so devoted to starting and spreading a cause, all of which are virtues that we would likely agree are still applicable and stand true to today? For me, unless it came from his Father in heaven, whom he had a direct feed to. Again, its all based upon what you believe.
The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were certainly not written by eye-witnesses. And they were definitely not written by the disciples... just look at their names - there might have been a Matthew and a John in Jesus' circle of companions but there was no Mark or Luke.
Well, actually, Matthew and John were 2 of the 12 disciples Jesus apparently sent out to spread the word. In fact, Jesus referred to John as the disciple "that he felt most beloved." Mark was John's cousin and later assisted Paul, according to the Bible, in spreading Christianity. Luke was another co-worker of Paul that assisted him in spreading Christianity. Id say they were all pretty familiar.
The Gospels were compiled perhaps up to a century after the crucifixion of Jesus so any eye-witness accounts could easily have been embellished or misinterpreted in the intervening decades. And if the Gospels are all 'true' then how do you explain the discrepancies and contradictions even in their retelling of Jesus' final week or who the disciples actually were?
Having read all four, I really havent seen any discrepencies or contradictions between the 4. What I would say is that they all included stories, some different, some same, but none of them contradicted the other. If there are, please show me.
What about those Gospels that have been set aside? The 'Q' Gospel or the Gospel of Thomas?
The "Q" gospel you refer to is noted as nothing more then the a combination of the stories told in Matthew and Luke. Why include something that repeats something verbatim? The Gospel of Thomas is thought to have been written far after the other four gospels, and there was speculation that it wasn't even written by Thomas himself.
The point of all of this is, we all have varying degrees of belief in Jesus, and how we view him. I feel the discussion of it, and our varying views,. is a positive thing. I may have learned something I didnt know before, and vice versa. But what the thread comes down to is what u personally believe about Jesus, and how you view him. this is just my personal view, right or wrong.
