Debate (Reddit): Divinity of Jesus

While I agree (mostly) with your point, that's in John, correct? So, he didn't say anything like that in the Synoptic Gospels, true?

[–]NoSheDidntSayThat 3 points 1 day ago 

While not as clear to us, Jesus' self-identification as the "Son of Man" was exceedingly clear to the Jewish authorities to whom he spoke. You'd need the context out of Daniel 7 to make any sense of it, but read His questioning at the hands of the chief Priest.

[–]EricGorallStrong Atheist|Secular Humanist 1 point 1 day ago 

One could certainly also question the entire questioning by the Sanhedrin; from the fact that the Romans would never defer to it, to the fact that trials don't occur on the Passover, to the fact that Jesus never actually claimed in it he was God to them, to the result: He was hung by the Romans, not stoned by order of the Sanhedrin. Those together suggest that Jesus did not claim/admit he was divine (could verses or parts of verses be later reworked?), or else he would have been stoned to death for heresy. Instead, he was hung by the Romans for sedition. So, you either have to hang your hat on sedition and hanging and non-claim of divinity, or else suggest he was stoned to death instead.

[–]NoSheDidntSayThat 1 point 1 day ago 

Is it your experience that rulers always abide by the rules?

I would concur that the trial was all wrong, and Jesus should not have been convicted or sentenced in that way. In fact the narrative says as much multiple times. That's one of the major points.

[–]EricGorallStrong Atheist|Secular Humanist 1 point 1 day ago* 

No, but it is history that Pontius Pilate was anything but friendly with Jews. He was recalled to Rome because his ferocity and brutality was seen as inciting violence. There are several accounts that illuminated his insensitivity towards the Jews. He died under mysterious circumstances after his return to Rome and it's thought to be a result of his brutality in Jerusalem.

According to Jewish law, you can't try a person on Passover. That came directly from God to Moses. Also, there was never a tradition where a prisoner could be released at the behest of a populace. This tradition didn't exist either in Rome nor in the Holy Land.

So, I have no problem saying that Jesus was crucified for a political crime (sedition) by Rome, but nobody killed him for a religious question. If so, he would have been stoned, as dictated by God to Moses. Rome didn't care about religious matters as long as it didn't intrude on their political rights. The Sanhedrin could have killed Jesus themselves if he had transgressed a religious law, but he didn't. They were strict about that, so he didn't claim or even hint he was divine, else he'd have immediately been taken out and stoned to death.

[–]NoSheDidntSayThat 1 point 1 day ago 

No, but it is history that Pontius Pilate was anything but friendly with Jews. He was recalled to Rome because his ferocity and brutality was seen as inciting violence.

I agree. Do you know that Jerusalem at this time (passover) would have gone from a city of 20,000 to a city nearing 1,000,000 people? Do you understand why he might fear a mob with those numbers?

According to Jewish law, you can't try a person on Passover.

His trial was on the night of the day of preparation, not on the Passover.

[–]EricGorallStrong Atheist|Secular Humanist 1 point 1 day ago 

Okay, but I'm unsure how this supports anything to do with an assertion that he claimed he was divine? You asked what rulers always behaved properly, suggesting it might be in his character to allow the Sanhedrin to put Jesus on trial. But, that was NOT in his character. Also, Jesus did not claim he was divine. If he had, he'd have been stoned. He wasn't, ergo, he didn't.

Depending on the account (because they do not agree), either his trial was the day before Passover or the day OF Passover. So, which book are you countering with? They do not agree.

Also, what do you have to say about the non-tradition of letting a populace decide which prisoner to let go?

[–]NoSheDidntSayThat 1 point 23 hours ago 

Okay, but I'm unsure how this supports anything to do with an assertion that he claimed he was divine?

I'm answering your objections, which are entirely nonsequitur imo, not trying to prove He said He was divine in nature in the book of Mark. I've already demonstrated that He did.

Depending on the account (because they do not agree)

They absolutely do agree. It's Jesus = Osiris level "research" that asserts the contrary.

Also, Jesus did not claim he was divine. If he had, he'd have been stoned. He wasn't, ergo, he didn't.

This claim is simply by fiat. Fact is they did try to stone Him, and the fact is the Roman officials continually told the Sanhedrin that they should be trying Him according to Jewish Law and not Roman. You're saying things that are explicitly told to us throughout the narrative has if mentioning them would prove the narrative false. This leads me to conclude that you don't have first hand knowledge of it.

[–]EricGorallStrong Atheist|Secular Humanist 1 point 23 hours ago 

I've already demonstrated that He did.

What you demonstrated was that there is text where it indicates he would have. However, either this was a later interpolation or else he wasn't consistent because he certainly didn't when in front of the Sanhedrin. So, did he change his mind, did someone add the other bit later, or did he lie to the Sanhedrin?

They absolutely do agree. It's Jesus = Osiris level "research" that asserts the contrary.

Um, no. The text itself indicates it. I would never claim Jesus=Osiris. That's a Archyra (or whatever her name is), claim. Sure, there's parallels, but but I don't take them as the same.

Fact is they did try to stone Him

Well, they tried to accuse him so they could stone him, but they didn't stone him, which means he denied that he was divine. If he hadn't he'd have been stoned. Even a two-bit lawyer would recognize "you say I am" as avoiding a direct answer to the question. In the end, he didn't say he was divine to them or they would have stoned him.

the Roman officials continually told the Sanhedrin that they should be trying Him according to Jewish Law and not Roman law.

No Jewish body had authority over Roman governance. The most that could happen is that the Sanhedrin could ask the governor to try him along religious grounds first, but they'd never get the chance if the Roman government already had a sedition case to prosecute. If sedition were in question, even with a friendly Roman in control the Sanhedrin could only beg for a say. With Pontius Pilate the notion that the Sanhedrin would have any say at all is highly questionable.

if mentioning them would prove the narrative false

I'm not sure exactly what you mean here. Can you give me an example?

you don't have first hand knowledge of it

Of the events? No. Neither do you. All either of us is doing is comparing what we know about how the Romans conducted themselves in conquered territory with what the Synoptic Gospels claim happened. My contention is that perhaps the root of the narrative may be accurate, but important parts couldn't be.

[–]EricGorallStrong Atheist|Secular Humanist 1 point 3 hours ago* 

I think what is being conflated are the collection of the accounts from the different Gospels. In the original one (Mark), all it says is that the members that make up the Sanhedrin bound Jesus and presented him to Pilate. So, when Pilate asks him if he's 'King of the Jews' he's being asked a non-religious question. He's essentially being asked if he believes himself to be rightful ruler instead. It only makes a passing mention of questions by the priests (which would not happen in Pilate's court). I can see there be some reconciling between the Synoptic Gospels, but John's doesn't seem to fit very well.

John 18:32 says that Pilate tells the priests they should judge Jesus according to their laws. So, he's brought in front of Pilate, he defers to them (would never happen). They answer that they have no power to put a man to death (wrong; they could if he were convicted of heresy). Regardless, he only starts his own judgment after deferring to them (again; would never happen, especially by Pilate in particular). 18:35-39 makes no sense whatsoever. Verse 37 in particular has him admit that he's a king, though "not of this world". So, whoever wrote these verses did not know enough about Jewish religious law because they didn't know that the Sanhedrin indeed could sentence a man to die by stoning. There's no mention by Pilate that he went against Roman law (Pilate even says that "I find no fault at all"). So, why wasn't he released? If the priests couldn't sentence him and only Pilate could and he didn't find him guilty, why was there even a crucifixion? Instead, he's still being held against his will. Then (verse 39), the "tradition" (that never existed), about releasing a prisoner. This was never a tradition either in Jerusalem nor in Rome. So, if all the Gospels agree with one another, how is this reconciled?

[–]NoSheDidntSayThat 1 point 2 hours ago 

I think what is being conflated are the collection of the accounts from the different Gospels.

I'm not conflating anything. You asserting the narratives are incompatible, or that John is somehow wrong because he included something Mark didn't, doesn't give your theory validity.

(would never happen) // (wrong; they could if he were convicted of heresy) // (again; would never happen, especially by Pilate in particular) ...

every single one of your comments here is by fiat. there's just nothing worth responding to.

I'm not conflating anything.

Not you, US. We both are. We were arguing based on a tradition that conflates all the accounts as if they are one coherent one.

or that John is somehow wrong because he included something Mark didn't, doesn't give your theory validity

So, if you just read John, why wasn't Jesus released? Why was he crucified even through Pilate found him innocent? Just a simple question. Do you not have an answer?

every single one of your comments here is by fiat

What do you mean by that? I'm making comments based on what is known about the area and traditions and laws at the time. I'm not just making shit up out of thin air to make a point. Or, are you suggesting that the power over religious law that the Sanhedrin had in the Old Testament and as dictated by God was somehow no longer valid and they had no authority over religious matters? What makes you think so? Is there something in the New Testament that says so? The Old Testament certainly seems to differ ((Exodus 18:21–22) (Numbers 11:16–17) (Numbers 11:24–25) (Deuteronomy 1:15–18) (Deuteronomy 17:9–12)). And, what would be the point of all those stories about the Pharisees and Sadducee's trying to trick him into transgressing religious laws? Why use members pointed out as belonging to other religious sects as trying to trick him?

[–]NoSheDidntSayThat 1 point an hour ago 

Not you, US. We both are. We were arguing based on a tradition that conflates all the accounts as if they are one coherent one....

You're misusing the term conflation if you think that it is the same thing as harmonization (reading all of the accounts and putting together one narrative from the witnesses).

So, if you just read John, why wasn't Jesus released? Why was he crucified even through Pilate found him innocent? Just a simple question. Do you not have an answer?

What is unsatisfactory about the answer that John actually gives (19:12-16)?

What do you mean by that?

You're appealing to your authority to pronounce things as true or false. You're masking opinion by stating it as if it was fact.

Or, are you suggesting that the power over religious law that the Sanhedrin had in the Old Testament and as dictated by God was somehow no longer valid and they had no authority over religious matters? What makes you think so? Is there something in the New Testament that says so? The Old Testament certainly seems to differ ((Exodus 18:21–22) (Numbers 11:16–17) (Numbers 11:24–25) (Deuteronomy 1:15–18) (Deuteronomy 17:9–12)). And, what would be the point of all those stories about the Pharisees and Sadducee's trying to trick him into transgressing religious laws? Why use members pointed out as belonging to other religious sects as trying to trick him? Are you suggesting the Romans dictated to the Jews what Jewish belief was? I hope that makes as little sense to you as it does to me.

None of this follows from anything I've stated to the point that I have no idea why you think this is a response to me

[–]EricGorallStrong Atheist|Secular Humanist 1 point 49 minutes ago* 

You're misusing the term conflation if you think that it is the same thing as harmonization

I'm not misusing the term. Let me look up the definition: "combine (two or more texts, ideas, etc.) into one". Yep. Just what I meant. When we discuss the Jesus story, people don't stick to one text, but mix them up so that what gets out the other end is an amalgamation of all of them. Harmonization is just a means whereby Apologists try to interpret the meaning of scripture so that they can somehow cohere and not be contradictory.

What is unsatisfactory about the answer that John actually gives (19:12-16)?

If this were said in a vacuum without regard to actual history; nothing in particular. However, since the time of the Maccabbees, and especially since the Romans took control of the "Holy Lands" ...violent protests against Roman rule, aided by the fervor of the messianic tradition makes such a conversation highly improbable. Here's why:

1. The messianic tradition spoke of a military ruler that would help Israel rise up against her enemies. There was no divine connection outside the establishing of Judaism as the world religion, and the fact that this messiah would be blessed by God.
2. There had been several uprisings led by messiah claimants that had to be violently quelled by Rome by force, and the climate of the time was not much different than today where there was a constant fear of widespread violence. This is why there were Roman Garrisons established throughout the region. As a matter of fact, when the biggest one occurs (in 66 AD), the Jerusalem garrison is slaughtered to the man and they defeat the relief that comes from a neighboring garrison. This is why Rome has to send an army in to lay siege to Jerusalem. You need look no further than the NT itself to see how one-sided the Roman depiction is. The authors themselves obviously didn't want to incite Roman anger. All the bad guys are either Sadducee, Pharisee, scribes, or "The Jews". No Roman is depicted poorly. In fact, they're depicted as enablers for Jesus.
3. Because of the two points above and because Rome never deferred to any local populace in matters of policy, the notion that a Roman prefect would is completely laughable. And this prefect in particular was known to be particularly brutal and insensitive to local concerns, and the writer of John should have known this. I can only surmise that either he was ignorant of how such matters were handled or else the parable-quality of the story was more important.
4. There was never a tradition of letting a prisoner go at the behest of a populace or non-Roman organization.
5. The notion that there'd be continual talk of 'King of the Jews' and for this not be explicitly indicative of insurrection is problematic to the notion that he could be "King" in any non-secular way, and a contradiction to what Jesus says in the Synoptics where he says "not of this world".

I fear you're reading what I'm writing but not hearing what I'm saying. The difference in meaning to "King" is very important and yet you don't seem to find this a problem with the attempted harmonization of the texts.

None of this follows from anything I've stated to the point that

I pointed out that the Sanhedrin had the authority to judge and punish on matters related to heresy. You claimed that's "fiat". My only conclusion is that you think I made that up, or else that they didn't have that authority. Is there another option?