What do we know about Galilee circa 30 C.E.?

[Sassy]

Hi Dicky Underpants,

If Jesus did not claim equality with the Name (ie divinity itself), then what was the blasphemy of which he was found guilty by the Sanhedrin (Mark 14:64)?

If Jesus did not misuse the Name, then what caused the Chief Priests to be so poisonous in front of Pilate (John 19:6-7)?

God bless

It was calling himself the SON OF GOD. I think the first commandment of Christ gives it away.

If you love me, you will keep my commandments... Love the Lord thy God with all your heart and love your neighbour as yourself. At no time did Jesus make himself God.

[Rosindubh]

It was calling himself the SON OF GOD. I think the first commandment of Christ gives it away.

If you love me, you will keep my commandments... Love the Lord thy God with all your heart and love your neighbour as yourself. At no time did Jesus make himself God.

Hi Sassy,

Thanks for the above post. 

But Isaiah calls every Jewish male a son of God, so that cannot be blasphemy.   

Leviticus 24:10-23 requires misuse of the holy Name Yaheh for blasphemy punishable by death.   To call oneself Messiah or son of God is not sufficient.  So Jesus must have misused the holy Name in front of the High Priest.

God bless

[Sassy]

Hi Sassy,

Thanks for the above post. 

But Isaiah calls every Jewish male a son of God, so that cannot be blasphemy.   

Leviticus 24:10-23 requires misuse of the holy Name Yaheh for blasphemy punishable by death.   To call oneself Messiah or son of God is not sufficient.  So Jesus must have misused the holy Name in front of the High Priest.

God bless

I guess your reasoning is easily answered in that you misunderstood what I and Isaiah are speaking about.

King James Bible
I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

To be a child of God, a Son of God which even Angels are, is to be and do as God does.

Christ and the Angels are all Sons of God. Even Adam was a Son of God.

I have said, ye are gods, lower case spelling. So not being called God but being called gods.
What about Moses...

King James Bible
And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

When people do the will of God and are sent to do his will and speak his word then they become like god to men.
But they do not and can never become God himself. You see made Sons of God by the power of God we are not born with any  power of ourselves. The Jews did not know the truth it was Christ who was to make clear the truth to the Jews.
Did Christ heal the sick? Did he walk on water?  Did he cast out demons? and what about the descendants of Adam?

King James Bible
Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.

Is it our power of Gods power we do the things of God by?

They did not understand who the Messiah would be and that he like Moses would be like a god unto the people.
But at no time and never in the history of mankind has a human man become God himself.

You have to hearken unto Christ as Pharaoh should have hearkened unto Moses.
Mans biggest sin is putting himself on throne of of his own life, making life about himself and not the truth.

There is one God and Jesus came in the flesh. They did not understand but those who believed do.

[floo]

Just because someone believes something to be true doesn't mean it is, unless there is verifiable evidence to support the belief. In the case of much of the Bible there is no such evidence. 

[jeremyp]

OK.....there's mention of Judah on a victory inscription on the walls of the temple of Karnak, from the dyn XXII king Sheshonq I, on his campaign in Palestine, when he returned many citiies and towns there to paying tribute to Egypt, rather than Hatti or Mittani. The incident is also recorded in Scripture, dating it to the fifth year of Rehoboham, son of Solomon, kinjg of Judah.

I don't dispute the existence of Judah.

What I was questioning was the existence of the Davidic empire consisting of both Judah and Israel. There's nothing outside the Bible to suggest it ever existed.

[jeremyp]

But they are also remarkably reliable, historically, jeremy.

No they aren't.

[jeremyp]

Actually, there is. Have a shuftie at http://www.strangenotions.com/how-do-we-know-the-gospels-are-historical/

What specifically are we supposed to be looking at in that? It seems to me that the author was trotting out the usual suspects of well worn and easily discredited arguments.

Looking at the first two arguments (I stopped reading after the first two), we can see they do not hold water.

For example the criterion of dissimilarity makes the huge assumption that the gospel writers did not think of dissimilarity as a good thing. If you are a member of a smallish sect that is an offshoot of a larger religion, you will probably want to emphasise that you are dissimilar to that other religion. If your sect has decided that it's OK to break the Sabbath, what better way to justify that than to suggest your founding fathers also broke the Sabbath?

The criterion of embarrassment is equally useless. How do we know what a late 1st century community would have found embarrassing? Something actually happening is no bar to it being omitted from a story. Jesus losing his temper is supposed to be embarrassing and therefore must have actually happened. But, if it was so embarrassing, the gospel writers would not have put it in regardless of whether it really happened or not.

[Dicky Underpants]

Hi Dicky Underpants,

If Jesus did not claim equality with the Name (ie divinity itself), then what was the blasphemy of which he was found guilty by the Sanhedrin (Mark 14:64)?

If Jesus did not misuse the Name, then what caused the Chief Priests to be so poisonous in front of Pilate (John 19:6-7)?

God bless

These are merely writings whose historical veracity you need to establish. These supposed claims of divinity by Jesus are contradicted by the synoptics. The only confirmation of something like a claim there is made in Matthew (which is not fully substantiated in the other synoptics)- and he tells Peter to keep quiet about it!

[Hope]

These supposed claims of divinity by Jesus are contradicted by the synoptics. The only confirmation of something like a claim there is made in Matthew (which is not fully substantiated in the other synoptics)- and he tells Peter to keep quiet about it!

Sorry, DU, but since the theology of Jesus' divinity pre-dated the synoptics and even Paul's appearance on the scene, AND there is plenty about his divinity in each of the synoptics, I find your claim otherwise somewhat spurious.

[Hope]

What specifically are we supposed to be looking at in that? It seems to me that the author was trotting out the usual suspects of well worn and easily discredited arguments.

In 50+ years of debating the issue, I've yet to see any of the arguments given in this article discredited (let alone easily discredited) jeremy.  Yes, I've seen plenty of attempts to discredit them, but none that hold water when put to fairly rigorous testing.  I've definitely never seen any attempt at discrediting them remotely wateright here.

[Anchorman]

I don't dispute the existence of Judah.

What I was questioning was the existence of the Davidic empire consisting of both Judah and Israel. There's nothing outside the Bible to suggest it ever existed.

There isn't much, I agree - and til relatively recently, there was no evidence that David existed outside Scripture - till a fragment turned up around 1993.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/davidjer.html

[jeremyp]

Sorry, DU, but since the theology of Jesus' divinity pre-dated the synoptics and even Paul's appearance on the scene,

How on Earth can you possibly know that? No writings about Jesus that predate Paul survive.

AND there is plenty about his divinity in each of the synoptics, I find your claim otherwise somewhat spurious.

I find almost all of your claims somewhat spurious, mainly because you seem to be inventing evidence.

[jeremyp]

In 50+ years of debating the issue, I've yet to see any of the arguments given in this article discredited

I just did two of them all by myself.

Yes, I've seen plenty of attempts to discredit them, but none that hold water when put to fairly rigorous testing.  I've definitely never seen any attempt at discrediting them remotely wateright here.

I notice that, absent in your post, is any actual refutation of the points I made.

[Hope]

How on Earth can you possibly know that? No writings about Jesus that predate Paul survive.

One doesn't need writings to date a teaching, jeremy.  I realise that in our modern society, anything not written down is regarded with suspicion, but that hasn't always been the case.  Rather, it has only been remotely the case for a hundred years or two.  I'd remind you that the church had been in existence for at least 10, perhaps nearer 20 years before Paul started writing his epistles, and .

[/quoteI find almost all of your claims somewhat spurious, mainly because you seem to be inventing evidence.
[/quote]Well, some of it is pretty common sense - such as my point above.  Some of it is written in documentation dating back for decades, even centuries, and some of it is gleaned through listening to and even f2f discussions with Biblical scholars and theologians.

[Hope]

I just did two of them all by myself.

I hadn't noticed, jeremy.  Queried them, yes, but discredited?  Where is your evidence that discredits them?

I notice that, absent in your post, is any actual refutation of the points I made.

Well, I simply thought you were questioning them, and as Jim seemed to be dealing with your questions, ...

[jeremyp]

One doiesn't need writings to date a teaching, jeremy.

There is nothing else in this case.

I realise that in our modern society, anything not written down is regarded with suspicion, but that hasn't always been the case.  Rather, it has only been remotely the case for a hundred years or two.  I'd remind you that the church had been in existence for at least 10, perhaps nearer 20 years before Paul started writing his epistles

But we know absolutely nothing about the early church except what \Paul chooses to tell us. If there's some other piece of evidence, please tell us what it is.

Well, some of it is pretty common sense - such as my point above. 

You didn't make any point above. The specific claim - I'll remind you - is that the pre Pauline church thought of Jesus as divine. You haven't provided a shred of evidence that this is the case.

[jeremyp]

I hadn't noticed, jeremy.  Queried them, yes, but discredited?  Where is your evidence that discredits them?

It's right there in reply #31.

[Hope]

There is nothing else in this case.

Actually, there are.  The Mar Thoma Church in India predates any of Paul's writings, and has the divinity of Christ as one of its core beliefs.  Many of the passages in Paul's writings aren't new teaching, but reiteration and reinforcement of existing teaching - some of which was clearly (from the context) in existence before Paul became involved. 

But we know absolutely nothing about the early church except what \Paul chooses to tell us. If there's some other piece of evidence, please tell us what it is.

Never heard of Acts? 

You didn't make any point above.

Read the post again: I made the point that one doesn't have to have written material for teachings to have occurred

One doesn't need writings to date a teaching, jeremy

[Rosindubh]

King James Bible
I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

To be a child of God, a Son of God which even Angels are, is to be and do as God does.

Christ and the Angels are all Sons of God. Even Adam was a Son of God.

Hi Sassy,
Thanks for the above post.

You could have also quoted Isaiah 63:16 - "thou, O LORD, art our father" and 64:8 " But now, O LORD, thou art our father".

So, everyone is a child of God and every Jewish male is entitled to call himself a son of God and it cannot be blasphemy for Jesus (or any Jewish male) to call himself 'Son of God'.

That being so, to commit blasphemy in front of the High Priest (Mark 14:64), surely Jesus had to misuse the holy Name (YAHWEH) by claiming equality with it (Leviticus 24:10-23)? 

Do you agree?

God bless

[Rosindubh]

These are merely writings whose historical veracity you need to establish. These supposed claims of divinity by Jesus are contradicted by the synoptics. The only confirmation of something like a claim there is made in Matthew (which is not fully substantiated in the other synoptics)- and he tells Peter to keep quiet about it!

Hi Dicky,
Thanks for your post.

Claims of divinity are not contradicted in the Synoptics.   The quotation from Malachi 3:1 in Mark 1:2 and the OT quotes (Exodus 3:14 etc) in Mark 14:62 both deduce the divinity of Jesus.

The claim you mention in Matthew is, I presume, Peter's use of the word Messiah.   Jesus (and later his followers) interpreted this as a peaceful divine Savior, while the Jewish population as a whole expected a human warrior king who would "drive out the godless nations" (see Psalms of Solomon, 17).

Jesus explained this to Pilate as "my kingdom is not of this world".   Jesus was always equivical about unqualified use of the title, usually replying "you said it" and instructed Peter not to use it.

God bless

[Hope]

The claim you mention in Matthew is, I presume, Peter's use of the word Messiah.   Jesus (and later his followers) interpreted this as a peaceful divine Savior, while the Jewish population as a whole expected a human warrior king who would "drive out the godless nations" (see Psalms of Solomon, 17).

And interestingly, this latter understanding had only been around for about 5 centuries prior to Christ, whereas the concept of 'Messiah' had been around for at least twice that long - with the idea of a divine Messiah being interwoven with the more prosaic idea of a human King/Redeemer.  In fact, the early picture of Messiah had nothing to do with the politico/militaristic idea that the Jewish religious leaders and Zealots had at the turn of the eras.

[jeremyp]

Actually, there are.  The Mar Thoma Church in India predates any of Paul's writings

No it doesn't. Even their own somewhat uncritical history suggests it was only founded in the 50's. And, of course, actual documentary evidence doesn't exist.

Many of the passages in Paul's writings aren't new teaching, but reiteration and reinforcement of existing teaching - some of which was clearly (from the context) in existence before Paul became involved.

Please give some examples.

Never heard of Acts?

Acts is much later than Paul is is not at all reliable as a history of the early church.

Read the post again: I made the point that one doesn't have to have written material for teachings to have occurred

What other evidence do you have? None.

[Hope]

No it doesn't. Even their own somewhat uncritical history suggests it was only founded in the 50's. And, of course, actual documentary evidence doesn't exist.

Thanks for the confirmation - it is understood that St Thomas arrived in India in AD 52 - about the same time as Paul was writing his first epistle.  If, as you suggest, written material is so important, and remembering that Paul wrote to specific churches/congregations and not to the 'Church' as a whole - his writings only becoming available to others than their original recipients several decades later thasn their authorship dates, is it likely that Thomas would have known what he wrote?

Please give some examples.

The obvious one is the whole issue of Jesus' divinity, something that was clearly being preached before Paul appeared on the scene.  Then there are a number of passgaes where Paul says - As you have heard before - clearly referring to previous teaching that the congregations had had from other believers.  Thirdly, the very fact that he went to both Jewish synagogues and to existing congregations when he visited places.  Remember too that he had been travelling to Damascus to arrest believers there when he had his vision of Christ.  The church was pretty well-spread by the time he arrived.  Furthermore John, in his gospel, talks about God and the divinity of Jesus as something that Jesus himself taught - not something that Paul introduced. 

Acts is much later than Paul is is not at all reliable as a history of the early church.

Are you suggesting that evidence gathered over a period of time - even as far as decades later - can't be deemed to be legitimate evidence?  If so, I think that you'll find that cold-case investigators would disagree with you.

What other evidence do you have? None.

Evidence of what?

[jeremyp]

Thanks for the confirmation - it is understood that St Thomas arrived in India in AD 52 - about the same time as Paul was writing his first epistle.

I didn't confirm it, I refuted it. Your claim was that the church existed before Paul was writing. Moreover the "founding in 52" thing is a bit of a legend. It isn't necessarily true.

If, as you suggest, written material is so important, and remembering that Paul wrote to specific churches/congregations and not to the 'Church' as a whole - his writings only becoming available to others than their original recipients several decades later thasn their authorship dates, is it likely that Thomas would have known what he wrote?

Can you show that Thomas even existed? Bear in mind the earliest and only reference we have is in John's gospel written about 40 years later.

The obvious one is the whole issue of Jesus' divinity, something that was clearly being preached before Paul appeared on the scene.

And you have no evidence of this.

Furthermore John, in his gospel, talks about God and the divinity of Jesus as something that Jesus himself taught - not something that Paul introduced. 

If we are to believe Mark. Jesus kept the whole thing secret until just before his death. If we believe John, he proclaimed it at every opportunity. Somebody is telling porkies.

Are you suggesting that evidence gathered over a period of time - even as far as decades later - can't be deemed to be legitimate evidence?

That's exactly what I am saying because we cannot be traced back to Jesus.

If so, I think that you'll find that cold-case investigators would disagree with you.

No, they would disagree with you. If somebody found a document today purporting to describe the real fate of Lord Lucan, do you think the cold case investigators would just believe it? No, they would try to determine its provenance and if they couldn't they would have to discard it as evidence.

[Rosindubh]

If we are to believe Mark. Jesus kept the whole thing secret until just before his death. If we believe John, he proclaimed it at every opportunity. Somebody is telling porkies.

Hi jeremyp,
Thanks for the above post.   

Mark reports what Peter, John and James told him.   Jesus claimed the holy Name when getting into their boat after calming the wind (Mark 6:50).

Author of 4th gospel reports what Nicodemus told him   Jesus claimed the holy Name debating with the Pharisees on last day of the feast of Tabernacles (John 7:37-8:59).   Peter, John and James were not present at this debate as Jesus went separately to this feast (John 7:10).   However, Nicodemus was there, see John 7:50.

The authors of Mark and 4th gospels report just what their witnesses told them.

God bless