In article <1992Nov17.043358.16082@bony1.bony.com>, billg@bony1.bony.com (Bill Gripp) writes:
>
> In article <1992Nov11.203736.12929@imagen.com> avi@seal.imagen.com writes:
> >That's exactly my point ! John is the only witness to Jesus since he was the
> >only one (out of the 4 gospels authors) who actually LIVED in his time. All the
> >3 other gospels authors did NOT know Jesus personally and lived years afterwards
> >(some as late as 120-150 years later!) and are thus NOT acceptable witnesses !!
>
> Nice try, but Matthew was also one of the twelve apostles. In addition,
> John Mark's gospel was written by Mark as told to him by the apostle
> Peter. Luke's gospel is written based upon information relayed to Luke
> by Mary (Jesus's Mother) and Paul (Saul of Tarsus). This is from the
> Columbia Encyclopedia BTW.
Nice try yourself. Despite what the Columbia Encyclopaedia may have to say,
we actually have little or no evidence as to who really wrote the gospels.
The info given above is essentially based on Eusibius and other 2nd and 3rd
century christian apologists. The only Gospel which mentions it's authorship
at all is John's, and it does so in such a way as to make it clear that it
wasn't written by John at all, but by followers of his after his death. The
gosples cannot be called eye-witness accounts. The idea that the Gospel of
Matthew was actually written by the apostle of that name is easily
destroyed by comparing Matt with Mark. 75% of Matt is actually taken from
Mark. If Matthew was an eye-witness, why would he slavishly copy an
account written by someone who was not? It doesn't make sense.
> >>According to the New Testament they were concerned that some Jews were
> >>following Jesus. It says that many false Messiahs will follow Jesus
> >>claiming to be him, where does it say that "there were MANY False
> >>Messiahs before Jesus and NONE was crucified"?
> >
> >First and foremost, it is said in the New Testament (sorry can't remeber the
> >chapter and verse number or even book, but you'd recognize it) that one of the
> >members of the Sanhedrin, quieted the others by saying something like: don't
> >worry about him there were others before him and they appeared and disapperaed
> >and teh Jewish people forgotten about them, so this will also be his fate.
>
> I only recognize this as the end of a movie often on TV around Easter
> (The Greatest Story Ever Told?), spoken by Martin Landau. If it's
> actually in the New Testament, I'd like to see a reference. Please try
> to keep the poetic license of Hollywood out of this discussion, it's
> totally irrelevant.
The passage he's refering to is actually in Acts and is not about Jesus himself.
> >To the Romans, a guy who is being followed and obeyed blindly - and is the
> >"King of the Jews" does not sit well with the DICTATORSHIP of the Roman
> >Emperor. Further, the Romans did not carefully listen nor care if his kingdom
> >was or was not of this world. To them, NO competetion should be for RULERSHIP
> >of a conquered country or its people. Further, the Romans, were highly suspicious
> >of any organized jewish gathering, as a forum for underground activity. It is
> >known that Jewish rebels gathered for purposes of overthrowing the Romans rule,
> >disgusing it as religious and social gatherings. Now, Jesus being an organizing
> >factor and perfect disguise for "religious" activities, was too much a risk to
> >take. Even if he was no real threat, it was safer to dispose of him than to
> >take the risk. Remember, the romans crucified Jews daily by the hundreds if not by the thousands, no human rights were known or cared for by them and one more
> >or less dead jew, did not make any difference to them , especially if that meant
> >more peace and quiet and securing the Roman Emperor's grip on Israel.
>
> Except that the Romans were in reality fairly tolerant of any religion.
True, but if they perceived that a religion was a political threat then
they stamped on it. The druids in Celtic Britain were all but wiped out
by the Romans because they encouraged the locals to rebel. The same went
for the Zealots in Israel. The fact that Jesus probably wasn't a politically
motivated preacher wouldn't have mattered much to the Romans, they were not
given to appreciating the niceties of the Jewish religion. They did know
that if some nutter comes down to Jerusalem at a politically sensitive time
and starts raving about Yahweh's kingdom, it was safer to nail him up first
and ask questions later.
> Rome's primary concerns were 1)Maintaining peace within the empire and
> 2)Collecting Taxes. If they saw Jesus, who preached submission to Rome,
> as such a threat, why didn't they kill the whole Sanhedrin who would be
> seen as a much more serious threat? After all, if this Jesus with just
> a handful of followers was threat enought to Rome that He had to be
> execute, how much more of a threat was the whole Sanhedrin which wielded
> control over the whole Jewish nation?
Because (i) the Sanhedrin were not a threat at all, they were in the Romans'
pocket. They benefited from a harmonious relationship with the conquerors,
(ii) anyone who preached what sounded a lot like sedition in Jerusalem at
Passover time *was* a potential threat as far as Pilate was concerned and
(iii) it's likely that all that stuff about 'rendering under Caesar' was
part of the attempts by the gospels to make Jesus look as little like a
Jewish rebel as possible in the interests of PR.
> Since you concede that the Romans crucified Jesus (which some other skeptics
> deny since this is only acknowledged in the New Testament), why do you
> doubt the New Testament's account that Pontious Pilot did not want to
> kill Jesus, but only succombed to Sanhedrin pressure to do so in order
> to avoid apease them?
Because it doesn't fit with the other historical evidence and because the
gospels had big incentives to shift the blame onto the jews. We've been
over this before, you have to respond with anything historically substantive.
(And his name is Pontius Pilatus, btw, which is usually anglicised as Pontius
Pilate. I don't know who this Pontious Pilot person is, an early Judean
aviator perhaps?)
> >>Where is it claimed that the Romans were involved, expect the implication
> >>that they carried out the wishes of the Sanhedrin in order to avoid
> >>possible civil unrest?
> >
> >Where is claimed that the Jews were involved except in the New Testament ?
> >On the contrary, what we do have consensus of sources about (both Jewish
> >and Christian and maybe Romans) is that the Romans were the ones who executed
> >Jesus. To say that they did to satisfy the Sanhedrin is utterly ridiculous !!!
> >Since when does a brutal vicious dictator, try to SATISFY those that he's
> >trying to crush ? It is MUCH more probable he will try to run to the ground
> >those who offer competition on his mere existence as a DICTATOR !!!
>
> If this was the case, Pilot would have taken out the Sanhedrin and
> replaced them with puppets of the state, the way the Romans had Herod
> installed as King in Palestine.
Why replace the Sanhedrin? They were a pretty docile and conservative lot who
benefited from helping the Romans maintain the status quo. The idea of them
