Originally posted by avalanchethecatcertum est, quia impossibile, eh? That would certainly have appealed to Tertullian: what can be proved is not faith but science, what is believed because it cannot be proved is faith.
If it were the case that the shroud was genuine and accepted proof of the existence and divine nature of Jesus, surely that would weaken your faith? Given such proof, your faith would be irrelevant, wouldn't it?
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116947
Originally posted by moonbusThen please explain why the Jewish leaders wanted him dead?
I refer you to the following article which explains what constitutes blasphemy in the Jewish tradition:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3354-blasphemy
If the Jewish religious authorities had had a case for blasphemy against Jesus, they could have executed him themselves. The fact that they went to the Roman political authorities to get rid o ...[text shortened]... im. In the event, Pilate found no guilt in the man and would have released him, but for the mob.
Because he was preaching and the Sadducees and the Pharisees, who were the accepted authorities on interpreting Mosaic law, did not take kindly to having some schmuck encroach on their turf.
Similarly, if some Joe Blow started preaching on the steps of St. Peter's that the Pope didn't know doodly squat about Christianity, or outside Canturbury Cathedral that the Archbishop had got Christianity all wrong, he would meet with concerted resistance from the Church hierarchy. That is essentially what Jesus did. That's not blasphemy; blasphemy is defaming God's name. No one ever claimed Jesus did that; what he did was discredit the religious power structure.
If Jesus's message was finding resonance within the population, that would have been perceived by the Jewish religious authorities as a threat to their power and would explain why they wanted to get rid of him.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116947
Originally posted by moonbusWell I guess we all have our opinions, and you are entitled to yours.
Because he was preaching and the Sadducees and the Pharisees, who were the accepted authorities on interpreting Mosaic law, did not take kindly to having some schmuck encroach on their turf.
Similarly, if some Joe Blow started preaching on the steps of St. Peter's that the Pope didn't know doodly squat about Christianity, or outside Canturbury Cathedral t ...[text shortened]... ious authorities as a threat to their power and would explain why they wanted to get rid of him.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116947
Originally posted by moonbusBut it's not my opinion that is driving my comments, it is what's written in the Bible about the issue.
Yup. And I would defend to the death your right to hold yours.
From Mathew 26
"The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.”
64 “You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
65 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy.”
One has to read the text 'behind' the text to figure out what happened. Just because one high priest takes umbrage doesn't yet count as blasphemy. As I pointed out in a previous post, if the charge had had enough substance to stick, the Jewish religious authorities had the power to execute him without recourse to the Roman justice system.
The aggrieved priests tried to trap Jesus into making claims at variance with accepted Jewish doctrine, and Jesus very cleverly dodged the traps which were set for him, answering, as it were, on a higher plane. For example, when challenged about working on the sabbath, or when challenged about eating forbidden foods: Jesus answered that not what you put into your mouth (e.g., pork) is sinful, but what comes out of it -- e.g., false accusations. When that little ruse failed, the aggrieved priests put claims into Jesus's mouth, for example that he had claimed to be God, a claim Jesus is not reported to have made. All of those ruses to trap him into committing doctrinal errors failed, and that was why they trumped up a charge to get him tried by the Roman civil authority.
EDIT: please explain why the Jewish religious authorities did not execute him themselves, given that they had the power to do so if they could prove a charge of blasphemy (and not merely accuse Jesus of it).
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116947
Originally posted by moonbusI've given you one set of biblical text which completely debunks your claim. The biblical text is very clear in all 4 gospels, you are welcome to present contradictory text from whatever websites you can find which support your POV. If you get desperate you could always ask Chaney3 for a papyrus.
One has to read the text 'behind' the text to figure out what happened. Just because one high priest takes umbrage doesn't yet count as blasphemy. As I pointed out in a previous post, if the charge had had enough substance to stick, the Jewish religious authorities had the power to execute him without recourse to the Roman justice system.
The aggrieved pr ...[text shortened]... so if they could prove a charge of blasphemy (and not merely accuse Jesus of it).
🙂
Originally posted by moonbusCan you explain how an average man claiming to be God would NOT be considered blasphemy?
I refer you to the following article which explains what constitutes blasphemy in the Jewish tradition:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3354-blasphemy
If the Jewish religious authorities had had a case for blasphemy against Jesus, they could have executed him themselves. The fact that they went to the Roman political authorities to get rid o ...[text shortened]... im. In the event, Pilate found no guilt in the man and would have released him, but for the mob.
I agree though, that they probably needed the Romans help to actually execute Jesus, as the Romans were really good at that, and it would have been problematic for the Jewish leaders to actually execute him, a popular rabbi, especially at Passover. But Pilate said that he finds no fault in him, he washed his hands of him, and so he relied upon the choice of the mob to determine his fate. I don't think Pilate thought he was any threat.
But a charge of blasphemy just gave the Jewish leaders the "in" they needed. I agree that the real motivation of Caliphas to get rid of Jesus was probably the perceived threat to his political position.
Originally posted by divegeesterAnd that pertains to the shroud how?
But it's not my opinion that is driving my comments, it is what's written in the Bible about the issue.
From Mathew 26
"The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.”
64 “You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of ...[text shortened]... poken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy.”[/b]
Originally posted by divegeesterWhat about the part that, for the sake of argument, the shroud was proven beyond doubt to belong to the dead Jesus.
What?
Perhaps is you read the exchanges between moonbus and myself you would understand the conversation.
Exactly how would that prove divinity? All it would prove is a positive identification of Jesus, proving there WAS a real Jesus and he lived and died in Jerusalem. Going from that to now he is divine is impossible just analyzing the shroud.
Originally posted by avalanchethecatFor those that define faith as 'believing something without good reason to' the question is why would anyone want to have faith?
If it were the case that the shroud was genuine and accepted proof of the existence and divine nature of Jesus, surely that would weaken your faith? Given such proof, your faith would be irrelevant, wouldn't it?