LogFAQs > #878264255

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, Database 1 ( 03.09.2017-09.16.2017 ), DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	How do you refute the historical evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus
Saloonist 05/01/17 1:13:42 PM #174:	sChromaticAngel posted... Saloonist posted... ChromaticAngel posted... The Gospels were written in such a way to give an impression of "Jesus did nothing wrong" because it's natural for people to want to paint themselves as the good guy. This is an anachronism. No one at the time would have come up with the idea of a non-violent Messiah as the ideal leader. In fact, subsections of the Jewish culture at the time was, as you already alluded to, highly militant against Roman rule an awaited a new king to free Israel. The Romans themselves were, of course, a very warlike people. The same is true for most of the Mediterranean cultures. The notion of a peaceful, non-violent leader was new. Literally wrong. Although you are right about the other faction awaiting a Messiah to lead the Jews against the romans. They were the second highest faction after the Zealots in that area. There were two other factions, however. One which wanted to make peace with the romans and another who wanted to peacefully separate. That is different from the notion of the Messiah as essentially a pacifistic spiritual king. That was a new notion. The Herods making peace with the Romans as collaborators does not mean that they were non-violent. Quite the opposite. The notion of Jesus in the Gospels as a spiritual king who renounces violence does not have any clear parallels in the Mediterranean world before then. You can say that the Gospels can't be trusted or whatever you want. But there is a more consistent image in the Gospels of Jesus as a non-violent rabbi, than there is anywhere of him as a politically radical Zealot seeking violent revolution against the Roman government, and I challenge you to provide evidence to the contrary. Indeed, his followers do not seem to have joined in against the revolution leading to the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. --- BasileosPetros, KhanofKhans, CokeZero, and many more <cite>Saloonist posted [p:878264255] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote>s<cite>ChromaticAngel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote><cite>ChromaticAngel posted...</cite> <quote> The Gospels were written in such a way to give an impression of "Jesus did nothing wrong" because it's natural for people to want to paint themselves as the good guy.</quote> This is an anachronism. No one at the time would have come up with the idea of a non-violent Messiah as the ideal leader. In fact, subsections of the Jewish culture at the time was, as you already alluded to, highly militant against Roman rule an awaited a new king to free Israel. The Romans themselves were, of course, a very warlike people. The same is true for most of the Mediterranean cultures. The notion of a peaceful, non-violent leader was new.</quote> Literally wrong. Although you are right about the other faction awaiting a Messiah to lead the Jews against the romans. They were the second highest faction after the Zealots in that area. There were two other factions, however. One which wanted to make peace with the romans and another who wanted to peacefully separate.</quote> That is different from the notion of the Messiah as essentially a pacifistic spiritual king. That was a new notion. The Herods making peace with the Romans as collaborators does not mean that they were non-violent. Quite the opposite. The notion of Jesus in the Gospels as a spiritual king who renounces violence does not have any clear parallels in the Mediterranean world before then. You can say that the Gospels can't be trusted or whatever you want. But there is a more consistent image in the Gospels of Jesus as a non-violent rabbi, than there is anywhere of him as a politically radical Zealot seeking violent revolution against the Roman government, and I challenge you to provide evidence to the contrary. Indeed, his followers do not seem to have joined in against the revolution leading to the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. --- BasileosPetros, KhanofKhans, CokeZero, and many more</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1