The Bible is a great ancient literary work written in a form and context from within the culture and style that was typical of the writers at the time ~~~~in that sense it is true unto itself and what we are doing is trying to impose our modern way of thinking and constructs and make a determination from that ~rather than from the writers at the time ~~~
I am a bit confused , dint the sanhedrin have the power to execute people ?? Example Stephen or James or trial of paul , couldn't the sanhedrin find someone guilty and have them stoned ??
In the field? Not really. Maybe here and there you still have advocates of the exclusively sapiential Jesus. But on the popular level this isn’t common knowledge at all. It’s super common to hear people say Jesus was killed for being kind and loving. Or, in Christian circles, Jesus was killed for claiming to be God. These NT Review Shorts, you may have noticed, aren’t reviewing controversies in academia. We’re giving brief responses to popular level issues.
@@newtestamentreview9931 Jesus has similarities with the Egyptian and the other messianic figures. Jesus was for sure not a nice guy. In some verses he tells to his desciples to sell their cloak to buy a sword. And also Peter attacking a roman soldier cutting his ear. Jesus is similar to jewish rebels.
This explanation for why Jesus was killed requires a notably highly speculative reading between the lines in the gospels. Jesus upsets Jewish authorities in the gospels for reasons unrelated to the clearing of the Temple. The story of the clearing of the Temple is obvious fiction. The hypothesis presented here is that Jesus was preaching the apocalypse. Ironically the primary source for Jesus preaching the apocalypse is the passage in Mark where Jesus predicts the destruction of the temple. That is also an obvious fiction. It is extremely improbable that Jesus would have gone around preaching the destruction of the temple 40 years before it happened. Is there other good evidence that is not obviously made up stories of Jesus preaching an apocalypticism that would be threatening to Roman political stability?
"Probably" " Almost Certainly" This does not sound like the language of historical enquiry. Why not entertain the theory that it did not happen? At least on earth anyway. Why not entertain the theory that Mark invented the passion, riffing off of Paul's revelatory Jesus? He shows no sign whatsoever of relying on any oral tradition. The details of the passion come directly out of Psalm 22 & 23 & 24 and other OT sources. Why not deal with the fact that so many of the passion details don't stack up as history. A one day trial, a capital trial during a festival, the Barrabas nonsense. If the large marker events are an obvious fiction why assume the small ones aren't? Your confident, self assured approach makes no sense at all.
The language of historical inquiry is all about the relative probability of different explanations. I have considered that and other mythicist theories. And they’re bad theories. A much simpler, clearer explanation of the data is that there was a historical person named Jesus with a brother named James and a disciple named Peter. I and almost every other professional historian who has spent considerable time reading the primary sources and learning the primary languages have reached the same conclusion. I’m sure it’s reassuring to tell yourself that all the experts just don’t make sense and don’t know what they’re talking about. But that’s the coping mechanism of a conspiracy theorist.
@@newtestamentreview9931 I wonder what the " relative probability" is between A: Jesus physically rose from the dead & B: No it was just a story that Mark made up? If your answer is A; stop pretending you are an historian. If your answer is B then how many other incidents in G.Mark are more "relatively probable" on a fictional explanation? If so much of Mark is relatively improbable, why trust/assume any of it is true? How do you sort fact from fiction in Mark. There may be small kernels of truth in Mark about Jesus but we have no way extracting them. Simple is not a synonym for accurate. Why rely on simplicity when, the Jesus story is possibly an elaborate fiction. Your claims are not simple, the oldest evidence we have makes no use of the word disciple. Paul never says anything about Peter, or anyone else for that matter, seeing Jesus, being with Jesus, speaking with Jesus etc until after his death. This is bizarre not simple. You must have misread my response, I made no claims that your opinions weren't comfortably slotted within the consensus as it stands. Your claim that every other professional etc is just empty hyperbole. Your last paragraph was simple, simply insulting. I made no mention of conspiracy. Christianity is the product of theological evolution. If the consensus is unsafe we should attempt to move it after all, that's what Galileo did.
""Probably" " Almost Certainly" This does not sound like the language of historical enquiry.' - it does sound like historical inquiry to me. It's the kind of honesty that Ian and Laura show in these kinds of discussion that is refreshing. I'm not sure you've tried to research the past, whether you're attempting to discover a great-grandmother's birthday or if you want to write a biography of some ancient historical figure, but eventually one comes across evidence that is ambiguous or contradictory, and that means whatever conclusions you want to draw have to tentative and conditional.
@@ghostriders_1 that is another common mythicist juke. Mythicists like to slide between what both sides agree isn't demonstrable (like the resurrection) and what is demonstrable (like the historical Jesus) for rhetorical effect. Here's a video I did on why the miraculous can't figure in historical explanations: ua-cam.com/video/WZsvgS1R5iI/v-deo.html I don't have time to argue with you. I need to get back to my full time job of reading and writing about the history and literature of the first and second centuries.
@@TheDanEdwards What you say Dan about ambiguous evidence is true but it must be carefully weighted with the evidence that relates to it. The James issue is a classic case in point. Galations 1:19 is thoroughly ambiguous evidence and cannot be used to establish the point of a sibling relationship because: A: Paul uses brother (sister) of the Lord to as a fictive greeting or identifier all thru his epistles B: One could reasonably expect Paul to say Brother of Jesus the Lord, if that is what he intended. C: The first 2 gospels give us no indication whatsoever that James became involved in the sect. Quite the opposite. D: Luke alone walks James on stage in Acts 1 and like a fictional set piece character he suddenly disappears entirely. A responsible mythicist says nothing more than this evidence is ambiguous. Historicists can't afford to do this because they have so little to work with.
Let me respond to that in reverse order. We don't claim that Jesus instructed his followers to oppose Rome. We claim that Jesus made an apocalyptic prophecy and acted out a prophetic gesture in the temple that threatened the stability of Jerusalem. I recommend the "Did Jesus 'cleanse' the Temple?" video. We're not suggesting that he led an opposition movement to Rome. We're arguing that he was teaching about/acting out God's in-breaking into the world to restore Israel. While that would involve liberating Judea from Rome, that's not the main point. The point is that sort of message during a festival, in the temple could lead to instability. And, as Josephus attests, Rome responds to that. Second, Rome doesn't crucify people who claim to be gods. Jesus was tried and executed by Rome -- not stoned for blasphemy. Also, Jesus in the synoptic gospels doesn't claim to be god incarnate. The gospels cite the temple incident and Jesus' claim to destroy and rebuild the temple as the things that led to his arrest. The book of Acts compares Jesus to other figures (known from Josephus) who were killed for acting out the eschatological drama. Jesus' apocalyptic teaching and actions are the best explanation for his execution.
@@newtestamentreview9931 He forgave sins. Every Jew knew that only God can forgive sins. Furthermore, the pharisees were upset that He healed on the sabbath. Jesus claimed He is the Master of the sabbath! All in the synoptic gospels. Jesus criticized the hypocrites among the pharisees boldly, He even compared them with graves! And Jesus referred to Himself as the son of man when Kaiaphas was interrogating Him in Matthew. Rome did not crucify people who claim to be God? Well, Pontius Pilate was reluctant to hand down the verdict. God bless
@@immanuel829 Re-read Matthew 9:1-8. Verse 8 says that the point of the story (and why people get upset) is that Jesus' action (forgiving sins) shows that God has given the authority to forgive sins "to human beings' (τοις ανθρωποις). That's plural. Jesus forgiving sins shows that humans can forgive (not that Jesus isn't human). [Also God delegates this authority to other humans in Jewish literature.] Same thing with the Sabbath in Mark 2. "The sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the sabbath; so the Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath.” The "so" that connects verse 27 to verse 28 shows that "son of man" is being used here to refer to "human beings" generally (very common in Aramaic). The point of the story is that humankind is master of the sabbath. So no, Jesus doesn't claim to be God in the Synoptics. And you've ignored my other major point. Rome doesn't execute people for claiming to be gods.
@@newtestamentreview9931 I added that Pontius Pilate hesitated to hand down the verdict. There is a huge difference between A and THE son of man. And in Matthew, Jesus says to Kaiaphas not only that He is THE son of man, sitting on the right site of God, but also that He is Christ, the Son of God. If you want to deny the divinity of Jesus, you are deceiving yourself. I saw an interview with a young Muslim who said: Jesus forgave the people who crucified Him. No ordinary human being would do that. And I add: who would have a motive to invent the divinity? Why are there so many embarrassing details then like the doubting John the baptist and Peter denying Jesus? Peter, the leader of the church in Jerusalem?! Why did Jesus call Peter even satan when Peter wanted to prevent the crucifixion??? Why did Jesus say that it is very hard for rich people to enter the kingdom? That we shall love our enemies? That Peter should take away the sword? Why was Jesus poor, why was He not born in a palace and had no army if it was made up? Why did He, the creator of the universe, wash the feet of His disciples, why did He say that He did not come to be served???? Clearly you cannot base worldly power on such teachings! So again, why would anybody invent Jesus' divinity but not change those difficult passages? God bless
@Ant B why would His followers, devout Jews who must not worship a human being beside God, do that? See my comment above, there is no way to base worldly power on Jesus' teachings.... Delusional, insane - or indeed God in human form. You forgot that possibility 😉 Jesus loves you, too ❤
It wasn't necessarily the temple scene it was the betrayal of Judas that let the the Lord's Crucifixion. Once they Found Jesus with SWORDS in a garden in Jerusalem they now had grounds to charge the Lord to the Roman's.
You have been missed so much , please come back Laura 😢 !!!!
The Bible is a great ancient literary work written in a form and context from within the culture and style that was typical of the writers at the time ~~~~in that sense it is true unto itself and what we are doing is trying to impose our modern way of thinking and constructs and make a determination from that ~rather than from the writers at the time ~~~
This is a very good presentation. Do you think Jesus was violent?
I am a bit confused , dint the sanhedrin have the power to execute people ??
Example Stephen or James or trial of paul , couldn't the sanhedrin find someone guilty and have them stoned ??
Why does this feel like they're in two separate conversations? Was this just a remix?
3:15 is that so?? Jesus ben Ananias have done the same thing during 7 years between 62 and 69 CE, and he was NOT crucified!
Ian hints about bad 'nice guy's preaching at the beginning, but I have to ask, is this topic even the least bit contested?
In the field? Not really. Maybe here and there you still have advocates of the exclusively sapiential Jesus. But on the popular level this isn’t common knowledge at all. It’s super common to hear people say Jesus was killed for being kind and loving. Or, in Christian circles, Jesus was killed for claiming to be God.
These NT Review Shorts, you may have noticed, aren’t reviewing controversies in academia. We’re giving brief responses to popular level issues.
@@newtestamentreview9931 Jesus has similarities with the Egyptian and the other messianic figures. Jesus was for sure not a nice guy. In some verses he tells to his desciples to sell their cloak to buy a sword. And also Peter attacking a roman soldier cutting his ear. Jesus is similar to jewish rebels.
IMO he started a riot in the temple and hence was executed as enemy of the Roman empire
2:00 Theudas was decapitated. The Egyptian escaped.
None crucified
Very interesting information.
Vandalism, public nuisance, sedition...
He wasn't.
Terrorism?
Could you look at a equally important, and just as true issue. Why did Spock's grandmother, T''pau, turn down a seat on the Federation Council?
This explanation for why Jesus was killed requires a notably highly speculative reading between the lines in the gospels. Jesus upsets Jewish authorities in the gospels for reasons unrelated to the clearing of the Temple. The story of the clearing of the Temple is obvious fiction. The hypothesis presented here is that Jesus was preaching the apocalypse. Ironically the primary source for Jesus preaching the apocalypse is the passage in Mark where Jesus predicts the destruction of the temple. That is also an obvious fiction. It is extremely improbable that Jesus would have gone around preaching the destruction of the temple 40 years before it happened. Is there other good evidence that is not obviously made up stories of Jesus preaching an apocalypticism that would be threatening to Roman political stability?
Jesus was killed for being a fictional character
"Probably" " Almost Certainly" This does not sound like the language of historical enquiry. Why not entertain the theory that it did not happen? At least on earth anyway. Why not entertain the theory that Mark invented the passion, riffing off of Paul's revelatory Jesus? He shows no sign whatsoever of relying on any oral tradition. The details of the passion come directly out of Psalm 22 & 23 & 24 and other OT sources. Why not deal with the fact that so many of the passion details don't stack up as history. A one day trial, a capital trial during a festival, the Barrabas nonsense. If the large marker events are an obvious fiction why assume the small ones aren't? Your confident, self assured approach makes no sense at all.
The language of historical inquiry is all about the relative probability of different explanations. I have considered that and other mythicist theories. And they’re bad theories. A much simpler, clearer explanation of the data is that there was a historical person named Jesus with a brother named James and a disciple named Peter.
I and almost every other professional historian who has spent considerable time reading the primary sources and learning the primary languages have reached the same conclusion. I’m sure it’s reassuring to tell yourself that all the experts just don’t make sense and don’t know what they’re talking about. But that’s the coping mechanism of a conspiracy theorist.
@@newtestamentreview9931 I wonder what the " relative probability" is between A: Jesus physically rose from the dead & B: No it was just a story that Mark made up? If your answer is A; stop pretending you are an historian. If your answer is B then how many other incidents in G.Mark are more "relatively probable" on a fictional explanation? If so much of Mark is relatively improbable, why trust/assume any of it is true? How do you sort fact from fiction in Mark. There may be small kernels of truth in Mark about Jesus but we have no way extracting them.
Simple is not a synonym for accurate. Why rely on simplicity when, the Jesus story is possibly an elaborate fiction.
Your claims are not simple, the oldest evidence we have makes no use of the word disciple. Paul never says anything about Peter, or anyone else for that matter, seeing Jesus, being with Jesus, speaking with Jesus etc until after his death. This is bizarre not simple.
You must have misread my response, I made no claims that your opinions weren't comfortably slotted within the consensus as it stands. Your claim that every other professional etc is just empty hyperbole.
Your last paragraph was simple, simply insulting. I made no mention of conspiracy. Christianity is the product of theological evolution. If the consensus is unsafe we should attempt to move it after all, that's what Galileo did.
""Probably" " Almost Certainly" This does not sound like the language of historical enquiry.' - it does sound like historical inquiry to me. It's the kind of honesty that Ian and Laura show in these kinds of discussion that is refreshing. I'm not sure you've tried to research the past, whether you're attempting to discover a great-grandmother's birthday or if you want to write a biography of some ancient historical figure, but eventually one comes across evidence that is ambiguous or contradictory, and that means whatever conclusions you want to draw have to tentative and conditional.
@@ghostriders_1 that is another common mythicist juke. Mythicists like to slide between what both sides agree isn't demonstrable (like the resurrection) and what is demonstrable (like the historical Jesus) for rhetorical effect.
Here's a video I did on why the miraculous can't figure in historical explanations:
ua-cam.com/video/WZsvgS1R5iI/v-deo.html
I don't have time to argue with you. I need to get back to my full time job of reading and writing about the history and literature of the first and second centuries.
@@TheDanEdwards What you say Dan about ambiguous evidence is true but it must be carefully weighted with the evidence that relates to it. The James issue is a classic case in point. Galations 1:19 is thoroughly ambiguous evidence and cannot be used to establish the point of a sibling relationship because:
A: Paul uses brother (sister) of the Lord to as a fictive greeting or identifier all thru his epistles
B: One could reasonably expect Paul to say Brother of Jesus the Lord, if that is what he intended.
C: The first 2 gospels give us no indication whatsoever that James became involved in the sect. Quite the opposite.
D: Luke alone walks James on stage in Acts 1 and like a fictional set piece character he suddenly disappears entirely.
A responsible mythicist says nothing more than this evidence is ambiguous. Historicists can't afford to do this because they have so little to work with.
He was crucified because He claimed to be God incarnate. Nowhere does He instruct His followers to oppose the Romans
Let me respond to that in reverse order.
We don't claim that Jesus instructed his followers to oppose Rome. We claim that Jesus made an apocalyptic prophecy and acted out a prophetic gesture in the temple that threatened the stability of Jerusalem. I recommend the "Did Jesus 'cleanse' the Temple?" video. We're not suggesting that he led an opposition movement to Rome. We're arguing that he was teaching about/acting out God's in-breaking into the world to restore Israel. While that would involve liberating Judea from Rome, that's not the main point. The point is that sort of message during a festival, in the temple could lead to instability. And, as Josephus attests, Rome responds to that.
Second, Rome doesn't crucify people who claim to be gods. Jesus was tried and executed by Rome -- not stoned for blasphemy. Also, Jesus in the synoptic gospels doesn't claim to be god incarnate.
The gospels cite the temple incident and Jesus' claim to destroy and rebuild the temple as the things that led to his arrest. The book of Acts compares Jesus to other figures (known from Josephus) who were killed for acting out the eschatological drama. Jesus' apocalyptic teaching and actions are the best explanation for his execution.
@@newtestamentreview9931 He forgave sins. Every Jew knew that only God can forgive sins. Furthermore, the pharisees were upset that He healed on the sabbath. Jesus claimed He is the Master of the sabbath! All in the synoptic gospels. Jesus criticized the hypocrites among the pharisees boldly, He even compared them with graves! And Jesus referred to Himself as the son of man when Kaiaphas was interrogating Him in Matthew. Rome did not crucify people who claim to be God? Well, Pontius Pilate was reluctant to hand down the verdict. God bless
@@immanuel829 Re-read Matthew 9:1-8. Verse 8 says that the point of the story (and why people get upset) is that Jesus' action (forgiving sins) shows that God has given the authority to forgive sins "to human beings' (τοις ανθρωποις). That's plural. Jesus forgiving sins shows that humans can forgive (not that Jesus isn't human). [Also God delegates this authority to other humans in Jewish literature.]
Same thing with the Sabbath in Mark 2. "The sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the sabbath; so the Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath.” The "so" that connects verse 27 to verse 28 shows that "son of man" is being used here to refer to "human beings" generally (very common in Aramaic). The point of the story is that humankind is master of the sabbath.
So no, Jesus doesn't claim to be God in the Synoptics.
And you've ignored my other major point. Rome doesn't execute people for claiming to be gods.
@@newtestamentreview9931 I added that Pontius Pilate hesitated to hand down the verdict. There is a huge difference between A and THE son of man. And in Matthew, Jesus says to Kaiaphas not only that He is THE son of man, sitting on the right site of God, but also that He is Christ, the Son of God. If you want to deny the divinity of Jesus, you are deceiving yourself. I saw an interview with a young Muslim who said: Jesus forgave the people who crucified Him. No ordinary human being would do that. And I add: who would have a motive to invent the divinity? Why are there so many embarrassing details then like the doubting John the baptist and Peter denying Jesus? Peter, the leader of the church in Jerusalem?! Why did Jesus call Peter even satan when Peter wanted to prevent the crucifixion??? Why did Jesus say that it is very hard for rich people to enter the kingdom? That we shall love our enemies? That Peter should take away the sword? Why was Jesus poor, why was He not born in a palace and had no army if it was made up? Why did He, the creator of the universe, wash the feet of His disciples, why did He say that He did not come to be served???? Clearly you cannot base worldly power on such teachings! So again, why would anybody invent Jesus' divinity but not change those difficult passages? God bless
@Ant B why would His followers, devout Jews who must not worship a human being beside God, do that? See my comment above, there is no way to base worldly power on Jesus' teachings....
Delusional, insane - or indeed God in human form. You forgot that possibility 😉 Jesus loves you, too ❤
It wasn't necessarily the temple scene it was the betrayal of Judas that let the the Lord's Crucifixion. Once they Found Jesus with SWORDS in a garden in Jerusalem they now had grounds to charge the Lord to the Roman's.
How could you kill someone that never existed in the first place? They needed a villain in the story
The gospels make the Romans notoriously lousy villains. Pilot's the villain that goes out of his way to find excuses not to kill the protagonist.