Does Jesus' prediction and acceptance of martyrdom suggest His sincerity?

[HansMustermann]

I have no doubt that the Romans executed a few Jesus like characters. Remember that these are the same people who crucified every male surviving member of the slave army of the Third Servile War. That's like 5000 people. Crucifixion though was reserved for slaves, provincial subjects of the Empire and political crimes. If Pilate didn't want him on a cross he wouldn't have been on one. He would probably been perfectly happy to let the Jews stone him to death.

Basically yes, skipping over all possible nuances and nits to pick and all (and the Allfather knows I'm all about picking nits), that's the basic gist of it: if the Roman governor didn't want the guy nailed to a stick, he wouldn't be nailed to a stick.

 

[Craig B]

Basically yes, skipping over all possible nuances and nits to pick and all (and the Allfather knows I'm all about picking nits), that's the basic gist of it: if the Roman governor didn't want the guy nailed to a stick, he wouldn't be nailed to a stick.

Here is Philo's description of that governor, in the Embassy to Gaius, which casts doubt on the "merciful Pilate" story.

XXXVIII. (301) ' ... Tiberius is not desirous that any of our laws or customs shall be destroyed. And if you [Pilate] yourself say that he is, show us either some command from him, or some letter, or something of the kind, that we, who have been sent to you as ambassadors, may cease to trouble you, and may address our supplications to your master.' (302) But this last sentence exasperated him in the greatest possible degree, as he feared least they might in reality go on an embassy to the emperor, and might impeach him with respect to other particulars of his government, in respect of his corruption, and his acts of insolence, and his rapine, and his habit of insulting people, and his cruelty, and his continual murders of people untried and uncondemned, and his never ending, and gratuitous, and most grievous inhumanity.

 

[Craig4]

Basically yes, skipping over all possible nuances and nits to pick and all (and the Allfather knows I'm all about picking nits), that's the basic gist of it: if the Roman governor didn't want the guy nailed to a stick, he wouldn't be nailed to a stick.

The Romans let the people in the provinces mostly govern themselves. As long as you paid taxes, didn't mess with the troops or engage on human sacrifice (they were really down on that) people could manage affairs how they liked. If it was just the Jewish leaders wanting him dead, they could have just stoned him. The only reason to go the two boards and a post hole digger route was that the Romans found him to be an enemy of the Empire.

 

[ryu238]

What about when he asked why god forsake him? Not much of a sacrifice.

 

[Leumas]

What about when he asked why god forsake him? Not much of a sacrifice.

Yes it is like Superman pretending to suffer some torture and then pretends to die and then pretends to magically become a zombie.

And then he says.... see I suffered and sacrificed myself for you!

I always ask ... who is more of hero.... a human person who rushes into an inferno to save a child .... or superman doing the same?

Of course everyone says the human because he stood to suffer and die while superman had no danger to himself.

So then why does everyone think that Jesus did anything more special than the MILLIONS, if not billions of people who REALLY DIED (or worse got maimed) for the sake of their country or children or society?

It is all such an amazing insult to intelligence.

 

[Craig B]

What about when he asked why god forsake him? Not much of a sacrifice.

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you expand? The words reported as spoken by him are Psalms 22:1.

 

[Dancing David]

I cannot believe that in 2015 anyone in the educated civilized world still thinks Jesus' entire story is not the most amazing insult to intelligence myth and fairy tale ever to emanate from the ignorant imaginations of the most benighted humans.

I suggest you watch 'Here Comes Honey Boo Boo'

 

[Craig4]

I cannot believe that in 2015 anyone in the educated civilized world still thinks Jesus' entire story is not the most amazing insult to intelligence myth and fairy tale ever to emanate from the ignorant imaginations of the most benighted humans.

Even if one wants to believe in an ethereal deity they should still be insulted at the vile slander being hurled at poor God.

How can anyone who wants to believe in GOD the one and only creator of everything and the almighty omnipotent omnibenevolent omniscient above all things and all profanity reconcile this god with the pathetic insult to intelligence that is the myth of Jesus?

You've hit the nail on the head. People who believe this don't think about it. For the true believers this belief is tied to family, social standing, status. Not something you really want to examine closely lest you lose all those things.

 

[rakovsky]

Why not both?

I already gave you the example of the sailor who confessed starting the 1666 London fire, and must have known at some point that he's judged for a hanging crime. If nothing else, because he was fighting an unusual uphill fight there at the trial, to convince everyone that he's guilty, while the crown was effectively proving that it's physically impossible for him to be the culprit. But the guy fought hard for his right to hang, and was duly hanged.

Was he sincere in his belief that he started the fire? Maybe. But that doesn't rule out that ALSO whatever premise led him to that conclusion was faulty.

Hello, Hans.

I wrote a few responses at once on the last page, so perhaps you missed mine:

Hello, Hans.
This was a very interesting story, so I read about it on Wikipedia. The best explanation seems to be that he was tortured into the confession, as one of the contemporary sources claimed. The monarchy at that time was torturing people to admit to it. People were accusing the monarchy of starting the fire and people were getting so crazy looking for suspects they lynched someone else. The fact that the court convicted him when they thought he was innocent suggests more going on than just an innocent person confessing due to mental illness, but rather a political trial that was motivated to convict someone even if they knew he was innocent. That in turn suggests the motive for the confession could have come from the court that wanted the conviction in the first place (since he did not have a clear motive for confession), which in turn suggests he was one of the torture victims the historical sources mention!

 

[rakovsky]

This is all outlandish. There is no suggestion that the sufferer in Ps 22 is David, or "David's King" whoever that may be. David was not a "metaphor" for the Messiah. He WAS a Messiah - an anointed King.

In Is 55 I see no reference to a messiah, but I see it in Is 45. This is a messiah, and he is not killed, but a conqueror.

Hello, Craig.

You are right that David was a "messiah", or "anointed one". But ancient Jewish traditions imagined that there would be a "Messiah" descended from King David who would bring national or spiritual redemption.

Isaiah 55 appears to use David as a metaphor for that future Messianic figure:

I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David. Behold, I have given him for a witness to the nations, a leader and commander to the nations (lə-’um-mîm).

Here Isaiah is predicting a future covenant and connecting it with the idea of David as a "commander of the nations".

This isn't the only place the Jewish writings used David as a metaphor for the Messiah. Ezekiel 34:23 was another place: "I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd."

I know that it sounds strange to just put a historical figure right in the middle of a prediction, but the ancient Jewish writers were trying to write in the style of poems and dreams.

So for the ancient Israelites, David was a metaphor for the Messiah.

And then in Psalm 22, David describes himself getting killed and living again. I think Psalm 30 does something similar in a poetic way, talking about himself going down into the pit and coming out, the pit elsewhere in the Psalms being a metaphor for death.

I suppose that you could say that David only meant this about himself allegorically, but in any case the metaphor exists.

 

[dejudge]

Rome had no problem killing wold be Jewish leaders. The no fault bit was very likely added to get Rome off the hook for his murder when Christianity was becoming a Roman religion.

Your assumptions are worthless.

We know what is written. You statement is fundamentally fiction.

Manuscripts of the Jesus stories have been found and dated BEFORE the Roman government took control of the writings of the Christian cults.

Papyri 75 [gLuke and gJohn] are dated c 175-225 CE at least 100 years before the Church of Rome was initiated.

In addition, Christian writings attributed to 2nd and 3rd century writers ALSO state that Pilate found NO fault with Jesus and that the Jews KILLED the Son of God.

This is a partial list of Christians who claimed the JEWS KILLED Jesus, the Son of God BEFORE the 4th century

1. Aristides.

2.Justin Martyr

3. Irenaeus

4. Tertullian

5. Lactantius

6. Clement of Alexandria.

7. Hippolytus

8. Origen

9. The author of Acts.

10. The author of 1 Thessalonians.

Not one writer of antiquity claimed the Romans KILLED or caused the death Jesus of Nazareth

 

[Craig B]

So for the ancient Israelites, David was a metaphor for the Messiah.

No. He was himself a "mashiach" - anointed. And founder of the legitimate line of kings, so that he was believed to be the ancestor of any future person who might be recognised as a legitimate king. And this was a later development, because at an earlier time we find the title applied to Cyrus, king of Persia.

And then in Psalm 22, David describes himself getting killed and living again. I think Psalm 30 does something similar in a poetic way, talking about himself going down into the pit and coming out, the pit elsewhere in the Psalms being a metaphor for death. I suppose that you could say that David only meant this about himself allegorically, but in any case the metaphor exists.

Where does Ps 22 state that the sufferer was killed and restored to life? What makes you think the psalm is referring to David?

The character in Ps 30 did not die and was therefore not reborn

3 O Lord, thou hast brought up my soul from the grave: thou hast kept me alive, that I should not go down to the pit.

These expressions are a clear poetic parallelism, in which "brought up my soul from the grave" is defined as "kept me alive".

Are you a traditionalist who believes literally that David composed the Psalms? Is he the author of Ps 137? Moses wrote the Torah too, perhaps?

 

[Foster Zygote]

To clarify why I asked the question, I think if Paul, the first century Christians, and the gospel writers were just making up the Bible stories of Jesus' divinity, it would mean that Jesus would have been making things up too. It seems unlikely to me that Jesus would have started a nonmiraculous, very moral sect that after He died just decided to make all the miraculous stories up using a slew of writers and religious leaders. To me, either they and He were making up stories or else they really believed that they happened like they presented them.

So to me, Jesus' choice of going down the route of a martyrdom that He believed his religion predicted and which was likely to come from His many enemies looks like a test of honesty.

Paul never describes Jesus as performing any miracles.

Why is it so hard to believe that, over generations, people who had never met Jesus, or even been alive at the same time, had embellished the stories about their holy figure of legend, to the point that he eventually became God himself?

Just look at the incredible variety of religions calling themselves "Christian" during the first few centuries. What more evidence do we need that people could make up Christianity as they went?

 

[rakovsky]

So for the ancient Israelites, David was a metaphor for the Messiah.

No. He was himself a "mashiach" - anointed. And founder of the legitimate line of kings, so that he was believed to be the ancestor of any future person who might be recognised as a legitimate king. And this was a later development, because at an earlier time we find the title applied to Cyrus, king of Persia.

Hello, Craig. Yes, you are right that David was a mashiach in the normal sense. However, Jewish traditions expected a future "Mashiach" who would bring spiritual or national restoration to Israel. Orthodox Jews still believe in this concept of "the Messiah", the Son of David, and the tradition goes back a very long time through the Talmud and earlier. The Talmud repeatedly uses David's Psalms as allegories of what this future redemptive Messiah would be like. And the Bible also uses David not only as a real historical figure, but as a future metaphor for the Messiah, like in the two verses from Isaiah and Ezekiel I showed you.

Where does Ps 22 state that the sufferer was killed and restored to life?

I think that's the inference where it talks about himself getting poured out. That's what happens when someone gets stabbed, and David described being described by enemies. But the poem also includes the expectation of salvation and talks about praising God to his brothers for that salvation. This chronologically appears after describing being killed, so restoration is the next inference.

What makes you think the psalm is referring to David?

The Psalm says that it is a Psalm of David, and Psalm 22 is written in the first person.

Are you a traditionalist who believes literally that David composed the Psalms? Is he the author of Ps 137? Moses wrote the Torah too, perhaps?

I don't have an opinion about whether Moses wrote the Torah. I don't believe he wrote it by himself though. I think David either wrote the Psalms or at least was involved in collecting the ones with his name. Then once he collected them he sang them. In any case, the Bible presents it as if he did.

The character in Ps 30 did not die and was therefore not reborn
Quote:
3 O Lord, thou hast brought up my soul from the grave: thou hast kept me alive, that I should not go down to the pit.
These expressions are a clear poetic parallelism, in which "brought up my soul from the grave" is defined as "kept me alive".

Yes, you are right about this, and Psalm 30 doesn't say it was a Psalm "of David" either. I'm sorry, it looks like I really had meant Psalm 40. But you cited a helpful verse in Psalm 30. There, the soul is taken out of the grave, but because it was kept out of the pit, it stayed alive. Now how could the soul be in the grave but by staying out of the pit the person stayed alive? The pit therefore must refer to the body itself dying, not just the soul.

But later in Psalm 40:2, which says that it's a Psalm of David, the narrator does say that he was in a pit in clay and God pulled him out of it. So in Psalm 40:2, this suggests that the person was dead, unlike in Psalm 30, but then God pulled him out of that condition.

 

[maximara]

Why would he have to be a fraud? Why couldn't he be a complete whack job who was too crazy or dumb to un**** himself when he learned the Romans wanted to turn him into performance art?

Given what Josephus writes there seems to have been a bumper crop of "complete whack jobs" running around the region.

Take Theudas (c45 CE) for example. He had plans to do a Moses and the Red Sea thing with the river Jordan "However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them. After falling upon them unexpectedly, they slew many of them, and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem."


The Egyptian prophet of 52-58 CE pulled his great military strategy from the battle of Jericho and told his followers "that he would show them from hence how the walls of Jerusalem would fall down at his command, and he promised them that he would procure them an entrance into the city through those collapsed walls." That didn't work out either as the Romans "slew four hundred of them, and took two hundred alive."

 

[Loss Leader]

Its hard to understand the mindset of a charlatan who would see the Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah being killed and then accept that harsh martyrdom while all the while believing that he wasn't the Messiah. I don't understand the benefit of taking on that role. I suppose this is a reinforced version of the Lord / Liar / Lunatic / Later fabrication dillemma.

Do you know that, since he first appeared, Superman has gotten stronger? Originally, he couldn't even fly. He could just jump really well.

And George Washington didn't chop down a cherry tree.

There were no contemporaneous recordings of Jesus' actions. The most recent was written decades later. So, the question is: Does myth tend to overtake fact as distance grows?

I think the answer is a resounding yes. I think these stories should get the same credence as a Superman movie.

 

[Egg]

Rome had no problem killing wold be Jewish leaders. The no fault bit was very likely added to get Rome off the hook for his murder when Christianity was becoming a Roman religion.

Your assumptions are worthless.

We know what is written. You statement is fundamentally fiction.

Manuscripts of the Jesus stories have been found and dated BEFORE the Roman government took control of the writings of the Christian cults.

Yes, if there was a shifting of the blame from the Romans to the Jews, it would have happened earlier than Roman Christianity. There could have been such a motivation in the latter part of the first century. After the Jewish revolt and Roman reaction, the Christians would have had good reason to try to distance their group from the Jews and appear non-threatening to the Romans. This would fit better with the estimated gospel composition dates.

 

[Craig4]

Your assumptions are worthless.

We know what is written. You statement is fundamentally fiction.

Manuscripts of the Jesus stories have been found and dated BEFORE the Roman government took control of the writings of the Christian cults.

Papyri 75 [gLuke and gJohn] are dated c 175-225 CE at least 100 years before the Church of Rome was initiated.

In addition, Christian writings attributed to 2nd and 3rd century writers ALSO state that Pilate found NO fault with Jesus and that the Jews KILLED the Son of God.

This is a partial list of Christians who claimed the JEWS KILLED Jesus, the Son of God BEFORE the 4th century

1. Aristides.

2.Justin Martyr

3. Irenaeus

4. Tertullian

5. Lactantius

6. Clement of Alexandria.

7. Hippolytus

8. Origen

9. The author of Acts.

10. The author of 1 Thessalonians.

Not one writer of antiquity claimed the Romans KILLED or caused the death Jesus of Nazareth

Incorrect. All those sources state that Romans crucified Jesus though at the encouragement of the Jews.

You're suggesting no Romans were become Christians prior to the 4th Century? There were plenty, enough to shift blames to the Jews.

 

[Craig B]

Hello, Craig. Yes, you are right that David was a mashiach in the normal sense. However, Jewish traditions expected a future "Mashiach" who would bring spiritual or national restoration to Israel. Orthodox Jews still believe in this concept of "the Messiah", the Son of David, and the tradition goes back a very long time through the Talmud and earlier. The Talmud repeatedly uses David's Psalms as allegories of what this future redemptive Messiah would be like. And the Bible also uses David not only as a real historical figure, but as a future metaphor for the Messiah, like in the two verses from Isaiah and Ezekiel I showed you.
I think that's the inference where it talks about himself getting poured out. That's what happens when someone gets stabbed, and David described being described by enemies. But the poem also includes the expectation of salvation and talks about praising God to his brothers for that salvation. This chronologically appears after describing being killed, so restoration is the next inference.

I absolutely disagree. There is nothing in these psalms indicating death and resurrection. People are being attacked or oppressed and are calling upon God for help. As to "poured out" meaning stabbed, it's very unconvincing when connected to the rest of the passage.

14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint. My heart has turned to wax; it has melted away within me. 15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth; you lay me in the dust of death. 16 Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet.

I'm surprised you haven't based your argument in the bolded words in v15, but they certainly don't mean that the psalmist was dead.

The Psalm says that it is a Psalm of David, and Psalm 22 is written in the first person.

So it was written by David? This is biblical literalism of the most primitive kind.

Yes, you are right about this, and Psalm 30 doesn't say it was a Psalm "of David" either. I'm sorry, it looks like I really had meant Psalm 40. But you cited a helpful verse in Psalm 30. There, the soul is taken out of the grave, but because it was kept out of the pit, it stayed alive. Now how could the soul be in the grave but by staying out of the pit the person stayed alive? The pit therefore must refer to the body itself dying, not just the soul

It of course means the body. Soul at that time meant "living person". The idea of a separate soul that survived death is not found in the Torah. We learn from several passages in the NT that the doctrine of life after death was controversial even in Jesus' day. The Pharisees believed in the doctrine of reward and punishment after death, but the Sadducees did not. See Acts 23:8, Also Josephus, Antiquities 18:1

[The Pharisees] also believe, that souls have an immortal vigour in them, and that under the earth there will be rewards or punishments, according as they have lived virtuously or viciously in this life; and the latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison ... But the doctrine of the Sadducees is this, That souls die with the bodies

But later in Psalm 40:2, which says that it's a Psalm of David, the narrator does say that he was in a pit in clay and God pulled him out of it. So in Psalm 40:2, this suggests that the person was dead, unlike in Psalm 30, but then God pulled him out of that condition.

Look later in Ps 40. The psalmist is not dead.

13 Be pleased, O LORD, to save me; O LORD, come quickly to help me. 14 May all who seek to take my life be put to shame and confusion; may all who desire my ruin be turned back in disgrace. 15 May those who say to me, "Aha! Aha!" be appalled at their own shame.

He is being attacked and derided by enemies, who seek to take his life; so he's not dead.

 

[dudalb]

Incorrect. All those sources state that Romans crucified Jesus though at the encouragement of the Jews.

You're suggesting no Romans were become Christians prior to the 4th Century? There were plenty, enough to shift blames to the Jews.

I think that someone has "issues" with the Jews.

IMHO, both Pilate and the Jewish Temple Leadership saw Jesus as a troublemaker that they would both be well rid of. If the Gospels were accurate...a gigantic if...you can still argue that Pilate;s "I find no fault with this man" was just an attempt to shift what he knew would be a public backlash on the Temple leadership.

We actually know more about Pilate from sources outside the Gospels then any other figure in the gospels, and we know he was a bureaucrat who had not been particularly sucessful in his past posts. Procuractor of Judea was sort of a last chance for him,and he really wanted to avoid problems.