Religion The Bible: Literal, figurative, bulldust?

[Gethelred]

To clearly delineate conversation between threads, this thread is for specifically bible talk; if you're debating biblical historicity or lack of it, if you're talking interpretation, this is the thread for you.

Standard board rules apply. Go nuts.

 

[Roylion]

This troll lasted a whole one post. Must be a new record.

And he/she doesn't even understand what I'm arguing either. Seeing new accounts from whoever he/she is, suspended time after time is amusing. He/she is becoming a bit obsessive.

As I said, the Jews and the Romans didn't believe Jesus was 'King of the Jews'.

 

[raskolnikov]

 

[Total Power]

Israel has been liberated i assume? prophecy came true already??

LOL!

I guess you see what you wish to see.

 

[Present Not Past]

And he/she doesn't even understand what I'm arguing either. Seeing new accounts from whoever he/she is, suspended time after time is amusing. He/she is becoming a bit obsessive.

As I said, the Jews and the Romans didn't believe Jesus was 'King of the Jews'.

That would explain why the Romans and the Jews conspired to crucify him.
The rest is history.

 

[Total Power]

That would explain why the Romans and the Jews conspired to crucify him.
The rest is history.

Wasn't the reason why he was crucified. He claimed to be the messiah, not God. Revisionists have tried very hard to prove otherwise though. The Romans would have interpreted this as a kind of insurgency or call to rebellion, since from their perspective, only they had the authority to appoint kings.

You can also read about the bad Roman-Jewish relations on wikipedia resulting in 3 big Jewish revolts between 66-133 AD among other disturbances, the Roman fear of rebellion was well founded

 

[Present Not Past]

Wasn't the reason why he was crucified. He claimed to be the messiah, not God. Revisionists have tried very hard to prove otherwise though. The Romans would have interpreted this as a kind of insurgency or call to rebellion, since from their perspective, only they had the authority to appoint kings.

You can also read about the bad Roman-Jewish relations on wikipedia resulting in 3 big Jewish revolts between 66-133 AD among other disturbances, the Roman fear of rebellion was well founded

I'm fairly sure he claimed to be the "New Way", that was neither Roman nor Jewish.

 

[Total Power]

I'm fairly sure he claimed to be the "New Way", that was neither Roman nor Jewish.

Not quite. After Jesus' death, his followers reinterpreted the role of the messiah as more spiritual / metaphorical as opposed to a literal earthly king, and began to equate the messiah / Christ with several other figures, including the Son of Man, the Son of God, the Angel of the Lord, the Logos or Word of God, and eventually God himself.

If you read the gospels yourself you can see the shift in ideology from Mark to John.

Ehrman states Romans killed Jesus because he claimed he would be the future king of the Israel.

 

[Cleansweep17]

If I’m not mistaken I believe the Jews think that if all of them go back to the holy land it will bring judgement day/the rapture.

Hence why the Christian fundamentalists like the US help them, they want that too.

Religion (not individual spirituality) poisons everything in my view. If you look closely at the Bible, it is essentially a book about human sacrifice made by people at the time who thought that’s the way important things got done. Just like many other pagan religions who did it for rain to come, crops to flourish etc.

So it’s easy to tell its man made, it was the way people thought everywhere at the time.