Zone1 Pontius Pilate: An Enigmatic Figure

[alang1216]

alang1216 Do you deny that your belief that Jesus was a failed apocalyptic Jewish prophet means you must believe that Jesus was delusional?

The argument that Jesus was a "delusional" figure stems from the historical-critical belief that he was an apocalyptic Jewish prophet whose central prediction—that the world as they knew it would end within his generation—failed to materialize.

Proponents of this view, such as Albert Schweitzer and modern scholars like Bart Ehrman, argue that Jesus shared the widely held 1st-century Jewish apocalyptic view that God was about to intervene cataclysmically, overthrow Roman rule, and establish a utopian Kingdom.

Here is how this viewpoint leads to the conclusion that Jesus was "delusional" or a "failed prophet":

• Failed Imminent Predictions:Jesus explicitly stated that the end was coming soon, in some cases within the lifetime of his audience.
  • Mark 9:1: "Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come in power".
  • Mark 13:30: "Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away before all these things have taken place".
  • The "Delusion": Because these events did not occur in the 1st century, critics argue Jesus was either mistaken, delusional, or a false prophet.
• The "Son of Man" Delusion: In early apocalyptic thought, Jesus spoke of the "Son of Man" coming on the clouds to judge the world, often referring to this figure in the third person. Over time, according to this view, Jesus developed the belief that he himselfwas that figure.
  • The "Delusion": Critics argue that believing oneself to be the cosmic judge who will shortly end history is a form of grandiose delusion.
• Failed Expectations of the End:Albert Schweitzer famously concluded that Jesus "laid hold of the wheel of the world to set it moving on that last revolution... It refuses to turn, and He throws Himself upon it. Then it does turn; and crushes Him".
  • The "Delusion": This portrays Jesus as a well-intentioned, but ultimately mistaken, fanatic who failed to bring about the expected, immediate eschatological change.

Contextual Nuances:

• Not Clinical Madness: Many scholars argue this "delusion" was a conventional, if wrong, religious belief of his time, not necessarily clinical schizophrenia.
• Alternative Interpretations: Some scholars (like N.T. Wright) argue that Jesus' prophecies were not about the end of the physical world, but rather a warning about the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 AD, meaning his prophecy was actually fulfilled, not failed.
• Early Christians' Struggle: The fact that the Gospels had to "de-apocalypticize" Jesus' message (making it less about a quick end) indicates that early followers had to cope with the failure of his expected timeline.

I would not have used the word 'delusional' but both Jesus and Paul expected the end times within their lifetimes. They were wrong obviously.

 

[ding]

They have nothing to do with each other.

It was the supernatural acts he performed that establishes his authority. So I disagree. You see Jesus as a man. You see failed end of times predictions as proof Jesus never performed supernatural feats. That's literally your game.

You mean impossible for you to accept.

No. Impossible to prove using the NT accounts themselves. In the OT embellishment was used to craft narratives of historical events for the purpose of teaching lessons about the covenant, obedience, justice and the Israelites' relationship with God. In the NT the miracles were the historical events.

 

[alang1216]

alang1216

Arguments supporting that Jesus' Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21) warned of the 70 AD destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, rather than the final end-times, center on the timing, specific historical fulfillment, and immediate context of his audience.

Key Arguments for 70 AD Interpretation

• Temporal Immediacy ("This Generation"): Jesus stated that "this generation will not pass away until all these things take place" (Matthew 24:34), directly addressing his contemporaries.
• Direct Response to Temple Question: The prophecy was initiated when disciples pointed out the temple buildings, asking when they would be destroyed.
• Specific Historical Markers: The prophecies matched the events of 70 AD, including "wars and rumors of wars" (Roman insurrections), famines, plagues, and the "Abomination of Desolation".
• Survival Instructions: Jesus warned that when they saw Jerusalem surrounded by armies (Luke 21:20), those in Judea should flee, indicating a localized event rather than a cosmic end.
• Josephus's Records: Historian Josephus documented the destruction of the Temple and the siege of Jerusalem exactly as Jesus predicted.

Contextual Factors

• The End of the Covenantal Age: The temple's destruction marked the end of the Old Covenant era and the sacrificial system, confirming the transition to the New Covenant.
• The Second Coming Exception: While many signs pointed to 70 AD, some scholars suggest the discourse pivots to the final, universal end-times towards the end of the chapter.

Many argue that the "end" mentioned by Jesus was the end of the Jewish temple state, not the end of the physical world, emphasizing that those who heeded these warnings escaped the catastrophe.

I don't have the same faith in the historical accuracy of the gospels as you do. Jesus' prediction about the temple could have been added much later to bolster the image of Jesus.

 

[ding]

He isn't making money off me. I read almost every book of his but all from our library.

Irrelevant. He's making much more money now off of it. His work is shoddy. You are using passages about the destruction of the temple for end of times. You have made end of times the central teaching of Jesus.

 

[ding]

I would not have used the word 'delusional' but both Jesus and Paul expected the end times within their lifetimes. They were wrong obviously.

It's because you accept what you don't understand because it's what you want to hear. Jesus wasn't talking about the end of times in Matthew. Jesus was talking about the destruction of the temple.

 

[ding]

I don't have the same faith in the historical accuracy of the gospels as you do. Jesus' prediction about the temple could have been added much later to bolster the image of Jesus.

This is what you always do. Make shit up to fit your narrative instead of reading what was actually written.

 

[ding]

Jesus' prediction about the temple could have been added much later to bolster the image of Jesus.

You mean like a conspiracy?

Because what you are describing isn't an accidental telephone game embellishment.

 

[alang1216]

Irrelevant. He's making much more money now off of it. His work is shoddy. You are using passages about the destruction of the temple for end of times. You have made end of times the central teaching of Jesus.

Got an example of what work of his is shoddy?

 

[alang1216]

This is what you always do. Make shit up to fit your narrative instead of reading what was actually written.

What I wrote is certainly possible since it has happened in the NT in other places.

 

[ding]

Got an example of what work of his is shoddy?

I already did. Using passages about the destruction of the temple for end of times. Or did you make that one up?

 

[alang1216]

You mean like a conspiracy?

Because what you are describing isn't an accidental telephone game embellishment.

More like poetic license. As I said, it wouldn't be the first time it happened.

 

[alang1216]

I already did. Using passages about the destruction of the temple for end of times. Or did you make that one up?

Shoddy work or an interpretation you don't agree with?

 

[ding]

What I wrote is certainly possible since it has happened in the NT in other places.

Or it was prophesied by Jesus which is how it was presented. You are speculating. Just as you are speculating that Jesus is an apocalyptic Jewish man and nothing more. Because that's not how the accounts tell it. If it is as you say then there had to be a conspiracy. You don't accidently take an apocalyptic Jewish man and turn him into God. That can only be intentional. And if his disciples didn't do it, then Jesus was a liar, delusional and a con man.

But the thing you fail to acknowledge is why his disciples came out of hiding and began worshiping Jesus as God and convinced others to worship Jesus as God. And that can only be because what they witnessed was so extraordinary that they decided risking their lives was less of a risk than risking their souls.

There are no accounts disputing the miracles performed by Christ.
There are no accounts disputing Jesus claimed to be equal to God.
The Babylonian Talmud recorded Jesus was put to death for sorcery and apostasy.
There are no accounts of "here is the dead body of Jesus" after he rose from the dead.
You can't dispute these facts so try to you turn Jesus into a failed apocalyptic prophet instead.

 

[ding]

Shoddy work or an interpretation you don't agree with?

Shoddy work and shoddy interpretation.

The prophecy was initiated when disciples pointed out the temple buildings, asking when they would be destroyed. So yeah, shoddy work and a shoddy interpretation.

And then there was the warning Jesus gave... Jesus warned that when they saw Jerusalem surrounded by armies (Luke 21:20), those in Judea should flee, if it was the world ending where were they supposed to flee to?

Clearly a localized event rather than a cosmic end to the world. So yeah, shoddy work and a shoddy interpretation.

But what does Ehrman care?

 

[ding]

More like poetic license. As I said, it wouldn't be the first time it happened.

Poetic license? How is turning a Jewish man into God and then creating a worldwide religion around it poetic license?

 

[ding]

As I said, it wouldn't be the first time it happened.

Are you comparing Jesus and his disciples to Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard? And you don't think that is proving my point that this can't be an accident or an innocent mistake? C'mon, man.