I've replied to this in a previous post. I understood what you meant when you explained it the first time.


That wasn't all of the Jews (only those in one city) and I have a thought that anyone would have cheered at what was essentially a parade.

I thought that there were people in the crowd at Jesus' ''hearing'' that incited the crowd to cry for Jesus' death? Whichever way, I still don't see how their ''change of opinion'' would affect anything.


Already addressed.


Cult of Personality, quasi-addressed in my reply to your similar previous question below.



To what source/evidence do you attribute their rationality/irrationality? Their personal sense of judgment and qualities?


Look at any religion/cult/following today, they have plenty of followers, many of whom would fit the description of ''reasonable.''




I never said anything about shcizophrenia or a mental ailment. Why does anyone start a new religion? Apply any possible existing reasons from recent examples. Unless someone goes back in a time-machine and asks him, can't really know for sure can we?

1. my POINT was that in the very same city that they praised him they soon after persecuted him. Not just ANY city, THE city. The whole city was out praising him, in the very same city that just a few days later he was brought to Herod to be persecuted. And even if there were a few people inciting it, i can't really see it causing that dramatic of a shift. And it wasnt a "Parade", they were celebrating that the man who they believed was their Messiah had come.


It's not like all of the Jewish people came out to persecute him, but the cities that were visited probably had alot of them. Jerusalem was the biggest Jewish city at the time. Why did his supporters suddenly turn against him? I only ask because the only really reasonable explaination is in the bible. People dont change their minds that quickly. :/

2. They start new religions because they truly believe in them, or for the glory, for the most part. Your two options are that either 1. He wanted to be remembered and continued wanting that in the face of death in an extremely brutal way, 2. He had some kind of a mental ailment, or 3. He had some kind of reason for believing he was the messiah, and was correct. Unless there's another reasonable explaination, i dont really see much support for the first two.

3. I say they were rational since they were just like all the other Jews at the time. They were simple fishermen and such. They had found their place in the world. They were reasonably aged men, not young adults. they had no REASON to join a cult, like those in the Manson Family and such did. No more reason than any of the jews that persecuted him, at least.

And like I said, I still don't see how a dramatic shift in opinion changes anything, especially in regards to the reality of whether or not anyone was a deity. And just supposing that this affects anything. What is the source for the number of people, the technicalities, the specifics etc. Is it something that would benefit from showing things one way or another?



What was the reasonable explanation?


I beg to disagree. Hah.



That's 3 options.


Why would it necessarily be correct? You discount the option of ''He had some kind of reason for believing he was the messiah, and was incorrect''



All based on assumptions and things that are impossible to verify one way or another.


Yes, some were fishermen, a number were certainly middle-aged but the rest is pure conjecture.

1. The majority were middleaged people of the Lower-Middle Class. A few of the Upperclassmen too.

2. The explaination it had relies on there being a deity present, so it'll be shotdown automatically, im sure, but it was that God hardened their hearts so that the act could be fufilled and sin could be overcome. but that's the only explaination that really makes much sense. in a matter of a week, you dont go from believing everything someone says to calling them a dirty liar without feesible evidence. The only crime they had against him was that he claimed to be the Messiah. People in the city had just a few days or weeks before also believed that. they just suddenly began agreeing with the opposite side, though. please explain how people go from thinking you're litterally God to thinking you're a blasphemer in days without feesible evidence.

3. Sorry, i made an error there. It doesnt make my argument any less week.

And he was a religious man. Most people back then were too. He would make sure to considerably weigh his evidence before going out and putting the souls of his self and others at risk.

1. I'd ask you to clarify what you meant, particularly regarding the first point as it doesn't seem to address my post. But I'm not going to bother.


2. Your mileage may vary. Because it certainly doesn't make any sense to me. What kind of scenario is it that this is the only feasible explanation?


To argue the point anyway, Jesus wasn't put to death by the collective Jewish-community, he was supposedly set-up by the Jewish Council, exactly for what they saw to be him claiming to be the Messiah. From my understanding of it, they seeded the crowd with their supporters so that when it came to the vote between Barabas (sp?) and Jesus, the cries for Jesus came out louder. A possible explanation, one that even bypasses their ''attitude-shift.''


3.''He had some kind of reason for believing he was the messiah, and was incorrect''


Still doesn't change the aspect that he could have been incorrect or been doing it for any other reason.


4. You didn't address my last point.

Your number 4 was my number one... they were probably not ALL Middle to lower class or middle aged, but the majority certainly were, and therefore were still in the same boat as the other commoners who opposed him.

My Point was that he wouldnt have claimed to be the Messiah unless he was completely sure. The Bible, if it's to be taken as an accurate historical document, not just a theological one, shows us that he was an intelligent man, philosophically at least. And any reasonable religious man wouldnt put his or anyone else's soul at risk unless he was either 1. Greedy (disproved by his facing death and not giving up) or 2. Crazy (disproven by the fact that he was very much peaceful, not showing signs of paranoia)

And your point about the High Priest's supporters would rely on the idea that 1. The high priests had the majority of the people who attended the presenting to Pilate's side, which i doubt they did based mainly upon palm sunday, and 2. That they had come to some kind of consensus. Which, if you're correct, they hadn't. Their unity was so great that it convinced Pilate that the only way to stop a riot was to release Barbaras instead of Jesus. He truly believed that he was innocent, and would've taken any chance he could've to have released him peacefully.

And Psychologically it's the only feasible explaination. People can't change that swiftly from Worship to Condemning without Feasible Proof.

You are trying to use the Bible to prove the Bible.

Because it was conseded earlier that when it comes to the historical points it was accurate in the new testament by Ivra.

It's like when friends and I discuss the socio-economic policies of the Federation as depicted in Star Trek:TOS and Star Trek:TNG and beyond. They may be considered, well-reasoned positions, but it's still based on fiction.

What do you mean hrae? as i previously stated, historians consider historical parts of the New Testament as historically accurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_th...s_an_historian

unless you're responding to something else?