IN DEFENSE OF "JESUS"

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

12 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Doesn't Jewish law prohibit the touching of a corpse, though?  Not that it would have stopped them from doing it; but they would more likely have paid someone else to do it,  rather than doing it themselves. 

It would make them unclean I think. But the anointing in oil and preparation of the body had to be done. Probably by women. And it says the body can't be left alone until burial to comfort the deceased. There is probably some rule that anyone who touches a dead body is unclean for x amount of days and they have to make a sacrifice when its over. Ill try n look it up later. 

 

DB

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

@TheRedneckProfessor

 

Here's what it says in the bible.

 

Numbers 19

 

11 He that toucheth the dead body of any man shall be unclean seven days.

12 He shall purify himself with it on the third day, and on the seventh day he shall be clean: but if he purify not himself the third day, then the seventh day he shall not be clean.

13 Whosoever toucheth the dead body of any man that is dead, and purifieth not himself, defileth the tabernacle of the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off from Israel: because the water of separation was not sprinkled upon him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is yet upon him.

14 This is the law, when a man dieth in a tent: all that come into the tent, and all that is in the tent, shall be unclean seven days.

15 And every open vessel, which hath no covering bound upon it, is unclean.

16 And whosoever toucheth one that is slain with a sword in the open fields, or a dead body, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days.

17 And for an unclean person they shall take of the ashes of the burnt heifer of purification for sin, and running water shall be put thereto in a vessel:

18 And a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon the tent, and upon all the vessels, and upon the persons that were there, and upon him that touched a bone, or one slain, or one dead, or a grave:

19 And the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day, and on the seventh day: and on the seventh day he shall purify himself, and wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and shall be clean at even.

20 But the man that shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from among the congregation, because he hath defiled the sanctuary of the Lord: the water of separation hath not been sprinkled upon him; he is unclean.

 

So they could have done it themselves, but they would have had to go through this process to be clean again. They are a very superstitious group of people lol . Only the open containers are unclean.   they even had to be sprinkled with the purification water. 

 

But your right, if my hypothetical scenario had played out. They probably would of payed someone else to do it. 

 

DB

[◊ Krowb ◊]

3 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

11 He that toucheth the dead body of any man shall be unclean seven days.

12 He shall purify himself with it on the third day, and on the seventh day he shall be clean: but if he purify not himself the third day, then the seventh day he shall not be clean.

13 Whosoever toucheth the dead body of any man that is dead, and purifieth not himself, defileth the tabernacle of the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off from Israel: because the water of separation was not sprinkled upon him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is yet upon him.

 

Recently reading up on an interesting topic of the Maori "way of knowing" and how several cultures appear to be sidelining "Western" thoughts and practices for  the local culture's alternative (read: faith based) knowledge systems.

 

In this case we see the Jewish people see touching of the dead as making one "unclean", but to the Maori people it makes them "sacred".  Same result though in the fact the person now lives in a kind of prohibition:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tohunga & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapu_(Polynesian_culture), but for the completely opposite reason.

[mwc]

     I like the way you guys are trying so hard to get a body out of a tomb when the usual Roman practice was to leave it on the cross to simply rot away and then just toss whatever was left into a ditch.  The thought that there was a Joseph of Arimathea that had enough pull to sway Pilate to hand over the body seems highly unlikely.   Josephus had enough pull with Vespasian to get three of his friends taken off crosses (two lived) but that was only because he had a lot of sway with Vespasian that he built over the war (there's no point in going into it here).

 

     Beyond that the idea that Pilate was aware that the Jews would riot because a prisoner was left on a cross, especially over a religious festival, just means that he would account for that by his usual methods of having guards at the ready or by pushing the crucifixion back.  However, since the whole idea of crucifixion is intimidation (ie. think about the stories of lining the Apian Way with crosses after the Servile War with Spartacus) it makes sense to crucify someone in front of a large crowd (ie. so the start of Passover means a ton of people) and leave them in place so everyone can see the body on the cross as the come and go (ie. the whole point of crucifixion).  Death of the accused wasn't the entire point of the process.  So taking a body down after a few hours just to placate the Jews in the case of a person who was convicted of declaring themselves the king, or treason, seems a terrible way to send the whole message that crucifixion was meant to send.  Taking a body of the primary criminal to a tomb at this point becomes highly unlikely.

 

     To save this whole story you have to assume that jesus was crucified, was left to rot on the cross and whatever was left was tossed into an unmarked ditch like usual.  Unless, like the satire I posted, the guards got distracted and his corpse was taken from cross but odds are that wouldn't have happened since guards would pay with their own lives in that sort of situation especially if we really do accept a case of treason which raises the stakes (so to speak).

 

          mwc

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

2 hours ago, mwc said:

I like the way you guys are trying so hard to get a body out of a tomb when the usual Roman practice was to leave it on the cross to simply rot away and then just toss whatever was left into a ditch.  The thought that there was a Joseph of Arimathea that had enough pull to sway Pilate to hand over the body seems highly unlikely.   Josephus had enough pull with Vespasian to get three of his friends taken off crosses (two lived) but that was only because he had a lot of sway with Vespasian that he built over the war (there's no point in going into it here).

 

It could of happened that way, if it even did happen. But your forgetting a key part of the story. Supposedly Pilate didn't agree with the execution. And one thing is historically accurate. There was already unrest in isreal. It wasn't long after this that they had the Jewish revolt and Rome destroyed the temple. Maybe the execution was to stop a riot and taking the body down was a mercy for Jesus (who he didn't want to execute in the first place) and his family. 

 

If it did happen and if Pilate didn't agree with it and felt forced kill Jesus, I could see the reasoning behind letting them have the body. 

 

But this is all hypothetical with a lot of (Ifs). We all know what the Bible says happened at the very least isn't accurate. Hell it could be that he just died of natural causes. I mean he was over 30 and that was toward the high side of life spans back then. And then his story got mixed with another person's story that was crucified, etc etc. With a dash of roman catholic finesse here and there and poof! Baby God born of a virgin in a manger. 

 

I just think that it all started with an actual person that inspired the myths. 

 

DB

[mwc]

17 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

 

It could of happened that way, if it even did happen. But your forgetting a key part of the story. Supposedly Pilate didn't agree with the execution. And one thing is historically accurate. There was already unrest in isreal. It wasn't long after this that they had the Jewish revolt and Rome destroyed the temple. Maybe the execution was to stop a riot and taking the body down was a mercy for Jesus (who he didn't want to execute in the first place) and his family. 

 

If it did happen and if Pilate didn't agree with it and felt forced kill Jesus, I could see the reasoning behind letting them have the body. 

 

But this is all hypothetical with a lot of (Ifs). We all know what the Bible says happened at the very least isn't accurate. Hell it could be that he just died of natural causes. I mean he was over 30 and that was toward the high side of life spans back then. And then his story got mixed with another person's story that was crucified, etc etc. With a dash of roman catholic finesse here and there and poof! Baby God born of a virgin in a manger. 

 

I just think that it all started with an actual person that inspired the myths. 

 

DB

     Well, I guess we could then summarize the story as follows:

 

     Pilate *doesn't* want to perform a crucifixion but does so anyway to placate the Jews who demand it.

 

     Pilate *doesn't* perform a proper crucifixion removing the body early to placate those very same Jews (and because he didn't feel like it to begin with).

 

     Something seems wrong here.

 

     I would have to add that Pilate would have to report all of this up the chain of command.  If he literally did kill someone for treason and then showed mercy on that person and their cohorts that would not reflect on him in a good way at all.  A lot of people like to mention that Sejanus was looming large over Pilate and this is why he acted the way he did here.  That he was trying to fly under the radar.  However, Sejanus was a traitor to Tiberius and executed for it.  If Pilate killed someone for the very same crime then it likely was reported all the way to Rome (in this case Capri) since Tiberius was very much looking for such insurrections until he died so flying under the radar would be impossible once Pilate granted the request for the execution.  Again, I don't side with those who hold the position that this would have all been held secret unless the Jews were to report it and Pilate was therefor beholden to their wishes.  Pilate would report it, as was his job, and a proper execution would make him look all the better in-spite of his ties to Sejanus whereas leniency and a cover-ups would weaken his position.

 

          mwc

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

6 hours ago, mwc said:

If he literally did kill someone for treason and then showed mercy on that person and their cohorts that would not reflect on him in a good way at all. 

 

@mwc I've heard good arguments for both theories that the whole story was made up and is complete fiction. And that Jesus was probably a real person that was turned into a legend. I just think that as passionate as some of these early writers like Peter and Paul were, that there was probably someone behind the myth. Not many people will die for nothing.

 

But Jesus wasn't killed for treason according to Luke, he was found innocent by pilate and king Herod, Supposedly. I doubt he would have reported to Ceasar that he killed an innocent man. Not like Ceasar would care, I'm sure he executed a few innocents himself. Also Jesus wasn't a Roman citizen. According to Paul only Roman citizens were entitled an audience with Ceasar. But the point is that a man named Jesus could have inspired the writers Paul and Peter. Who possibly got together like Joseph Smith did with his leaders and formed a religion. We will probably never know the definitive truth of the matter unless more evidence is found. But I think we can agree that Jesus, if he existed was not what the Bible would have us to believe. Just as if Moses existed, he wasn't the staff welding plague throwing rebel that crippled Egypt.

 

I just have to accept that there probably was someone close to Paul or Peter named Jesus that they based their stories around. I suppose Jesus could have been Paul or Peter's Moroni. I just think based on the Jews traditions of story telling they probably got the name from a real person closely associated with them. And even loosely based the narrative around their persona. It really doesn't matter one way or the other. Either way he wasn't God or God's son. 

 

Luke 23

 

3 And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answered him and said, Thou sayest it.

4 Then said Pilate to the chief priests and to the people, I find no fault in this man.

5 And they were the more fierce, saying, He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place.

6 When Pilate heard of Galilee, he asked whether the man were a Galilaean.

7 And as soon as he knew that he belonged unto Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem at that time.

8 And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was desirous to see him of a long season, because he had heard many things of him; and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by him.

9 Then he questioned with him in many words; but he answered him nothing.

10 And the chief priests and scribes stood and vehemently accused him.

11 And Herod with his men of war set him at nought, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate.

12 And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before they were at enmity between themselves.

13 And Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people,

14 Said unto them, Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people: and, behold, I, having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him:

15 No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him.

16 I will therefore chastise him, and release him.

17 (For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)

18 And they cried out all at once, saying, Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas:

19 (Who for a certain sedition made in the city, and for murder, was cast into prison.)

20 Pilate therefore, willing to release Jesus, spake again to them.

21 But they cried, saying, Crucify him, crucify him.

22 And he said unto them the third time, Why, what evil hath he done? I have found no cause of death in him: I will therefore chastise him, and let him go.

23 And they were instant with loud voices, requiring that he might be crucified. And the voices of them and of the chief priests prevailed.

24 And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required.

25 And he released unto them him that for sedition and murder was cast into prison, whom they had desired; but he delivered Jesus to their will.

 

DB

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

@Weezer 

 

I forgot about this free debate that I watched awhile back. Bart debates for 2 1/2  hrs on the existence of Jesus with Robert Price. A very good debate between probably the top two secular biblical scholars right now.

 

 

I hope you enjoy.

 

DB

[mwc]

18 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

 

@mwc I've heard good arguments for both theories that the whole story was made up and is complete fiction. And that Jesus was probably a real person that was turned into a legend. I just think that as passionate as some of these early writers like Peter and Paul were, that there was probably someone behind the myth. Not many people will die for nothing.

     People die for all sorts of reasons.  Their will to die doesn't translate their perceptions into reality.  If I believe something is true and that it correctly represents reality, and I choose to die for it, this doesn't make it a true representation of reality.  Anyone who uses me as their argument continues my error.

 

18 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

But Jesus wasn't killed for treason according to Luke, he was found innocent by pilate and king Herod, Supposedly. I doubt he would have reported to Ceasar that he killed an innocent man. Not like Ceasar would care, I'm sure he executed a few innocents himself. Also Jesus wasn't a Roman citizen. According to Paul only Roman citizens were entitled an audience with Ceasar. But the point is that a man named Jesus could have inspired the writers Paul and Peter. Who possibly got together like Joseph Smith did with his leaders and formed a religion. We will probably never know the definitive truth of the matter unless more evidence is found. But I think we can agree that Jesus, if he existed was not what the Bible would have us to believe. Just as if Moses existed, he wasn't the staff welding plague throwing rebel that crippled Egypt.

     Well, since you quoted quite a bit from Luke 23 I'm surprised you didn't go down to "38 There was a written notice above him, which read: THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS."  This is the charge for the crucifixion according to Luke regardless of all that came before.  This is what anyone and everyone who could read would see as they passed by the condemned.  They would not be privy (just as Luke would not be privy) to any behind the scenes discussions declaring anyone innocent.  So the charge would be treason but most people like to drop this down to sedition since he claimed to be king of the Jews and not the Romans which is only undermining the legitimate government and not the emperor and the empire.  The death of an innocent man as described would be a crime and Pilate would be recalled to Rome and tried.  He would not report to anyone he intentionally killed an innocent man by crucifixion.

 

     Anyhow, I'll switch gears a bit here to see if I can make things work.  If it was sedition, or a lesser charge, we can find a way off the cross if we anachronistically apply a law that we are aware of from centuries later.  This law, which technically only applies to citizens of Rome, allows those who aren't accused of treason to be released to a family member upon request.  Maybe it's based on or continues a pre-existing rule?  No one knows.  It would have to mean that we broaden its application quite a bit.  It would have to apply outside Rome.  It would have to apply to non-citizens.  It would have to allow for non-relatives to request the body.  The first two are tough to overcome but maybe, just maybe, unknown to us the Joseph in the story was related?  That could get us somewhere.

 

     Working through this a little more we could take Pilate's actions of taking down the bodies not as something to appease the Jews so much as something as to appease himself.  Romans may not have cared for the Jews or their religion but they did believe in respecting various feasts and festivals.  Not as a form of respect to those cultures but more of a respect to the gods themselves.  We might see it as superstitious.  So not wanting to violate the sanctity of a festival he might order the bodies taken down in-spite of the Jews not because of them.  Joseph comes along and he quite conveniently takes up the task allowing Pilate to achieve this end.  We do still have to wonder what because of the two criminals however?  Joseph is not said to take them so do they remain on the cross or do they end up in a ditch?  The story doesn't care once jesus is removed so we have no answer to the momentarily pressing question.

 

18 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

 

I just have to accept that there probably was someone close to Paul or Peter named Jesus that they based their stories around. I suppose Jesus could have been Paul or Peter's Moroni. I just think based on the Jews traditions of story telling they probably got the name from a real person closely associated with them. And even loosely based the narrative around their persona. It really doesn't matter one way or the other. Either way he wasn't God or God's son. 

     No one's telling you not to.  I don't care.  And why can't he be god and/or god's son?  If what's written in those stories is all that there is to being a god then I can't say I'm too impressed.  Maybe when I see a flying horse with gods and angels fighting with swords instead of magic (for some reason) then I'll be a bit more impressed.  As it stands now we have some weird story of some dude.  If we dug it up fresh today we'd likely toss it in the myth pile and not think much more about it outside of academia instead of worrying if we're getting it just right if the guy was real or really a god.

 

          mwc

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

5 hours ago, mwc said:

And why can't he be god and/or god's son?  If what's written in those stories is all that there is to being a god then I can't say I'm too impressed.  Maybe when I see a flying horse with gods and angels fighting with swords instead of magic (for some reason) then I'll be a bit more impressed.  As it stands now we have some weird story of some dude.  If we dug it up fresh today we'd likely toss it in the myth pile and not think much more about it outside of academia instead of worrying if we're getting it just right if the guy was real or really a god

 

Your right, if this story was unearthed today it would likely be thrown into the ancient mythological beliefs pile. But that isn't what happened. As far as why can't he be God or God's son? Well I wouldn't be much of an exchristian if I still thought Jesus was God's son lmao. There is no doubt that whether or not there was a real Jesus which the stories are based off of, those stories are still a myth. In that point we can both agree I think. 

 

 

6 hours ago, mwc said:

Well, since you quoted quite a bit from Luke 23 I'm surprised you didn't go down to "38 There was a written notice above him, which read: THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS."  This is the charge for the crucifixion according to Luke regardless of all that came before. 

 

I only quoted what I needed to quote because the point was that in the story both pilate and the actual king of the jews at the time decided he was innocent. The sign was hung to mock him. I think your putting to much 21st century thinking on it. Obviously no reports were made because it didn't make it to the Roman history books for sure. So Jesus either wasn't significant enough to warrant notifying the higher ups or it didn't happen. I think he wasn't significant enough to run it up the chain of command. Remember, we are reading a story that has been overly embellished if it did happen. Also we are reading stories from second, third, or fourth hand knowledge. The gospels were all written later. And we are probably both overthinking it for an agreed upon mythological character  

 

6 hours ago, mwc said:

Working through this a little more we could take Pilate's actions of taking down the bodies not as something to appease the Jews so much as something as to appease himself.  Romans may not have cared for the Jews or their religion but they did believe in respecting various feasts and festivals.  Not as a form of respect to those cultures but more of a respect to the gods themselves.  We might see it as superstitious.  So not wanting to violate the sanctity of a festival he might order the bodies taken down in-spite of the Jews not because of them.  Joseph comes along and he quite conveniently takes up the task allowing Pilate to achieve this end.  We do still have to wonder what because of the two criminals however?  Joseph is not said to take them so do they remain on the cross or do they end up in a ditch?  The story doesn't care once jesus is removed so we have no answer to the momentarily pressing question.

 

This seems very plausible. Pilate being a roman and probably believing in a pantheon of Greek gods may have seen the Jews God as a lesser God but nonetheless still a God. I would imagine the thieves were probably thrown in the ditch like you said. And maybe even Jesus too. Maybe instead of going to the tomb, they actually went to the cross and the body was just gone. Not knowing they just chucked his ass in a ditch somewhere. I guess there are an infinite number of possibilities that could have lead to the formation of the Jesus myth.

 

6 hours ago, mwc said:

He would not report to anyone he intentionally killed an innocent man by crucifixion.

I doubt he really reported it either way. He had the rule and the authority over the area and Jesus wasn't a Roman citizen. Just a local that was causing some civil unrest. If anything he may have mentioned quilling a local disturbance by crucifying a local religious troublemaker. 

 

Its amazing how much hypothetical thought we have to put into the discussion of whether or not Jesus existed. But it is necessary because outside of the Bible there is almost nothing to show that any of it actually happened. I can't blame anyone for siding with the mythicist theory. It very well could be true. If only time travel were possible we could find out for sure what the truth is lol. 

 

Let's hear the other side of the argument. What do you feel are the strongest points for the mythicist theory? 

 

DB

[mwc]

9 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

 

Your right, if this story was unearthed today it would likely be thrown into the ancient mythological beliefs pile. But that isn't what happened. As far as why can't he be God or God's son? Well I wouldn't be much of an exchristian if I still thought Jesus was God's son lmao. There is no doubt that whether or not there was a real Jesus which the stories are based off of, those stories are still a myth. In that point we can both agree I think. 

     Being a god or god's son doesn't necessarily translate into being a xian which is just a religion.  I have no idea exactly what makes a god so perhaps this is exactly it?  Some guy who appears later in life, heals some people, makes some wild claims and then gets killed?  That's a god.  So jesus is a god.

 

9 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

I only quoted what I needed to quote because the point was that in the story both pilate and the actual king of the jews at the time decided he was innocent. The sign was hung to mock him. I think your putting to much 21st century thinking on it. Obviously no reports were made because it didn't make it to the Roman history books for sure. So Jesus either wasn't significant enough to warrant notifying the higher ups or it didn't happen. I think he wasn't significant enough to run it up the chain of command. Remember, we are reading a story that has been overly embellished if it did happen. Also we are reading stories from second, third, or fourth hand knowledge. The gospels were all written later. And we are probably both overthinking it for an agreed upon mythological character  

     It's kind of strange they all mocked an innocent man don't you think?  That's a sudden turn.  Pilate and Herod find you totally innocent and then just mock the shit out of you all the same?  These people don't act very consistent from moment to moment.

 

     Don't let the fact that we don't have any reports make you think reports weren't made.  That's a survivorship bias.  Lots of documents have been lost to history.  Far more than have survived.

 

     Ultimately, I am basing all this on what we know got Pilate recalled to Rome which was his slaughter of Samaritans (a guy who thought he was Moses and his followers).  The governor of Syria was informed of it (Pilate didn't report it and was ratted out by an envoy) and he sent Pilate to Rome to be judged by Tiberius.  Tiberius dies while he's in transit and Pilate falls out of history.  We don't know his fate but Gaius (Caligula) would likely not have taken up the case (which was common when emperors changed) and so Pilate likely just lived out his life elsewhere.

 

     What I'm saying is based on this a conspiracy to simply kill off an innocent man would have resulted in his superior in taking this sort of action against him and not turning a blind eye.  A report of killing a criminal with the support of the people avoids all this.

 

9 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

 

This seems very plausible. Pilate being a roman and probably believing in a pantheon of Greek gods may have seen the Jews God as a lesser God but nonetheless still a God. I would imagine the thieves were probably thrown in the ditch like you said. And maybe even Jesus too. Maybe instead of going to the tomb, they actually went to the cross and the body was just gone. Not knowing they just chucked his ass in a ditch somewhere. I guess there are an infinite number of possibilities that could have lead to the formation of the Jesus myth.

     Pilate would have believed in the Pantheon of Roman gods not the Greek gods.  A minor distinction to us but not them.

 

 

9 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

I doubt he really reported it either way. He had the rule and the authority over the area and Jesus wasn't a Roman citizen. Just a local that was causing some civil unrest. If anything he may have mentioned quilling a local disturbance by crucifying a local religious troublemaker. 

     Yep.  But as I pointed out above he still didn't have the ability to simply kill as he pleased even non-citizens.

 

9 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

Its amazing how much hypothetical thought we have to put into the discussion of whether or not Jesus existed. But it is necessary because outside of the Bible there is almost nothing to show that any of it actually happened. I can't blame anyone for siding with the mythicist theory. It very well could be true. If only time travel were possible we could find out for sure what the truth is lol. 

 

Let's hear the other side of the argument. What do you feel are the strongest points for the mythicist theory? 

 

DB

     The mythicist theory is difficult because I would say it's actually mythicist theories at this point.  Defining what exactly is meant by myth and then which theory is important so everyone is on the same page.  For instance, I might say that we've actually been talking about one type of mythicist theory this whole time.  We're talking about some mythical jesus that really doesn't exist in the literal reading of the text.

 

          mwc

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

11 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

 

The sign was hung to mock him.

 

I don't see that it makes any difference since the whole thing may be a forgery, but that is my understanding also, and what was taught at our church. 

[mwc]

     Since we're trying to show that this could have happened, and not that any single version of the story is what happened, if you take a look at John 19:

 

19 Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read: jesus of nazareth, the king of the jews. 20 Many of the Jews read this sign, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek. 21 The chief priests of the Jews protested to Pilate, “Do not write ‘The King of the Jews,’ but that this man claimed to be king of the Jews.”

 

22 Pilate answered, “What I have written, I have written.”

 

     So did Pilate decide to mock the innocent man here and the Jews not get it until he was nailed up and they were shouting their insults as mentioned in the other gospels?  I do suppose that sometimes humor flies over the heads of some folks but I would say this isn't one of those times.

 

          mwc

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

On 6/6/2023 at 5:18 AM, mwc said:

So did Pilate decide to mock the innocent man here and the Jews not get it until he was nailed up and they were shouting their insults as mentioned in the other gospels?  I do suppose that sometimes humor flies over the heads of some folks but I would say this isn't one of those times

Well from that scripture it looks like it was to mock the jews that wanted him crucified. Does this parallel in the other gospels tho? I'll have to look it up later. Unfortunately the book of John is probably the least reliable gospel.  And apparently is even suspected of being a forgery. But if it parallels the other gospels then maybe that's what happened. 

 

DB

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

On 6/5/2023 at 9:28 PM, Weezer said:

I don't see that it makes any difference since the whole thing may be a forgery, but that is my understanding also, and what was taught at our church. 

Sounds like they blew your mind with the forgery prospect. You should read Barts "Forgery and Counter Forgery". I like that one better than Forged because he goes into way more detail. It was written for other scholars but I was able to follow along pretty good after he outlined his criteria that he used for his findings. Some of that terminology was a bit over my head but you would probably understand all of it. 

 

DB

[mwc]

10 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

Well from that scripture it looks like it was to mock the jews that wanted him crucified. Does this parallel in the other gospels tho? I'll have to look it up later. Unfortunately the book of John is probably the least reliable gospel.  And apparently is even suspected of being a forgery. But if it parallels the other gospels then maybe that's what happened. 

 

DB

     Okay.  Well, then According to Cook in "Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World" page 427:

 

Quote

The crucified were placed in different poses: upright or head downwards.52 Individuals were often crucified nude, or perhaps with a loincloth or some other type of garment such as the short tunic in the Palatine graffito.53 The individual in the Puteoli graffito (Alkimilla) wears no garment.54 The crosses may have had a seat (sedile) or a small foot-rest (suppedaneum).55 Sometimes they were exceptionally high or could be seen from a long distance.56 Occasionally a titulus (placard) was placed on the cross.57 The magistrate’s sentence would have been read from such a placard even if it was not placed over the cross.58

     If not Cook then Gunnar Sammuelsson in "Crucifixion in Antiquity" page 294 sums up what he believes are common among his survey of ancient crucifixions:

 

Quote

 

1. a preceding scourging,

2. attachment of the arms (mainly by nailing) to the cross-beam {patibulum),

3. that the cross-beam was then carried out to the execution spot where a fixed bare pole waited,

4. suspension and attachment of the victim together with the cross-beam to the standing pole,

5. that the cross was shaped as a Τ {crux commissa) or regular cross {crux immissa),

6. that the victim was suspended with the feet just above the ground, either nailed or tied to the pole or left dangling,

7. a wooden plug {sedile) on the middle of the pole and a footrest {suppenadeum) offered support for the victim,

8. a sign {titulus), which proclaimed the nature of the crime was attached to the cross.

 

 

     I don't believe that the sign was for mocking anyone but an indication of the charge against the person.

 

          mwc

 

[mwc]

[deleted]

[◊ Weezer ◊]

15 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

Sounds like they blew your mind with the forgery prospect. You should read Barts "Forgery and Counter Forgery". I like that one better than Forged because he goes into way more detail. It was written for other scholars but I was able to follow along pretty good after he outlined his criteria that he used for his findings. Some of that terminology was a bit over my head but you would probably understand all of it. 

 

DB

Thanks, but after learning the Bible is not the inerrant word of God, I'm not interested in spending much time in dissecting it further.  Right now I am focusing on organizing an enduro motorcycle ride in western Colorado.  And overall am focusing on the ancient writings older than the bible that apparently the writers of biblical writings got their ideas from.  They were great at plagiarism!

 

And frankly, after being out of the "fold" for 30 years, I'm losing interest in splitting hairs and batting this stuff around.  But keep up the good work.  Everyone needs to stick with it until they get it out of their system.   

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

10 hours ago, mwc said:

     Okay.  Well, then According to Cook in "Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World" page 427:

 

     If not Cook then Gunnar Sammuelsson in "Crucifixion in Antiquity" page 294 sums up what he believes are common among his survey of ancient crucifixions:

 

 

     I don't believe that the sign was for mocking anyone but an indication of the charge against the person.

 

          mwc

 

 

Well again we are debating something that could have been a complete fabrication. If he did die of crucifixion pilate could have given the body to the family if he wanted to. Especially if he felt he was innocent of the charges. And he apparently garnered a reputation for killing innocent Samaritans. Who's to say that wasn't just him getting caught after doing similar things for years? Most bad rulers, bad cops, and other people who get convicted of crimes build up to what they got caught for. 

 

None of it really matters, even if his body was just chucked in a ditch after the crucifiction his story could have become legend. It could of transformed from being crucified and chucked in a ditch to being crucified and raised from the dead. The tomb stories are all inconsistent anyway. They already know all these stories evolved. The only texts we have are copies of copies of copies. So who knows. 

 

But it seems all the early Christians believed he was crucified. That is very consistent. Which again leads me to believe that someone who had an influence on 1st century jews was crucified. 

 

DB

[mwc]

On 6/8/2023 at 4:40 AM, DarkBishop said:

 

Well again we are debating something that could have been a complete fabrication. If he did die of crucifixion pilate could have given the body to the family if he wanted to. Especially if he felt he was innocent of the charges. And he apparently garnered a reputation for killing innocent Samaritans. Who's to say that wasn't just him getting caught after doing similar things for years? Most bad rulers, bad cops, and other people who get convicted of crimes build up to what they got caught for. 

 

None of it really matters, even if his body was just chucked in a ditch after the crucifiction his story could have become legend. It could of transformed from being crucified and chucked in a ditch to being crucified and raised from the dead. The tomb stories are all inconsistent anyway. They already know all these stories evolved. The only texts we have are copies of copies of copies. So who knows. 

     I suppose.  I guess this thread, and threads like it, should never be started since there's no point in discussing any of this stuff.

 

On 6/8/2023 at 4:40 AM, DarkBishop said:

But it seems all the early Christians believed he was crucified. That is very consistent. Which again leads me to believe that someone who had an influence on 1st century jews was crucified. 

     True enough.  It's not like things like the Illusory Truth Effect exist.

 

          mwc

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

11 hours ago, mwc said:

True enough.  It's not like things like the Illusory Truth Effect exist.

 

          mwc

 

MWC,

 

I do not know what your issue is with me, but it seems every time you join me in a discussion you end up making Snyde comments and such. Last time I checked people can disagree and just discuss. You said no one is trying to tell me not to believe the way I do yet you insist on making comments like this. I've not said one time that my opinion is the right one. However it is the right one for me. If believing Jesus was completely made up is what brings you peace in the world then I applaude that. 

 

I've been trying to straddle a fence and ignore your demeanor toward our difference of opinion. You and I both agree that the Bible is not true. Whether Christ actually existed or not is a subject of discussion and with support from secular scholars on both sides of the fence. 

 

I've already told you that yes it could all be made up. There is no doubt about that. Yet even if it is all made up. That does not mean that there wasn't a person named Jesus who's life inspired the story. Hell I think its made up. I just think there was a person the stories were based off of. 

 

So to answer your remark. Yes it could have been illusory truth effect. But I doubt it. I do. And I don't really care if anyone else does or not. But I do like to discuss things like this. 

 

Thanks, 

 

DB

[mwc]

5 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

 

MWC,

 

I do not know what your issue is with me, but it seems every time you join one of my threads you end up making Snyde comments and such. Last time I checked people can disagree and just discuss. You said no one is trying to tell me not to believe the way I do yet you insist on making comments like this. I've not said one time that my opinion is the right one. However it is the right one for me. If believing Jesus was completely made up is what brings you peace in the world then I applaude that. 

 

I've been trying to straddle a fence and ignore your demeanor toward our difference of opinion. You and I both agree that the Bible is not true. Whether Christ actually existed or not is a subject of discussion and with support from secular scholars on both sides of the fence. 

 

I've already told you that yes it could all be made up. There is no doubt about that. Yet even if it is all made up. That does not mean that there wasn't a person named Jesus who's life inspired the story. Hell I think its made up. I just think there was a person the stories were based off of. 

 

So to answer your remark. Yes it could have been illusory truth effect. But I doubt it. I do. And I don't really care if anyone else does or not. But I do like to discuss things like this. 

 

Thanks, 

 

DB

     I have zero issues with you.  I also have no problems with you thinking there was an historic jesus.  This may actually be the crux of the problem (pun intended).  I'm not trying to discuss that as a point at all.  I joined the thread to discuss the realities of crucifixion and, in doing so, assuming an actual and historical jesus in the process.  I simply backed-up one place from the tomb which is something I would think would be unrealistic if all the rest were real and true.  I'm not alone here.  Folks here like Ehrman and he takes a similar position in his book "How Jesus Became God" (though he does discuss the empty tomb in that book since, after all, it is a part of the given narratives but he does think, simply put, that it's added simply out of necessity as opposed to reality).  

 

     So I apologize that my tendency to enter threads causes folks, such as yourself, problems.  It isn't my intent.  I just like to chime-in when I notice little bits and pieces like this especially when they interest me and they're something I happen to know a little something about or I think there's a little something interesting that might be explored in a different way.  I guess that's on me and I'll just sort of continue to bow out so you guys can enjoy the site.

 

          mwc

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

8 hours ago, mwc said:

So I apologize that my tendency to enter threads causes folks, such as yourself, problems.  It isn't my intent.  I just like to chime-in when I notice little bits and pieces like this especially when they interest me and they're something I happen to know a little something about or I think there's a little something interesting that might be explored in a different way.  I guess that's on me and I'll just sort of continue to bow out so you guys can enjoy the site.

 

There is no need to play the victim and leave. Lets just accept that we have a difference of opinion and be respectful toward one another. For instance instead of saying, "True enough, its not like things like illusory truth effect exist". 

 

Maybe, "I understand why your saying that, but I think it could be illusory truth effect".  Would be a better way to word your opposition. 

 

When texting, wording is very key and can easily be taken the wrong way. If you weren't trying to make veiled off handed comments then I apologize for my accusation. I tried to ignore the first couple I picked up on. But I'm not the type to just sit there and take it forever.

 

Also I apologize to @Weezer I accidentally called it my thread in my last post but this is a thread he has tried to get going for a couple years now. Its a good topic and worthy of discussion. Hopefully we can get back on topic.

 

Let's talk about Illusory truth effect.

 

The reason I don't think the texts reflect illusory truth effect is first because of the consistency in the thought that Jesus was crucified across all of them. If it was illusory truth effect it would have had to of been propagated by Paul, Peter, and all the earliest christians. Even in his undisputed epistles to the churches Paul talks about the crucifiction of Jesus. Paul would have been alive when Jesus was alive. Reportedly he himself was persecuting Christians. If his story is to be believed then I doubt he was persecuting Christians for following the teachings of someone who never existed or never actually offended his leaders. 

 

But then there are other factors like Peter. We have to assume that the main thing Peter and Paul disagreed on was that Gentiles had to follow Jewish Law as part of being a Christian. There was never an indication that they disagreed over whether or not Jesus was Crucified. 

 

However, I have pondered on the idea that like Joseph Smith and The creation of The LDS church. Maybe the 12 Disciples came together and made the story up. If all people involved in the creation of the myth kept there stories straight that would give credit to illusory truth effect. Everyone except for them would assume that since all the disciples were saying the same thing that it must be true. And we already know that those who wrote the gospels were probably writing it from second  hand knowledge maybe even third hand, presumably from the various testimonies of the disciples. But it was already being turned into legend. 

 

So maybe they did. But to push it to the point that your willing to die for a lie....... well.... if it were me, I wouldn't do it. I would have to dip out and disappear before I got martyred. 

 

I think it is more likely that these early Christians were inspired by something more than a lie. I really think they had a leader that inspired them who was crucified and died. 

 

But again, I can understand why there is such a good argument for mythicists. And maybe I just need to hold on to the prospect that he was a real person for my own peace of mind. 

 

DB

[◊ Weezer ◊]

1 hour ago, DarkBishop said:

 

Also I apologize to @Weezer I accidentally called it my thread in my last post but this is a thread he has tried to get going for a couple years now. Its a good topic and worthy of discussion. Hopefully we can get back on topic.

 

It is okay with me if the whole thing is dropped.  I never intended to get into the details of the resurrection anyway.  (if it even happened)  I simply wanted to state I thought it was possible that Jesus actually existed.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

30 minutes ago, Weezer said:

It is okay with me if the whole thing is dropped.  I never intended to get into the details of the resurrection anyway.  (if it even happened)  I simply wanted to state I thought it was possible that Jesus actually existed.

They both tie in together, if he did exist, how did he die? I can really see it either way but obviously I have my biases. Maybe one day definitive proof will be discovered. 

 

DB