502 replies to this topic

[SOAP]

What's that kid going to do with himself after the city is destroyed? That little kid will have nothing to play with. The only thing that can happen now is to rebuild it all over again. A very interesting comparison but I cannot agree or disagree with what you've just said as this 'destroyer' image would have us compare God to Godzilla. There's nothing to suggest that God would not destroy everything apart from the fact that it's counterproductive.

It's not counterproductive. Well maybe when we do it is. As an athiest I'm not going sit here and pretend to know what God is like any more than you do. But from what I understand from looking at nature things are created and are eventually destroyed. But out of the destruction new things created. The best naalogy I can think of is an erupting volcano. Forests, cities, whole civilization get destroyed by the molten lava but once it cools the soil is rich and forests can grow. Volcanoes can make whole islands bigger too. Destruction and creation are two sides of the same coin and it's how things progress in ou world. Imagine what the world would be like if things were only created and never destroyed. Things would get crowded right? As for the kid, well he still has his blocks. He can rebuild it better than before.

[Alakhriveion]

Joseph asked permission to take the body down from the cross, which was what I was reffering to. He and Nichodemus wrapped the body in linen and placed it in an empty tomb.

Which was very, very illegal. You CANNOT take a body off the cross.

The rock was massive. The Pharisees apparently knew the Jesus was supposed to rise from the dead so they placed a guard up there.

Inconsistant them NOT believing him to be God incarnate.

A whole lot of scholars believe that the Gospel of Thomas wasn't even written by Thomas.

Doesn't matter. It does predate three of the Canonical Gospels.

And the only one spouting nonsense is you. You aren't even being relevant to the conversation: What does the Sugarhill Gang have to do with THE BIBLE!?

Exactly. The Bible (Old Testament) has as much to do with Jesus as it does with a plagarising late 70's rap outfit.

Never said it was.

Then you agree that even if you're in to religion, it ain't true.

[TheAvengerLever]

Which was very, very illegal. You CANNOT take a body off the cross.

Asking a government official for his body was illegal? hmm, interesting. If it was it was. But it happened

Inconsistant them NOT believing him to be God incarnate.

Of course they didn't. But they figured someone might try and steal the body.

Doesn't matter. It does predate three of the Canonical Gospels.

They haven't even placed a date for it. They are still speculating.

Exactly. The Bible (Old Testament) has as much to do with Jesus as it does with a plagarising late 70's rap outfit.

No it doesn't. Isaiah predicts his coming. What a moronic thing to say anyways.

Then you agree that even if you're in to religion, it ain't true.

To quote Pilate himself...what is truth?

Edited by TheAvengerButton, 14 June 2006 - 04:22 PM.

[Alakhriveion]

Asking a government official for his body was illegal? hmm, interesting. If it was it was. But it happened

It is, at the very least, highly improbable. The people responsible for removing the body would certainly be executed, and certainly be caught, as crosses were (again, whole point of the punishment) in very public places.

Of course they didn't. But they figured someone might try and steal the body.

Which would be a problem why...?

They haven't even placed a date for it. They are still speculating.

Matthew and Luke quote Thomas. Those statements, as well as stories like the Virgin Birth, are common to them, as well as the material contained in Mark, which does NOT contain them. Therefore, regardless of dates, the Gospels were written Mark first, Thomas (and 'Q,' where the Nonmarkan narratives Thomas doesn't account for theoretically comes from), Luke and Matthew, and John last. The Gospel of Judas can only be pinned down as pre-180, but that doesn't really matter.

No it doesn't. Isaiah predicts his coming. What a moronic thing to say anyways.

No, not at all. Isaiah talks about the Messiah.

To quote Pilate himself...what is truth?

A cop-out, apparently.

[Nevermind]

No, not at all. Isaiah talks about the Messiah.

Okay, now you're just splitting hairs...

[Korhend]

Not when you consider that Alak is defending a Jewish interperetation of the Old Testament.

[Nevermind]

Fair enough, but the rest of it sounded so much better when it at least looked neutral.

[Chikara Nadir]

Which would be a problem why...?

Politically it COULD be a problem for the body to be stolen. If the disciples were spreading the word amongst hundreds of followers and thousands of unsure that Jesus was going to rise from the dead, and the body turned up missing, then you'd have a crapload of people who at that time (and today still) believed that the body had in fact risen from the dead and begun to walk around. Heck, even today we say about movie characters: "They aren't dead until you see their body."

Whether Jesus was alive again or not, the lack of a corpse would produce enough uncertainty amongst the commonfolk who had heard rumours about Jesus' miracles, and the government might have found a large resistance of followers who refused to obey the Roman rule. Lucky for them that nothing wide-scale happened until quite a few years afterward.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Jesus was the creator, as the first chapter of the Book of John tells us.

The Book of John can be interpreted to mean that what Jesus says is God's word. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Reflectionist]

The Book of John can be interpreted to mean that what Jesus says is God's word. Nothing more, nothing less.

Actually, it says this:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Seems to put a emphasis on 'in the beginning,' doesn't it? I mean, even without me italicizing it, it says it twice.

[Alakhriveion]

Politically it COULD be a problem for the body to be stolen. If the disciples were spreading the word amongst hundreds of followers and thousands of unsure that Jesus was going to rise from the dead, and the body turned up missing, then you'd have a crapload of people who at that time (and today still) believed that the body had in fact risen from the dead and begun to walk around. Heck, even today we say about movie characters: "They aren't dead until you see their body."

Right, but why would they be guarding THE TOMB? If the body had already been stolen from the cross (and that's the only way to get it down), do you really think the thieves would then call the people they'd just stolen from and ask them to guard it?

Whether Jesus was alive again or not, the lack of a corpse would produce enough uncertainty amongst the commonfolk who had heard rumours about Jesus' miracles, and the government might have found a large resistance of followers who refused to obey the Roman rule. Lucky for them that nothing wide-scale happened until quite a few years afterward.

They were already facing resistance, none of it Jesus-related. None of it ever WAS Jesus-related. Nobody thought he was coming back except his tiny following of cultists. Once they, known to be in to ritual cannibalism and other creepiness, make off with a corpse, you don't really have to account for it.

[Reflectionist]

Mark 15:43Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus' body. 44Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died. 45When he learned from the centurion that it was so, he gave the body to Joseph.

Or, as it says in The Message:

42-45Late in the afternoon, since it was the Day of Preparation (that is, Sabbath eve), Joseph of Arimathea, a highly respected member of the Jewish Council, came. He was one who lived expectantly, on the lookout for the kingdom of God. Working up his courage, he went to Pilate and asked for Jesus' body. Pilate questioned whether he could be dead that soon and called for the captain to verify that he was really dead. Assured by the captain, he gave Joseph the corpse.

Once they, known to be in to ritual cannibalism and other creepiness, make off with a corpse, you don't really have to account for it

I'm sorry, can you back that up?

Edited by Reflectionist, 15 June 2006 - 02:40 PM.

[Alakhriveion]

Mark 15:43Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus' body. 44Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died. 45When he learned from the centurion that it was so, he gave the body to Joseph.

Which the real-life Pilate would never do.

I'm sorry, can you back that up?

Ritual Cannibalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist
Other creepiness: http://en.wikipedia....nd_prohibitions

[TheAvengerLever]

Which the real-life Pilate would never do.

Annnnd how do you know that?

Oh and by the way...According to Jewish Law (Deut. 21:22-23) You cant leave a man hanging on a tree overnight. They applied this law to the Crucifixion of Jesus. Pontius Pilate was intent on preserving Jewish Law.

[Korhend]

Historical accounts of Pontious Pilate say that he was known for being especially harsh against Jewish Traditions. Take for example the writings of the Historian Flavius Josephus.

On one occasion, when the soldiers under his command came to Jerusalem, he made them bring their ensigns with them, upon which were the usual images of the emperor. The ensigns were brought in secretly by night, but their presence was soon discovered. Immediately multitudes of excited Jews rushed to Caesarea to petition him for the removal of the obnoxious ensigns. He ignored them for five days, but the next day he admitted the Jews to hear their complaint. He had them surrounded with soldiers and threatened them with instant death unless they ceased to trouble him with the matter.

If that does not convince you that he was less then keen on Jewish custom consider a further passage in Josephus's account.

At another time he used the sacred treasure of the temple, called corban (qorban), to pay for bringing water into Jerusalem by an aqueduct. A crowd came together and clamored against him; but he had caused soldiers dressed as civilians to mingle with the multitude, and at a given signal they fell upon the rioters and beat them so severely with staves that the riot was quelled.

The man was so adamently against Jewish Customs that it offended the moral Of the Roman Empire, and he was removed from his post for such.

The whole point of Crucifying someone is to make them publicly visible. If someone told me they took the body of Blackbeard down from the gallows after one day, or Vlad the impaler allowed an impaled body to be taken away and then Vlad/The British actually sent troops to gaurd the tomb of said moved corpse, I would question the story as well. If I heard a story about Jiro Minami granting extraordinary care for a body of a nationalist leader, bowing to chinese tradition, I would question the story as well.

The story of the New Testament does not stand up to historical records and to claim otherwise is either fraudulent or ignorant.

[spunky-monkey]

They were already facing resistance, none of it Jesus-related. None of it ever WAS Jesus-related. Nobody thought he was coming back except his tiny following of cultists. Once they, known to be in to ritual cannibalism and other creepiness, make off with a corpse, you don't really have to account for it.

Actually, there were some 500 eyewitnesses who saw Jesus' resurrection and ascension into Heaven that day, there was no corpse to steal.

[Alakhriveion]

Actually, there were some 500 eyewitnesses who saw Jesus' resurrection and ascension into Heaven that day, there was no corpse to steal.

1. The corpse was stolen off the cross if it was buried
2. Really? And this is recorded where?

[Chikara Nadir]

Last I checked, didn't the Bible say that the only viewers of the actual resurrection were...angels? Sure, the Ascension can be a different matter, but if the dead guy got up and started walking, it wasn't with an immediate live audience.

[Nevermind]

You know, I'm just thinking...

It wasn't actually the Romans who were punishing Jesus, but the actually Jewish community. So let's imagine that because he was not their prisoner, and they were only crucifying him because the crowd told Pilate to. Could it not be possible that they didn't actually give a shit about what happened to him. Therefore what happened to his body post-mortem did not trouble them at all. After all, he wasn't THEIR prisoner. Let's the priests and Jews worry about him. They did what they were told to do.

Remember, we are told that Pilate DID wash his hands of Jesus' fate. So it can be possible that those asking to take his body down, could have taken it down without the soldiers giving a damn.

[Korhend]

Why would Pilate bow merely to the whim of the crowd? Why didn't he have soldiers flog or massacre him as was typical of his reign. Why would he free a revolutionary like Barrabas?

Edited by Korhend, 15 June 2006 - 11:12 PM.

[Nevermind]

Cos he really didn't give a shit that's why. Freeing Barabbas and punishing Jesus would've been a hell of [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] easier than trying to deal with an angry mob. If I was Pilate and I had a choice of either using my soldiers to control a rabble, creating more dissention, or just doing what they want, an act which affected me in no way whatsoever, I'd just give them what they wanted. It's not like they were trying to start a revolution. They wanted blood, and the simplest, most-hassle free choice was to just give it to them. It wasn't his blood, so it didn't bother him.

[Alakhriveion]

Cos he really didn't give a shit that's why.

But all records show he really, really, REALLY gave a shit.

Freeing Barabbas and punishing Jesus would've been a hell of [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] easier than trying to deal with an angry mob.

So kill the angry mob. According to Josephus, there were two seperate occasions in the early 30's when he just executed every single person involved in a protest. You don't fuck with Pilate.

If I was Pilate and I had a choice of either using my soldiers to control a rabble, creating more dissention, or just doing what they want, an act which affected me in no way whatsoever, I'd just give them what they wanted. It's not like they were trying to start a revolution. They wanted blood, and the simplest, most-hassle free choice was to just give it to them. It wasn't his blood, so it didn't bother him.

They WERE trying to start a revolution. Barabbas was arrested for killing soldiers during a riot.

[Chikara Nadir]

Frankly, I wonder what the chances were that Barbaras' release (if there even was a man by that name) had anything to do with Jesus' punishment. It wouldn't be the first time that history tried to take two events and connect them to add flavour to the story.

[TheAvengerLever]

Historical accounts of Pontious Pilate say that he was known for being especially harsh against Jewish Traditions. Take for example the writings of the Historian Flavius Josephus.

That first one wasn't even the whole story. The Jews declared that they preffered death to the violation of their laws and seeing this, Pilate was moved and he order off any sort of attack. Pilate was compassionate.

For centuries there has been a debate over whether there actually was a historical Pilate. He is not mentioned in official imperial records from his time. By the way, if you think that the Pilate of the Bible was not a harsh man, then you're wrong. It was he who ordered the crucifixion. It was he that ordered Jesus to be whipped. Historically, he was a bastard. Biblically, he was a bastard.

By the by Chikara, Barrabas's full name of Jesus Barrabas. Barrabas means "Son of the Father" so they were going to release Jesus Barrabas or just Jesus.

Edited by TheAvengerButton, 16 June 2006 - 01:14 AM.

[Nevermind]

But all records show he really, really, REALLY gave a shit.

What records? All I've seen is him washing his hands. Meaning he wants nothing to do with it. They take him to Pilate, he sends them to Herod, who sends them back to Pilate, who removes himself. Sure, he had a dream, but he didn't DO anything about it.

So kill the angry mob. According to Josephus, there were two seperate occasions in the early 30's when he just executed every single person involved in a protest. You don't fuck with Pilate.

Okay, now I can't remember where I got this from, but I have the idea in my head that Pilate had disputes with Rome-proper because instead of controlling the Jews, he let them go by their laws and was...you know....somewhat of a people person...as far as that can extend within the context. Now, that could be wrong, but I know I got it from SOMEWHERE. Anyhow, let's imagine that this was the case. Despite the effort factor being significantly less in doing what the public wanted to do (again, remembering it did not affect him in any way), wouldn't it be politically advantageous, not to mention it would boost his public reputation, to just give them what they want? Doing so would not threaten his position, nor Rome's occupation of the area. That way, he can have his cake, eat it too, AND he doesn't even have to bake the thing himself.

They WERE trying to start a revolution. Barabbas was arrested for killing soldiers during a riot.

As above, at the point in which the crowd wanted Jesus crucified, they were not rebelling against Roman occupation. They just wanted some guy dead. Really badly.

[Alakhriveion]

What records? All I've seen is him washing his hands. Meaning he wants nothing to do with it. They take him to Pilate, he sends them to Herod, who sends them back to Pilate, who removes himself. Sure, he had a dream, but he didn't DO anything about it.

Except that Pilate was notorious for never passing up an opperotunity to have someone executed and never, EVER listening to local religious authorities.

Okay, now I can't remember where I got this from, but I have the idea in my head that Pilate had disputes with Rome-proper because instead of controlling the Jews, he let them go by their laws and was...you know....somewhat of a people person...as far as that can extend within the context. Now, that could be wrong, but I know I got it from SOMEWHERE. Anyhow, let's imagine that this was the case. Despite the effort factor being significantly less in doing what the public wanted to do (again, remembering it did not affect him in any way), wouldn't it be politically advantageous, not to mention it would boost his public reputation, to just give them what they want? Doing so would not threaten his position, nor Rome's occupation of the area. That way, he can have his cake, eat it too, AND he doesn't even have to bake the thing himself.

Judeans can't vote. There's no good reason for Pilate to want them to like him, and all histories outside the Bible say he didn't.

As above, at the point in which the crowd wanted Jesus crucified, they were not rebelling against Roman occupation. They just wanted some guy dead. Really badly.

They never called to Jesus (the cultist) to be killed, they asked for Barabbas (the revolutionary) to be freed, IF it happened, which it certainly didn't. Nobody got freed, that wasn't how the system worked.

That first one wasn't even the whole story. The Jews declared that they preffered death to the violation of their laws and seeing this, Pilate was moved and he order off any sort of attack. Pilate was compassionate.

Not in real life.

For centuries there has been a debate over whether there actually was a historical Pilate.

No, no there hasn't.

He is not mentioned in official imperial records from his time.

Yes, yes he was.

By the way, if you think that the Pilate of the Bible was not a harsh man, then you're wrong. It was he who ordered the crucifixion. It was he that ordered Jesus to be whipped. Historically, he was a bastard. Biblically, he was a bastard.

Historically, he never released prisoners and nobody took a body off a cross. Biblically, both of these things happen.

By the by Chikara, Barrabas's full name of Jesus Barrabas. Barrabas means "Son of the Father" so they were going to release Jesus Barrabas or just Jesus.

Actually, Barabbas means "Son of Man." I have a moonbat theory that they were the same person seperated by Gospel writers to cover up the fact Jesus was the Centurion-stabbing revolutionary Lion of Judah I'd much prefer him to have been.

Edited by Alakhriveion, 16 June 2006 - 02:22 AM.

[Nevermind]

Okay, dude, at least point me to where you're getting this from, so I may at least be more knowledgeable on the situation.

[Alakhriveion]

I read books. Mostly just this book. And Wikipedia. More Wikipedia than is probably sane, but shit, I write some of it, how wrong can it be?

Edited by Alakhriveion, 16 June 2006 - 02:35 AM.

[TheAvengerLever]

Alak, I get all my stuff from Wikipedia as well. The Pilate story is from Wikipedia, the information about the debate of a historical Pilate is from Wikipedia, the information that Barrabus's name means Son of the Father...

oh and by the way, according to the information I read about the Testamonium Flavium, the documents of Josephus of today have been corrupted.

Edited by TheAvengerButton, 16 June 2006 - 02:39 AM.

[Nevermind]

Yeah the book I'll believe. The Wikiage, I'll partially believe. Only cos you wrote it, Alak. You know how I believe everything you say.