Obey the authorities or you will be punished!

reply to post by StalkerSolent


Who exactly did the Jews kill that was innocent? It was Pilate's soldiers who nailed Jesus to the cross and went on to mock him and spit on him. If anyone undermined Pilate's authority, it was himself for bending over backwards for the Jewish leaders.

Crucifixion was unique to Rome and was only used when someone committed treason or crimes against the state. There is no other reason he would have been crucified other than treason, plus crucifixion is outlawed by Judaism and their law.

The fact is Pilate allowed the crucifixion then went on to put "King of the Jews" above Jesus, Roman soldiers nailed Jesus to the cross then spit on him and mocked him, and Jewish law forbids crucifixion as a form of punishment. All these things point toward Rome being the murderer, not the Jews.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by StalkerSolent

 

Who exactly did the Jews kill that was innocent? It was Pilate's soldiers who nailed Jesus to the cross and went on to mock him and spit on him. If anyone undermined Pilate's authority, it was himself for bending over backwards for the Jewish leaders.

Crucifixion was unique to Rome and was only used when someone committed treason or crimes against the state. There is no other reason he would have been crucified other than treason, plus crucifixion is outlawed by Judaism and their law.

The fact is Pilate allowed the crucifixion then went on to put "King of the Jews" above Jesus, Roman soldiers nailed Jesus to the cross then spit on him and mocked him, and Jewish law forbids crucifixion as a form of punishment. All these things point toward Rome being the murderer, not the Jews.

edit on 26-7-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

I was referring to Jesus. Pilate certainly considered him innocent. And sure, Pilate undermined his own authority by giving them what they wanted rather than risking a riot...which would constitute defiance of his authority (and been instigated by the priests.) Pilate's between a rock and a hard place here, and he chose the lesser of two evils as he saw it.

I'm not sure about Jewish law condemning crucifixion, though I do remember that stoning was their legislated method. However, from what I understand there were a lot of things done contrary to Jewish law and custom on this particular occasion (for instance, the rending of clothes in the temple that the priest did during Jesus' trial was not permitted. See this article for more details) So the chief priests emphasis on legality is questionable here.

Incidentally, I'm pretty sure the Jews were forbidden to conduct their own executions without Roman permission/authority.

I didn't come here to play the blame game, but as far as who is guilty, the Jews explicitly took Jesus' blood on their hands. Jesus himself told Pilate "Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin." (John 19:11) I suppose that verse could be interpreted several ways (is Jesus blaming the Jews? Judas? God?) but Jesus seems to view Pilate as an instrument, not a mastermind. Since He was the one getting crucified, I'll accept His viewpoint.

Just going from my memory, I'm pretty sure that the Jews didn't conduct an annual "human sacrifice." In honor of Passover, I guess, Pilot allowed the Jewish people to request the release of one of their prisoners, redeeming that person from the Roman death penalty.

So Pilot offered the people the choice of Jesus or Barabbas, thinking that the people would pick Jesus instead of Barabbas. This is where the multitude of Jewish people made their choice of who to set free.

I don't think Pilot thought twice about Jesus after that, except for when Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus "bribed" Pilot, letting them take Jesus down "early".

reply to post by StalkerSolent


Pilate gave them the authority to carry out the execution themselves by saying "take him yourselves and judge him by your own law", but they refused and insisted that Rome do it for them.

I find the whole Jewish leaders wanting Jesus dead highly suspect personally. I believe that part may have been interpolated to take Jesus' blood off of Rome's hands in order to make Paul's Roman citizenship seem less suspicious.

The whole thing with another man named Jesus Barabbas (son of the father) being on trial the same day as Jesus (Son of the Father) and the mention of the Passover custom that doesn't exist outside of the bible seems way too convenient and coincidental in my opinion. I think that whole scene was made up and put in after the fact.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by StalkerSolent

 

Pilate gave them the authority to carry out the execution themselves by saying "take him yourselves and judge him by your own law", but they refused and insisted that Rome do it for them.

I find the whole Jewish leaders wanting Jesus dead highly suspect personally. I believe that part may have been interpolated to take Jesus' blood off of Rome's hands in order to make Paul's Roman citizenship seem less suspicious.

The whole thing with another man named Jesus Barabbas (son of the father) being on trial the same day as Jesus (Son of the Father) and the mention of the Passover custom that doesn't exist outside of the bible seems way too convenient and coincidental in my opinion. I think that whole scene was made up and put in after the fact.

Do you happen to have a reference for that scene between Pilate and the Jews handy?

Well, you're certainly entitled to your belief. But the Gospel's weren't written by Paul, and changing the narrative after Paul was converted would have undermined the apostle's authority. I mean, if Luke tells you one day that the Romans were absolutely, totally to blame for the crucifixion, and that the Jews were out of it, and then the next day he writes a text saying the opposite...he's likely to shoot himself in the foot right there. Seems to me that your idea is implausible because of the risk involved. If the gospel writers had made any mistakes in detailing, they would have been seized upon and made out to be liars by the Jewish religious authorities. (Remember, the gospel writers are spreading heresy as far as they are concerned.)

Anyway, there were four gospels written, and they all agree that Pilate was not the mover and shaker. Furthermore, I don't see why why the priest's behavior is unusual; the scene as recorded in the Bible makes the most sense to me, and there were plenty of witnesses to discredit the writers had they lied. Jesus was a real pain in the Jewish religious' authority's side for His entire ministry, and their attempts to condemn Him to death make perfect sense to me. (Josephus' controversial account of Jesus' death mentions the Jews as the instigators, incidentally.)

reply to post by StalkerSolent


Whose to say the ones who wrote the gospels weren't the ones who added it in there? The gospels were written anonymously and weren't given names until over 100 years after they were written, plus the earliest surviving copy of any gospel is dated to the 4th century.

How does the story in the gospel about a Passover custom make sense when there is no historical evidence of that custom ever existing outside of the bible?

And no, Paul didn't write the gospels, but he did write his epistles which added entirely new concepts to Jesus' message, things that Jesus never even hinted toward while alive.

Rome had the money and connections to do whatever they wanted with Jesus' story. Ever heard of Dionysian imitatio? It was a well-known practice before, during, and after the life of Jesus, and I am more than willing to bet that Rome used this method to corrupt Jesus' story.

The word "Dionysian" comes from the Greek god Dionysus, and I actually have a thread where I explain how Dionysus and Jesus share MANY similarities HERE, if you care to check it out.

Rome killed Jesus then used Dionysian imitatio in order to turn him into their new version of Bacchus (Rome's equivalent to Dionysus).

All of these "coincidences" with pagan themes in the bible and Rome (a pagan empire) killing Jesus aren't coincidences at all. Rome was famous for cultural and religious diffusion, that is taking others ideas and merging them into their own.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by StalkerSolent

 

Whose to say the ones who wrote the gospels weren't the ones who added it in there? The gospels were written anonymously and weren't given names until over 100 years after they were written, plus the earliest surviving copy of any gospel is dated to the 4th century.

How does the story in the gospel about a Passover custom make sense when there is no historical evidence of that custom ever existing outside of the bible?

And no, Paul didn't write the gospels, but he did write his epistles which added entirely new concepts to Jesus' message, things that Jesus never even hinted toward while alive.

Rome had the money and connections to do whatever they wanted with Jesus' story. Ever heard of Dionysian imitatio? It was a well-known practice before, during, and after the life of Jesus, and I am more than willing to bet that Rome used this method to corrupt Jesus' story.

The word "Dionysian" comes from the Greek god Dionysus, and I actually have a thread where I explain how Dionysus and Jesus share MANY similarities HERE, if you care to check it out.

Rome killed Jesus then used Dionysian imitatio in order to turn him into their new version of Bacchus (Rome's equivalent to Dionysus).

All of these "coincidences" with pagan themes in the bible and Rome (a pagan empire) killing Jesus aren't coincidences at all. Rome was famous for cultural and religious diffusion, that is taking others ideas and merging them into their own.

That's speculation. Not that speculation is worthless, but...it's speculation.

As for the Passover tradition, it's possible that no one else ever recorded it because they never saw the need too. Also, Jerusalem was sacked pretty soon after Jesus' death so any native records that existed were probably destroyed.

As for Paul's writings, I don't see what they have to do with Pilate. Nor do I see why Rome would have corrupted Jesus' story, allow it to become wildly popular, and then persecute it. But I'll peruse your thread; perhaps you answer that.

reply to post by StalkerSolent


Why wouldn't they record this tradition? They recorded pretty much everything else.

Also, Rome didn't corrupt the story until after they were done killing those with Jesus' true message. Paul was one of those who persecuted Jesus and his followers, plus he was a Roman citizen who had connections with some powerful people, which is why his letters were received and preserved for over 2,000 years.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by StalkerSolent

 

Why wouldn't they record this tradition? They recorded pretty much everything else.

Also, Rome didn't corrupt the story until after they were done killing those with Jesus' true message. Paul was one of those who persecuted Jesus and his followers, plus he was a Roman citizen who had connections with some powerful people, which is why his letters were received and preserved for over 2,000 years.

"They?" The Romans? I don't know why they'd particularly do that, but at any rate it's not like we're swimming in history books from that time period. Even if they did record that, it's entirely possible that the records have been erased from history by this point.

As for this last bit, I don't know how you'd know that. I do feel compelled to point out that Paul was contemporaneous with the apostles, and they were still alive when he was writing.

reply to post by StalkerSolent


I don't "know" that, but I'm pretty sure of it. Pagan symbolism is all throughout the NT, and Rome being known for diffusion only cements my opinion.

I know Paul supposedly lived at the same time as the apostles, but he is never mentioned outside of the NT. I'm under the impression that a man named Paul never even existed, but was a fabrication by the Romans. Yes, it's speculation, but I have my reasons.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by StalkerSolent

 

I don't "know" that, but I'm pretty sure of it. Pagan symbolism is all throughout the NT, and Rome being known for diffusion only cements my opinion.

I know Paul supposedly lived at the same time as the apostles, but he is never mentioned outside of the NT. I'm under the impression that a man named Paul never even existed, but was a fabrication by the Romans. Yes, it's speculation, but I have my reasons.

One could, of course, insist that there are elements of Christian symbolism throughout pagan religions.

Not true. Even everyone's favorite quick reference source lists a few sources outside of the NT that mention Paul.

reply to post by StalkerSolent


Paganism came long before Christianity, and Judaism does not count as Christianity.

All from early church fathers, those who worked for churches that were situated in the Roman empire. I hate to bring up a conspiracy, but Christianity is one of, if not THE biggest conspiracy in history. I think Rome would have gone to great lengths to cover up what they did.

I have another thread, one that deals with Paul HERE if you care to look at it. It explains who I think this Paul character really was.

And HERE is a thread by another member that discusses how the early church could have completely fabricated certain martyrdoms in order to further their agenda and create sympathy for themselves.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by StalkerSolent

 

Paganism came long before Christianity, and Judaism does not count as Christianity.

All from early church fathers, those who worked for churches that were situated in the Roman empire. I hate to bring up a conspiracy, but Christianity is one of, if not THE biggest conspiracy in history. I think Rome would have gone to great lengths to cover up what they did.

I have another thread, one that deals with Paul HERE if you care to look at it. It explains who I think this Paul character really was.

And HERE is a thread by another member that discusses how the early church could have completely fabricated certain martyrdoms in order to further their agenda and create sympathy for themselves.

Judaism is Christianity's spiritual forefather. But the point I was trying to make is that while paganism of various kinds may have predated Christianity, the God of Christians predated the pagan gods, if the Bible is to be believed. So perhaps the similarities flow the other way? (This idea not unique to me; I believe that C.S. Lewis speaks of similar ideas.)

I agree that Christianity is the greatest conspiracy in history, but for entirely different reasons.

If I find the time, I'll check out your thread. The book in wildtimes' thread only claimed the church overhyped the martyrs (preserving their bones as relics with divine powers? Yeah they did) and not claiming that no persecution existed.