World Affairs Board - View Single Post

glyn · 09-27-2007, 10:07 AM

[quote=Triple C;410701]As an athiest I find the idea that Jesus did not die on the cross a tad far-fetched, since it is very un-Roman to let a percieved trouble maker sentenced to cruicifixion to live; the procedure is almost always deadly even if the victim was rescued.

The Romans were not that bothered one way or the other. The Sanhedrin had summoned Pilate to judge the matter as only he could award the death penalty. (The Sanhedrin could not). What the bible says of the affair is confusing. Take the crowds calling for Barabas. In Hebrew this is taken to mean bar abbas 'son of the father' - so who were the crowds calling for? And are we sure there were crowds at the trial in the first place? The statement that Pilate washed his hands (of the matter) has passed into lore, but for the Sanhedrin to Admit a gentile to the temple (such as the Procurator) meant they had in effect to create him a temporary jew! Pilate did not have to lose the 'end of his very best friend' to achieve this, but merely a symbolic immersion in water, in the form of publicly washing his hands BEFORE the trial started.

Besides that contemporaries of Jesus such as Peter were adamant that Jesus died and was reserected. As a rationalist I strongly doubted the later, but it is unlikely that the event of the Passion and the Death of Jesus Christ, so central to Christian theology from its infancy, is a conspiracy to cover up the survival of its leader. After all the apocraphal Book of Judas went so far as to say that Jesus not only anticipated his death by the Romans but indeed caused it to happen by ordering Judas to give him up. Not that I believe in this theory, but in terms of the death of Jesus there seems to be very compelling evidence in and out of the Bible to support the truthfulness of that claim.

True, little sects that differed from the orthodoxy existed, but sayings of of apostles, and those who were instructed by the apostals, should have greater evidentiary weight than those who were not. It is not very likely that such a consiprasy could be so successful, and it is unlikely that Apostals like Peter, a simple honest fisherman,

Peter was in the team before Jesus joined. He was no fisherman. It is an allegorical reference to recruiting converts for the organisation set up by Herod the Great. Jesus joined replacing his father when he was old enough to do so.

would be so deceptive as to spend the rest of his life preaching what he knows to be a lie. This presumes a level of malignace and dishonesty that is not plausible for someone who clearly enjoyed moral authority within his congregation and wrote so movingly of his spiritual journenies. As a matter heuristics and historical method, the account of those who has witnessed an event should enjoy our confidence to a greater extend, unless it can be conclusively proven otherwise.

If we disbelieve the authenticity of primary documents, history in its most basic form, record-keeping, is impossible; such comprehensive skepticism would render all knowledge vain. Compounding that, the early Church leaders, such as Peter and Paul, would be by any standards applied some of the most spiritual and philosophical people of the age, and that they seem to enjoy what seems to be justly learned moral authority.

Nor do I, mind you, consider the Bible to be absolutely right, eternal, divinely incorruptable. The Bible as we know it is a collection of secondary texts that was not codified in its form and content until 125 AD, and went through a process of translations between three languages (aramaic, greek, latin) endured 2 millenia of corruption.

The bilical texts were written during Jesus's lifetime. The codification came with Constantine at Nicea in 325.

09-27-2007, 10:07 AM	#194 (permalink)
glyn *Military Professional* Join Date: 09-15-06 Location: Penzance, Cornwall UK Posts: 6,886	[quote=Triple C;410701]As an athiest I find the idea that Jesus did not die on the cross a tad far-fetched, since it is very un-Roman to let a percieved trouble maker sentenced to cruicifixion to live; the procedure is almost always deadly even if the victim was rescued. The Romans were not that bothered one way or the other. The Sanhedrin had summoned Pilate to judge the matter as only he could award the death penalty. (The Sanhedrin could not). What the bible says of the affair is confusing. Take the crowds calling for Barabas. In Hebrew this is taken to mean bar abbas 'son of the father' - so who were the crowds calling for? And are we sure there were crowds at the trial in the first place? The statement that Pilate washed his hands (of the matter) has passed into lore, but for the Sanhedrin to Admit a gentile to the temple (such as the Procurator) meant they had in effect to create him a temporary jew! Pilate did not have to lose the 'end of his very best friend' to achieve this, but merely a symbolic immersion in water, in the form of publicly washing his hands BEFORE the trial started. Besides that contemporaries of Jesus such as Peter were adamant that Jesus died and was reserected. As a rationalist I strongly doubted the later, but it is unlikely that the event of the Passion and the Death of Jesus Christ, so central to Christian theology from its infancy, is a conspiracy to cover up the survival of its leader. After all the apocraphal Book of Judas went so far as to say that Jesus not only anticipated his death by the Romans but indeed caused it to happen by ordering Judas to give him up. Not that I believe in this theory, but in terms of the death of Jesus there seems to be very compelling evidence in and out of the Bible to support the truthfulness of that claim. True, little sects that differed from the orthodoxy existed, but sayings of of apostles, and those who were instructed by the apostals, should have greater evidentiary weight than those who were not. It is not very likely that such a consiprasy could be so successful, and it is unlikely that Apostals like Peter, a simple honest fisherman, Peter was in the team before Jesus joined. He was no fisherman. It is an allegorical reference to recruiting converts for the organisation set up by Herod the Great. Jesus joined replacing his father when he was old enough to do so. would be so deceptive as to spend the rest of his life preaching what he knows to be a lie. This presumes a level of malignace and dishonesty that is not plausible for someone who clearly enjoyed moral authority within his congregation and wrote so movingly of his spiritual journenies. As a matter heuristics and historical method, the account of those who has witnessed an event should enjoy our confidence to a greater extend, unless it can be conclusively proven otherwise. If we disbelieve the authenticity of primary documents, history in its most basic form, record-keeping, is impossible; such comprehensive skepticism would render all knowledge vain. Compounding that, the early Church leaders, such as Peter and Paul, would be by any standards applied some of the most spiritual and philosophical people of the age, and that they seem to enjoy what seems to be justly learned moral authority. Nor do I, mind you, consider the Bible to be absolutely right, eternal, divinely incorruptable. The Bible as we know it is a collection of secondary texts that was not codified in its form and content until 125 AD, and went through a process of translations between three languages (aramaic, greek, latin) endured 2 millenia of corruption. The bilical texts were written during Jesus's lifetime. The codification came with Constantine at Nicea in 325. __________________ Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.