Religion Jesus could not be the SOG(Son of God)

[strongvoicesforward]

I never knew that it was customary to break the bones before burial. Why did they do that?

I will have to find the reason. I used to know it, I thought -- but seem to not be able to recall it at the moment. Maybe someone else knows and that will save me the time of finding it.

To add to the above, Revenant, it is even possible that the myrth Jesus was given was a concoction to make him go into a sleep to make it appear he was dead. Roman soldiers were not so that they were immuned to bribery. Surely they could have gotten something into that myrth. And what is interesting about the myrth that was offered to Jesus on the cross -- that was never a custom of crucifixions -- nothing I read. Why would the Romans do this? To prolong his life? The purpose of the crucifixion and execution is to kill him. The centurion offering this seems out of character and if he in fact did offer this, it sounds like he was bribed or asked to do so -- something quite out of the ordinary. Doesn`t it sound fishy???

Anyhow, one possible explanation for them not breaking his bones could've been a lack of time. People didn't work on the Sabbath, and Sabbath ran from sundown to sundown.

Great point, Revenant, about the Sabbath!

We see the Jews agitating for Jesus' execution. Surely they knew it would be crucifixion. All in that time period knew crucifixion could take a long time to claim its victim. That is why crucifixion was chosen as a means to execute -- to take as long as time as possible so that it would be as painful as possible.

Do you think the Jews would have agitated and demanded Jesus' execution so close to the Sabbath, knowing that it would be a desecration to God to have it possibly still be going on as the Sabbath arrived and the work that would be needed to prepare the body? Surely, they would have been disciplined enough to wait a few days, possibly Monday before demanding his execution.

To me, it sounds like the person or persons who wrote the story were not too familiar with Jewish customs. That is why I think the Jesus story was fabricated by Rome as a way to plant a virus in the Jewish religion to weaken it. If Jews were writing the story, they would have caught this error and changed the execution to Monday. But, I suspect it was Romans or some other person not familiar with Jewish customs who wrote it.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

It wasn't customary to break the bones of the dead. It was, however, to break the legs of a crucified perosn if he had been up on the cross for a while. It helped speed up the process of death and was seen as merciful. It never happened to Jesus because he appeared to be dead before that became neccessary.

Thanks, Mycernius -- that is right about the legs being broken while on the cross. However, from my past reading, I think it was customary that all legs were broken before being taken down. Perhaps I am wrong. Not sure. I could be wrong. I`ll have to look this up. Perhaps you have non-religios site reference toward this question you could guide me to. It is interesting.

 

[Mycernius]

There are problems when faced with the crucifixtion. Crucifing was a standard Roamn punishment. Julius Caesar did it to the pirates that captured him when he was a young officer. The slaves captured after Sparticus revolt were crucified along the Appian way. However Jesus did not break Roman law and should not have been crucified. He did break Jewish law, though, and their punishment was stoning. The whole crucifixtion is a collection of half truths and falsehoods and is a bit of a trail trying to muddle through it all.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

It appears that breaking of the bones was not always the case as Mycernius said. But, it was done in order to hasten death after the person was on the cross for "some time." Wasn`t Jesus up for a pretty long time? To me he was -- but that is a subjective judgement. The weather had changed for the worse and everyone seemed to be spooked at the moment. Perhaps he did appear dead like Mycernius pointed out and therefore his bones were not broken.

However, I am still wondering why the Jewish people were calling for his execution when the Sabbath was so close knowing that Jesus could possibly still be alinve when the Sabbath arrived. I don`t think they would have risked calling for his execution at that moment or would have insisted with the authorities that Jesus be held until after the Sabbath and then executed. Since Pilate ceded to the demands of the population that Jesus be put to death, surely the Jews would have been emboldened enough to ask that he cede to their wishes to have his execution carried out after the Sabbath.

The story still is suspicious with or without the breaking of bones.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

There are problems when faced with the crucifixtion. Crucifing was a standard Roamn punishment. Julius Caesar did it to the pirates that captured him when he was a young officer. The slaves captured after Sparticus revolt were crucified along the Appian way. However Jesus did not break Roman law and should not have been crucified. He did break Jewish law, though, and their punishment was stoning. The whole crucifixtion is a collection of half truths and falsehoods and is a bit of a trail trying to muddle through it all.

Another excellent point, Mycernius. Thanks for pointing that out.

Another thing is that Pilate had said he examined Jesus and came to the conclusion that this man (i.e. Jesus) had done nothing wrong -- and underscored that point by symbolically washing his hands of the situation. That definitely shows that Pilate was not going to submit Jesus to Rome`s punishment vested in Pilate`s authority and then hands him over for execution. In that case, Jesus should have been stoned like you said.

Pilate having just washed his hands of the affair would see no reason to loan out his soldiers to do to Jesus what he had just turned him over to the mob to do. The question would have to be asked, were the Roman soldiers who assisted in the Biblical crucifixion moonlighting on the side getting paid by the Jews to do this -- kind of like police officers being hired by stadiums for sporting events -- separate from the city.

Strikes me strange to think that the Romans and Jews had this system amongst themselves at that time. It just doesn`t add up.

 

[Revenant]

As one theory goes, the gospels attribute the death of Jesus to the Jews, as the Romans wouldn't have taken too kindly to a religion that faulted their people with the death of the savior.

Here's something interesting.

His (Jesus') disciples believed that he would soon return to inaugurate the Messianic Kingdom of God, and, since there was nothing heretical about such a belief, their sect was accepted as authentically Jewish by no less a person than Rabbi Gamaliel, the grandson of Hillel and one the greatest of the tanniam
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tanniam - The first generations of rabbanic scholars and legists who collated and edited the ancient code of oral Jewish Law, known as the Mishnah.

Mishnah - The code of Jewish law, collated, edited, and revised by the early Rabbis, known as the tanniam. The code, divided into six major units and sixty three minor ones, is the basis of the legal discussion and commentaries of the Talmud.

Muddled I'll agree.

 

[No-name]

It's interesting watching you guys debate the specifics of the Crucifixion, Jewish Law and traditions and Roman/Jewish administration. You have to admit the the entire discussion is not based upon logic. Now you guys are really reaching-- absolute guesswork and speculation in areas where you have no expertise or knowlege and have done no research. Now we are looking for any excuse to disprove the Bible including baseless speculation by non-experts with absolutely no knowledge of what they are discussing. It is not too convincing to me.

Herman Melville is regarded as one of the great American writers. Lets say for argument that I don't like Melville. I have seen movies involving whaling and maybe a National Geographic and Discovery channel program or two on whaling. By no means am I an expert on whaling, but I have a general idea about what it must have been like and a really good imagination and reasoning skills. I then set about to prove that Moby Dick is the worst novel ever written. I use my limited knowlege of whaling to show how Melville knew nothing of whaling and lied about his two years in the trade. I miss the entire point of the novel and dismiss the entire thing as a bogus work written by an amatuer. It would still be honest to say that I don't like Melville. It would be a sham to say I could prove he was inaccurate in his portrayal of whaling.

Hitting the bladder with a spear to the side. That's a trick. In a living person, blood would pour out anyway. Try it some day. The only way you get blood and water as described is if the person were dead for a bit and the blood had began to settle and separate.

The Roman role is well explained in the gospel accounts, as is the reason for wanting the bodies off the crosses by sunset. Normally death by crucifixion was supposed to be as long and painful as possible- it could take a day or longer for death to come, and the bodies would be left hanging until they came down on their own. The only reason these were removed was for passover. Everything else is consistant according to the general traditions and procedures that we know about. Jesus probably died more from the blood and fluid loss from the beatings than from the actual crucifixion. A simple trip to the much maligned Wikipedia site-- or a viewing of any Discovery Channel program would offer better information that you guys are tossing about here.

 

[PRIZMATIC]

P.S. :note: The logic of reasonings always rests against paradoxes of a reality. In this "labyrinth" conduct all ways of knowledge through "understanding", as our "understanding" - only a product of the information system of mentalities incorporated in us... At believers are one images, at realists - others, but all is absolutely "they" from one system - systems of our "human sort"...
Somehow I had conversation with one person, the adherent of "realism" .?` was has asked him: " That will change for him, if all his theory ("that" Jesus Christ's revival " - a fruit of imagination of "his" pupils " )appears true or on the contrary - incorrect (?...) He talked, that if him "the theory is true" he will have strong disappointment..., and if his "theory" will be incorrect he will search for " technology of this revival "... Then I have congratulated him that he too the believing person..., only him the trust is through
representations from " the anatomic atlas "... He has asked me about what I know still "measurements" of belief, except for, mentioned above, - " realists and believers " (?...) I have answered him: " there Are only only two measurements - if you know, you it become..., if is not present, you - argue on it much and speak much... And he has agreed with me. He has stopped " the disputes " with everything, and began to practise meditation. And in some years when we have casually met, he has told to me enough " the logical theory of revival of Jesus Christ ", having proved it quite in " the realistic images " () . I has only congratulated him on " These Revelations ", having reminded only that through time and his these "opening" will change more and more. But whether there will be they "true" or "are not present", knows and the God defines(determines) only. But " in soul " I was glad for him, that he got rid " of inutile vanity " and began to fill the life with a simple reality...:smoke: :blush::angel:

 

[Mars Man]

Thanks for your reply there strongvoicesforward san, and the extra input. I am enjoying the discussion that is going on here, as is. . .(I bought a used car in the States under such conditions a long time ago, and came to appreciate that term...it's humorous.

Now, you'll have to forgive my slowness, strongvoicesforward san, in the event that I have actually just totally missed something--and I do hope that you would kindly draw it to my attention, if I did--yet I can't quite put the whole concept together yet.

In your #28 you mentioned that you come to the table with the same way of looking at the Bible as Christians do--at least so it appeared to me--and I was kind of wondering if that 'view' could be harmonized with that of the Bible's not being without error against known reality outside the same group of writings?

Thanks for your insight into the translation matter, it was well taken. Of course there are many direct translations of words from the Hebrew or Greek into English, where nothing more than just translating is needed. At the same time, however, there are, as you pointed out, many places where interpretation is needed. The Greek word found at John 18:20b is a translation. Now how one wishes to interpret that is up to them, but it is a fact that it is possibly open to interpretation, and we today cannot say just how that had been seen by the author(s) of the original autograph either, so. . .

I would argue that the verbal details found in the account 'according to John' are not real history, even holding the general flow of events to be real, firstly because the authors had not been there (although they attempt to claim that the apostle John had (vss 18:15; 21:24)) and secondly because the synoptics do not agree.

 

[Sensuikan San]

Another excellent point, Mycernius. Thanks for pointing that out.
Another thing is that Pilate had said he examined Jesus and came to the conclusion that this man (i.e. Jesus) had done nothing wrong -- and underscored that point by symbolically washing his hands of the situation. That definitely shows that Pilate was not going to submit Jesus to Rome`s punishment vested in Pilate`s authority and then hands him over for execution. In that case, Jesus should have been stoned like you said.
Pilate having just washed his hands of the affair would see no reason to loan out his soldiers to do to Jesus what he had just turned him over to the mob to do. The question would have to be asked, were the Roman soldiers who assisted in the Biblical crucifixion moonlighting on the side getting paid by the Jews to do this -- kind of like police officers being hired by stadiums for sporting events -- separate from the city.
Strikes me strange to think that the Romans and Jews had this system amongst themselves at that time. It just doesn`t add up.

Absolutely correct ... but... in some respects, it doesn't seem that strange to me.

Just look at the situation from a 21st. Century point of view:

Jesus of Nazareth was (Politically) a complete pain in the butt to Rome.

Jesus of Nazareth was (Politically) a complete pain in the butt to the Jews.

Jesus of Nazareth was possibly a complete pain in the butt to several other groups vying for power at the time.

Pilate was a rather open minded Governor, of a Province whose politics were rather more complex than he had bargained for. He is sympathetic, perhaps, towards Jesus ... but he has a boss (From his point of view ... far more powerful than Washington could dream of being ...) to answer to. But he has to do something. He has to resolve his own conscience, but he also has to please .... Washington? He is also ... and more importantly ... charged with governing and keeping the peace in the Province under his jurisdiction. (Revolt = war = $$$$$$$$$$!)

What's he gonna do?

I feel that the supposition that the Roman soldiers were "moonlighting" in this instance is fairly plausible. But they must have had a Roman "wink and a nudge".

That they crucified him could have been quite acceptable to all ... it might simply have been "their way of dealing with things"; it wasn't (on paper)official (The roman POV) and he wasn't stoned (The Jewish POV). Everyone (Including those in Rome) could nudge and wink!

Rather like torture being used today in Syria, Saudi Arabia and Jordan ...... ?

I suppose it all hinges upon (as SVF alludes to ...) what Roman soldiers could or could not do when "off duty" (.....nudge, wink....!).

Let us remind ourselves that, whatever we may or may not believe, the Bible is not an official Roman Governmental document. Does anybody have access to official Roman Governmental reports of the day? (OMG - Now I sound like SVF!)

Is it strange that this sort of scenario could have existed?

No! Just look at the precarious situation that exists between the U.S., the U.N., Israel and Palestine ... today.

Who knows what goes on behind closed doors ............?

?W????

 

[No-name]

LOL-- Sounds plausible...

 

[strongvoicesforward]

It's interesting watching you guys debate the specifics of the Crucifixion, Jewish Law and traditions and Roman/Jewish administration. You have to admit the the entire discussion is not based upon logic. Now you guys are really reaching-- absolute guesswork and speculation in areas where you have no expertise or knowlege and have done no research. Now we are looking for any excuse to disprove the Bible including baseless speculation by non-experts with absolutely no knowledge of what they are discussing. It is not too convincing to me.

lol. The WHOLE Bible in its entirety is not too convincing to me.

I think it is clear we were all musing on the subject in the last several posts. Mycernius pointed out a very important aspect of stoning/crucifixion and that has been pointed out by experts. Are you one of those who think only experts' opinions are to be considered? -- again giving credence only to the observations of those with laurals?

As far as the Bible goes, anyone is capable and quite permitted to make some observations. I am not an expert in mathematics but I can confidently state 1+1=2. No one need to be an expert on ancient Rome or the Bible to come up with some possible theories and or dismiss the whole story for the RESUP it is.

Xtians would like to make it so that only "experts" on the Bible (meaning Xtian Biblicists) were regarded as only capable of interpreting the 'truth' of it because that would leave them in the stronger position to dictate the grounds of interpretation.

Herman Melville is regarded as one of the great American writers. Lets say for argument that I don't like Melville. I have seen movies involving whaling and maybe a National Geographic and Discovery channel program or two on whaling. By no means am I an expert on whaling, but I have a general idea about what it must have been like and a really good imagination and reasoning skills. I then set about to prove that Moby Dick is the worst novel ever written. I use my limited knowlege of whaling to show how Melville knew nothing of whaling and lied about his two years in the trade. I miss the entire point of the novel and dismiss the entire thing as a bogus work written by an amatuer. It would still be honest to say that I don't like Melville. It would be a sham to say I could prove he was inaccurate in his portrayal of whaling.

You may not be able to prove it conclusively because you have set up a situation where you have to prove a negative. Furthermore, you are admitting that you don`t know much about whaling and trying to graph that subjective judgement onto those who criticise the Bible. There are many who know a great deal about the Bible and their criticisms are wholly warranted to bring one to the plausible conclusion that the whole thing is most probably not the WOG.

Hitting the bladder with a spear to the side. That's a trick. In a living person, blood would pour out anyway. Try it some day. The only way you get blood and water as described is if the person were dead for a bit and the blood had began to settle and separate.

Trip...

Matt. 21:7
They brought the donkey and the colt, placed their cloaks on them, and Jesus sat on them.

That's a nice "trick." Was Jesus a rodeo star? Or wasn`t he sure which one felt better for his buttocks and dithered over which one to ride? "This one or that one? hmmmm....eeny meeny miny mo, this donkey that donkey, I just don`t know. <snicker snicker>

The only reason these [crucified bodies] were removed was for passover.

Sabro, can you reference anywhere in the Bible except for the Jesus story where Roman authorities allowed crucified bodies to be taken down before passover?

Can you reference anywhere in the Bible besides the Jesus story where Roman authorities ceded to the requests/demands of the Jews they ruled over?

Can you reference anywhere outside of the Bible in the era of Pilate`s reign where Roman authorities are shown to have ceded to the requests and demands of the Jews they ruled over?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

In your #28 you mentioned that you come to the table with the same way of looking at the Bible as Christians do

Hi Mars Man, what I meant in #28 is that I approach it skeptically from how the Xtians put it forth (i.e. as innerrant). Unless it is quite clear that a metaphore is being used, I assume it means what it says.

For example, when Jesus speaks to God (i.e. himself) requesting that this "cup" (i.e. his fate) pass from him, we know it is not a real "cup" he is speaking about. In those cases, we can clearly see he is not speaking of a cup and I am quite willing to grant poetic licenses in cases like that.

Besides that, I do not come to the BWOG as Xtians do. I come to it with intellectual honesty and the discerning eye of scrutiny and skepticism and non familial or self indoctrination. I do not close my eyes and say, well because seeing does not make me feel good, I don`t want to see. I don`t say I will go through back bending mental gymnastics to insure that I can keep faith in make believe stories that my reason tells me cannot be and that only irrational rationalizations will explain things.

 

[Revenant]

Strongvoicesforward, can you prove that the Romans never took down crucified bodies before a religious festival of importance, or can you prove that either the Roman or Pilate never ceded to the requests or demand of the people they ruled over?

I think there isn't enough info to say one way or the other, and while one may be just a little more plausible, it can't refute the other side's argument. It's all guesswork.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Who knows what goes on behind closed doors ............?

The whole post was very good and eveything you said is plausible. However, I wouldn`t say that a public execution with the method of Roman execution and Roman centurians carrying it out could be analogous to a "wink and a nudge." It is just too overt.

Another point to consider is that Romans left many records on matters of import. Why aren`t there any official Roman reports found in the archives of Roman records of that era on the execution of Jesus by those who were a part of it?

It is possible the Romans didn`t view him as important enough figure to issue any report, but, seeing that Pilate honored the wishes of a large crowd of people calling for his execution, it is hard to concede that this figure was or would have been seen as just another execution. But, I wouldn`t rule it out. I am just saying it was an unusual event and even if Pilate refused to report on it, it would be quite plausible to think another Roman official would have reported on such an unusual occurance they saw unfolding before their eyes.

Also, Pilate speaks to the Jews of honoring a custom of theirs of releasing a prisoner once a year and gives them a choice between Jesus and another. They choose the other and hence Jesus is on his way to the cross. But, where in the Original Nonhijacked Bible does it say the Jews had this custom?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Strongvoicesforward, can you prove that the Romans never took down crucified bodies before a religious festival of importance, or can you prove that either the Roman or Pilate never ceded to the requests or demand of the people they ruled over?

I think there isn't enough info to say one way or the other, and while one may be just a little more plausible, it can't refute the other side's argument. It's all guesswork.

Revenant, I am under no obligation to prove a negative. He who asserts something has the burden of proof. Xtians assert that a man was taken down from a cross before the start of the Sabbath. Therefore, they are the ones who must show that this was a common practice.

If someone asserts that little green Santa Clauses live in the center of the Earth, are we to accept that it is possible until we prove it not so? Of course not. If someone asserts something and puts it out there for us to consider it as truth, and in fact want us to accept it, then they are the ones obligated to support that claim. Until they do, then everyone is quite right and in fact should, dismiss it. Or else, the alternative would be a world in which every quack assertion is given some respect of possibility just because we haven`t proven it not to be or can`t prove it not to be.

That is why the legal system is set up for the plaintiff to prove that which he/she asserts beyond a reasonalbe doubt. The judge doesn`t say to the defendant, "prove you didn`t kill John." All intellectuals, and hopefully the common person, accept that one proves a positive -- not a negative.

 

[Revenant]

Revenant, I am under no obligation to prove a negative. He who asserts something has the burden of proof. Xtians assert that a man was taken down from a cross before the start of the Sabbath. Therefore, they are the ones who must show that this was a common practice.

Why would they even have to do that? One can dismiss it if one likes, but that still doesn't say that it didn't happen, as it very well could have. The other thing I wonder is if it was so unusual, then why would so many people have bought the story? There were Roman, Greek, and people of many other races that all lived under Roman rule, and if such an occurance was so ridiculous, I doubt that people would've bought it, and even more, that some of the intellectuals would have bought it.

 

[No-name]

Matthew 21:7- "them" refers to the cloaks. The donkey and the colt (A mother donkey and its colt) were brought, the cloaks were placed on the animals and the colt was ridden. It is a reference to Zech 9:9. The mother was kept with the colt as the colt had never been ridden and it was a way of calming the animal.

As for the bodies being brought down on the Sabbath- there is absolutely no indication that this was common practice at all. All indications are that bodies were usually left up as long as possible. But the text gives explanation for this that is not easily dismissed. There seem to be some politics between Herod, Pilate, and the Jewish religious authorities designed to keep all parties happy and prevent an uprising. Leaving the bodies up during the Passover Sabbath could have been cause for unrest. As there were no daily newspapers or surviving Roman records- we can never no for certain but common practices of the day do not give a reason to doubt the gospel authors' account.

SVF- you dug a hole: Experts obviously have put more time and "expertise" into this. You were unfamiliar with Jewish burial customs and weren't certain about the leg breaking and yet use these things to make a point about the Bible being in error. You mis-apply a pronoun that was not in the original Greek to claim some kind of "stunt rider error" when a five minute effort would lead you to an easy and rational explanation. You are digging and finding absolutely nothing. So lets speculate and use speculation as proof. And then dismiss experts who actually know something about what we are talking about. Lets misquote and use misquotation as proof. Is this debate? Is this discussion? Is this your idea of logic? This is juvenile. You have proven nothing. You don't like the Bible, don't buy one. Don't read it. But if you claim that you can prove that it is not the Word of God, you will have to bring something better than misquotation, passages taken out of context, unsubstantiated and amatuerish speculation and flat out ridicule. Strike three...you're out.

 

[No-name]

As far as proving that Christ was taken down from the cross as described... in a legal sense, we have four separate witnesses and their testimony. You are refuting the testimony. The burden of proof is now yours.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Why not ask these questions:

Why does the individual believe these things?
If their choice was a free one, we have no reason to question it, IMO.

What impact does that belief have on their life?
If the impact on their lives is positive, let them be.

What impact does their belief have on society?
If their believing it doesn't stop me believing what I like and living as I like let them be.

Christians can't 'prove' that God exists, they can't 'prove' that Jesus is the son of god, or that the Bible is the word of god, we can't 'prove' them wrong. I have good reason to believe that my vegetarian diet is good for me, I can't 'prove' it, but I chose to be a vegetarian, it makes me happy, and it doesn't hurt anyone else. Even if someone proved that I needed meat to be completely healthy, I'd choose a slight detriment to my health over eating meat. Let Christians choose to believe something they can't prove - if they can agree not to proselytise, I'll agree not to convince them of the virtues of being a vegetarian.