without using the Gospels as a source in fear of it immediately being discarded, lets talk about peripheral provinces in the Roman Empire
Roman officials were told to do very little to seriously interrupt the daily lives of people, and respect local traditions to the extent that Roman Law allowed. So to say, the Romans did little to subjugate the population or force their culture or language, but rather just keep things peaceful, collect tax, and defend the region.
From what is known of Pontius Pilatus, his orders were to keep order in the province of Judea, and the Jewish demands to kill Jesus for his supposed crimes created a mob that threatened to escalate into full riots.
It's not unbelievable to say that Pilatus ordered his Crucifixion as an attempt to restore order at the price of just one unpopular man as collateral, rather than sparing him and have hundreds die in an uprising/military quelling.
If that was the case, Pilatus managed to hold the peace for about 40 years with that decision, until the uprising against Rome in 66ACE.
From what I've known over my studies of theology and history, Pilatus more than likely didn't believe Jesus was any kind of criminal, but ordered it anyway due to popular demand.
>>524276 The Sanhedrin (council of Jewish religious leaders) threatened to start another Jewish revolt against Roman governance if Pilate didn't sentence him to death; Pilate didn't think Jesus was guilty of anything under Roman law, much less a capital offense, but acquiesced for the good of the empire and literally washed his hands of the entire affair.
>>524437 >Pilate sinned If you're gonna follow the bible, he tried two or three times (Luke adds a thrid one) to save him. Christ never tried anything, before then he was part of the community and could had made a case in his defense and chose not to. Pilatus did nothing wrong.
>>524276 >So when Pilate saw that he could do nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took some water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this man’s blood; see to it yourselves.” >It Ain't Me starts playing
>>525086 >Christ had no reason to defend himself because He did nothing wrong. neither did he when they were pestering him about healing people on staruday nights but he argumented that time. he wasn't all like "well, you said that, but I don't think so, m8"
>>525135 That's a good question and I think it has more to do with not being the "trigger man" who actually kills God so to speak. What I mean is killing Christ is a like a game of hot-potato; He's gonna have to die you just don't wanna be the one who has to do it. If Pilate had spared Christ, the Pharisees would have found some other way to kill Him.
Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!
>>525156 Also, if he still bleeds in the cross then crucifixion didn't killhim until some dude went and poked him in the ribs. And even then, I mean, he came back hours after being out of the cross. In the four books it sounds more likely that he was still alive (through divine powers) than comming back.
>>525181 And after he stopped talking a day passes, a guard stabs him and he's still living (or divinely bleeding for unrelated purposes). There aren't even 24 hours between the last time he speaks and the revival, and he died of exposure which isn't exactly instant (nor lets you speak after a while, but I'm open to divine moist throat). I'm just saying, there's nothing that really cements his dead besides people telling you they saw him die.
From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. - Matthew 16:21
>>525200 >About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.
Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3, 3
>>525204 he doesn't have to literary fie to fulfill his contract, it's not as if he was being 100% literal most of the time, right? if he socially died, died as a lider, that would be a kind of dead. Again, I understand there's an official interpretation and that in the end it's a matter of faith. I don't inteded to destroy the vatican or anything, it's just that when I read the ghospels it jumped from very clear descriptions to pretty vague things where you have to take their word for it at a level that wasn't like that before. It's like Jesus coming back and telling the guys he's back for a while, before that he was doing miracles but when he has to prove himself he just presents evidence that anyone could present. It's a bit inconsistent from a non christian perspective.
>>525237 Christ had to literally die so He could demonstrate His mastery over life and death. Christ's resurrection is the lynchpin for validating His claims of divinity; there were many miracle workers in ancient Palestine but only Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead.
>>525249 but why did he come back looking like two different people, both of around his age, and didn't perform any miracles like the piece of shit show off we all love? I mean, really? It's cool to waist food because there will always be poor people but when your friend dies you give us infinite food? That's some corleone stuff right there.
>>525274 yeah, my language got really out of hand there. I mean >waist really? I suck.
I sincerely want to understand the part about looking like other people. When I read that at some point I expected them to consider that maybe it was just a friend trying to make them feel good but they never push it too much.
What about the son of god being judas and killing jesus as a self-sacrifice.
>God, argues Nils Runeberg, lowered himself to be a man for the redemption of the human race; it is reasonable to assume that the sacrifice offered by him was perfect, not invalidated or attenuated by any omission. To limit all that happened to the agony of one afternoon on the cross is blasphemous. To affirm that he was a man and that he was incapable of sin contains a contradiction; the attributes of impeccabilitas and of humanitas are not compatible. Kemnitz admits that the Redeemer could feel fatigue, cold, confusion, hunger and thirst; it is reasonable to admit that he could also sin and be damned. The famous text "He will sprout like a root in a dry soil; there is not good mien to him, nor beauty; despised of men and the least of them; a man of sorrow, and experienced in heartbreaks" (Isaiah 53:2-3) is for many people a forecast of the Crucified in the hour of his death; for some (as for instance, Hans Lassen Martensen), it is a refutation of the beauty which the vulgar consensus attributes to Christ; for Runeberg, it is a precise prophecy, not of one moment, but of all the atrocious future, in time and eternity, of the Word made flesh. God became a man completely, a man to the point of infamy, a man to the point of being reprehensible - all the way to the abyss. In order to save us, He could have chosen any of the destinies which together weave the uncertain web of history; He could have been Alexander, or Pythagoras, or Rurik, or Jesus; He chose an infamous destiny: He was Judas.
>>525304 >A view that has been prominent among American scholars was summarized in John Meier's 1991 book, A Marginal Jew.
>This opinion held that the paragraph was formed by a mixture of writers. It parsed the text into two categories: nything that seemed too Christian was added by a later Christian writer, while anything else was originally written by Josephus.
>By this view, the paragraph was taken as essentially authentic, and so supported the objective historicity of Jesus.
>For the first time, it has become possible to prove that the Jesus account cannot have been a complete forgery
Oy vey, did ya even read the link before posting it ya putz?
>>525332 Another thing I didn't get from the ghospels is where the fuck was judas all the time. They go on camping trips, and mourn their friends, and teach, and clean. Judas is mentioned in the list of close followers and only comes back for the last supper. Even Simon the whatever has more screen time.
And what's the deal John and the constant mention of his beloved disciple. I assumed it was some faggy way of reffering to himself but in the last supper they have a completely different scene. What was the deal with that?
>>525337 that's a bit mary sueish. i never said he wasn't divine, just like he was weak to slaps on the back and got double stab damage. stats easy to improve.
>>525376 >This is very unlikely. Elsewhere Josephus does mention other self-proclaimed messiahs of the time, such as Judas of Galilee and Theudas the magician I was going to ask about this deal of Judas saying he was the messiah (and I want to hear it if you have something about it), but I really want to know more about this "Theudas the magician". He soudns cmapy as fuck.
>1 If, in the land that the Lord your God is giving you to possess, a body is found lying in open country, and it is not known who struck the person down, 2 then your elders and your judges shall come out to measure the distances to the towns that are near the body. 3 The elders of the town nearest the body shall take a heifer that has never been worked, one that has not pulled in the yoke; 4 the elders of that town shall bring the heifer down to a wadi with running water, which is neither plowed nor sown, and shall break the heifer’s neck there in the wadi. 5 Then the priests, the sons of Levi, shall come forward, for the Lord your God has chosen them to minister to him and to pronounce blessings in the name of the Lord, and by their decision all cases of dispute and assault shall be settled. 6 All the elders of that town nearest the body shall wash their hands over the heifer whose neck was broken in the wadi, 7 and they shall declare: “Our hands did not shed this blood, nor were we witnesses to it. 8 Absolve, O Lord, your people Israel, whom you redeemed; do not let the guilt of innocent blood remain in the midst of your people Israel.” Then they will be absolved of bloodguilt.
So you have a Roman official performing a ritual which is supposed to prevent calamity coming to Israel, and implying that Jesus' execution is no better than murder.
>>524396 >the jewish priesthood were more powerful than jesus, so he sided with them
Why would an officer of the fucking Roman government give a shit about the opinions of some obscure priesthood. The Jews were living under Roman law. How could they have any power of Pilate. If he even thought they were plotting something he could have had them arrested and put on trial just like Jesus.
>>525400 but how do we know that that wasn't a tradition in other cultures? if we have stuff like gods with three faces and musical instruments being identical in different continents, two cultures next to each other might share the pretty normal idea that cleaning your hands of dirt cleans them of guilt.
Sure but it is the content that is the important thing, why didn't Origen use the Testomoninum Flavius against Celcus despite quoting heavily from Josephus if the poassage even existed in Origen's day?
Why would a Jew that hated false messiah's lavish praise on Jesus?
>>525421 The point is that the Testimonium records that Jesus was condemned by Pilate. I can concede that the language about Jesus being the Christ may have been added later but Josephus is entirely valid to demonstrate Christ's historicity.
>>525440 The evidence supports the fundamental authenticity of the Testimonium; the controversy surrounds the segments of pro-Christian language. The neutral elements i.e. that there was a preacher named Jesus who was killed by the Roman prelate Pilate and whose followers believed rose from the dead.
The main scholars still writing about is are Christians scholars desperate to try and salvage it. In truth it was destroyed as a source centuries ago and no one can make a credible argument it is genuine.
>>525811 >Aquinas and Clement aren't necessarily wrong about usury, just about linking it explicitly to Jews. Not really, when you consider that Jewish law says that money is to be lent for free to other Jews but gentiles may be charged interest. And furthermore the Jewish community wasn't exactly forced into finance en masse at gunpoint - as second-class citizens they chose to do all kinds of shit work rather than convert but they went into finance in the first place because they had no religious or social scruples about making money in a way that Christians (and Romans, Muslims and pretty much everyone else) reviled to such an extent that it was considered sinful, immoral and/or even criminal. Jews made their bed as far as stereotypes are concerned; they chose to make money and be hated even more than they would be otherwise rather than be poor but more tolerated.
>>525196 You do know that sometimes they would stone the victim or keep stabbing him until he died too right? http://www.history.com/shows/modern-marvels/videos/early-execution?cmpid=mrss_int_taboola_video_his >inb4 Alien channel lol It's a decent mini doc
>>525414 The entire population was raised from infancy into the religion and the priesthood wielded a lot of influence.
>If he even thought they were plotting something he could have had them arrested and put on trial just like Jesus. They were unlikely to revolt over this alone, but lots of little things like this can add up and they could disobey the Romans in other less visible ways like ignoring laws and evading taxes. It cost Pilate nothing to accept.
>>525419 It stands to reason, also, that Pilate would have used a Jewish tradition when speaking to his Jewish subordinates. The Romans were not in the habit of disrespecting other cultures, traditions and religions within their borders.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.