FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-27-2001, 10:16 AM   #11
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by big d:
Meta =&gt; No it is not odd at all. Because in the OT it says 'cursed is anyone who hangs on a tree.' That euphimism was carried over to crucificion after the Romans took over. So in the OT it applied to hanging up the body as an object lesson, and the law forbade leaving it up after sun down. The Jews were very strict about this and the law even provided for burial of convicted murderers who were exicuted having been found guilty.

BigD: If you are hanging on a tree, yes you are cursed ­duh! What, if you were hung and died and they leave you up over night you are worse off than if they took your body down before sundown? Is there a verse that says it is against the law to leave the body up after sundown? Is it a Jewish law or a Roman law? Or is that verse you quoted just misapplied? Actually, the OT says a whole bunch of people are cursed so why the big hang-up about dead bodies for such a blood thirsty people and psycho God? Hacking, maiming and killing were standard fare!</font>



Meta =&gt; Yes it was agaisnt the Moseic law to leave a dead body unburried after sundown and it would profane the holy day. So they had to get him in the ground. Being cursed doesn't just mean something bad happened it is a spiritual problem, so the whole reason for that statement deals with a violation of the law. What basis do you have for doubting that or for thinking I took it out of context? As I said it is documented by Brown, who is a major shcolar. He is not just a Josh McDowell type, he is respected among liberal thologians, he's an expert and his views are documentation.


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Lev 21:19 ³And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father; she shall be burnt with fire.² (I like mine medium rare, please)</font>

Meta =&gt; What makes you think that has any application?


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Numbers 15: 15:32
And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that had gathered sticks upon the Sabbath day. They that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. (And they did! Watch out for those Union rules!)</font>
Meta =&gt; Where does it say don't burry him by sundown?


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Numbers 25:4

And the LORD said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel. (A bloody showing of the gore wwas exactly what God wanted and enjoyed, so it seems leaving a body on a tree shouldn't be that much of a crime!)</font>
Meta -=&gt; Where does it say leave them up past sun down? "against the sun" just means with the sun shinning on them. This is must an emotive "I don't like the Bible" argument it's not relivant to the issue.


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Duet 25:11
When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets (umm, cajones):
Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.</font>
Meta =&gt; This has no relivance at all.


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Of course this isnıt mentioning all the countless slaughters the ³Lord² called upon men, women, and children (and animals!) The Peta group must be really angry at God too! (LOL).</font>

Meta -=&gt; So your idea of responding to a speicific argument is just to go "I dont' like the bible?"

Can you really worship such a sick ³god²? If so, that is very sad.


=&gt; CAn you respond to an argument with anything besides emotivism?

 
Old 01-27-2001, 02:19 PM   #12
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Metacrock:
Yes he was. That's why the sign "King of the Jews" above his head. Where does it say that the acutal charge they got him on was that of violating Moseic law? Herod asks him if he is the King of the Jews and he says "you say I am" and Herod basically says, "Ok that's it." And that is the basis of his condmenation. Just becasue Pilate sent him on to Herod in no way means that Herod didn't have the authority to exicute him as an insurrectionist.</font>
Read the entirety of the Gospel accounts. Matthew 27, Mark 15, Luke 23 AND John 18 assert the chief priests and elders decided Jesus required death. They accused him before Pilate. Jesus had, in no way, fomented rebellion or attempted the overthrow of Roman law, the Romans had no reason to even arrest him, much less put him to death. In addition, Herod says no such thing in any of the gospels, nor does Pilate; Luke quite clearly indicates Herod found him innocent, and the other three make no mention of Herod's involvement at all.
I suggest you crack open the Bible before attempting to argue about what it says, in the future.
 
Old 01-28-2001, 06:32 AM   #13
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

FYI,

Jesus was arrested because he admitted to supporting the
zealots when he ordered Lazarus to be released from the
tomb he was imprisoned in. Lazarus and Simon Magus are
one and the same. Simon Magus, Judas Iscariot, and
Theudas (Barabbas) were involved in a zealous activity
in which a Roman soldier was killed. The reason for the
crucifixion was because they had broken Roman law.
Somebody paid a ransom to free Theudas and then Judas
Iscariot was "hanged on a cross" in his place. Iscariot
had tried to buy his freedom by "squealing". Pilate did
not believe that Jesus should be executed because
his involvement was circumstantial, however, the two
chief priests who were present, Jonathan Annas and
Caiaphas, wanted Jesus put out of the way because he
was a threat to their position. In order to allow any
of these men their freedom a ransom was necessary.
Pilate knew that all three men were alive when they
were removed from the crosses and placed in the burial
cave. Pilate was later paid the ransom for Simon and
Jesus. When Pilate returned to Rome he knew that a
miracle had not occurred but he was not privy to
the Jewish propaganda. The extra hours of darkness
was an intercalation and the earthquake is always
a pseudo-title for a person.

Jesus and Simon were cared for after the crucifixion
and Iscariot was thrown over the cliff where the
cave was located and perished on the rocks below.


thanks,
offa

 
Old 01-28-2001, 06:50 AM   #14
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

offa...

I never know quite what to make of your interpretations, but I confess to being endlessly fascinated by them. In many ways, I've found, they make the stories we're familiar with make sense. But, other than my understanding that you read Josephus' Antiquities and came to understand Biblical idioms, I fail to see how you make some connections. Intrigued I am.

diana
 
Old 01-28-2001, 11:59 AM   #15
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

I've always wondered why the Romans would nail Jesus to the cross, rather than simply tieing him up, like they usually did.
 
Old 01-28-2001, 12:34 PM   #16
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Just as an aside to offa, that's an interesting and plausible sequence of events, to a degree, I am basing my statements primarily on the Biblical account because most (if not all) Christians assert it to be the most accurate.

I would note that if a man were crucified, and had somehow survived, it seems unlikely that they would be up and about ever again. Nails through the hands and feet would more than likely carry risks of tetanus and gangrene, I should think.
 
Old 01-28-2001, 01:46 PM   #17
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by daemon23:
Just as an aside to offa, that's an interesting and plausible sequence of events, to a degree, I am basing my statements primarily on the Biblical account because most (if not all) Christians assert it to be the most accurate.

I would note that if a man were crucified, and had somehow survived, it seems unlikely that they would be up and about ever again. Nails through the hands and feet would more than likely carry risks of tetanus and gangrene, I should think.
</font>
offa;

show me, anywhere in the Bible, where it says that Jesus' feet were pierced, and then I will believe!
 
Old 01-28-2001, 07:41 PM   #18
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by offa:
offa;

show me, anywhere in the Bible, where it says that Jesus' feet were pierced, and then I will believe!
</font>
Yeesh.

No sooner do we establish as historically certain that yes, Jesus was in fact buried in a tomb, now we get to argue about whether or not He died on the cross at all.

I've read your curious theory offa. What are your sources? This doesn't look much like Basilides (although you DID put Simon in the theory). It doesn't look like th Qur'an (or are you Muslim?). Is your source Abd al-Jabbar? Thiering? Schonfield? Some weird and new composite of all of the above?

Anyways, I am going to close with the thoughts of Raymond Brown again, since he put it pretty succinctly (and well) as to where he thought these bizarre theories come from:

"Despite shortcomings, the medical studies described above take seriously the unanimous Gospel witness that Jesus died on the cross. Hesitantly, but with the hope that it may be of assistance, I have decided to present a brief survey of theories that rewrite the Gospel presentations into a radically different scenario. It is an embarrassing insight into human nature that the more fantastic the scenario, the more sensational is the promotion it receives and the more intense the faddish interest it attracts. People who would never bother reading a responsible analysis of the traditions about how Jesus was crucified, died, was buried, and rose from the dead are fascinated by the report of some "new insight" to the effect that he was not crucified or did not die, especially if his subsequent career involved running off with Mary Magdalene to India. Whether sparked by a rationalism that seeks to debunk the miraculous or by the allure of the novel, often such modern imaginings reproduce ancient explanations that dismissed the death of Jesus on the cross, explaining it away through confusion or by a plot...
The survey above shows that there is not likely to be much new under the sun in such exercises of the imagination. These theories demonstrate that in relation to the passion of Jesus, despite the popular maxim, fiction is stranger than fact-and often, intentionally or not, more profitable."
(R.E. Brown, Death of the Messiah, Vol. 2., Doubleday, 1994, pg. 1092-94)


Maybe Brown was too optimistic after all.

Nomad
 
Old 01-29-2001, 06:06 AM   #19
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

. . .
Meta =&gt; What makes you think that has any application?

. . . .
Meta =&gt; Where does it say don't burry him by sundown?
. . . .

Meta -=&gt; Where does it say leave them up past sun down? "against the sun" just means with the sun shinning on them. This is must an emotive "I don't like the Bible" argument it's not relivant to the issue.
. . . .
Meta =&gt; This has no relivance at all.
. . . . .

Those verses and questions are totally relevant! Whether or not it was okay to leave the body up is not the point. The point you papermill Phud, is that a real God would not be the homicidal, psychotic, fickle god that is portayed in the Bible! There is no majesty or holiness in that mythical god you worship. He is childish and selfish and creates evil.

Meta=&gt; CAn you respond to an argument with anything besides emotivism
(To believe in the Bible God one must believe emotionally to override the foolishness of it all. Can you respond and think with a little common sense and see that you are worshipping a deranged idea of what a God would actually be? Probably not.
big d
 
Old 01-29-2001, 04:38 PM   #20
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by diana:
offa...

I never know quite what to make of your interpretations, but I confess to being endlessly fascinated by them. In many ways, I've found, they make the stories we're familiar with make sense. But, other than my understanding that you read Josephus' Antiquities and came to understand Biblical idioms, I fail to see how you make some connections. Intrigued I am.

diana
</font>
diana, I am being mischievious, here is something I wrote a few years ago ...
enjoy, (I write my own stuff, I do not have
a biblical scholar to quote)


Cockcrowing

"Hear Ye! hear ye! It is 3 a.m. !" cried the night watchman
as he came on shift. 3 hours later he would be relieved at
"Lauds" (formerly called "Mations"). The new watchman would
say, "Hear Ye! hear ye! it is 6 o'clock and the dawn is
breaking! The night watchman working the 3 o'clock hour
would be called the "cock" and his alerting the community of
the time was called "cockcrowing". The above story is a
fiction in order to enhance the reader. The words "Lauds"
and "Mations" were taken from "The Name of the Rose" by
Umberto Eco, pg xxi.

This is taken from the Gospel of Mark (13:15); "Watch
ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house
cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or
in the morning." One would assume that there would be a
watchman hollering every 3 hours, at 9p, 12a., 3a., and 6a.
with the the 3rd watchmen called the "cock". The question is,
why would the watchman call out twice? The answer is they
were doing a time adjustment we could call "Daylight Wasting
Time." Why would they do a time adjustment? Because the days
are now long enough that they can begin their rituals later
in order to have the sun in the desired position for when
the ranking priest will give his sermon.

The house of worship had 3 storeys with the priest
performing on the 2nd loft. The roof (3rd) storey had a
skylight that was opened at the exact moment the priest
would say, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" The
congregation on the ground floor would be momentarily
blinded when looking upwards towards the priest. This is why
the "angels" have halos. More from St. Mark (14:30); "And
Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this day,
even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt
deny me thrice." It appears that the priest that does the
"cockcrowing" on this date has a 6 hour shift. This is also
the reason for a large "3 hour" intercalation ... they
scheduled their routines in 3 hour increments.

How about some apocrypha from the Gospel of St. Peter?
After all, he was an eye witness! (The Lost Books of the
Bible and the Forgotten Books of Eden, ISBN 0-529-03385-2,
pg 283.) "And it was noon, and darkness came over all Judea."
The reason it was still dark, figuratively speaking, was
because the "cock crew twice!


More on St. Peter's gospel; Ibid pg. 284, "And they
drew out the nails from the hands of the Lord." St. Peter
says nothing about the Lord's feet, i.e., his feet were not
pierced and he will later walk to the Essene Gate i.e.,
(Luke 24:50) "And he led them out as far as to Bethany."

thanks,
offa

 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:20 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.