mountainman

Constantine's scriptwriters.

Fourth century production.
Still filling basilicas near you.

Who was big enough to kill god?
(And get away with it !!!)
Big Connie. Yeah Boss!!
Amen Boss!!
Holy Holy.

It was and is a literature racket.
Constantine's Bible and its reruns.


"Render under Caesar what is Caesar's,
and ....... , errr, ummmm, eerrrrrr
.... dont worry about the rest"


Fraudulent misrepresentation of
the ancient history of antiquity.



Pete

Julian

spin already pinned it down, sort of. A real god would never need the elaborate machinations and the silly theatrics. Only a human writer would, especially if he was dressing up the untimely death of a local cult leader. A god needs nothing, if he did he wouldn't be a god. Why isn't this obvious to all?

Julian

judge

I agree that god needs nothing, but I'm not sure what this has to do with the question posed in this thread though.

I am not aware of anything in the gospels that indicates god needed anything, particularly the death of Jesus.


What Spin actually did was introduce a strawman. He conjures up the notion that god needs something, implying that somehow this is spelt out in the gospels. I don't believe this comes from an analysis of the gospels themselves.

It is a reaction against fundamentalism, or one interpretation of the gospels.

There just doesn't seem much point, to me, in examining the bible or the gospels, if one continually assumes the the priority of fundamentalism.

Why would freethinkers insist (implicitly) that fundamentalists get things right, and then react against fundamentalist rubbish in order to understand these texts?

dog-on

Mark (or the author known as Mark...)

djrafikie

I thought the bible was pretty clear on this one. Christians are responsible for his death, so they could be forgiven. All of the incidental drama of who caused what seems to be by the by, as it was (apparently) supposed to happen anyway, which pretty much absolves them all of any guilt.

But thats just simple minded little 'ole me.

By the way, as the bible says he died, and we have little proof to the absolute suggesting the guy even existed, I could really ONLY argue this from the point of view of scriptural content.

Tao of Pooh

J.R. did it




Many a man's reputation would not know his character if they met on the street.

Doug Shaver

The answer to your question, as you have stated it, is "the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem."

VoxRat

It's sort of interesting...
In the modern "common wisdom" Pilate is generally seen as a despicable sort. But all 4 of the gospels seem to try to exculpate him. In all 4, he says something to the effect of "I can't see what this guy is supposed to be guilty of. What's the big deal?" ... and only bows, reluctantly, to popular will.

I guess it's the whole "hand-washing" scene, where Pilate abdicates the courage of his convictions and caves in to mob rule that christians hold against him. But then, it's hard to win that game. Opposing local law, customs and self-rule would make him guilty of arrogant Roman imperialism.

All in all, it seems like the Evangelists' take on Pilate was that he "wasn't such a bad guy, once you got to know him."

And - somewhat tangential - what's up with Mrs. Pilate's dream? Presumably this kind of dream was supposed to be of supernatural origin, right? I.e. God must have been speaking to her, right? Why was God trying to defeat his own plan to get himself martyred? What was He playing at?

OneInFundieville

Heretic and traitor...

Himself?