Freethought & Rationalism Archive

06-04-2006, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by one allegiance

His disciples requested a tomb, firstly. Second, why do I have to sit here and show you stuff that has already been proven...look it up for youself...here, for starters http://www.lamp.ac.uk/~noy/death5.htm

Nothing in that link says anything about Romans burying crucified people in tombs which is what I was asking evidence for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by one allegiance

Romans DID use tombs. Pontious Pilate was in a tomb...the roman governor at the time.

Did you actually read what I asked? I asked for proof that Romans put people they CRUCIFIED in tombs. Not that Romans used tombs. :banghead:

Javaman · 06-04-2006, 12:58 PM

Further, about Pilate:

Quote:

Pilate's behavior was so offensive to the morals of the time, that after complaints to the Roman legate of Syria, Pilate was recalled to Rome, where he disappears from historic record. Pilate's supposed suicide is merely a legend, and not derived from any historic account.

and

Quote:

Other details come from less respectable sources. His body, says the Mors Pilati ("Death of Pilate") was thrown first into the Tiber, but the waters were so disturbed by evil spirits that the body was taken to Vienne and sunk in the Rhône: a monument at Vienne, called Pilate's tomb, is still to be seen. As the waters of the Rhone likewise rejected Pilate's corpse, it was again removed and sunk in the lake at Lausanne. The sequence was a simple way to harmonize conflicting local traditions.

From the Wiki entry though there are links from there to the more scholarly works if you want to know more about what you wrote.

06-04-2006, 12:58 PM

Here I'll even repost my question in hopes that you won't misread it this time.

Quote:

Okay, I'll call you out. Show your proof that the Romans put the people who were crucified in tombs. The only one who is going against the Roman historians is you.

Javaman · 06-04-2006, 01:01 PM

one allegience, you're on shaky ground here. I'm thinking you might want to go do some research and then come back and post a new thread. We've derailed this one already from the OP. Pick something you know about. Preferably a single subject at a time. That will help both sides here. I promise.

Biff the unclean · 06-04-2006, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patriarch Verlch

Moses didn't see creation, but it didn't stop him from writing about it.

By all means read what he wrote about it. Have you ever seen a bigger set of lies? The sky is a firmament, a solid dome? There is an ocean in the sky? What idiot wrote Genesis? What modern person can read it without laughing?

one allegiance · 06-04-2006, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Piking Viking

Here I'll even repost my question in hopes that you won't misread it this time.

Are you done..? Ok now that you are done acting like a child. If romans did use tombs, why wouldn't they put people who died in them? What, were they going to leave the people who were crucified up there? I don't understand why being crucified would be any different. They died, and when they died they were put in tombs...Jesus requested a tomb before even been put to death

As for the rest in this thread, I'm only going to respond to those who KNOW that Jesus was a real person, b/c no historian denies that. That isn't the debate here.

Javaman, I was responding to your post about the gospels, but I saw this and had to respond. i will respond to everyone of those gospel questions..b/c everyone has an answer. It will take a while thought b/c i have to start over.

one allegiance · 06-04-2006, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Javaman

one allegience, you're on shaky ground here. I'm thinking you might want to go do some research and then come back and post a new thread. We've derailed this one already from the OP. Pick something you know about. Preferably a single subject at a time. That will help both sides here. I promise.

I'm not on shaky ground at all..don't flatter yourself. I have an answer for all of those SUPPOSEDLY contradictory questions that you posted. And I've answered ever other question..I'm not going to run and hide like some other Christians might.

06-04-2006, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by one allegiance

What, were they going to leave the people who were crucified up there?

Yes that's exactly what they did. That's the whole point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by one allegiance

I don't understand why being crucified would be any different. They died, and when they died they were put in tombs...Jesus requested a tomb before even been put to death

No they weren't. :banghead: And if Jesus requested a tomb there must be some Roman document that would back this up right? Care to cite it?

Biff the unclean · 06-04-2006, 01:09 PM

OA, the ONLY reason the Romans went to the expense of a crucifixion was so that the body of the crucified would hang there and rot for weeks until it fell to bits and the rats and dogs ate it. This was as a warning to potential law breakers.
Otherwise the just stabbed people. No muss, no fuss, quick and cheap.
They NEVER put crucified people in tombs because there was nothing left to put in the tomb. They NEVER went to all the trouble to hang someone on a cross and then change their minds and take him down.

one allegiance · 06-04-2006, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Piking Viking

Yes that's exactly what they did. That's the whole point.

No they weren't. :banghead: And if Jesus requested a tomb there must be some Roman document that would back this up right? Care to cite it?

Nope. You can do that yourself.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-04-2006, 01:01 PM	#34
Javaman Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Nebraska Posts: 1,708	one allegience, you're on shaky ground here. I'm thinking you might want to go do some research and then come back and post a new thread. We've derailed this one already from the OP. Pick something you know about. Preferably a single subject at a time. That will help both sides here. I promise.

06-04-2006, 01:09 PM	#39
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	OA, the ONLY reason the Romans went to the expense of a crucifixion was so that the body of the crucified would hang there and rot for weeks until it fell to bits and the rats and dogs ate it. This was as a warning to potential law breakers. Otherwise the just stabbed people. No muss, no fuss, quick and cheap. They NEVER put crucified people in tombs because there was nothing left to put in the tomb. They NEVER went to all the trouble to hang someone on a cross and then change their minds and take him down.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.