sotto voce

Jesus terrorised, and terrorises, certainly. He made the terrorists of Jerusalem stone Stephen, and leave Paul for dead. He made wealthy Romans, those egregious terrorists, who lived off the forced labour of millions, so scared they pulled down their temples and erect new ones with his name on. He forced the panicked 'baptisms' of millions, usually as infants, over many centuries.

Today he forces 'scholars' to devise amusingly nonsensical ideas to discount him. Admittedly, they are not terrorists, personally.

There is a close, if not perfect correlation between false theology and coercive acts. There is nothing so scary as innocence, to the reprobate.

mrsonic

so according to sotto voice, pilate did not think jesus was an innocent lamb who was led to his slaughter. jesus was a criminal who was destroyed by a pagan roman.

sotto voce

Really? Can we see a quote of this sotto voice?

James Brown

Oddities of the crucifixion.

1. The Jews aren't allowed to kill Jesus without inducing the Romans' permission, but they killed John the Baptist with no trouble.

2. The Romans are "Merchants of Death" yet keenly sensitive to Jewish sensibilities regarding festivals, how long bodies can be hung on crosses, etc.

3. If the Romans agreed that Jesus ought to be dead by sundown, they would have impaled him with a spear. Instead, they hang him on a cross and label his crime, to serve as an example to others. To prolong the ordeal, they offer liquids to Jesus to slake thirst.

4. Then they decide he needs to be dead quickly, because the sun is about to go down, which would make some Jews upset. So they go to break his legs so that he'll die quickly. But they don't do so, because he's already dead. So then they stab him to make sure he was dead.

5. So it turns out that the Romans did indeed impale Jesus with a spear, but they had to go through the long complicated crucifixion process to do so, instead of doing it the simple way. Makes no sense.

ApostateAbe

1. Herod, as a puppet king for Rome, had a jurisdiction different from Pontius Pilate. Herod had the northern region (Galilee), and Pontius Pilate had Jerusalem.

2. A Jewish insurrection was most certainly not in the interests of Rome. Jews were given unusual leeway relative to other conquered nations due to their nationalistic zealotry. Josephus described an incident where Pilate actually relented to non-violent Jewish protesters who objected to ensigns of Caesar, which the Jews saw as idolatrous. Pilate was violent, but it was a means to the end of controlling the Jewish community.

3, 4 and 5. Crucifixion was a means to deter threats to the Roman state. They were as violent as they needed to be within political limits. What doesn't make sense?

ApostateAbe

Point #4 I think is a good one. They don't break his legs because they think he is dead and they spear him to make sure he is dead? I think that has a lot to do with the gospel of John's model of Jesus as a passover lamb. The law required that the bones of a sacrificed lamb be left unbroken.

sotto voce

That's not in the text.

James Brown

John 19

sotto voce

Does this add to the discussion?

mrsonic

they pierced jesus and forgot about what they claimed in mark and matthews account, "truly this was the son of god"
john had to spear jesus because the first 2 accounts don't completely kill off jesus, even pilate suspects that jesus has died.