Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jeffrey Gibson · 03-10-2008, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

If this silliness is derived from Carrier I'd give him an E for effort.

What grade would you give him for his claims about ari and matheia?

Jeffrey

MarkA · 03-10-2008, 07:26 PM

My understanding is that since Jesus, according to the stories in the gospels, was executed as a criminal then his body should have been thrown into a pit that was used as a mass grave. Wild animals, particularly dogs, would then devour the human remains thrown into this pit. To avoid this, what must have been to contemporaries a well-known fate, the character of Pilate was manipulated in the myth to portray a weak man hesitant to convict Jesus and open to bribery.

From the account of Pilate in Josephus, a completely different character emerges. This only near contemporary account that mentions Pilate shows a dedicated and efficient, albeit ruthless, individual who would not hesitate to execute anybody who defied Roman authority. While this does not mean Pilate would be immune from bribery, it does imply that he would be hesitant, if not resistant, to any accommodation to the self-interest of terrorists against the Roman State. This is shown by his willingness to try and accommodate the genuine religious concerns of the Jews about graven images in the interests of preserving the Roman Peace in Judea, while at the same time his unhesitating use of force against real troublemakers.

For Pilate to not only accede to the request from troublemakers to remove from the cross and entomb the body of an executed agitator but to also set guards over the tomb makes no sense. Even if we assume that Pilate accepted the bribe and then bothered to go through with the bargain, why would he then set guards over the tomb? Why would he care what happened to the corpse? If it formed part of the bribe conditions why would those who paid it want the body guarded by Romans of all people? Despite the fact these would be Auxiliaries they would probably not be Jews since Rome tended to use soldiers from outside the provinces they were stationed in, for good reason. From whom would they want the body guarded anyway?

The whole plot of this story is clearly set in a retrospective view designed to provide a prequel to the subsequent development of the myth.

stuart shepherd · 03-10-2008, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkA

My understanding is that since Jesus, according to the stories in the gospels, was executed as a criminal then his body should have been thrown into a pit that was used as a mass grave. Wild animals, particularly dogs, would then devour the human remains thrown into this pit. To avoid this, what must have been to contemporaries a well-known fate, the character of Pilate was manipulated in the myth to portray a weak man hesitant to convict Jesus and open to bribery.

From the account of Pilate in Josephus, a completely different character emerges. This only near contemporary account that mentions Pilate shows a dedicated and efficient, albeit ruthless, individual who would not hesitate to execute anybody who defied Roman authority. While this does not mean Pilate would be immune from bribery, it does imply that he would be hesitant, if not resistant, to any accommodation to the self-interest of terrorists against the Roman State. This is shown by his willingness to try and accommodate the genuine religious concerns of the Jews about graven images in the interests of preserving the Roman Peace in Judea, while at the same time his unhesitating use of force against real troublemakers.

For Pilate to not only accede to the request from troublemakers to remove from the cross and entomb the body of an executed agitator but to also set guards over the tomb makes no sense. Even if we assume that Pilate accepted the bribe and then bothered to go through with the bargain, why would he then set guards over the tomb? Why would he care what happened to the corpse? If it formed part of the bribe conditions why would those who paid it want the body guarded by Romans of all people? Despite the fact these would be Auxiliaries they would probably not be Jews since Rome tended to use soldiers from outside the provinces they were stationed in, for good reason. From whom would they want the body guarded anyway?

The whole plot of this story is clearly set in a retrospective view designed to provide a prequel to the subsequent development of the myth.

Dear Mark A,
I like your observations.
I think that Jesus' body was tossed into the common grave for criminals by the Jewish rulers.

Quote:

Acts 13:27-29 (King James Version)
27For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him.

28And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain.

29And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.[Why not translate it as grave?]

My interpretation of this passage from Acts is that the Jewish Rulers asked for Jesus' death, he was stoned, hanged on a tree, and then his corpse was buried in a common criminal's grave in accordance with the Torah.

Quote:

Deuteronomy 21:21-23 (King James Version)
21And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

22And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree:

23His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God; ) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

The crucifiction is an invention of fiction as well as the empty tomb and the resurrection in my opinion.

Stuart Shepherd

spin · 03-10-2008, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

If this silliness is derived from Carrier I'd give him an E for effort.

What grade would you give him for his claims about ari and matheia?

E's pretty bad, but at least "ari[stos] mathe[tes]", as per the Carrier speculation, made a certain sense philologically: "ari" and "matheia" don't. Whoever tried to purvey that would get the next grade down, F.

spin

Ted Hoffman · 03-10-2008, 11:47 PM

I hope the mods have notified Carrier about the two charges against his arguments here. I am looking forward to his response.

ThinkingMan · 03-10-2008, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Granted a choice between an old shriveled up foreskin and a sliver of the true cross... give me the sliver every time.

Ben.

Don't be such a baby. Think of the cloning potential!

You can't clone Jesus. He gets his Y chromosome from the holy spirit. Good luck cloning spirit DNA. :Cheeky:

stuart shepherd · 03-11-2008, 10:19 AM

There appears to be a contradiction concerning Joseph of Arimathaea.

Look........

Quote:

Mark 14:53,55,64 KJV
53And they led Jesus away to the high priest: and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes.
55And the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found none.
64Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.

From the Gospel according to Mark, ALL the council, [the Sanhedrin] condemned Jesus to death.
Since Joseph of Arimathaea was present in Jerusalem, wouldn't he be included as the unanimous vote of ""all the council "" who condemned Jesus to death?

Yet the Gospel according to Luke contradicts the Gospel according to Mark.

Quote:

Luke 23:50-52 KJV
50And, behold, there was a man named Joseph, a counsellor; and he was a good man, and a just:
51(The same had not consented to the counsel and deed of them

he was of Arimathaea, a city of the Jews: who also himself waited for the kingdom of God.
52This man went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus.

See the contradiction? Mark says the vote to condemn Jesus was unanimous, and Luke says that Joseph of Arimathaea did not consent.

IMO contradictions reveal fiction.

Stuart Shepherd

Johnny Skeptic · 03-11-2008, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stuart shepherd

There appears to be a contradiction concerning Joseph of Arimathaea.

Look........

Mark 14:53,55,64 KJV

53 And they led Jesus away to the high priest: and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes.

55 And the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found none.

64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.

From the Gospel according to Mark, ALL the council, [the Sanhedrin] condemned Jesus to death.

Since Joseph of Arimathaea was present in Jerusalem, wouldn't he be included as the unanimous vote of "all the council " who condemned Jesus to death?

Yet the Gospel according to Luke contradicts the Gospel according to Mark.

Luke 23:50-52 KJV

50 And, behold, there was a man named Joseph, a counsellor; and he was a good man, and a just:

51 (The same had not consented to the counsel and deed of them

he was of Arimathaea, a city of the Jews: who also himself waited for the kingdom of God.

52 This man went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus.

See the contradiction? Mark says the vote to condemn Jesus was unanimous, and Luke says that Joseph of Arimathaea did not consent.

IMO contradictions reveal fiction.

Maybe the vote was unanimious for all who were present, and Joseph was not present.

John Kesler · 03-11-2008, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stuart shepherd

See the contradiction? Mark says the vote to condemn Jesus was unanimous, and Luke says that Joseph of Arimathaea did not consent.

This issue is discussed by John Dominic Crossan in The Birth of Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk). As Crossan notes, Matthew and Luke both see Mark's inconsistency and deal with it differently. Matthew eliminates the council reference altogether and just makes Joseph a wealthy follower of Jesus (Matthew 27:57). Luke keeps Joseph in the council and refrains from identifying him as a follower of Jesus, but specifies that although he was part of the council, he did not consent to its proceedings (as you quote above). Read the Google Books excerpt (pp. 554-555 deal with difficulties in the Joseph of Arimathea story) here.

stuart shepherd · 03-11-2008, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by stuart shepherd

There appears to be a contradiction concerning Joseph of Arimathaea.

Look........

Mark 14:53,55,64 KJV

53 And they led Jesus away to the high priest: and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes.

55 And the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found none.

64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.

From the Gospel according to Mark, ALL the council, [the Sanhedrin] condemned Jesus to death.

Since Joseph of Arimathaea was present in Jerusalem, wouldn't he be included as the unanimous vote of "all the council " who condemned Jesus to death?

Yet the Gospel according to Luke contradicts the Gospel according to Mark.

Luke 23:50-52 KJV

50 And, behold, there was a man named Joseph, a counsellor; and he was a good man, and a just:

51 (The same had not consented to the counsel and deed of them

he was of Arimathaea, a city of the Jews: who also himself waited for the kingdom of God.

52 This man went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus.

See the contradiction? Mark says the vote to condemn Jesus was unanimous, and Luke says that Joseph of Arimathaea did not consent.

IMO contradictions reveal fiction.

Quote:

Johnny Skeptic wrote.....
Maybe the vote was unanimious for all who were present, and Joseph was not present

Dear Johnny Skeptic,
Good point!
Perhaps "all" means all who were present, and Joseph was not present, as you wrote. When I read "all the council ", in Mark's Gospel, I understood it to be literal.....all the council. But I understand your point.

If Joseph of Arimathaea was not present he missed an opportunity to defend Jesus since he was a disciple of Jesus.[Matthew 27:57]

Since Passover was one of the Jewish holidays that all the men were supposed to attend in Jerusalem, I would have expected that Joseph would have been present since he was a prominent member of the council.
In fact, since "all" were expected to be in Jerusalem for Passover, I would assume that "all the council"would be at the meeting of the council to condemn Jesus. But it's hard to find truth when dealing with fiction.

Stuart Shepherd

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

03-10-2008, 07:26 PM	#72
MarkA Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 89	My understanding is that since Jesus, according to the stories in the gospels, was executed as a criminal then his body should have been thrown into a pit that was used as a mass grave. Wild animals, particularly dogs, would then devour the human remains thrown into this pit. To avoid this, what must have been to contemporaries a well-known fate, the character of Pilate was manipulated in the myth to portray a weak man hesitant to convict Jesus and open to bribery. From the account of Pilate in Josephus, a completely different character emerges. This only near contemporary account that mentions Pilate shows a dedicated and efficient, albeit ruthless, individual who would not hesitate to execute anybody who defied Roman authority. While this does not mean Pilate would be immune from bribery, it does imply that he would be hesitant, if not resistant, to any accommodation to the self-interest of terrorists against the Roman State. This is shown by his willingness to try and accommodate the genuine religious concerns of the Jews about graven images in the interests of preserving the Roman Peace in Judea, while at the same time his unhesitating use of force against real troublemakers. For Pilate to not only accede to the request from troublemakers to remove from the cross and entomb the body of an executed agitator but to also set guards over the tomb makes no sense. Even if we assume that Pilate accepted the bribe and then bothered to go through with the bargain, why would he then set guards over the tomb? Why would he care what happened to the corpse? If it formed part of the bribe conditions why would those who paid it want the body guarded by Romans of all people? Despite the fact these would be Auxiliaries they would probably not be Jews since Rome tended to use soldiers from outside the provinces they were stationed in, for good reason. From whom would they want the body guarded anyway? The whole plot of this story is clearly set in a retrospective view designed to provide a prequel to the subsequent development of the myth.

03-10-2008, 11:47 PM	#75
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	I hope the mods have notified Carrier about the two charges against his arguments here. I am looking forward to his response.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.