Chaucer

I see. So now we have the old "It was only the Jews" hate speech popping up here --

FACT: CRUCIFIXION WAS A R-O-M-A-N PUNISHMENT.

Let me guess: You only read the John Gospel, right?

Disgusted,

Chaucer

rhutchin

Yes, crucifixion was a Roman punishment. As John explains:

John 18
29 Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man?
30 They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.
31 Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death:

Luke says;

Luke 23
22 And [Pilate] said unto them the third time, Why, what evil hath [Jesus] done? I have found no cause of death in him: I will therefore chastise him, and let him go.
23 And they were instant with loud voices, requiring that he might be crucified. And the voices of them and of the chief priests prevailed.
24 And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required.

Jesus was insignificant to the Romans. What Pilate ordered was nothing more than a sop to the Jews (priests) as he had no interest in Jesus or what He might have done to irritate the Jews. No hate speech; just recounting what the Bible says.

Chaucer

You are aware that GMark puts a very different emphasis here. There, the Quislings among the priests may be in on it, but the Roman authorities are hardly innocent -- and to imply as you have in your previous that the Romans would have actually helped to foster a greater degree of liberty than would the Quisling priests on their own(!!!!!!!) is utterly sickening and right out of the mental world of Mein Kampf.

GJohn is bred out of an intensity of sheer internecine hate among different Jewish factions that does not parallel Mark, the earliest and least unreliable account we have. If you are fastening on to John as somehow superseding Mark -- well, John's chief characteristic is its fanatically exculpatory attitude toward the Romans and corresponding demonization of 99.99% of the Jews. That poisonous attitude is nowhere reflected in the earliest textual traditions at all. So placing John over Mark(!!) IS the sign of a blatant anti-Semite -- SIEG HEIL!

Answer me this: Where is it implied IN GMARK that the atmospherics would actually have been freer(!!!!) had the Romans been entirely in charge? That's what you implied in your previous. Back that up, or admit it's your own hyperbole thanks to your anti-Semitism.

More disgusted than ever,

Chaucer

storytime

WOW you sound like a real religious fanatic. Anyone ever call you an anti-Christ or are you simply accustomed to throwing shit but never reading about the 99% of "the anti-humanity Jews" in the bible.

Just digusting! Now, go raise some more hell. I'm thoroughly enjoying your inept defense.

Oh, and don't forget Hitler in your slinging snot. :lol:

rhutchin

Perhaps you can expand on this and tell us what you think it is that GMark says that is relevant to your comments.

As to the peace brought about by Roman rule, I was referring to the Pax Romana.

Chaucer

Actually, the key question is, What is there in Mark that supports rhutchin's ludicrous statement that "We might attribute the presence of the Roman authorities to the freedom Jesus exercised as, without Rome, the priests would likely have acted (or tried to) earlier than they did." He opened this whole question here first by submitting this ludicrous remark in the first place. And he's yet to show anything that supports that remark outside of citing dependent Gospel lit. like John, etc.! Totally useless. Any remark that implies that Rome brought greater freedom to Jewish Palestine(!!) is so ludicrous as to be offensive, unless it's backed up with an argument based on secular sources outside the tradition or strictly primary sources within it.

Where is there anything in GMark -- or in Josephus or in the 7 authentic Pauline letters or in GThomas or in any other secular Roman chronicles of the time, which are all a bit less unreliable than the canonical Gospels outside of GMark -- that can support this ludicrous statement? I'd like to see any rigorous professional historian of today who has steeped himself in the original Roman chronicles and in the latest peer-reviewed research go on to claim with a straight face that Rome actually brought greater freedom to Jewish Palestine than it would have had as a completely independent state!!

That shows the kind of kneejerk complacent unquestioning hatred of Jews commonly associated with Aryan Nation psychos. It shows a brand of brainwashing that is typical of Holocaust deniers. To associate oneself in any way with any point of view that is not totally nauseated by this complacent hate-filled remark obligates one to show just how such a ludicrous remark could possibly be true.

I want to hear a researched historically based argument for Rome having actually brought a degree of greater freedom to Jewish Palestine than it would have otherwise had(!), before I will withdraw one bit from my view of rhutchins' remark as being every bit as anti-Semitic as anything in Mein Kampf.

Chaucer

Chaucer

Right, and Mussolini made the trains run on time ......... So? How did any of this make people relatively freer? It made them no freer than the Imperial Romans made Jewish Palestine "free", contrary to what rhutchins implies.

Any remark that the Jewish authorities at the time of Jesus were even more repressive than the Romans(!) rather than equally so, at worst (as is implied in Mark), is ludicrous enough to be a blatantly anti-Semitic remark, unless one can document a claim that greater freedom can be plausibly added to ancient Rome's facilitating of "better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order" in Jewish Palestine.

Well?

Chaucer

storytime

Are you prhaps implying that Rome did not have a Jewish lobby?

I see the story as putting the fear of God into Pilate by those ancient evangelicals, especially Jesus snippet to Pilate "Thou could not have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above.."

Pilate saw no reason to crucify Jesus but the Jews said "We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God."

Now, the Jews had a law, so why didn't THEY stone Jesus instead of demanding Pilate do the dirty work for them?

Pilate hands Jesus over to Herod who was the king or authority figure over the Jews. Herod had armed men, probably a military which controled the Jews and probably prevented outside non-Jewish groups from attacking them and killing them. Every non-Jewish group seemed to hate the Jews. So Herods protection via Rome gave freedom to the Jews, wouldn't you say so?

What about big bully America today? Doesn't the US give freedom to the Jews via US military strength and threats to other nations if they should even stick out their tongues at Israel?

And Stephen was stoned to death by the Jews and for what reason? Blasphemy? So what the hell was wrong with those Jews who said it was unlawful for them to kill any man?

Excuses Excuses.

Chaucer

Your account here does not reflect the account given in GMark. Yours is a later version of the trial/trials of Jesus that you're referencing, one often used for beating Jews over the head. Now I've already said that a number of times here, yet you never address that point, either because you just don't know GMark, or because you really want to evade and evade my point just in order to repeat the GJohn's big lie about Jews over and over again because it fits your anti-Semitic agenda.

Moreover, I note that you still do not attempt to provide any kind of rigorous historical analysis of the period that helps defend your outrageous remark that the Romans by themselves would actually have provided more freedom for Jesus than an independent unconquered Jewish Palestine.

Chaucer

storytime

Mine is a later version of the trials? I don't think it really matters how you want to put it all together for the results are the same. The bible in its gory story is anti-semitic with Jews against Jews. And you want to do what? Rewrite the story? Make the Romans the evildoers? Beat the hell out of Gentiles? Set the Jews up as innocent victims? What is it, exactly, that you want to do other than accuse people of being anti-semitic? Why is it that you think people should not be against the Jewish religion just as they are against the Christian religion?

In your anti-Christ agenda, can you prove that Rome would not have provided more freedom for Jesus than an independent unconquered Jewish Palestine?