Reply
Mon 19 Jun, 2006 08:09 am
I'm incredibly sorry if i offend anyone but i don't believe that jesus dies on the cross or if jesus really existed...
Jesus was supposedly seen as a criminal, yes? Well if that were true he wouldn't have been taken off the cross when he died he would have been left there as a deterrance for other criminals, also he wouldn't have been allowed to be given a tomb because criminals were just thrown into pits.
This is what is known as opening a can of worms.
I prefer the other brand, a can of whoopass.
Good thing worms is so popular here.
I wasn't there when this happened, and I doubt anyone else here was as well. Now, if I'm correct the current stand in the scientific community is that Jesus has lived around this time (don't crucify me if I'm wrong, I haven't really looked into it).
Keeping that in the back of my head, I suppose his standing in the community as a religious leader with followers made him somewhat of a liability to not only the jews, but most especially the Romans. They (Pilate) might well have considered the situation dangerous, with half the populace in an uproar, screaming for his death. No other options remained open to avert the crucifixion(they chose Barabas to be freed over Jesus, if such has indeed happened), and so they had to make it happen.
Perhaps they allowed his followers to take him off the cross and bury him because
a. it seemed as a bit of an appeasement to his followers, to allow them to care for their leader one last time.
b. It might have been seen as a way to divert martyrization fo the man (which obviously failed).
Their primary concern was to keep the peace in the province, and the best way to do that is not to agonize one party unduly much. When the majority has been satisfied by his crucifixion, his former followers could perhaps be appeased by being allowed to take care of the remains.
Naj.
Judea and its crackpot religious fanatics didn't amount to a hill of beans to the Romans--that's just christian conceit.
Setanta wrote:Judea and its crackpot religious fanatics didn't amount to a hill of beans to the Romans--that's just christian conceit.
(Bear posting as squinney... my computer's down) Absolutely correct Set... you beat me to the punch.... it was the Pharisees and other religious leaders that were hot to kill Jesus... he was throwing a monkey wrench into profits.... nothing has ever changed... follow the money and find the real root of all motivation.
I was always led to believe that the Roman interest in the occupied provinces was to try and keep the peace. I seriously doubt that religious fanatics mattered one bit to the Romans for their beliefs, but they probably did for their capacity for making turmoil where none was desired.
Given current events... the story is quite plausible.
Rome was in the middle of it's own "war on terror" where people of strange religion were using violence against their empire.
The response of the Romans is completely understandable for modern Americans. They demonized the cultures that were causing trouble and them put many of them in secret prisons where they were tortured and put to death.
There were many people who were imprisoned, tortured and put to death as a way to protect "freedom" and the way of life of the Romans.
The average Roman citizen had much the same response as the average American now. They accepted it as necessary for the defense of their freedom and way of life, and most of them didn't care to know much of the ugly stuff that went on in the areas they occupied.
At the time that the putative Jesus is said to have been born, Octavian, known then as Caesar Augustus, was Princeps, i.e., "First Citizen" (a legal fiction) and Imperator. At no time during the reign of Caesar Augustus was there a rebellion or the threat of rebellion in Judea. Whether one asserts that the putative Jesus were born in 4 BCE (the most likely date) or 6 BCE as some contend, or even simple-mindedly assert that he were born at the beginning of "the year one," when he died thirty-three years later, Tiberius was Emperor. There was no rebellion or threat of rebellion in Judea in the reign of the Emperor Tiberius.
The first serious threat of rebellion in Judea, from the Roman point of view, occured in 65 CE. This was late in the reign of Nero Claudius Drusus Germanicus--although, of course, no one, including Nero, knew that it was "late in his reign." Prior to that time, there is absolutely no record that any Roman official apprehended rebellion anywhere in Palestine, nor that anyone were punished or executed as a rebel. The actual outbreak of revolt occurred in 66 CE, but it had been anticipated by the Romans, and troops were already on the march from Syria. When Pontius Pilate was the prefect of Palestine, 26 to 36 CE (neatly covering the time of the death of the putative Jesus by any set of calculations), Judea was simply a part of a lower order province--Palestine--for which members of the equestrian order (i.e., the order of "Knights," a middle class created a few centuries earlier and lying socially between the Plebs and the Patres) were appointed.
There is absolutely no record that any such rebellion were anticipated in Palestine during the time in which Pilate was the prefect.
You're most probably right Set. But we discuss different angles. While you assert (and justly so, I think) that no rebellion was anticipated in Palestine, you make a good point. I'd say : Sure, but this situation was a quite sudden flare. (After all, if the bible is to believed, only days before the Israelites welcomed Jesus in Jerusalem with song and dance)
So the Roman governor may well have been forced to act on his own. And to his point of view, the entire issue was lain to rest by allowing the man to be crucified as requested, so I doubt they considered this a very serious matter. Just a way to keep the peace.
you put this in the wrong place. it will get moved pretty soon
By the way, as Prefect, Pilate would have only had resort to small body of auxiliaries, and they would have been, invariably, locally recruited. His gubernatorial seat was at Caesarae, although he would certainly have travelled to Jerusalem at Passover, because he would have been responsible for assuring order. Because of the attitudes of the Jews to the Romans, he not only would likely not have appeared in public during such a feast, but would have made a point of keeping out of sight. The entire episode of his participation in the execution of the putative Jesus is undoubtedly fiction, completely at odds with his function as Prefect. Had a rebellion been anticipated, the nearest legions were in Syria, and the Legate in Syria would have been responsible for dispatching troops. Had the local authorities alleged that anyone were a potential threat as a rebel, or a leader of rebellion, the matter would have been entirely out of Pilate's hands.
Tacitus was the governor of the province of Asia (western Anatolia--roughly, the western half of moder Turkey) when he wrote his annals. His work demonstrates that he had access to imperial archival records, both in Asia and in Rome. Tacitus mentions Pilate, incorrectly identifying him as a Proconsul, but he never mentions the alleged trial of a rebel, the putative Jesus. It has been pointed out that Pilate was not a Proconsul, but a Prefect. However, when Tacitus was the governor of Asia, the governor of Palestine was a Proconsul--and if the abbreviation "Pr." was used, as it was in Roman records for either Prefect or Proconsul, it is completely undertandable that Tacitus would have referred to Pilate as a Proconsul. Futhermore, Christians were known by the time Tacitus took up his duties in Asia--and yet he never mentions this ostensibly important event, the most important passage in the life of the putative Jesus from the point of view of the adherents of the cult. He does make mention of the rebellion in Judea from 66-70 CE. Were there ever an event which resembled the melodramatic story we are given of the Passover when the putative Jesus was alleged to have been executed, it is highly doubtful that it ever rose to the horizon of Roman awareness.
ebrown_p wrote:Given current events... the story is quite plausible.
Rome was in the middle of it's own "war on terror" where people of strange religion were using violence against their empire.
The response of the Romans is completely understandable for modern Americans. They demonized the cultures that were causing trouble and them put many of them in secret prisons where they were tortured and put to death.
There were many people who were imprisoned, tortured and put to death as a way to protect "freedom" and the way of life of the Romans.
The average Roman citizen had much the same response as the average American now. They accepted it as necessary for the defense of their freedom and way of life, and most of them didn't care to know much of the ugly stuff that went on in the areas they occupied.
This is a set of fanciful allegations completely without foundation. There were few times in Roman history as relatively peaceful and stable as the Augustan Age, for which there was no significant variation in the reign of Tiberius. In fact, serious instability did not occur until the death of Nero in 69 CE--he was the last of the Julio-Claudian emperors. Even then, the bruhaha was over before the end of the year, when Vespasian took the imperial throne, founding the Flavian dynasty. This is simply fiction on your part.
najmelliw wrote:You're most probably right Set. But we discuss different angles. While you assert (and justly so, I think) that no rebellion was anticipated in Palestine, you make a good point. I'd say : Sure, but this situation was a quite sudden flare. (After all, if the bible is to believed, only days before the Israelites welcomed Jesus in Jerusalem with song and dance)
So the Roman governor may well have been forced to act on his own. And to his point of view, the entire issue was lain to rest by allowing the man to be crucified as requested, so I doubt they considered this a very serious matter. Just a way to keep the peace.
It would have been no part of Pilate's function as Prefect to execute anyone alleged to be a criminal by the Sanhedrin.
Quote:he wouldn't have been taken off the cross when he died he would have been left there as a deterrance for other criminals, also he wouldn't have been allowed to be given a tomb because criminals were just thrown into pits.
He was not left on the cross because of the sabboth day, his followers asked Pilate if they could take it down. According to scripture, Pilate was sympathetic towards Jesus
Quote: I am innocent of the blood of this just man; look you to it.
--
Matthew 27:24
Joseph of Arimathea, a diciple of Christ and a rich man, asked Pilate for the body that he could lay it in the tomb he had had made for himself.
Needless to say, there is not a scarp of historical support for any of that claptrap.
But I heard that the Sanhedrin was obliged to bring the matter before the Roman authorities on account of the accused party being sentenced to death... And the Romans wanting to have final jurispudition in such cases...
That is absolutely false. A Prefect had not legal authority over the judicial proceedings of Judea. The only way for the Prefect to have been involved would have been on the basis of the appeal of a Roman citizen. None of the jokers involved in that little fairy tale were Roman citizens.
Setanta wrote:ebrown_p wrote:
The average Roman citizen had much the same response as the average American now. They accepted it as necessary for the defense of their freedom and way of life, and most of them didn't care to know much of the ugly stuff that went on in the areas they occupied.
This is a set of fanciful allegations completely without foundation. There were few times in Roman history as relatively peaceful and stable as the Augustan Age, for which there was no significant variation in the reign of Tiberius. In fact, serious instability did not occur until the death of Nero in 69 CE--he was the last of the Julio-Claudian emperors. Even then, the bruhaha was over before the end of the year, when Vespasian took the imperial throne, founding the Flavian dynasty. This is simply fiction on your part.
Granted, it may not be based on your inerrant knowledge history... but it is based on more than "simply fiction".
My analysis was based on the Biblical account and Christian legend.
In the Gospels a conflict between the subject citizens of Judea and the ruling Romans was quite clear. Many of Jesus' followers believed that He would drive out the Romans and "they wanted to make him King" by force. His march into Jerusalem followed by a mob of thousands certainly had the feel of the beginning of a rebellion... and when He was arrested (instead of taking the throne) his support dried up quickly.
I think my comparison between the gospel account of Jesus' death and the imprisonment which takes place is an interesting one.
It seems to me the biblical account (although I understand you don't consider it historically accurate) is an important part of this particular discussion.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace