An interesting issue of religious freedom

[Ken L]

Personally, I always used to get confused by (usually) Americans who say they hate the Jews because "they killed Jesus".

The way I recall things, by rights they should hate Italians......

[Newt]

How about this one? DIDJESUSGIVEUSTHENAMEOFTHEANTICHRIST

 

Remember, I just report this stuff. I could not manage to make it up.

 

Youtube Video ->Original Video

[The Flying Tench]

Well, I was forced to study the Hebrew and Greek Sciptures as a child and I absolutely loved coming up with "alternative explanations" to accepted dogma - it was the only thing that made it bearable - although I was careful to keep the alternatives to myself at the time.

 

Matthew 27: 57/8

"a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph....went to Pilate, and begged the body..and laid it in his own new tomb"

 

Mark 15:43-45

"Joseph....craved the body. And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead......(and asked the centurion if t'were true and centurion said yes - ie Pilate did not check himself)

 

Luke 23: 51-53 Similar account to Matthew

 

John 19: 38/9 Similar story, plus "Nicodemus (disciple and former Pharisee - ie an educated man for those times) brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes...." (if he had access to those, bringing restorative remedies would be well possible)

 

So, without consulting anyone else's website or book, here's what I make of it.

 

Given the Roman custom was to leave crucifixees in place until they rotted, there was obviously a bit of graft going on here - rich man with money wants body - so the headlines might have read "governor in bodies-for-cash scandal"

 

Pilate expressed surprise that Christ were already dead - very significant bit that ! So the centurion confirmed that he was - well, if you can bribe a governor, centurions are easy.

 

So it is at least possible, ON THE BIBLICAL EVIDENCE ALONE, that an unconscious body, not a dead one, was removed and placed in Joseph's (Not Peter's, FT) garden. In comes Nicodemus, bearing pharmaceuticals, (myrrh, aloes and what else?) and a recovery is well on the cards - the main problem of being crucified would be dehydration (later the far crueller practice of roping instead of nailing victims to the cross meant they suffered longer.) and once recovered from dehydration, the nail wounds, although painful, would not be life-threatening - that assumes the spear wound was not mortal either.

 

The recovery might be termed "miraculous" but it has a rational explanation. How many besides Joseph and Nicodemus were in on it is a matter for speculation - some of the more gullible followers may well have believed it was a "resurrection"

 

It was to prevent such recoveries, restorations or "resurrections" that the Romans left the crucifixees to rot!

Thanks for an interesting post, Dave.

 

On a detail, my comment about Peter's garden was in context of saying I didn't think the disciples had hidden the body - I appreciate he was buried in Joseph of A's tomb.

 

Re your main argument I take your point about Pilate being surprised Jesus was already dead. An explanation could be that he had endured a Roman flogging, which was enough to cause death to many on it's own. I think it is unlikely that Jesus was still alive when he was put in the tomb, and then convinced the world he had risen, for several reasons:

 

1. The Romans were experienced executioners. Though there were times when they let victims hang on the cross for more than a day, it would seem that was not the policy on this occasion, possibly because it was Passover the next day. For the robber next to Jesus the soldiers broke his legs to bring quick death. Death from crucifixion came from suffocation, as you know, and it was the excruciating pain from having to push upwards on the feet, with the nails through the main nerve, that made crucifixion so cruel. Breaking the legs meant that he would quickly die. With Jesus they didn't do this (John 19:33) as he was already dead. Soldiers doing crucifixions were experienced at knowing when someone was dead, and would have risked the death penalty themselves if they got it wrong. Instead, they put a spear in his side to make sure. The context makes it clear that was the purpose of the spear thrust.

 

2. There is a piece of medical evidence. John 19:34 reports that, when the spear went in, a flow of blood and water came from his side. It has been argued that this shows the clot had separated from the serum, showing Jesus was dead.

 

3. In the unlikely case that he was still alive, he would have been in a very poor state. It has been argued that gangrene would have set in. There are huge questions about how he would have got out of the tomb. And wouldn't the disciples have realised what had happened?

 

4. The biggest argument for me is that the theory implies that Jesus did a 'con job', convincing everyone he had risen when he had not - even the disciples, who surely would not have been willing to die for something they knew was a fake.

 

J

 

PS I am interested by your suggestion that the Romans left people on the cross to stop claims of resurrection. If there had been another case of such a claim being made after a crucifixion it would indeed be interesting. Do you know of one? I think it more likely it was as an example to others thinking of rebelling. And in fact, from the stuff I have read, if relatives asked for the body the request was often granted, so there is no real basis for suggestion of bribery.

Edited March 25, 2010 by The Flying Tench

[Vagabond]

PS I am interested by your suggestion that the Romans left people on the cross to stop claims of resurrection.

 

No, I am not suggesting the Romans were afraid of multiple religions, each based on a "resurrection" !

 

Bodies were left to rot, firstly as a warning to all, and secondly because the Romans did not want friends and relatives getting hold of an unconscious body and then reviving it. Rome had after all, passed a death sentence and would not want their authority overridden in this way.

 

I should have said revivals, restorations, recoveries or (in this particular case) "resurrection"

 

Allowing the body to be taken away was very unusual and to me suggests money changed hands - else why mention Joseph was rich? (although admittedly this is a tax-collector's account so he might attach importance to such things)

 

I take your point about Pilate being surprised Jesus was already dead. An explanation could be that he had endured a Roman flogging, which was enough to cause death to many on it's own.

Your logic seems back to front here. If flogging often caused death, why then should Pilate be surprised ? No, By expressing surprise and apparently confirming death with the centurion Pilate was attempting to convince any bystanders that he thought death HAD occured and the incident was over - making himself fireproof because, if he had taken a bribe, he didn't want any further probing.

 

Re your remarks about a "con". I'm not suggesting it was a preconceived con. Rather, it was probably a bit of opportunism by Joseph because he suspected life still remained - and the recovery would be remarkable enough. To the disciples, coming back from "death's door" could be seen as a "resurrection" - people will believe what they want to believe - and this was a group that already believed they were some sort of chosen people.

 

It looks as if I am not the first to suggest this interpretation - but it was my off-the-top-of-my-head "alternative interpretation" generated in response to your challenge!

Edited March 26, 2010 by Vagabond

[The Flying Tench]

Bodies were left to rot, firstly as a warning to all, and secondly because the Romans did not want friends and relatives getting hold of an unconscious body and then reviving it. Rome had after all, passed a death sentence and would not want their authority overridden in this way.

 

I should have said revivals, restorations, recoveries or (in this particular case) "resurrection"

 

Allowing the body to be taken away was very unusual and to me suggests money changed hands - else why mention Joseph was rich? (although admittedly this is a tax-collector's account so he might attach importance to such things)

 

Your logic seems back to front here. If flogging often caused death, why then should Pilate be surprised ? No, By expressing surprise and apparently confirming death with the centurion Pilate was attempting to convince any bystanders that he thought death HAD occured and the incident was over - making himself fireproof because, if he had taken a bribe, he didn't want any further probing.

 

Re your remarks about a "con". I'm not suggesting it was a preconceived con. Rather, it was probably a bit of opportunism by Joseph because he suspected life still remained - and the recovery would be remarkable enough. To the disciples, coming back from "death's door" could be seen as a "resurrection" - people will believe what they want to believe - and this was a group that already believed they were some sort of chosen people.

 

It looks as if I am not the first to suggest this interpretation - but it was my off-the-top-of-my-head "alternative interpretation" generated in response to your challenge!

 

OK, but your suggestion of a bribe still seems to rest on your assertion that letting relatives etc have the body was 'very unusual'. I'm not sure what your sources are for that. From what I have read it was not particularly unusual in normal cases, though admittedly it WAS unusual for a case of high treason, which it could be argued was what Jesus' charge amounted to. But Pilate was aware that Jesus was not really guilty, and probably felt guilty, so it doesn't seem surprising to me that he agreed to them having the body for a decent burial. I can't see there's real justification for suggesting a bribe.

 

I take your point about Pilate knowing Jesus had been flogged, and still being surprised. The point is, though, since people quite often died of flogging, he shouldn't have been surprised! Medically speaking, it is reasonable to think that someone who had been flogged to an inch of their life, hung on a cross for 5 or 6 hours, and had a spear pushed into their side by a group of soldiers who were experienced executioners to ensure he was dead - was DEAD! That is the most reasonable explanation in my view, and producing a conspiracy theory is special pleading - though admittedly, if you start from the premise that resurrections don't happen, then I guess you are forced to come up with some kind of theory like that - and I will admit that yours has a BIT more going for it than most!

 

As to the 'con' aspect, I suppose you are saying that Jesus never tried to convince the disciples afterwards that he had risen in a supernatural way. They just thought it was a wonderful act of God that he was alive at all, and the stories got embellished afterwards. Hmm, well there's a lot of embellishing, then. Like the story of the walk to Emmaus where Jesus walked 11 kilometres on 'Easter Sunday' evening, quite a walk for someone who had been through so much. But maybe that's a subject for another thread!

[DavyR]

An explanation could be that he had endured a Roman flogging, which was enough to cause death to many on it's own.

 

John, take a look at that article (from a medical journal) that I linked to further up the thread. It's pretty certain (from what little evidence there is) that the flogging that preceded a crucifixion was not meant to be of a severity likely to cause death. An integral part of the humiliation of the whole procedure was to make the victim (after flogging) carry part of the cross to the place of execution outside the city walls.

 

It's by no means certain that death was always from suffocation, and this in any case depended on the position in which the victim was crucified. As the authors of the paper point out, all of the religious images of Christ's crucifixion show him in a head-up position, with both hands and feet transfixed by nails, whereas the available evidence shows that this was not invariably (or even most commonly) the way it was done.

 

And why is the spear thrust in the side mentioned by John but not by the other three gospel writers? Could it have been added as an afterthought (about 30 years after the others, in fact), in order to fulfill a prophecy: "They shall gaze on Him whom they pierced" (Zechariah 12:10)?

[Vagabond]

1. I can't see there's real justification for suggesting a bribe.

 

2. though admittedly, if you start from the premise that resurrections don't happen, then I guess you are forced to come up with some kind of theory like that - and I will admit that yours has a BIT more going for it than most!

 

3. the stories got embellished afterwards. Hmm, well there's a lot of embellishing, then.

 

1. John - in the Middle East bribery is, was, and will be for the foreseeable future, a way of life!

ANY favour sought will have a price.

 

2. Well thanks for that - in response to your challenge, I sought for at least one plausible explanation that didn't rely on the supernatural. As you know, I believe there is a rational explanation for everything - so I am content that I found one in this case.

 

3. No surprise there. Stories about "heroes" and "gods" get embellished as a matter of course.

 

Just been to the village post office and got my new salmon licence and new trout licence, so am all set for next week.

[chesters1]

"Herod was the big slayer of newborns - is that who you mean? rolleyes.gif

 

If you take a look at that paper about crucifixion I linked to (the full paper, not the press release), the evidence on how, when and where people were crucified (and how they died) is pretty thin in itself - and that's for something we do know actually happened.

 

So what hope is there for finding historical evidence for Biblical events and characters? Not a lot. "

 

 

whoops you are ofcourse perhaps correct ,pilate was later err maybe

 

KENL (sorry i cant quote for some reason)

"Personally, I always used to get confused by (usually) Americans who say they hate the Jews because "they killed Jesus".

The way I recall things, by rights they should hate Italians......"

 

everyone hates iti's but ofcourse you should hate jews as well as they dobbed him in

Edited March 26, 2010 by chesters1

[Newt]

Chesters - if the regular 'quote' feature isn't working for you, then you can do most of it manually.

 [quote]some stuff you want quoted[/quote]

gives you

some stuff you want quoted

[corydoras]

The word 'fundamentalist' is really just a word for anyone who you think is more definite, rigid, perhaps intolerant and closed, than you think they ought to be.

 

As for 'secularist fundamentalist', I would apply that to the kind of atheist or agnostic who thinks it's self apparent that they are right, and that all religions are obviously on a par with believing in the tooth fairy. Also those who, in a society such as ours where most people believe in God, try to ban civic carol services and stop employees wearing crosses, turbans etc

My definition of a Christian Fundamentalist is roughly this:"Belief in the inerrancy of the Bible, Sola Scriptura, the virgin birth of Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the imminent personal return of Jesus Christ."Apologies for a cut and paste job from Wikipedia but that just about sums it up for me.

 

The only thing that I would describe myself as 'fundamentalist" about are the following;

 

Separation of Church and State. That would mean that The Queen can be head of State or Head of the C of E, but not both, her decision I'm not fussed which way she would choose to go. I'd prefer that she became plain old Mrs Windsor and we had an elected president, but that's a discussion for another thread. It would also mean no seats in the House of Lords for Bishops and Archbishops, just because they are a Bishop or an Archbishop. Oh and last but not least

 

No religion in State Schools. That means no daily "act of worship" and no religious paraphernalia to be worn at school, by staff or students. That means no crosses, no yarmulkes, no turbans etc, etc. No religious interfering in school curriculum in general and no Creationism, Creation Science or Intelligent Design in science class in particular.

 

If you want your child to go to a religious school that's fine and dandy, but you pay for it yourself and the school still has to follow the National Curriculum and be subject to the same inspection regime as any State School. Your School can be State Aided, or a Registered Charity, but not both (Separation of Church and State).