Why Was Jesus Crucified? But Not Stoned?

Al Davison Posted: “I'll see if I can get you pointed if you are interested . . if you are not interested in . . read and critically consider the info, then I don't want to put the time into a "reading list" . I'll try to get you some references . . some links posted by scholars or discussions of these scholars but who would have the time to read The Works of Flavius Josephus on a computer screen? . . I know many want the "Reader's Digest" or "Clif Notes" versions . . that's what Google is for . . “ [Edited by Don W]

Well, Al, that is fair enough. I’ve got a lot of time invested, too. For the first 18 years of my life, my parents insisted I attend church 3 times a week. That’s nearly 2.000 hours of study time. I’d say I had heard the salient points of Protestantism several times, by several commentators. So, don’t make a list for me.

Various Posters Follow

“The fact that Pilate allowed Joseph and Nicodemus to remove and bury the body is further proof that Rome had no axe to grind with Jesus, thereby showing no rebellion occurred, and his execution was allowed solely to placate the Jewish religious leadership of the day.

The story of Joseph and Nicodemous is not really a fact. It is a story. Many people believe the story on no evidence. Because the story is totally contrary to what we do know about Romans and crucifixions, it begs of more proof. Unfortunately, it is the kind of event that does not lend itself to proof 2,000 years after the fact. But it is not correct to offer this story as a fact.

Joseph of Arimathea was imprisoned for many years for his interference with Jesus' burial. Joseph powerful friends did a lot of work and bribery to get Jesus's body released to him.

This could be true, but again, I don’t recall it appearing in any of the 27 books of the New Testament. But this story is like the first part mentioned above. It is contrary to what we do know about Romans and crucifixions. So again, we’re into legend or myth which in the case of Christianity, we charitably call “tradition.”

Nygdan Posted: “The Romans were indeed afraid of Jesus. He talked a lot about the Kingdom of Heaven he had come to establish. Being concrete types, the Romans thought he literally meant that he was going to foment rebellion . . This scared them . . as a troublemaker they sought to humiliate him as much as they could, i.e. whipping, crucifixion, etc.

I don’t know what Jesus talked about. The story of Jesus is that he was sort of an itinerant preacher who went about the region near the Jordan River for 3 years. I’d say there are not over 500 words attributed to Jesus in a Red Letter Edition of the New Testament. Excluding repetition, of course. He could have said all that in 15 minutes. So what did he say in the other 2 years 11 months and etc?

Again, this story sounds extra-biblical. I don’t recall anywhere in the Holy Writ it saying the Romans “feared” Jesus. As a matter of fact, I think that is ridiculous. Jesus taught peace and love. No one fears that. Outside of the Christian writers, there is no record in any ancient text that Jesus ever lived. I am not pushing to go that far, but neither am I going to admit to things that are unsupported and contrary to other known facts. Without evidence. Which is the obligation of the advocates to produce. And fitting that the doubters get to “cross examine” it.

Of course there was no rebellion, but the Romans were trying to stop it from happening, which is why they went along with the Jewish priests Sanhedrin who were also afraid of Jesus taking over the temple, which of course is something Jesus would probably never have done, since he was interested in more esoteric things.

The First Jewish Revolt began in Caesarea in 66 CE. Barely 30 odd years after Jesus was crucified, around 33 CE. Jesus could not have taken the Temple unless he used his God-like powers. Which he was apparently under some constraint not to do.

The Second Jewish Revolt was the Simon bar Kochba Revolt of 132-135 CE. Because of serious riots in Jerusalem in 113-115 CE, the bar Kochba event is called the Third Revolt in some writings. This revolt was the most successful of all the revolts. The Jewish people actually minted coins and hailed bar Kochba as the true Messiah. There are no records that anyone mentioned Jesus of Nazareth in either the First of Second Revolts.

stalkingwolf posted
Yes the Jews retained this right under the Roman government. I would refer you to the canonical remembrances of the stoning of Stephen and the Stoning of James ca 65 CE. These are just two examples.

Riddle Rebutted
Actually Stephen was stoned by a mob while speaking at a local Jewish council. He was not condemned to death by the official Jewish representatives to the Roman authorities. More akin to a lynch mob than capitol punishment.

First light CAN be defined as the time when the morningstar first breaks the horizon, up to the first hint of sunrise on the horizon.

Riddle Rebuts
There can be a great deal of time pass between first light and dawn depending on how the individual in question defines first light . .

Nygdan Posted: “Also, modern jews aren't permitted to travel on the Sabbath, but do we know that was the case 2,000 years ago? Judaism then was, in some respects, very different. There are no Jewish priests today, for example, and there is no Jewish Temple (as in Solomon's) today. Other things may have been different.

END

[edit on 4/20/2006 by donwhite]

Don, it's quite convenient for you to pick pieces from Biblical accounts which fit your explanation and ignore others as "stories we cannot prove". The gospel account is trustworthy and you know it, how do I know? Because it portrays an accurate picture of first century Palestine. It's obvious that Pilate was pressured into having an innocent man executed due to a mob shouting for blood, he was a pragmatic well to do Roman viceroy who saw a bunch of superstitious people acting in an irrational manner towards somebody claiming to be their king. To appease the mob he offered to release him as is custom during passover. The crowd chose the murderer instead of the innocent man out of spite and he then went to Secular puppet on strings Herod who though Jesus Christ was probably mad and sent him back. Next, he had the King of the Jews scourged and then offered to release him. The crowd didn't yield, so to avoid a rebellion he washed his hands of the blood and ordered his centurions to do the deed. Consistent with every Roman ruler mentioned by historians such as Suetonius- from Tiberius, to Caligula, to Nero, they may have been tyrants but Rome was quite efficient in dealing with it's subjects (or else the empire wouldn't have lasted so long).

Oh and Nygdan, don't give a bad theologian a reason to hold you in contempt by saying Jews didn't obey the Sabbath in the time of Christ.

[edit on 20-4-2006 by Nakash]

Nakash: reading what you wrote, above, it occurs to me that you must believe that all historical fiction is true because so many of the main characters, locations, customs, clothing, etc. can be proven to be accurate. Is that not what you are arguing?

Do you "believe" in The DaVinci Code? There's a lot of stuff in there that is true. Personally, I like historical fiction but I don't believe that it's all true just because the authors correctly portray many of the facts. It's still just a story made up by somebody.

Correct me and please excuse me if that was not the point you just made.

Isaiah 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure

Prophecy is the sure way that I personally know that the Bible is 100 percent accurate. People can try to discredit with blatant lies, supposed contradictions, and historical "proof" but there is a factor that has to be taken into consideration whether or not the Bible is historic fiction or the written word of God and that is.... faith.

posted by Nakash: “Don, it's convenient for you to pick pieces from Biblical accounts which fit your explanation and ignore others as "stories we cannot prove". The gospel account is trustworthy . . how do I know? Because it portrays an accurate picture of first century Palestine. [Edited by Don W]

Accurate picture? In what way? Do you think the people who lived then believed the story to be a lateral account of a real event? Do you believe the story of the demons and pigs in Mark?

It's obvious that Pilate was pressured into having an innocent man executed due to a mob shouting for blood, he was a pragmatic well to do Roman viceroy who saw a bunch of superstitious people . .

Why do you call these people superstitious? What were they doing to make you say that?

“ . . acting in an irrational manner towards somebody claiming to be their king. To appease the mob he offered to release him as is custom during Passover. The crowd chose the murderer instead of the innocent man out of spite and he then went to secular puppet on strings Herod . .

I must be getting old. I recall Pontius Pilate OK, but I do not recall that Jesus was ever taken before King Herod. You say it’s so, I’m ok with that.

“ . . who thought Jesus Christ was probably mad and sent him back. Next, he had the King of the Jews scourged and then offered to release him. The crowd didn't yield, so to avoid a rebellion he washed his hands of the blood and ordered his centurions to do the deed. Consistent with every Roman ruler mentioned by historians . . they may have been tyrants but Rome was quite efficient in dealing with it's subjects

I believe you are relating a story you believe but I do not believe the story.

Oh and Nygdan, don't give a bad theologian a reason to hold you in contempt by saying Jews didn't obey the Sabbath in the time of Christ.

I thought Nygdan was explaining that we do not know if the Jewish customs of 2006 were the same customs practiced by Jewish people in the First Century in Jerusalem.

Here’s a test for you, Nakash.
1) Do you admit the Old Testament is the Hebrew Bible?
2) Do you admit it was written by Jewish persons?
3) Do you admit Jewish people claim the Five Books of Moses (Torah) were written either by God or on His directions?
4) Do you admit Jewish people do not claim the remaining 34 books of the Old Testament were divinely inspired?
5) On what authority do Christians have for asserting that all 39 books of the Old Testament are divinely inspired?
6) Would you not admit it is more likely Jewish persons would know about divine inspiration vis a vis the Old Testament than would non Jewish persons?


[edit on 4/20/2006 by donwhite]

Shortness, Don't Forget FORETELLING the future was a stoning offense. One of the 613 Commandments in the Old Testament.

[edit on 4/20/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by Shortness
Isaiah 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure

Prophecy is the sure way that I personally know that the Bible is 100 percent accurate. People can try to discredit with blatant lies, supposed contradictions, and historical "proof" but there is a factor that has to be taken into consideration whether or not the Bible is historic fiction or the written word of God and that is.... faith.

Shortness is correct here - faith is all you've got to go on if you believe the Bible is 100% accurate (please don't start confusing the issue with the obvious incongruencies in the various Gospel accounts of the Passion - this is clearly just a mystery that unbelievers will never grasp.)

Now, since this poster seems to have joined us just this day, perhaps he/she can start back at the beginning and understand that we are discussing history and the veracity of the Gospel accounts through the lens of history. He/she probably doesn't not yet realize that it's not polite to enter a discussion of historical accuracy armed with no source other than "faith".

Faith is an excellent thing to have. It just does not equip you very well for this kind of discussion in which we each try to present evidence and critically consider the different evidences presented. Opinion enters into it only slightly - faith, not at all. Thanks for playing!

What evidence is presented? A guy who comes in the forums who gives an alternative view that contradicts a book that claims is infallible?

The bible says that the words of Jesus is truth, it also says that
2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

this would include historical correction. Therefore i have reason to believe that donwhite's alternative that Jesus tried to start a rebellion and Matthaiasias etc etc is wrong based on my faith and what the Bible says.

The question is does a book that
1. has been translated into hundreds of languages
2. changes the lives of the worst people
3. the most printed book in the world
4. the most widely read book in the world
5. the most ancient historical record

and much more... would such a book endure these thousands of years if it was based on a lie?


Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

What are the odds one guy said he came to save the world and got other people to write about him based on lies and said he hanged at the cross and ressurected and say that this gospel of the kingdom would be a witness to all nations 2000 years ago and actually happen?

All the proof you need is that even in the outermost parts of the world people are hearing the gospel through the internet, missionaries etc etc.

This text says it all

Acts 5: 38And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:

39But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Wasn't John the Baptist killed by them though?

John the Baptist lost his head over a girl! Well her mother actually. He was put in prison for telling Herod's brother (Philip) that he shouldn't have married his own sister (Herodias). On Herod's birthday Herodias' daughter danced so well that Herod said he would give her anything she asked for. She, at the prompting of her mother, asked for John's head. That's the short version. '' So it was the Romans again, not the Jews.

The romans themsleves must've perceived him as a threat, in addition to the jews. Hell, its possible that the jews didn't perceive him as a threat at all, .....

I take the opposite approach here. I think that the only reason the Romans even cared about this was because the Jews were up in arms about it. At first Pilate said that he couldn't find any fault with Christ (Luke 23:4) and sent Him off to Herod (Luke 23:7). Far from perceiving Jesus as a threat, Herod was glad to see Him and hoped that Jesus would perform some miracle in his presence (Luke 23:8). He didn't, so they poked fun at Him and sent Him back to Pilate. Pilate calls the priests together and says that neither he nor Herod could find any fault in Jesus and that He would be beaten and released (Luke 23:13-15). None of this indicates that the Romans felt threateded by Christ at all. You wouldn't repeatedly try to release a threat back into the general population.

What the Romans were threatened by was a possible revolt by the local population. The fighting army had moved on looking for new lands to conquer and just an occupation force and government officials were left to control large numbers of people. Pilate would annually release a prisoner to try and maintain whatever goodwill might have existed.

This is what he tried to do with Jesus because he saw that the chief priests considered Jesus a threat to their authority (Mark 15:10). It was these same chief priests that led the crowd in asking for the release of Barabbas and that Christ be crucified (Mark 15:11-13). It wasn't the Romans or the Jews as a whole that was the problem, but more specifically, the chief priests.

What is important is that the tomb was empty before the first trip, which took place "while it was yet dark".

It specifically notes it as such?

John 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, . . .

I picture the timing like this. The regular Sabbath was over at dark on Saturday night. Allow a half hour or so to quickly clean house, restoke the fire and get fresh water from the well or cistern. Put on your best clothes, grab a torch and a basket and hurry to meet the priests at the Temple because this is the feast of Firstfruits. The priests and people would travel in mass into a selected field to cut wheat and harvest fruit from the orchards. They would take the samples back to the Temple read the Torah, sing and offer the samples as a symbolic offering to ask for blessings on the crops for the rest or the year. After what was probably several hours the people would return home to enjoy a meal including the first fresh fruits and vegtables thay had had since the last harvest. The food preparation and partying would continue for several more hours.

The previous day was a day of rest so assuming dark occured at 6 p.m. the party could easily go for 6 to 8 hours after which the kids and family were settled in and Mary could begin to prepare the spices for the body. Depending on what preparations were made ahead of time it could reasonably take another couple of hours to finish up and head out for the tomb. A tomb arrival between 3 and 5 a.m. is totally reasonable.

Thats interesting, because a non-jewish audience wouldn't really care if it was dark or not, whereas a jewish one, if they couldn't go out at that time back in those days, would recognize, almost as a matter of course, why it was specifically noted that it was still dark.
Meanwhile, a non-jew might try to apply some esoteric meaning to it.

I believe that this is why modern people generally have such difficulty understanding the Gospels. They were written to Jews. They have to be read and understood with if not a Jewish mindset at least an Old Testament mindset. They were written to show the Jews that the Messiah had come and that the time of the O.T sacrifical law had ended. The modern church has adopted them as its own and tried to apply some of the "esoteric meaning" that you mentioned because it uses them in the wrong context.

The church frame should start in the middle of the book of Acts or with the writtings of Paul, depending on your point of view. Should we still study the Gospels? Absolutely. Just do it in the right context.


Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to do more than just a He said She said.

Nuff Said.

Originally posted by dAlen

Originally posted by donwhite
... the savior of Israel would rise from the dead on the 3rd day. That Sunday is the 2nd day has never slowed true believers. [edit on 4/15/2006 by donwhite]

Not that this matters much, but in Judaism, Sunday at sunset would have been the 3rd day.
Now if they celebrate Sunday morning, then this could be debatable...but I really dont see this as an issue within itself.

So they crucified him supposedly right before Shabbat (friday evening), and if I recall had to get him off quick so not to break the Shabbat. (Its been awhile, I should watch ben hur again...wait its on tonight

But in this light, if they crucified him and he died before Shabbat. (Friday, not Friday evening, then even Sunday morning would have been the 3rd day, as again the day starts at sunset for Jews, and these are Jews) So in theory he dies at the end of the day for a Jew on Friday (day 1), then is buried before (day 2) Friday evening), he rest on Shabbat, and on Saturday night is day (3), but he rises at the end of day 3 on Sunday morning. There....heheh

anyway...Interesting theories...I dont think anyone knows. "Jesus" is an inspiration to many, and has been used by many for their purposes. Again, anyones guess about "Jesus" is pretty much as good as the next.

Gods Peace

dalen

[edit on 15-4-2006 by dAlen]

Excellent analysis dAlen.

And to answer the question of the thread: Jesus was crucified because he was a revolutionary.

At least that is how I see it.

Originally posted by donwhite
Just who do you think was handing down the sentence that day? You’re losing me, Defcon5. Pilate was in charge. Not the Jewish High Priest. Pilate could hand down any sentence he wanted and no one would question him, I’m sure.

Well it was only Pilate by default since he was the local governor. The locals already sentenced Christ by the time he was brought to Pilate, and Pilate understood exactly why that was:

STEP 1…. Christ is taken before the local High Priests, tried, and found guilty of blasphemy, a death penalty crime….

Mar 14:53 And they led Jesus away to the high priest: and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes.

Mar 14:64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.

STEP 2…. Christ is taken to Pilate who realizes that this is the High Priests killing an innocent man out of envy and passes the buck to Herod:

Luk 23:4 Then said Pilate to the chief priests and to the people, I find no fault in this man.

Luk 23:6 When Pilate heard of Galilee, he asked whether the man were a Galilaean.
Luk 23:7 And as soon as he knew that he belonged unto Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem at that time.

Mar 15:10 For he knew that the chief priests had delivered him for envy.

STEP 3…. Christ is brought back to Pilate who try’s repeatedly to let Christ be beaten then let go:

Mar 15:14 Then Pilate said unto them, Why, what evil hath he done? And they cried out the more exceedingly, Crucify him.

Luk 23:16 I will therefore chastise him, and release him.

Luk 23:20 Pilate therefore, willing to release Jesus, spake again to them.

Luk 23:22 And he said unto them the third time, Why, what evil hath he done? I have found no cause of death in him: I will therefore chastise him, and let him go.

Joh 19:12 And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.

STEP 4…. Pilate gives up washes his hands and gives in to the High Priests and Crowd to keep the peace:

Mat 27:24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
Mat 27:25 Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.
Mat 27:26 Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.

Mar 15:15 And so Pilate, willing to content the people, released Barabbas unto them, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified.

Luk 23:23 And they were instant with loud voices, requiring that he might be crucified. And the voices of them and of the chief priests prevailed.
Luk 23:24 And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required.

Joh 19:15 But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.
Joh 19:16 Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.

Originally posted by donwhite

“dAlen is correct about the 3rd day issue. The execution had to be finished before the Sabbath that began on nightfall of Friday and continued until nightfall Saturday.

Defcon5, why do you say “ - had to be - ” because the Romans did not “had to be” anything they did not want to be or do vis a vis the Jews. As I replied to Marg6043, you’re mixing apples and oranges. The Roman practice in the case of crucifixion was to use it as an example to the locals not to break Roman law. This is why the bodies remained on the cross - whatever form it took - until the bones were made bare by birds, rats and etc. Anyone who removed a body without authority was subject to taking the body’s place on the cross.

Sorry, but you are absolutely incorrect here. I realize that this does not fit the little slam you think you are going for here against Christianity, but the facts are the facts. Rome did not wish to destroy Israel anymore then they would have Egypt. It is better to conquer a nation and keep the peace, rather then tick off all the individuals there to such a point that you end up wasting troops with having to garrison it and constantly crush rebellions within it. If you will please notice something in this verse from the Bible:

Luk 23:6 When Pilate heard of Galilee, he asked whether the man were a Galilaean.
Luk 23:7 And as soon as he knew that he belonged unto Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem at that time.
Luk 23:8 And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was desirous to see him of a long season, because he had heard many things of him; and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by him.
Luk 23:9 Then he questioned with him in many words; but he answered him nothing.
Luk 23:10 And the chief priests and scribes stood and vehemently accused him.
Luk 23:11 And Herod with his men of war set him at nought, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate.
Luk 23:12 And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before they were at enmity between themselves.
Luk 23:13 And Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people,
Luk 23:14 Said unto them, Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people: and, behold, I, having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him:
Luk 23:15 No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him.

Herod or more specifically Herod Antipas was the Hebrew king in the area of Galilee, he and his brothers Archelaus and Herod Philip were educated in Rome, but where not Roman citizens. They were kept there as sort of prisoners with added benefits to ensure the compliance of their father Herod the Great with Augustus Caesar. Why is this? Because they were still ruling the Jews of the day that fell under their jurisdiction, but they were doing so in compliance with the wishes of Caesar. Thus all local traditions and laws were in effect and being upheld to keep the local people happy.

Here are direct quotes as to the time having to be immediate since they were on the brink of not only the Sabbath day, but also Passover:

Mat 26:4 And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty, and kill him.
Mat 26:5 But they said, Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar among the people.

Mar 14:1 After two days was the feast of the passover, and of unleavened bread: and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him by craft, and put him to death.
Mar 14:2 But they said, Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar of the people.

Luk 22:1 Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.
Luk 22:2 And the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill him; for they feared the people.
Luk 22:3 Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.
Luk 22:4 And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray him unto them.
Luk 22:5 And they were glad, and covenanted to give him money.
Luk 22:6 And he promised, and sought opportunity to betray him unto them in the absence of the multitude.
Luk 22:7 Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed.

Joh 19:14 And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!

So, yeah it “HAD TO BE”, unless the Romans felts like having to crush a riot over the incident. That is not what Rome wanted of course, they simply wanted to keep the piece, collect taxes, and keep the roads open for their conquering armies and traders.

As far as them not caring about Christ’s body being taken down, it was because Pilate did not seem to feel that Christ was guilty of a crime to begin with. He was crucified by the Romans on behalf of the local Priests for a crime relating to Local Religious Doctrine , not as an enemy of the state of Rome. So, if Joseph received permission, then yeah, they would let them take the body down. Besides this, Rome did not want to have any breaches of the peace, and as Christ had a fairly large following, it was a wise move to not keep his body on public display any longer then need be.

Originally posted by donwhite
Which is the very question I have asked above. What was Jesus teaching that got him crucified? Not the Sermon on the Mount or the 2 great commandments. So what was it?

Certainly not Gnosticism either, which is what you seem to mean when you say you’re a Protestant Christian. They mainly feared his taking their power away, Christ certainly did not speak well of the Pharisees, healed people during the Sabbath, and many other things. All of these were against mainline Rabbinical teaching, and he was gaining followers. These men wanted to make sure that they did not loose their power and position. He also told of the destruction of not only the Temple, but also of Jerusalem.

Originally posted by donwhite

“The Jews wanted Jesus removed from the picture wanted the Romans to execute the punishment so they did not look like they were involved . . Therefore since Rome was used as the executioner, a Roman method of executions was used.

That’s quite a stretch, Defcon5. I feel absolutely comfortable when I say that was too unlikely to merit much discussion without some basis to carry it on. It is just not good logic to say “ . . since Rome was used . . “ as executioner by the captive and subjugated Jewish people and etc, etc.

Well if you do not like that answer perhaps you will take what the scripture says, it says that the Priests and the People wanted Christ to be crucified. As a matter of FACT if you look through all the Gospels the first person to use the word in each gospel is the crowd or in reference to the crowd:

Mat 27:20 But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.

Mat 27:22 Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified.
Mat 27:23 And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified.

Mar 15:11 But the chief priests moved the people, that he should rather release Barabbas unto them.
Mar 15:12 And Pilate answered and said again unto them, What will ye then that I shall do unto him whom ye call the King of the Jews?
Mar 15:13 And they cried out again, Crucify him.

Luk 23:21 But they cried, saying, Crucify him, crucify him

Luk 23:23 And they were instant with loud voices, requiring that he might be crucified. And the voices of them and of the chief priests prevailed.

Joh 19:6 When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him.

So there you have it, he was crucified because its what the Chief Priests pushed for, not because it was Pilate’s decision to do it. It was simply Pilots decision to keep the piece and observe the Religious Laws of the locals. I am sure that the reason that the Priests Chose crucifixion is not only as it was a painful, slow and public death, but also to show loss of status. They also wished to show that if Christ were God that he would have gotten off the cross and healed himself, hence the fact that they stood at the bottom of the cross and mocked him about exactly that (shall I start quoting again, or would you just like to read it in the bible for yourself). Christ however, had a different agenda, to save the world by doing exactly what he did. So the ultimate answer to all these questions is simply it happened that way because it was Gods plan that it would.


[edit on 4/21/2006 by defcon5]

Originally posted by Riddle

Originally posted by Nygdan
Wasn't John the Baptist killed by them though?

John the Baptist lost his head over a girl! Well her mother actually. He was put in prison for telling Herod's brother (Philip) that he shouldn't have married his own sister (Herodias). On Herod's birthday Herodias' daughter danced so well that Herod said he would give her anything she asked for. She, at the prompting of her mother, asked for John's head. That's the short version. '

' So it was the Romans again, not the Jews.

Actually, You’re incorrect. First all the Herods were Jews, not Romans, though the three sons of Herod the Great were educated in Rome to ensure that their father and later they themselves would be loyal and comply with Caesar. In addition, Herod Antipas (the same one that met with Christ) was the one that was married to Herodias the wife of his half-brother Herod Philip, after divorcing his own wife Phasaelis. Philip then in turn married his niece the daughter of his half-brother and ex-wife, Salome, who is the one that asked for John the Baptists head on a platter. Talk about a messed up family, eh?
That’s the almost as short but correct version

Originally posted by Nakash
Oh and Nygdan, don't give a bad theologian a reason to hold you in contempt by saying Jews didn't obey the Sabbath in the time of Christ.

But did they not travel during it? All of the different sects? And how strictly was it observed? I don't know any jews that don't travel after friday's sunset, were most people lax back then also?

On Herod's birthday Herodias' daughter danced so well that Herod said he would give her anything she asked for

As an aside, this is the 'Dancing Harlot' motiff, common in middle eastern mythology.

So it was the Romans again, not the Jews.

? Herod was the jewish king. He was the local authority that the romans left in place in their occupation. If the herods could have John killed, why not jesus? Why would they go through the strange and unpredicatable roman legal system? I very much doubt that they would. Jesus was killed be the romans because the romans wanted him dead, just like they wanted the two theives crucified next to him dead, because they had contravened roman law.

None of this indicates that the Romans felt threateded by Christ at all. You wouldn't repeatedly try to release a threat back into the general population.

A potential problem is, what was the actual story, and what was one of the things added to the story in later times.

What the Romans were threatened by was a possible revolt by the local population

Precisely, a revolt lead by a messiah. The messiah, in jewish myth, was supposed to be the guy that'd lead the jews to military victory over their occupier and sit as king. The romans would, therefore, execute anyone claiming to be, or even hailed as, the messiah, whether its jesus or bar kochba or whoever. The sanhedrin wasn't a threat to the roman establishment, it was one of the tools through which they maintained control, just like the herodian dynasty. Its what they'd do everywhere, they'd take some locals, and make it so they had 'native authority' to deal with local issues and customs. When someone became a threat to the roman state, then the legions would give him the traditional sentence of a rebel, a beating and a crucifixtion.

I suppose that the biggest problem is showing why the sanhedrin wouldn't kill the guy. I can see that they'd have a case, he was a blasphemer, and apparently that's something that they can kill people over. But, why didn't they? What document of roman law shows that the native's, even under occupation, can't execute a known criminal?

still, the open question is why go to all this trouble of crucifixion and not play the full 9 innings by allowing the body to be removed?

"Pilate's Remorse" just doesn't make any sense at all. If Pilate felt he needed to placate the Sanhedran with the crucifixion then why would he risk alienating them by allowing JoA to take down the body. If the story is true that the Jews were demanding crucifixion then it's pretty clear that they wanted the full "soup-to-nuts" crucifixion - not just an execution. Besides stoning, there were many ways to rid themselves of this trouble-maker - simple assasination was an easy option and certainly not uncommon. Or, why not just prison?

I also cannot buy into the idea that Jesus had a large following - particularly not in Jerusalem at this time. In fact, the more I think about all of this, the more this whole thing starts to look like a "suicide by cop" scenario. Jesus knew that he was going to be in big trouble going into Jerusalem and pulling all the stunts he pulled. A lot of it looks pretty contrived - it seems obvious that Jesus was familiar with all the OT prophecies and was trying to hit as many as he could to be deemed the prophecied Messiah (though he missed more than he hit).

What I'm saying (as a considered opinion) is that if we are to believe most of the Gospel accounts, it looks like a total setup. The other idea, of which I believe there is considerable evidence, is that a lot of the story was "retrofitted" for both the prophecies and general anti-Semitism. There was some serious competition among the various claimants on Messiah-ship back in those days (the whole end-of-days stuff was considered very serious and imminent) so, this particular Jesus was either doing all he could to solidify his claim or his "marketing department", headed by Paul, built most of the story to put into their sales brochure which we now know as the Gospels. (Of course, the whole NT cannot be used to verify itself which is what so many are constantly trying to do - I've got a marketing piece right in front of me that claims that this product is the best and the first and that all others are just imitations of inferior quality. Sound familiar?)

I am enjoying this discussion and gaining some valuable insights from those of you who are clearly well-read and studied on this subject. I thank you for that!

the 27 books of the New Testament.
do not the world make. broaden your horizons

It is contrary to what we do know about Romans and crucifixions.
actually it is not. there is a deal of historical evidence showing the propensity
of Roman officials towards monitary persuaders.


5. the most ancient historical record
it is neither the most ancient nor historical.

What are the odds one guy said he came to save the world and got other people to write about him based on lies
Lets see, Jim Jones and David Koresh come to mind


He was put in prison for telling Herod's brother (Philip) that he shouldn't have married his own sister (Herodias).
Nope John was telling Herod that he should not havemarried His(herod) brothers(Philp) Wife.

What is important is that the tomb was empty before the first trip, which took place "while it was yet dark".
If memory serves me NO WHERE does it say the tomb was empty. It does mention from 2 - 4 men/young men
in White Raiment/clothing consistantly though.

It was simply Pilots decision to keep the piece

I am willing to bet that Pilate kept more than one PIECE


First all the Herods were Jews,
no they were not. they were Arab ( will have to look to see the actual flavor)Text

Originally posted by Nygdan
If the herods could have John killed, why not jesus? Why would they go through the strange and unpredicatable roman legal system? I very much doubt that they would. Jesus was killed be the romans because the romans wanted him dead, just like they wanted the two theives crucified next to him dead, because they had contravened roman law.

John was beheaded by Herod because he was harassing the royal family; today they would call it stalking and perhaps even aggravated stalking. What he was doing though was a direct crime against that royal family in those days, and Herod had the authority to deal with it.

What Christ did was a considered blasphemy and was a religious crime, it possibly could have been dealt with by the Herod, and hence the fact that Pilate sent Christ to him so he would not have to deal with it. Herod though could find nothing to fault Christ with that was deserving of a capital punishment, so he humiliated him and sent him back to Pilate.

Originally posted by Al Davison
"Pilate's Remorse" just doesn't make any sense at all. If Pilate felt he needed to placate the Sanhedran with the crucifixion then why would he risk alienating them by allowing JoA to take down the body. If the story is true that the Jews were demanding crucifixion then it's pretty clear that they wanted the full "soup-to-nuts" crucifixion - not just an execution.

Well fist I think that Pilate never wanted to crucify Christ to begin with, and when you read the gospels, I actually get the impression that he kind of liked or respected him. I am sure that anyone that is a judge would expect someone facing a death sentence, even with greater claims against them, to grovel, or at least put up a fight. Christ stood there answered the questions and took the entire thing with a great amount of honor.

Mat 27:14 And he answered him to never a word; insomuch that the governor marveled greatly.

Secondly, leaving him on the cross may not have been in Rome nor in the Priests best interest. Mainly because he was a martyr, leaving him there would only incite his followers. Peter was ready to fight when they came to capture him if you remember. So it might have been in their mind that the faster they got him down and in a grave the faster people would forget about him. Also and perhaps more important if they allowed him to be buried and he did not rise again in three days, then he was not who he claimed to be. So they allowed him to be buried and set a guard to protect the crypt.

Thirdly, and this is mentioned slightly in the gospels more so in Mathew, but further explained in the “Act of Pilate” especially the book of Nicodeamus, there were certain supernatural events that took place before and following the death of Christ. If I may point out a few verses:

Mat 27:19 When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.

Mat 27:45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.

Mat 27:51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
Mat 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
Mat 27:53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Even a centurion decided that they had royally screwed up in ending Christ’s life:

Mat 27:54 Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.

Originally posted by stalkingwolf
First all the Herods were Jews,
no they were not. they were Arab ( will have to look to see the actual flavor)Text

He was an Edomite, which meant that he was a decendant of Esau's, who was a son of Isaac and therefore technically a hebrew…

Herod the Great arose from a wealthy, influential Idumaean family. The Idumaeans, successors to the Edomites of the Hebrew Bible, settled in Idumea, formerly known as Edom, in southern Judea. When the Maccabean John Hyrcanus conquered Idumea in 130-140 BC, he required all Idumaeans to obey Jewish law or to leave; most Idumaeans thus converted to Judaism.

Herod identified himself as Jewish, although according to the Law he was not.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 4/21/2006 by defcon5]

posted by defcon5

posted by donwhite
“ . . who was handing down the sentence that day . . Pilate was . . Not the Jewish High Priest . . no one would question Pilate . . [All Edited by Don W]

Well it was only Pilate by default since he was the local governor. The locals already sentenced Christ by the time he was brought to Pilate, and Pilate understood exactly why that was:
STEP 1…. Christ found guilty of blasphemy, a death penalty crime
STEP 2…. Pilate realizes the High Priests killing an innocent man and passes the buck to Herod:
STEP 3…. Christ back to Pilate who wanted to let Christ be beaten then let go:
STEP 4…. Pilate gives in to High Priests and Crowd to keep the peace:

Without giving up my earlier arguments, an important aside: I assert this is the foundation of the ever popular “Christ Killers” accusation laid on Jewish people by Christians going at least as far back as 1218 when a papal bull required Jews to wear specially marked clothing. This theology run amok culminated in the Holocaust. Plain and simple. If that outcome was a logical consequence, then it is nothing to be proud of and merits a lot of very serious reconsideration. I saw the tv of John Paul 2 making an “apology” to some Jewish leaders, and I must say, I believe he gagged on the words. (I stand corrected on the role played by King Herod. My memory failed me in that.) For more on Judeophobia,
see www.zionism-isreal.com/his/judeophobia4.htm

Luke 23: (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.

I have already expressed my view of this part of the story of Jesus’ crucifixion.

posted by donwhite
Defcon5, why do you say “ - had to be - ” because the Romans did not “had to be” anything they did not want to be or do vis a vis the Jews . . The Roman’s used crucifixions as the English used drawing and quartering, as an example to the locals not to break the law.

Sorry, but you are absolutely incorrect here. I realize that this does not fit the little slam you think you are going for here against Christianity, but the facts are the facts. Rome did not wish to destroy Israel anymore then they would have Egypt. It is better to conquer a nation and keep the peace, rather then tick off all the individuals there to such a point that you end up wasting troops with having to garrison it and constantly crush rebellions within it. If you will please notice something in this verse from the Bible:

Is this your own conjecture D5, or is it derived from some statement by one of the recognized Roman writers of the era?

Herod Antipas was the Hebrew king in the area of Galilee, his brothers were kept in Rome as prisoners to ensure compliance of their father Herod Augustus Caesar. Why is this? Because they (Herod) were still ruling the Jews on the day that fell under their jurisdiction, but they were doing so in compliance with the wishes of Caesar.

Thus all local traditions and laws were in effect and being upheld to keep the local people happy.

“Wishes of Caesar?” To have Herod as a puppet king in Galilee and whose compliance was more or less assured by Rome holding his brothers hostage does not make it follow that “local tradition and law” were in effect.

I just have a fundamentally different concept than you have how the Romans dealt with captive peoples. Any society whose internal discipline included decimation just does not seem likely to be concerned over a vagabond urging the restoration of the “old time religion.” I think this story is a great embellishment on what more likely happened.

Here are direct quotes as to the time having to be immediate since they were on the brink of not only the Sabbath day, but also Passover: Mat 26: (4) And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtlety, and kill him. (5) But they said, Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar among the people.

Sounds more like the Middle Eastern reaction to the Danish pictures of the Holy Prophet. The more things change, the more they stay the same?

So, it “HAD TO BE”, unless the Romans felts like having to crush a riot over the incident. As far as Romans not caring about Christ’s body being taken down, it was because Pilate did not seem to feel that Christ was guilty of a crime to begin with. He was crucified by the Romans on behalf of the local Priests for a crime relating to Local Religious Doctrine, not as an enemy of Rome.

I just cannot readily accept the “ . on behalf of . ” part. So even if the crucifixion was serendipity to the Romans, the body hanging on the cross would still have a deterrent effect, would it not? Why waste a “good” body?

So, if Joseph received permission they would let them take the body down. Besides, Rome did not want to have any breaches of the peace, and as Christ had a fairly large following, it was a wise move to not keep his body on public display any longer then need be.

Same facts, yet opposite conclusions. The larger the family, the longer I’d want the body to remain on the cross.

D5: Certainly not Gnosticism either, which is what you seem to mean when you say you’re a Protestant Christian. Christ did not speak well of the Pharisees, He healed people during the Sabbath . . He also told [predicted?] of the destruction of the Temple and also of Jerusalem.

No one has responded when I ask how foretelling the future squares with what I believe is an Old Testament proscription on future telling and declaring it to be a stoning offense.

“The Jews wanted Jesus removed from the picture . . wanted the Romans to execute him so they did not look like they were involved . . Therefore since Rome was used as the executioner, a Roman method of executions was used.

Well, perhaps you will take what the scripture says, it says that the Priests and the People wanted Christ to be crucified. As a matter of FACT if you look through all the Gospels the first person to use the word in each gospel is the crowd or in reference to the crowd:
Mat 27:20 But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.
John 19:6 When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him.
So there you have it, he was crucified because its what the Chief Priests pushed for, not because it was Pilate’s decision to do it. It was simply Pilots decision to keep the piece and observe the Religious Laws of the locals. I am sure that the reason that the Priests Chose crucifixion is not only as it was a painful, slow and public death, but also to show loss of status.

uh, Defcon5, do you regard this statement as being consistent with your earlier statements above that Joseph and Nicodemus got permission to take down Jesus’ body early and that Jesus is also said to have died in a few hours, not in days as was often the case?

[edit on 4/21/2006 by donwhite]

DonWhite:

Are you perhaps confusing "my side" of the various arguments presented here with someone else's? I'm just asking because I have been consistently taking a very different side of these arguments from Defcon's - or I've been expressing myself very poorly.

In fact, though I don't wish to choose sides or align myself with any other poster on this board in general, I tend to agree quite a bit more with the cases you have presented. I'm only making this statement because you presented me with a rather puzzling question and I'm not sure how to respond.

quote: Al: Sorry, but you are absolutely incorrect here. I realize that this does not fit the little slam you think you are going for here against Christianity, but the facts are the facts. Rome did not wish to destroy Israel anymore then they would have Egypt. It is better to conquer a nation and keep the peace, rather then tick off all the individuals there to such a point that you end up wasting troops with having to garrison it and constantly crush rebellions within it. If you will please notice something in this verse from the Bible:


Is this your own conjecture Al, or is it derived from some statement by one of the recognized Roman writers of the era?

I sorta remember this was a rebuttal addressed to me - not my statement at all. In fact, I couldn't even figure out what this was supposed to mean since I never (intentionally) made any statement about Rome wishing to destroy Judea. I think this was rebutting a point I never made so, I didn't bother to respond to it. I looked back a couple of pages and couldn't find it quickly so, I didn't bother to put in any more effort. Seems like it might have been some nonsense....

-------------

To summarize: I am convinced that the Gospel accounts of the Passion are NOT accurate - to the point that I am really not at all sure that any part of this story ever really happened. It's not hard at all to view this as retrofitted and copied legends placed in a somewhat historical setting (as I was saying in my comments about historical fiction).
However, it's difficult to discuss this whole crucifixion story without beginning with the notion that it might have happened in some form or another so, if I simply dismiss the entire story, there's nothing to discuss - where's the fun in that?!
I think most of the details of the Gospel accounts have serious problems in the areas of:
1) the politics of the day
2) the rules, laws, and customs of the occupying Romans
3) the rules, laws, and customs of the Jews of the day
4) the premise of the divinity of the Christian Jesus
5) OT prophecies (to a lesser degree)
6) the incongruencies, inconsistencies, and outright disagreements between the different Gospel accounts
7) human physiology and forensics
8) translation errors

So, basically, I find it a fascinating study to attempt to verify (or not) these stories upon which a mighty religion is reliant. How much is true? I still don't know. But, for the record, in case it is not abundantly obvious, I do not believe in the divinity of the Christian Jesus. The question for me is: was there ever really such a person as is portrayed in the NT? how much is truth, legend, oral tradition with vast embellishments, made up whole, etc.?

It must also be stated that, despite more than 10 years of interest and study, I'm just a "hobbyist" with no formal training in history, anthropology, theology, languages, or science. (I'm just a lowly MBA so, not without some education and critical thinking skills, with an interest in all this stuff.)

Hope that clears it up for you and anybody else who might be wondering.



[edit on 21-4-2006 by Al Davison]

Al asks "Are you perhaps confusing "my side" of the various arguments presented here with someone else's? I'm just asking because I have been consistently taking a very different side of these arguments from Defcon's - or I've been expressing myself very poorly."



Mor To Follow

[edit on 4/21/2006 by donwhite]