No way the Romans would have stationed guards at the tomb of someone crucified as a common criminal, never mind the "Roman seal" on the entrance. They just didn't care that much.
Why do you believe in Jesus?
- Thread starter Joeman
- Start date
No way the Romans would have stationed guards at the tomb of someone crucified as a common criminal, never mind the "Roman seal" on the entrance. They just didn't care that much.
I agree with GuessWho. I don't meant to turn this into a creation vs big bang thread, but I look outside at the world that surrounds me and I think: this is no accident, it was created and was created with a purpose. That's my thoughts. GuessWho may hay differant reasons.
grace be to you
grace be to you
spidergoat said:
Do you seriously believe that?
Do you know the sort of religious upheaval that came about "because" of Jesus? Do you remember that it was the Jews who persuaded that Jesus be killed and do you also forget that they feared stealing His body would propagate more of what they considered to be "heresy"?
Jesus, even in that time, was not a "common" person. His teachings caused much controversy, which the Jewish leaders did not appreciate.
(John 18:31 NIV) Pilate said, "Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law." "But we have no right to execute anyone," the Jews objected.
If he was a "common prisoner" as you claim, certainly there would have been no pressure on the side of the Jews to release Barabbas instead.
Second point:
-------------
A perennially interesting, though probably unanswerable, question is how Jesus regarded himself. Did he see himself as the Messiah? Probably, although one must remember that in the first centuries of the Common Era the word "Messiah" had a different meaning than it has today. Contemporary believers usually think of the Messiah as a wholly spiritual figure. Then, it meant a military leader who would free the Jews from foreign (i.e., Roman) rule, bring them back from the four corners of the earth, and usher in an age of universal peace. A century after Jesus, many Jews accepted the military general, Bar-Kokhba as the Messiah, although even his greatest supporter, Rabbi Akiva, made no claims regarding his spiritual greatness. Indeed, it was precisely because of the military association with the word "Messiah" that the occupying Roman authorities must have seen Jesus as dangerous and decided to crucify him. That the Romans hung over Jesus' body a sign proclaiming his crime, KING OF THE JEWS, again underscores the apparently militant and political direction of his activities.
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/anti-semitism/jesus.html
----------------------
Can you possibly say that they would leave such a Person unguarded when He obviously had followers who might try to steal Him away to "cause trouble"?
Last edited:
Enigma, thats the built in observer bias of any life form. They arose only in areas suited for them to arise, and adapted to the environment as it changed, so every life form finds itself in appropriate surroundings, never mind the 99.999999...% of the universe that is not suitable for habitation. Even on earth, 99% of the species that ever were are now extinct, so much for their purpose. It is also disingenuous to imply that the alternative to creationism is accident. Life was anything but an accident, but that doesn't mean that it had the intentionality of a pre-existing mind. Life may just be an emergent property of matter like crystals. In fact, it is wrong to say that we, being living, are the exception. Rocks, too, have the property of life, they cycle through living forms, and living forms cycle through a rock stage.
I tend to believe that, yes. I think the adversarial tone of the whole story is exaggerated. Also, the role of Pilate asking the jews anything is uncharacteristic of Roman rule at the time. Jesus would have been executed as a rebel as a matter of course. Most Jews sided with Jesus as well, they sympathized with him, in spite of his teaching an unorthodox form of Judaism. The story about them pursuading Pilate is laughable, the product of later Christian antagonism towards Jews which did not accept them as equals.
spidergoat said:
And of course the Roman efforts to dissuade rebellions through the Sanhedrin are laughable because the Romans had military strength.
--------
Pilate was no friend of the Jews - "mutual contempt" could be an apt summary of their relationship. He apparently avoided visits to Jerusalem as much as possible. Pilate was a highly political man, and the Jews there seemed to know how their threatened complaints to Pilate's superiors in Rome could get the governor to act in their favor - the release of a convicted murderer in place of Jesus Christ is a glaring example.
http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/pilate.htm
---------
Last edited:
That is always the case. It is a very rare occurence to see a prisoner fighting back. I don't know if you saw the Nick Berg video, but it's a prime example.
We all sit here and say; "If that was me I'd go out kicking and screaming", but it rarely ever ends up that way.
Like what? Teleportation from one place to another? We have but a few examples to work by, and most were simply cases of healing - which is supposedly performed by many modern day individuals. I've seen them all touring the country claiming to heal the sick and injured - and those sick and injured people even testifying to it afterwards. That does not mean these people can vanish into thin air if arrested. Ok, jesus also supposedly walked on water and several other larger scale tricks, but those cannot compare with David Copperfield who walked through the great wall of china. Either way, there is nothing whatsoever to support any claim that he could in any way have escaped.
Where does it say he could have done any of that?
You have no position to make that claim, and we even see him begging for his life at the final moments. Instead you add these assumed magical powers to him, as if he were Spiderman, and then try to state he didn't want to use them - when you have no position to say he even had them in the first place.
So you concur with me, he couldn't have actually done any of it. He would have had to beg his father to do it for him, in essence showing that he was personally powerless. And even when he did beg, (like begging for his life), he was denied, or in his words: forsaken.
Remember, none of it was his choice, it was the choice of his father. He had no say in the matter at all.
What this equates to is that he didn't sacrifice anything - but god chose for him to be killed, he didn't want to die, but god chose to ignore his pleas, and made the choice that he would die. Luckily it's of no consequence because he was up and walking around 3 days later. god was just "pulling his leg". Amusing fellow.
Remember, none of it was his choice, it was the choice of his father. He had no say in the matter at all.
What this equates to is that he didn't sacrifice anything - but god chose for him to be killed, he didn't want to die, but god chose to ignore his pleas, and made the choice that he would die. Luckily it's of no consequence because he was up and walking around 3 days later. god was just "pulling his leg". Amusing fellow.
It was NOT the Father's choice, but the Father's will, two seperate things. Jesus died an agonizing death. He was hung on a cross and left to die. When you are crucified, you die of suffocation. each time you take a breath you body pushes up on whatever in underneath you. because you had nails through your feet, it was an extreamly painful task just to keep breathing. people could hang on these crosses for several days. If the soldiers had mercy on you, they would break your legs. this would prevent you from being able to stand and thus breathe. Do you realize how many prophecies were fufilled in the death and ressurection of Christ? Hundreds!
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
No, and neither do you. All you know is a series of wholly unsubstantiated, late 1st century, second hand stories fabricated by apologists.§outh§tar said:
That you believe them reflects little more than infantile gullibility. But that you would actually suggest some great "religious upheavel" is laughably stupid, for the greater the supposed upheaval the more curious the total absence of an extra-biblical record.
Explain the difference.
So do many people all over the world, every single day of the week. Is that also god's will, or just nature? I'm curious to know.
I'll take your word for this because not only have I never been crucified, but I also don't have my lungs in my feet.
Kindly list them, or provide a site with a complete list- showing evidence etc.
ConsequentAtheist said:
By the twentieth century, however, archaeological discoveries had confirmed the accuracy of the New Testament manuscripts. Discoveries of early papyri manuscripts (the John Ryland manuscript, A.D. 130; the Chester Beatty Papyri, A.D. 155; and the Bodmer Papyri II, A.D. 200) bridged the gap between the time of Christ and existing manuscripts from a later date.
William Albright, who was the world's foremost Biblical archaeologist, writes: "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today."
Do you see how "laughably stupid" your statement is? I hope you see your incredulous ignorance, not even a shred of evidence to backup your claim and yet I continue:
Sir William Ramsay is regarded as one of the greatest archaeologists ever to have lived. He was a student of the German historical school that taught that the Book of Acts was a product of the mid-second century A.D. and was not the first century it purports to be. After reading modern criticism about the Book of Acts, he became convinced that it was not a trustworthy account of the facts of that time (A.D. 50) and therefore was unworthy of consideration by a historian. So in his research on the history of Asia Minor, Ramsay paid little attention to the New Testament. His investigation, however, eventually compelled him to consider the writings of Luke. He observed the meticulous accuracy of the historical details, and gradually his attitude toward the Book of Acts began to change. He was forced to conclude that "Luke is a historian of the first rank...this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians." Because of the accuracy of the most minute detail, Ramsay finally conceded that Acts could not be a second-century document but rather a mid-first century account.
Please refrain from making such idiotic statements in the future as they very well discredit your "arguments". Peace be with you.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
§outh§tar said:
Before dealing with the points you (sic!) raised, let me state that I find plagiarism to be both dishonest and repugnant. Those who employ such methods are worthy of little but contempt. See: Are The Biblical Records Reliable? for the source of your drivel.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Second century CE manuscripts in no way 'confirm the [historical] accuracy of the New Testament manuscripts'.§outh§tar: Plagiarizing Josh McDowell said:
Albright has long been surpassed, both in the field of Syro-Palestinian archaeology and NT textual criticism. Appeals to Albright consciously ignore decades of analysis.§outh§tar: Plagiarizing Josh McDowell said:
You are a liar. It is not you, but McDowell who continues.§outh§tar said:
By whom? Christian apologists?§outh§tar: Plagiarizing Josh McDowell said:
How very nice.§outh§tar: Plagiarizing Josh McDowell said:
Geographical, sociological, and political accuracy in secular books is not at all unusual. Any long-time resident of Fulton County, Illinois, can read Spoon River Anthology and easily recognize that its author, Edgar Lee Masters, was familiar with the geography of the region in which this book was set, but that by no means would prove that Masters was divinely inspired as he wrote. He was simply familiar with a geographical region that he had lived in. If Luke had traveled with the apostle Paul, as claimed in the book of Acts, why should we not expect that he would have become familiar with the places they visited?
The book of Acts claimed 26 different miracles between the ascension of Jesus in 1:6-11 and the apostle Paul's survival of the bite of a venomous serpent in 28:3-6. These miracles were as extraordinary as the claims that Peter struck two people dead (5:1-11) and resurrected Dorcus (9:39-42) and that Paul struck a sorcerer blind (13:4-12) and raised Eutychus from the dead (20:7-11), yet not one scrap of extrabiblical evidence has ever been found to corroborate Luke's claims that all of these events happened. Some of them allegedly happened in the presence of witnesses that sometimes numbered several thousand, as in the case of the baptism of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 in the presence of "devout Jews" from "every nation under heaven"(v:5) to whom Peter said that Jesus of Nazareth had been approved of God to them by "mighty works and signs which God did by him in [their] midst" even as they themselves knew (2: 22), yet despite the alleged openness of many of these extraordinary events that filled the works of Luke, not one of them has ever been confirmed by unbiased, disinterested contemporary records.
- see Luke: A First-Rate Historian?
Luke in no way confirms the historical accuracy of the New Testament.The book of Acts claimed 26 different miracles between the ascension of Jesus in 1:6-11 and the apostle Paul's survival of the bite of a venomous serpent in 28:3-6. These miracles were as extraordinary as the claims that Peter struck two people dead (5:1-11) and resurrected Dorcus (9:39-42) and that Paul struck a sorcerer blind (13:4-12) and raised Eutychus from the dead (20:7-11), yet not one scrap of extrabiblical evidence has ever been found to corroborate Luke's claims that all of these events happened. Some of them allegedly happened in the presence of witnesses that sometimes numbered several thousand, as in the case of the baptism of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 in the presence of "devout Jews" from "every nation under heaven"(v:5) to whom Peter said that Jesus of Nazareth had been approved of God to them by "mighty works and signs which God did by him in [their] midst" even as they themselves knew (2: 22), yet despite the alleged openness of many of these extraordinary events that filled the works of Luke, not one of them has ever been confirmed by unbiased, disinterested contemporary records.
- see Luke: A First-Rate Historian?
You demonstrate yourself to be both dishonest and incompetent - a true exemplar of Christian ethics.§outh§tar said:
Now, my plagiarizing little fool, do you have anything remotely resembling evidence?
I don't remember adding a smiley to my post, I merely stated I would have to take your word for it because I've never been crucified. I can quite confidently tell you that's a fact, unless I was crucified but have just forgotten about the whole affair. I would also ponder that if jesus is in actuality god himself, then it couldn't have been that bloody painful- unless he chose to feel pain, in which case it's his own bloody choice. I see religious people saying "well, a sinner chooses to go to hell so it's his own fault". I will reverse that and say "god chose to suffer so it's his own fault". What, you think I should show sympathy to god because he suffered, because he chose to suffer, because he chose for people to sin, and because he chose that somehow killing himself painfully was the way of removing the sin that he had chosen people to be full of?
Get real.
I'll have to take your word for that aswell, 'cause I've never been there. I can just tell you how glad I am you managed to escape.