furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jul 6, 2007 4:51:39 GMT -4
I also have no problems in believing that Jesus existed, and was crucified (by whatever method, but Wrists and a single pin though the ankles sounds best, knowing the Romans there probably is a tax record or court record. although as it wasn't a Roman Crime I don't know how that would have been recorded)
it's the whole son of God thing that sort of bums the story out, well that and the Roman massageing of any possible history to fit the existing Pagan mythos and the picking and choosing of the Heresies to make a comfortable religion.
I wonder if the ickeman and others would have proclaimed themselves son/daughter of god if there was a chance of earning themself a McJeebus Happy Death.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 6, 2007 12:14:09 GMT -4
How would anyone know exactly how Jesus was crucified? We can't even prove that he even existed.Well, if you're a believing Mormon then the answer is revelation. How do we know that Jesus had nails driven through both palms and wrists? The same way Isaiah knew he wouldn't have any bones broken six hundred years before the event.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 6, 2007 14:21:46 GMT -4
I also have no problems in believing that Jesus existed, and was crucified (by whatever method, but Wrists and a single pin though the ankles sounds best, knowing the Romans there probably is a tax record or court record. although as it wasn't a Roman Crime I don't know how that would have been recorded) It was a Roman crime. It just wasn't a crime by a Roman citizen, which is somewhat different. Jesus was executed for treason and sedition for claiming to be God. In fact, it amuses me sometimes to contemplate how a lot of modern fundamentalists would have reacted 2000 years ago to a man fitting Jesus's description and profile.
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jul 6, 2007 15:05:14 GMT -4
I thought the only Roman crime was equivalent to affray or a public order offense, and the acts of sedition/heresy were a provincial claim as he was claiming to be the son of a God of which the Romans weren't concerned with. (granted I am not exactly a biblical scholar)
I think the fundies would have had him stoned
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 6, 2007 15:23:31 GMT -4
The leaders of the Jews, the Sanhedrin, wanted him executed for blasphemy (claiming to be God), but the Romans wouldn't care about that. They convinced Pilate to execute him based on the seditious idea that he was claiming to be the King of the Jews and encouraging his followers to not pay their taxes to the Romans (even though Jesus had told his followers to "render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's"). Even though Pilate himself didn't seem to feel Jesus was much of a threat he was already on thin ground with the Sanhedrin because of past difficulties and was ready to placate them.
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jul 6, 2007 15:37:04 GMT -4
(Tries to avoid further thread divergence)
ahh now that would make more for a Roman case, fancy trying to ask people not to want to perform the enjoyable basic human right of taxation (even if the prosecution misrepresented the case).
I think however Pilate if given a little more time, might have preferred a new socialist (*using term weakly) representative if allowed to choose one, well apart from the unionisation of the lepers, under the slogan Alms for lepers (or disarm today, Datarm tomorrow), the increased status of many more peoples under the title of artisan would have increased tax revenues.
I don't know much about the history of Pilate but unless this was a bone he was throwing to the province seems a pretty poor choice for representative.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 6, 2007 15:41:46 GMT -4
A few years after the crucifixion Pilate suppressed a religious uprising in Samaria so violently that he was recalled to Rome. No one is quite sure what happeend to him after that (I believe the tradition is that he committed suicide).
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 9, 2007 15:08:08 GMT -4
In fact, it amuses me sometimes to contemplate how a lot of modern fundamentalists would have reacted 2000 years ago to a man fitting Jesus's description and profile. I know exactly how modern fundamentalists would treat someone who said he had talked to God, received new scripture, and was commanded to organize a church. He would be persecuted at every side, he and his brother would be killed by an angry mob, and his remaining followers would be driven entirely out of the country. Even then armies would be sent to subdue them, their leaders would be jailed, and attempts would be made to disincorporate the church, take possession of all its properties, and permanently disenfranchise the entire membership. If the church somehow survived and eventually found some measure of general acceptance, a hundred and seventy years later the fundamentalists would still be refusing to identify the church he organized as "truly Christian". They would continue to mock his memory and attempt to smear his character, all the while propagating false stories of the supposedly satanic rites the church engages in and the uncanny control it has over its members, who they would admit are otherwise quite intelligent and nice people, claiming all the time that they only want to save the church members from themselves. And members of that church would have to fight tooth and nail for any respect at all for their beliefs on internet forums mostly concerned with debunking Apollo Hoax believers.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jul 9, 2007 15:21:01 GMT -4
That story makes me wonder how many "potential prophets" (for the lack of a better term, please do not be offended... please) have been killed off already.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 9, 2007 15:57:38 GMT -4
Probably quite a few. For every Muhammed, Martin Luther, and Joseph Smith there are dozens of heretics who were executed and who's followers and teachings were destroyed by their enemies, never to arise again.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jul 9, 2007 16:09:07 GMT -4
In fact, it amuses me sometimes to contemplate how a lot of modern fundamentalists would have reacted 2000 years ago to a man fitting Jesus's description and profile. I know exactly how modern fundamentalists would treat someone who said he had talked to God, received new scripture, and was commanded to organize a church. He would be persecuted at every side, he and his brother would be killed by an angry mob, and his remaining followers would be driven entirely out of the country. Even then armies would be sent to subdue them, their leaders would be jailed, and attempts would be made to disincorporate the church, take possession of all its properties, and permanently disenfranchise the entire membership. If the church somehow survived and eventually found some measure of general acceptance, a hundred and seventy years later the fundamentalists would still be refusing to identify the church he organized as "truly Christian". They would continue to mock his memory and attempt to smear his character, all the while propagating false stories of the supposedly satanic rites the church engages in and the uncanny control it has over its members, who they would admit are otherwise quite intelligent and nice people, claiming all the time that they only want to save the church members from themselves. And members of that church would have to fight tooth and nail for any respect at all for their beliefs on internet forums mostly concerned with debunking Apollo Hoax believers. Jason, surely you jest. We would all know the divine if we saw it ....wouldn't we? Didn't Oral Roberts see a giant Jesus hovering above a bridge when he was driving along the freeway? His members accepted that. LOL ;D
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Jul 17, 2007 23:00:01 GMT -4
I thought of another reason why the story could not have happened as it is described. Only 3 percent of the water on Earth is fresh water. The fact is simply this. If the whole Earth was flooded, not only would all the fresh water fish die off, but the whole surface of the planet would be coated in salt. All fresh water plant life would be extinguished as well.
Have you ever dumped salt in the soil? Salt kills fresh water plants instantly and nothing will grow in salty Earth.
If the Biblical flood story had happened, all fresh water fish would be extinct and all fresh water plants would be extinct.
The food chain for all life on Earth would be irreparably devastated.
If the Biblical Flood story had literally happened, we simply would not be here today.
|
|
|
Post by donnieb on Jul 18, 2007 13:23:32 GMT -4
Last time I checked, Bill, rainwater was fresh, not salty. The problem is exactly the opposite of the one you described.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 18, 2007 13:28:54 GMT -4
But since all that water had been suspended in the firmament since the creation of the earth and disappeared after the flood, it seems that we don't have enough information to make a complete assessment as to its actual salinity.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Aug 24, 2007 14:58:10 GMT -4
We could determine the salinity of the flood water by examining the layer of silt left worldwide in the wake of the flood. Except... oops.
|
|