Belly Bob Posted March 12, 2020 Report Share Posted March 12, 2020 On 3/9/2020 at 10:02 PM, Cat_Scratch said: [...] Normally the law was that anyone that was crucified was denied a burial, hanging on the cross to be made and example of until the meat was gone from the bones. But Pilot let the apostles take Jesus away to be laid in a tomb. This is according to James the, brother of Jesus's accounting of the trial. This version has been all but lost from history. Several books that didn't fit the Christian faith were left out of the bible that were written by those close to Jesus at the time of his death. [...] Why on Earth would Pilate, having just executed someone for sedition, break the law to allow that same man's followers to take his corpse? That's wildly implausible. It's much, much more plausible that a member of the Sanhedrin, the legislative body which was responsible for trying Jews for blasphemy, buried the body, in accordance with their strict religious laws, which is the account that has made it into the Bible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belly Bob Posted March 12, 2020 Report Share Posted March 12, 2020 On 3/9/2020 at 10:02 PM, Cat_Scratch said: [...] Mary of Magdalene, who some believe to have been the wife of Jesus also wrote a book. It was left out. BTW, It was not against the Jewish faith for a Rabbi to be married. [...]. It wasn't against the Christian faith for a Christian leader to be married either. It would be a thousand years until the Roman Catholic Church required priests to take a vow of chastity, which is why, for example, Luther took a wife after he gave the Church the middle finger. He couldn't find a reason for celibacy in the Bible or in early Christian practice. So what would be the reason for the conspiracy to distort the truth about the marriage between Jesus and Mary? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belly Bob Posted March 12, 2020 Report Share Posted March 12, 2020 On 3/9/2020 at 10:02 PM, Cat_Scratch said: [...] Of course the Bible has been written several times over to make it more modern, and there are many different versions since the first one. [...] Do you mean translated? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belly Bob Posted March 12, 2020 Report Share Posted March 12, 2020 On 3/9/2020 at 10:02 PM, Cat_Scratch said: [...] The point of there being a Christ was so the soul could be forgiven and live in eternity. I guess that depends on whether you think the Bible is veridical. If Paul somehow convinced everyone to believe his account of Jesus and not the account of Jesus's brother or Jesus's wife, then the Jews are probably right, and the Messiah hasn't come yet, since the Jewish kingdom, with Jerusalem as its capital, isn't the center of a global, multinational state from which peace and justice flow. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cat_Scratch Posted March 13, 2020 Report Share Posted March 13, 2020 On 3/11/2020 at 9:06 PM, Belly Bob said: Why on Earth would Pilate, having just executed someone for sedition, break the law to allow that same man's followers to take his corpse? That's wildly implausible. It was the Jewish leaders that were afraid of the change in their beliefs that demanded Christ be crucified, not Roman law. Roman law would only crucify him for being call a King. In so many words, Pilate wrote Herod to ask for his advice. Herod made it Pilates decision since he was governor. It was Pilate's decision what to do with the body after he was crucified not the Jewish leaders. It's much, much more plausible that a member of the Sanhedrin, the legislative body which was responsible for trying Jews for blasphemy, buried the body, in accordance with their strict religious laws, which is the account that has made it into the Bible. There was a Roman law that normally left the body of the crucified on the cross as an example. I'm sure Pilate only crucified Christ because Jesus was called a King by the multitude. That was in line with the Roman law then. It was written that the disciples took the body. I'll have to find the text. letters of Pilate. Pilate sent to him:—Because he wrought signs I did not wish to crucify him: and since his accusers said, He calleth himself a king, I crucified him. https://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/lbob/lbob29.htm 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cat_Scratch Posted March 13, 2020 Report Share Posted March 13, 2020 On 3/11/2020 at 9:21 PM, Belly Bob said: I guess that depends on whether you think the Bible is veridical. If Paul somehow convinced everyone to believe his account of Jesus and not the account of Jesus's brother or Jesus's wife, then the Jews are probably right, and the Messiah hasn't come yet, since the Jewish kingdom, with Jerusalem as its capital, isn't the center of a global, multinational state from which peace and justice flow. I'm intrested in your thoughts/beliefs on this. I'll get to it when I have more time. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belly Bob Posted March 13, 2020 Report Share Posted March 13, 2020 1 hour ago, Cat_Scratch said: I get that Pilate was the boss. But what I don't get is why he would hand over Jesus's body to his followers. Presumably he was worried enough about the Jesus movement to execute its leader, even if his primary concern was to placate the Jewish leaders. Why then would he let his followers take the body? What's more, I read the "Lost Books of the Bible" in the link you posted. They don't seem suspicious to you? There, Herod and Pilate write to each other confirming Jesus as the Christ. Herod expresses his regret for having executed John because he now knows that John was a messenger of God. And Pilate confirms that Christ did, in fact, walk out of his tomb. The King and the Governor of Judaea both converted. That's a little rich, don't you think? If authentic, it makes the continued persecution of Christians after the execution of Jesus a little difficult to understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belly Bob Posted March 13, 2020 Report Share Posted March 13, 2020 2 hours ago, Cat_Scratch said: I'm intrested in your thoughts/beliefs on this. I'll get to it when I have more time. Same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
World Citizen Posted March 13, 2020 Report Share Posted March 13, 2020 On 3/11/2020 at 6:12 PM, Belly Bob said: It wasn't against the Christian faith for a Christian leader to be married either. It would be a thousand years until the Roman Catholic Church required priests to take a vow of chastity, which is why, for example, Luther took a wife after he gave the Church the middle finger. He couldn't find a reason for celibacy in the Bible or in early Christian practice. So what would be the reason for the conspiracy to distort the truth about the marriage between Jesus and Mary? Patriarchy? Maybe to highlight that Jesus believed that even prostitutes were worthy of having their sins forgiven? Idk but this has always seemed illogical that Mary was just a normal sinner needing forgiveness as opposed to a disciple of his. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted March 13, 2020 Report Share Posted March 13, 2020 2 hours ago, Belly Bob said: I get that Pilate was the boss. But what I don't get is why he would hand over Jesus's body to his followers. Presumably he was worried enough about the Jesus movement to execute its leader, even if his primary concern was to placate the Jewish leaders. Why then would he let his followers take the body? Going just by 'what if's'....."Presumably worried enough" could also easily be written as "not wanting to have to deal with ANY of this BS getting in the way of other things".....(generally the opinion of most rule, on non goal targets). Much more realistic (whether you think he wanted to kill him or not) was to do what's quickest, easiest, and with the least amount of hassle... Now unless you are throwing away every bit of the "wash my hands of it" angle.....I don't think it too hard to get (as in the realm of possibility) that if their own offered to sweep up the mess, he might just save the money/time/hassle and just press the 'Easy button'.... I agree with your second half about some stories being spun a little long or too colorful.... or in conjecture too deep...that's why merely offer the 'basic' approach..... 🤷♂️ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belly Bob Posted March 13, 2020 Report Share Posted March 13, 2020 5 minutes ago, Troll said: Going just by 'what if's'....."Presumably worried enough" could also easily be written as "not wanting to have to deal with ANY of this BS getting in the way of other things".....(generally the opinion of most rule, on non goal targets). Much more realistic (whether you think he wanted to kill him or not) was to do what's quickest, easiest, and with the least amount of hassle... Now unless you are throwing away every bit of the "wash my hands of it" angle.....I don't think it too hard to get (as in the realm of possibility) that if their own offered to sweep up the mess, he wouldn't save the money/time/hassle and just press the 'Easy button'.... I agree with your second half about some stories being spun a little long or too colorful.... or in conjecture too deep...that's why merely offer the 'basic' approach..... 🤷♂️ Why make the Sanhedrin happy today by executing the blasphemer only to piss them off tomorrow by handing the body over to the blasphemers? It just makes more sense that Jesus was tried by the Sanhedrin, found guilty of blasphemy, and then buried by the Sanhedrin, in accordance with their strict religious laws regarding the burial of bodies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted March 13, 2020 Report Share Posted March 13, 2020 1 hour ago, Belly Bob said: Why make the Sanhedrin happy today by executing the blasphemer only to piss them off tomorrow by handing the body over to the blasphemers? It just makes more sense that Jesus was tried by the Sanhedrin, found guilty of blasphemy, and then buried by the Sanhedrin, in accordance with their strict religious laws regarding the burial of bodies. Did the Sanhedrin make a habit of making sure that blasphemers (so bad as to be in need of execution) are even allowed sacred burial rights? If you are going by just "what makes more sense", wouldn't a (blasphemous) desecrated corpse tossed back at their feet just be 'Easier' all around for the Sanhedrin as well ? (as well as the more public the display of cutting off the head the better no?) Why would they (the Sanhedrin) care to clean up the mess either? Just askin' 🤔 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted March 13, 2020 Report Share Posted March 13, 2020 dp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belly Bob Posted March 13, 2020 Report Share Posted March 13, 2020 2 hours ago, Troll said: Did the Sanhedrin make a habit of making sure that blasphemers (so bad as to be in need of execution) are even allowed sacred burial rights? [...] Yes. The story goes that the Sanhedrin asked Pilate to take the body down from cross to bury it because it was against the Law to leave body unburied overnight. The 1st century historian Josephus, who didn't have a horse in this race, talks about the Jewish practice of burying executed criminals before sunset. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belly Bob Posted March 13, 2020 Report Share Posted March 13, 2020 2 hours ago, Troll said: [...] Why would they (the Sanhedrin) care to clean up the mess either? Just askin' 🤔 Bc that was the Law, and the Sanhedrin's whole business was the Law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted March 14, 2020 Report Share Posted March 14, 2020 7 hours ago, Belly Bob said: Bc that was the Law, and the Sanhedrin's whole business was the Law. Yeah but I thought we were talking about religion.... there's the law...and then there is religion... Many people 'do' what their the religion states, over what a law states... That is why I asked the religious status of a 'heretic' problem, who someone needs dead...with regards to 'sacred burial rights'. Any posterity should be assumed to 'state' they followed the 'law'.... Like I said, I'm not going by any certain book, but if you want to start invoking 'sense' for explanations/reasoning, it would probably make more sense if they desecrated the body instead of dressing it up when they were done ... 🤷♂️ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belly Bob Posted March 14, 2020 Report Share Posted March 14, 2020 5 hours ago, Troll said: Yeah but I thought we were talking about religion.... there's the law...and then there is religion... [...] Not for the Jews. That's why one of the commonest translation for "Torah" is "Law." That's why they're the Covenant people. They made a legal contract with God out in the desert.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted March 14, 2020 Report Share Posted March 14, 2020 1 hour ago, Belly Bob said: Not for the Jews. That's why one of the commonest translation for "Torah" is "Law." That's why they're the Covenant people. They made a legal contract with God out in the desert.. Look 👀 You can claim that law and religion are (better than twins 👀 lol) actually one in the same in this particular case... You can even claim that 'Jewish criminals' are afforded sacred burial rights ... But can you 'actually' claim here, that those religious types, who needed this guy dead (for essentially not abiding by the 'religion') are somehow obligated to bring him back into the religion, and shower him with sacred rights? ......even after they kill him (or have him killed) ? This saves face how exactly ? ...ok, maybe... ...but is that really more 'sensible' ? PS: now I get the whole assumption that they would always 'obey God's law' (as you pointedly apply it to burials), but if you were 'actually' obeying some commandments...wouldn't you have to strip him of his 'Jewishness' prior to killing him? So, why are we thinking it likely they would undermine everything they just did.....and give it (his Jewishness or 'sacred religious right') back? But maybe I was just going by 'God's law' there (commandments), and not that 'Jewish law' that said he needed be dead for his blasphemy......now how did those darn twins get separated again? 👀🤔 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted March 14, 2020 Report Share Posted March 14, 2020 BTW: probably shouldn't listen to me on this one.....even got 'rites' screwed up with 'right's' 👀🤣 not going back to edit it all....sorry bout that. 🤪 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belly Bob Posted March 15, 2020 Report Share Posted March 15, 2020 On 3/13/2020 at 1:49 PM, World Citizen said: Patriarchy? Maybe to highlight that Jesus believed that even prostitutes were worthy of having their sins forgiven? Idk but this has always seemed illogical that Mary was just a normal sinner needing forgiveness as opposed to a disciple of his. That's possible, but I just don't think it's very likely. It's now a widely held belief that Mary was a prostitute, but both Christian scholars and historians now think that that's based on an early confusion between Mary Magdalene and Mary Bethany. To confuse things even more, the sinful woman (whom people have interpreted as meaning that she was a prostitute) never gets a name. So, there may be three distinct women who were once all identified with Mary Magdalene. Reading Mary Magdalene as the unnamed prostitute was one of the minor issues motivating the Protestants. In their view, it was it a pretty obvious mistake which ought to be corrected. Mary Magdalene is distinct from Mary Bethany and not identical with the unnamed sinful woman who washes Jesus's feet. Rather, she probably had money, since the gospel says that she supported Jesus's ministry with her resources. A prostitute wouldn't have had money. Jesus didn't have a job for three years. Plus Mary is named over and over again in the New Testament, and she's described as one of Jesus's closest companions. Moreover, the gospel says that she witnessed the crucifixion and discovered the empty tomb. So she's pretty close to the heart of the story. For these reasons, she has often been called the "apostle to the apostles." So, that doesn't square very neatly with the idea that the patriarchy lied about her marriage to Jesus in order to keep her and other women down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belly Bob Posted March 15, 2020 Report Share Posted March 15, 2020 11 hours ago, Troll said: Look 👀 You can claim that law and religion are (better than twins 👀 lol) actually one in the same in this particular case... You can even claim that 'Jewish criminals' are afforded sacred burial rights ... But can you 'actually' claim here, that those religious types, who needed this guy dead (for essentially not abiding by the 'religion') are somehow obligated to bring him back into the religion, and shower him with sacred rights? ......even after they kill him (or have him killed) ? [...] I don't think you can stop being Jewish. You can break the Law and blaspheme, but you can't become a gentile. The idea is that the Jews made a contract with God out in the desert, and they're all bound to its terms, whether they like it not. You can choose to follow the Law or not, but you don't get to decide whether you're contractually obligated to do so. That contract was made a long time ago. The Old Testament is full of stories of God visiting his justice on the Jews for worshiping idols -- that is, practicing another religion. You can't opt out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted March 15, 2020 Report Share Posted March 15, 2020 16 hours ago, Belly Bob said: I don't think you can stop being Jewish. You can break the Law and blaspheme, but you can't become a gentile. Like I said, more than possible... You could lose your 'rite' lol to live in this world as a Jew if you blaspheme, before you would lose your 'rite' lol to be buried as one... No problem.... Never promoted which I thought it was...only opined what is more 'sensible'.... 🤷♂️ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
World Citizen Posted March 15, 2020 Report Share Posted March 15, 2020 4 hours ago, Belly Bob said: That's possible, but I just don't think it's very likely. It's now a widely held belief that Mary was a prostitute, but both Christian scholars and historians now think that that's based on an early confusion between Mary Magdalene and Mary Bethany. To confuse things even more, the sinful woman (whom people have interpreted as meaning that she was a prostitute) never gets a name. So, there may be three distinct women who were once all identified with Mary Magdalene. Reading Mary Magdalene as the unnamed prostitute was one of the minor issues motivating the Protestants. In their view, it was it a pretty obvious mistake which ought to be corrected. Mary Magdalene is distinct from Mary Bethany and not identical with the unnamed sinful woman who washes Jesus's feet. Rather, she probably had money, since the gospel says that she supported Jesus's ministry with her resources. A prostitute wouldn't have had money. Jesus didn't have a job for three years. Plus Mary is named over and over again in the New Testament, and she's described as one of Jesus's closest companions. Moreover, the gospel says that she witnessed the crucifixion and discovered the empty tomb. So she's pretty close to the heart of the story. For these reasons, she has often been called the "apostle to the apostles." So, that doesn't square very neatly with the idea that the patriarchy lied about her marriage to Jesus in order to keep her and other women down. The intention probably isn't as devious as this sounds and the intent more likely was to keep men simply above women. I don't think it is very unusual that Mary wasn't portrayed very prominently, even though she was so close to the story. I doubt at the time that Mary walked around like she was on equal footing, socially or intellectually with the male disciples and probably only spoke openly when they were behind walls and out of view of the people. As for those who chose what to put in and what to leave out of the bible, they were very Patriarchal too. We didn't allow women to even vote less than a 100 years ago and we still have far to go for gender equality. IMHO You very well may be right that it is unlikely but it is hard to remove that aspect when thinking about those who wrote the bible and those who interpret it. Maybe it was because the story was about Jesus and to introduce a wife would take away from and unnecessarily complicate the idea that he was the Son of Man. Idk but appreciate the discussion. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted March 15, 2020 Report Share Posted March 15, 2020 6 hours ago, World Citizen said: As for those who chose what to put in and what to leave out of the bible, they were very Patriarchal too. We didn't allow women to even vote less than a 100 years ago and we still have far to go for gender equality. IMHO You very well may be right that it is unlikely but it is hard to remove that aspect when thinking about those who wrote the bible and those who interpret it. A good point...always better to view in context while trying to interpret meaning of prose... But just as a side note...I wouldn't go all hog wild on the idea that the world is just a 'patriarchal' one 🤣 Think of it this way...there is a reason why women live longer...and while you might want to hit those men in the teeth for statistically making the currency part, you might want to think twice about that one... before you buy into the guilt trip... BTW: I take it you are not married yet ? 🤣 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
World Citizen Posted March 15, 2020 Report Share Posted March 15, 2020 5 hours ago, Troll said: A good point...always better to view in context while trying to interpret meaning of prose... But just as a side note...I wouldn't go all hog wild on the idea that the world is just a 'patriarchal' one 🤣 Think of it this way...there is a reason why women live longer...and while you might want to hit those men in the teeth for statistically making the currency part, you might want to think twice about that one... before you buy into the guilt trip... I'm not hitting anybody in the teeth. Just bringing up an obvious fact that it was a very patriarchal society. BTW: I take it you are not married yet ? 🤣 I'm married. Your assumptions are not very accurate. Not a guilt trip. What would be the point? Who am I trying to make feel guilty? Do you think women are treated equally? Do women get to tell men what they are allowed to do with their bodies? Equal pay? How do you think men would react to less pay than women just because they are men. Still very patriarchal. It is what it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.