I am pained, Atreyu, that you would think of me as a “lurker” or a “troll” or even merely as a poster “of the drive-by variety. Spout off some stuff and back none of it up”, when I am simply a slow and careful poster.
I think that my earlier reply to erislover fully answered your querry as to my conclusions with respect to the Fraud of the Crucifiction as perpetrated by the Roman Military Government then occupying Judea.
You write, Atreyu:
I think that the key words here are “…I’m not very religious…”. Had you been a reader of the New Testament, you would have found that it was NOT the Romans who Jesus irritated, but the Jewish clerics and lawyers. I can’t think of any evidence whatsoever that the Romans felt any antagonism toward Jesus. In fact, no less that a Centurian requested a favor from Jesus (–to heal a favored servant of his).
In truth**:** Just the opposite. Jesus had done some truly bizzare and very public things; for example, feeding a crowd of thousands a great banquet starting with nearly no food. Neither the crowd (which had been gathered for 2-3 days) nor the subsequent banquet (“hey-poofed” out of almost nothing) could have conceivably been missed by the Roman occupation forces.
There can be little (logical, reasoned) doubt that the Romans must have had quite a bit of intelligence on Jesus, which was known at the highest levels of the Occupation Government, and probably in Rome itself. Given what we, now, know of Jesus’ activities, it’s hard to imagine that the Romans thought of Jesus as anything other than the embodiment of one of the gods or, at the very least, as a representative of the gods.
I freely admit that my ‘evidence’ is logic, reason, and a knowledge of how military governments work (–partly from an Army course I once took, and partly from extensive reading prompted by an intense interest in the subject area**;** an interest that was, in turn, prompted by a reading of Articles I and II of the U.S. Constitution**:** a better outline of an effective but liberal military government would be hard to find.) I, at least, feel more comfortable with basic facts (how military governments work), logic, and reasoning than I do with finding an obscure cite somewhere—a cite based on who knows what**!**
We all have our preferences based on our backgrounds. Mine is logic and reasoning. Others demand cites. I hope that my reasoning suffices for you.
Taking a very deep breath…breathe in…breathe out…keep it cool…keep it real…
I see. Let’s take a look.
**
Cite? If this is just your suspicion, then that’s all it is. Some people are suspicious that UFOs are abducting Midwesterners and exsanguinating their livestock. Doesn’t mean that it’s true.
Secret passage to anywhere? Huh? Where did that happen?
True. They were awfully good conquerors.
**
Cite? There’s no evidence in the Gospels that Jesus was well known outside of what is now called Israel.
This is an easy one. Much of the ancient Roman histories written during the first century CE barely mention Jesus. See the cite I list later in this post for an example.
**
And this proves…what?
Somehow I don’t doubt that it is beyond your comprehension, but it isn’t beyond the comprehension of historians. Jesus was regarded as a troublemaking rebel by Pontius Pilate, and executed as such.
And now for your response to my last post…
**
And why do you think those are the key words? Does the fact that I’m not religious make me disqualified to comment on your statement regarding the crucifixion of Jesus?
**
You are making an assumption here. In this case, it is a terribly inaccurate assumption. You may be shocked to learn that I have indeed read the New Testament. The. Whole. Thing.
**
The Gospels are hardly an impartial account of Jesus’s life. All of them were written well after the crucifixion took place. It is doubtful that any of them were written by an actual eyewitness to the event.
One of the very few references to Jesus Christ outside the Gospels was a line written by a Roman Historian named Tacitus, who lived approximately during the years 55-117 C.E. When talking about the Christians, he writes, “Christ, the originator of their name, had been condemned to death by Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius.”
The blame here is clearly placed on Rome (by a Roman historian, no less). Pilate was the ultimate political authority in Jerusalem, but he answered to the emperor Tiberius. Any person suspected of fomenting a revolution or treason against the state had to be dealt with harshly. It is worth pointing out again that crucifixion as a punishment was reserved only for special cases, those cases being slaves, foreigners, or rebels. Jesus was not a slave, nor was he a foreigner to that land. He was executed as a rebel. The Pharisees may have complained about Jesus’s activities, but they were not the ones who put him to death. It is Pilate who bears responsibility for this action.
**
So the actions of a single Roman centurion means that all of Rome could not have been ill-disposed towards Jesus? :rolleyes:
**
It may be hard to imagine from your point of view, but not from history’s point of view. There is no evidence that Pilate, Tiberius, or any other major Roman leader thought of Christ as divine during the time the fellow walked the earth.
Hey, I once took a course on archeaology in college. I guess that means I can dig up Mayan ruins and offer my own interpretations of what I find. Of course, I will reserve the right to call anyone who disagrees with me an ignorant heathen.
I’ll leave this alone, since I have no idea what this has to do with the OP or your response to my post.
**
This could be the first logical thing you’ve written in this post.
This statement seems to suggest that those who demand cites do not concern themselves with logic and reasoning. Wrong. They demand cites because someone making a particular claim in this forum should be prepared to back them up with cites.
Moonchild came in yesterday, erislover. An extrordinary book. Borderline, if not, genius. So far, a very good read. Very insightful. Thanks.
I noticed that there were a few pages which plainly indicated that the author (–and probably just about everyone else of the era–) was acquainted with Flatland by A. Square. (As with the American author “O. Henry”, “A. Square” is usually found under the name “Edwin A. Abbott”.) Flatland dates from about 50 years before Moonchild; the second, revised edition is dated 1884.
Don’t know if your’e interested in higher dimensional stuff nor if you are not, in fact, already familiar with the area of study; but if you’re interested, my edition is 1963 Barnes & Noble. A better buy would almost certainly be Dover Publications, where Flatland is available for a buck ($1.00). (Dover Pubs, 31 E. 2nd Street, Mineola, NY 11501) If you also have any interest in String Theory, they also have several fairly good books on Differential Geometry, Conformal Mappings, etc., most all in the range of ten bucks. :o
