I know that. I was waiting to see what evidene Nolies was going to put up.
Zev Steinhardt
Gah. That was a reply to post #18.
And for anyone who would argue that Pilate may have secretly handed over the body out of guilt, if we take the scriptures as being true they say he openly handed over the body. Those Roman soldiers guarding the tomb would have been publicly visible.
But there weren’t a lot of people who had a transforming experience all at once. Shortly after Jesus was crucified, there weren’t mass numbers of people in Israel who became Christians.
And Thomas Didymus [translated variously as “the Twin,” i.e., he might have had a twin brother – possibly John the Beloved Disciple – or as “he of two minds,” i.e., “the Doubter”] said unto the disciples, I will not believe this man is our risen Lord until I have put my hands into the wounds in his hands, and in his side. And Thomas put his hands into the wounds in Jesus’ hands, and in his side. And lo, Jesus said unto Thomas, BBBRRRAAAAAAIIIIIIIHHHHHNNNNNZZZZZZZZ!!! And there was much wailing, and panic and tumult, and gnashing of teeth, and sprays of bodily fluids.
Had him over for dinner? Played poker a few times?
<G,D&R>
Honestly, I cant say I have any particular experience or flash of enlightenment that might possibly be taken as any particular visitation or influence of any diety [or lack thereof], I am considered as pretty much a heretic because I dont believe that any one way is the only way [though the validity of lavey or crowley style satanism I find rather iffy, but what the heck, it is their hangup, not mine] I live by the simple rule of behave as I would have others behave to me which is not just old testiment, but a precept of a lot of other groups as well…and so far it more or less works [people being people, there are always bad eggs that are selfserving.]
Well, by “mass” I guess I mean tens of people, at most. Perhaps I should have said “group”. At any rate, I don’t myself put any stock in the argument; it’s just one I’ve commonly encountered. “How could so many people believe in such a thing if it weren’t true? Surely something must have happened.” This argument assumes, at the very least, that the barest details of the scriptural account of the resurrection, that the remaining Apostles and some number of disciples (e.g. Mary Magdelene) believed they saw the risen Christ is itself accurate. Given that the story wasn’t written down until decades after the event, we can’t even say that for certain, being DtC’s point, I believe.
Consider the Heaven’s Gate cult. Tens of people devoutly believing in something crazy, to the point they would die for it, is hardly unusual in human history. And note that we have solid, credible news reports about the Heaven’s Gate cult, and what happened. The accounts of Jesus rising from the dead are far less credible.
But it’s not even necessary to consider something like mass hysteria. The fact is we simply don’t know what Jesus’ direct followers did or saw or said after the crucifixion. They didn’t tell us. All we have is what other people claimed they said decades after the fact.
All absolutely correct, to the both of you, hence my rather embarassed head-smacker of a realisation.
Hm…The “Zombie” theory of Christ.
Well, it would certainly explain the other saints who jumped out of their coffins after Jesus rose from the dead. In fact, it would also explain why there is no first hand evidence-because Jesus’s pals were so over joyed that he was…‘alive’… that they rushed to be close to him-not realizing that he would soon be eating them all…
Almost makes sense, given Catholic doctrine re: Holy Communion, the Host, etc. Payback is a bee-yatch.
(Walks away whistling
“Sons of God
hear His holy Word
Gather 'round
the table of the Lord
Eat His body, drink His blood
and we’ll sing a song of love
Halle-luuu, ha-le-luuuu
Ha-le-luuu, ha-le-luuuuuuiiia!”
Except that criminals weren’t never given proper burials; it’s just that they were rare. And it had nothing to do with Roman Law — it had to do with Roman ingenuity:
“Thus the manner in which the victims were crucified was not fixed by law but appears dependent on the number of individuals involved, the sadistic ingenuity of those carrying out the execution and the time needed for this spectacle to have its maximum deterrent effect.”
It is also entirely possible (probable, in my opinion) that Pilate, as an individual, did not see Jesus as a criminal at all, but merely the unfortunate victim of politics and circumstance. It certainly wouldn’t be the only time that Rome crucified people for reasons other than crime:
“While many people believe that crucifixion was reserved for criminals only as a result of Plutarch’s passage that “each criminal condemned to death bears his cross on his back,” the literature clearly shows that this class of individuals were not the only ones subjected to this ultimate fate. Alexander the Great had 2,000 survivors from the siege of Tyre crucified on the shores of the Mediterranean. In addition, during the times of Caligula – AD 37-41 – Jews were tortured and crucified in the amphitheater to entertain the inhabitants of Alexandria. Women are seldom if ever mentioned specifically in the ancient sources aside from two passages in the Mishna, one in Tractate Mourning 2.11 which suggests that women may have been sacrificed as well. The second reference is found in Sanhedrin 6.5 in which Simeon B. Shetah had 70 or 80 sorceresses hung in the city of Ashkelon. However, as crucifixion was widely employed with slaves, one can assume that, in the ancient world its use was thus not limited by gender but mainly by class.”
Thus, it is plausable that Pilate allowed for a proper burial to assuage his own ambivalence.
(Source for factual assertions: http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/crucifixion.html)
Well, they never have found the body, now have they?
I guess I’ll chime in-
first, Diogenes’ experts to the contrary, I believe the Gospels were compiled from the testimonies of eyewitnesses if not written by the eyewitnesses themselves. I have no way to prove this NOR does Diogenes & friends have any way to disprove this.
Therefore, trusting the Gospels and the Acts as reliable sources-
SOMETHING jumpstarted the Christian movement, took a Jewish fringe groups from a state of cowardice & despair to become dedicated death-defying evangelists, and then eventually the spiritual core of Western civilization.
That this Jewish-originating group soon set aside the Torah Jewish-Gentile distinctives, added Sunday with Saturday & gradually abandoned Saturday as the main Holy Day, reinterpreted the Oneness of God to allow a triple-dimension in that Oneness, and worshipped a man as God similarly indicates something revolutionary happened. Incidentally, its spread in Roman-Greco society had nothing to do with direct experience of Jesus, but rather witnessing this group providing a solid spiritual alternative to the tired traditional paganisms & stylish but flighty sects AS WELL AS actually continuing the miraculous works performed by their founder. Again, a sign that the founder was of a rather extraordinary nature & not beyond being raised from the dead.
Not a support for Jesus’s Resurrection, but for his Messiahship. That within a generation of his death, the City of Jerusalem & the Temple-Priestly-Sacrificial system were destroyed. In this the Mosaic Covenant world was dissolved. The alternative of Rabbinic Judaism arose to preserve distinct Judaic identity. Had this not been done, I think it may have been entirely possible that a greater Jewish presence may have entered & been maintained within the post-Apostolic Christian Church. I believe however God allowed this so that the Christian faith would always have a counter-balance to prevent complete Gentilization of the faith. Also, the continued survival & thriving of the Jewish people is a sign of God’s Covenant faithfulness.
Pilate was recalled by Tiberius because his violent heavy-handedness (e.g. Samaritan revolt) made him a political liability, a fact no historian credibly disputes. Outside of Christian apologetics, in which the early Gospel writers sought to shift blame from the Romans to the Jews, Pilate was known for nothing if not excessive cruelty, and upon his return was banished by Caligula, of all people. Why on Earth would such a person feel ambivalent about executing a seditious Jew?
OH! Re the burial of the body-
People have commented on Pilate’s uncharacteristic concern for both justice & Jewish popular opinion in the Gospel accounts. Pilate was in a precarious position due to his patron Sejanus (& much of Sejanus’ circle) being killed by a paranoid Tiberius Caesar. Also, Pilate was on notice from Rome to behave himself as prominent Jews had complained to Caesar about Pilate’s unnecessary roughness.
So for once, he may have actually tried to behave himself. (His eventual recall after a massacre of Samaritans show that it didn’t last.) But it was in this state, that the body was requested by Joseph of Arimathea, also a prominent person, and according to lore, a wealthy merchant with financial interests throughout the Empire. If Joseph & his friend Nicodemus (who MAY be mentioned in the Talmud) were indeed prominent men, they may well have been able to beg the body.
Btw, I think Josephus himself recorded a case in which a crucified man’s friends were able to request his body before he had finally succumbed, enabling them to nurse him back to health.
Of course, it’s interesting in that we (Jews) view the building of the Temple as a sign of the messiah, whereas you view the destruction of it as a sign of his arrival…
Of course, that begs the question… if the Temple was no longer needed due to Jesus’ arrival, why did it take forty years to destroy it? Why didn’t Jesus tear down the walls of the Temple himself?
In any event, I don’t think that the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple repudiated the Mosaic Covenant. After all, the city and Temple had been destroyed once before and Judaism still survived with people keeping the commandments.
Zev Steinhardt
Re the destruction of the Temple as a Sign of the Messiah- Daniel 9:26-27.
Why the forty years? A grace period during which Jesus’s apostles would re-offer His message to Judea.
The destruction of the Temple-Priesthood-Sacrificial system certainly doesn’t make the whole Mosaic Covenant impossible to keep but it sure took a chunk of it. The Babylonian destruction of the Temple was forecast by Jeremiah as being temporary, significant but still a parenthesis in Jewish history. The present destruction has lasted for about half the time of the very existence of the Abrahamic peoples.
Incidentally, within Christian belief, there are varied beliefs about a future Temple. Some cite the Letter to Hebrews against there ever being another literal Temple.
Others cite II Thessalonians 2 for there being a Temple desecrated by AntiChrist. Others cite Ezekiel 40-48 for there being a Temple during the Millenial Reign of Christ. Yet others believe there may or may not be Temples that rise & fall & rise but they are of no prophetic significance to Christianity. I myself believe there may well be Temples during both the reign of AntiChrist and the Messianic Kingdom, but that they aren’t necessary. (Indeed, I believe that a future AntiChrist, while likely, is not necessary for the fulfillment of prophecy.)
Because people are not one dimensional. Pilate, like anyone, was a complicated man, and he was subject to the complications of his political situation — such as the fact that he had no Syrian governor on whom to depend for backup. It is entirely possible, even likely, that Pilate’s reputation was at least in part an exaggerated fiction whose flames were happily fanned by Herod Aggripa.
“In the text known as the Embassy to Caligula, Philo of Alexandria includes a letter by the Jewish prince Herod Agrippa to the emperor Caligula, in which the latter’s attempt to have his statue erected in the Temple at Jerusalem is compared to Pilate’s attempt to have shields with pagan inscriptions placed in his Jerusalem palace. According to the author of this letter, Pilate was corrected by the emperor Tiberius, whose behavior is presented as exemplary. To present Tiberius as a virtuous ruler, Pilate had to be presented as a despot. Besides, it should be noted that Agrippa wanted to become king of Judaea; a negative portrait of Roman government could convince the emperor that there was a real need for his accession. (The letter served both purposes; Caligula backed down and Herod Agrippa was made king of Judaea.)”
Sure, he was as pretentious and self-important as any procurator, and possibly mean. But he wasn’t stupid.
"However we may read the testimony of Flavius Josephus, at least the gospels assume that Pilate was not convinced that the carpenter from Nazareth was guilty. Both Mark and John -independent sources- show us how the governor forced the Jews to take a part of the responsibility: Pilate declares that he can not find fault in Jesus and repeatedly refers to Jesus as ‘your king’ - thereby pushing the Jerusalem populace into declaring that they want the man from Galilee crucified. According to Matthew -whose report cannot be corroborated- Pilate even washed his hands: a Pharisean custom to wash away impurity, such as the impurity caused by convicting an innocent man.
"Of course, this was nonsense. As the supreme magistrate of Judaea, Pilate carried the full responsibility. But it is not implausible that the governor used the occasion to obtain pledges of loyalty from his subjects. John’s statement that the Jews even declared to have ‘no king but Caesar’ may indeed be a historical fact. Pilate may have regretted that he had to crucify a man who was fairly innocent, but he may have considered this human sacrifice an acceptable prize to be paid for the smooth cooperation with the Temple authorities.
"Although it is possible that the governor wanted to lay the responsibility with the Jews, he was not looking for a conflict with his subjects. The gospels mention several instances where Pilate shows respect for their customs. According to Matthew 27.24, he washed his hands; according to John 18.29 he allowed Jesus’ opponents to speak from without his headquarters, the Praetorium (entering a pagan building would defile the Jewish priests); and Mark 15.43 and John 19.38 state that he allowed Joseph of Arimathea to bury the dead man before the beginning of the sabbath. (Since they state this independently, this has to be authentic.)
"The latter story is very remarkable: the emperor Augustus’ directive that those who had suffered the death penalty were allowed a decent burial, did not pertain to those executed on a charge of high treason. As a matter of fact, it was almost proverbial that the crucified were the prey of dogs and a feast for birds. Pilate’s permission to have Jesus buried and -according to John 19.39- regally embalmed, is the act of a governor anxious to respect the religious feelings of the Jews.
"It should also be noted that Pilate did not round up the other suspects, although it must have been possible to demand the angry Jerusalem populace to help searching for people speaking with a Galilean tongue. If Pilate really believed that the Galileans had stormed the Temple and wanted to establish the kingdom of God by violent means, this was almost irresponsible. This fact -Mark, John and Flavius Josephus confirm that Jesus was the only Galilean executed- almost proves that Pilate did not believe that Jesus was a political Messiah. In an age when executions were used as deterrents, his behavior suggests dislike for excessive violence.
“On the other hand, he had condemned an almost innocent man to a brutal, slow, and extremely painful death. On the same day, Pilate released a man named Barabbas who had been arrested after a riot which had cost some deaths. The narratives of Mark and John, which state that it was Pilate’s custom to free a prisoner at Passover, cannot be taken at face value: the idea of a yearly release of murderers is ridiculous. Besides, their stories are colored by Christian theology and apology: Barabbas is presented as the first to be saved by Jesus’ passion, and the Jews rather than Pilate demand Jesus’ death. However, the release of this man is twice attested, and it must be a historical fact.”
Please see this 8-part series of articles on the life an reign of Pontius Pilate:
http://www.livius.org/pi-pm/pilate/pilate01.htm
In particular, part 6 on his encounter with Jesus
http://www.livius.org/pi-pm/pilate/pilate06.html
This is not some biased source, but an award-winning site on ancient history primarily written by Jona Lendering. He wrote the articles I’ve referenced here.