Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

71 (27.7%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

114 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (23.8%)

Total Members Voted: 251

[thompson]

They didn’t do an autopsy, though. And John waxing lyrical about his unnamed witnesses doesn’t really inspire confidence. In fact, he does that a lot post-crucifixion as well.

[Shazbot]

I would be more inclined to think the Gestapo gave Erwin Rommel sleeping tablets instead of cyanide and smuggled him to Argentina than to think Roman legionaries ordered to execute a religious zealot in Judea would botch the job. You'd really be laughed out of the room if you suggested a Roman soldier didn't know a dead corpse from an unconscious man or that an unwashed and unconscious body laying in a tomb with a spear wound through the guts would recuperate rather than succumb to blood loss, infection, or a lance in the liver. After inventing those serendipitous miracles, and a conspiracy that Roman soldiers could be paid off to abandon their posts and facilitate treason... seriously. Jesus was a political target of a superpower and its client kingdom, threatening a rebellion in one of the most troublesome provinces on the fringes of the empire. Did the KGB man who put an icepick into Trotsky's eye need an autopsy to know when to stop twisting it?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The Romans crucified people by the many thousands in occupied territories - it's not entirely implausible. Whatever else crucifixion is, it's not very efficient at killing.

Of course, none of this stuff actually happened, but it'd make a decent story.

[Teneb]

It should probably be noted that there are basically no roman records of Jesus.

Of all the apostles? Yes. Of John the Baptist, extra yes. But of Jesus there is a strange absence. Of course the apostles existing implies a guy named Jesus did exist and was a religious leader. But the rest is down to faith (heh).

[Eschar]

There are also no records of a large number of dead Jews near Jerusalem resurrecting, walking around the city, and then returning to their graves.

[Shazbot]

It should probably be noted that there are basically no roman records of Jesus.

Of all the apostles? Yes. Of John the Baptist, extra yes. But of Jesus there is a strange absence. Of course the apostles existing implies a guy named Jesus did exist and was a religious leader. But the rest is down to faith (heh).

Well, if you don't count Flavius Josephus or Tacitus, I guess. That's "basically no records". Alexander the Great also has "basically no records". What we do have is four or five hundred years after the fact and second-hand or fragmentary. The Romans were as likely to take note of Jesus at the time as a governor on the Danube kept track of any other unlanded subject executed for blasphemy against the local druidic order.

And just to add; crucifixion being "inefficient" at killing and therefore it isn't implausible? Beg pardon? Stoning is a very inefficient method of killing. Piling rocks on someone is an inefficient method of killing. The gibbet is an inefficient method of killing. Impalement is an inefficient method of killing. These methods are used for execution because of their inefficiency for the sake of public torture. The sentence was not to be tortured, it was death by torture. When they removed the bodies they were impaled in the chest from below the ribs with spears. This is a deliberate coup de grace to ensure the condemned is dead and the sentence is carried out. The Romans just possibly knew how to kill people when ordered to.

[Teneb]

It should probably be noted that there are basically no roman records of Jesus.

Of all the apostles? Yes. Of John the Baptist, extra yes. But of Jesus there is a strange absence. Of course the apostles existing implies a guy named Jesus did exist and was a religious leader. But the rest is down to faith (heh).

Well, if you don't count Flavius Josephus or Tacitus, I guess. That's "basically no records". Alexander the Great also has "basically no records". What we do have is four or five hundred years after the fact and second-hand or fragmentary. The Romans were as likely to take note of Jesus at the time as a governor on the Danube kept track of any other unlanded subject executed for blasphemy against the local druidic order.

I guess I wasn't clear enough. There are roman records of John the Baptist. There are roman records of the apostles. There are roman records of pretty much everyone *around* Jesus. Except Jesus. If there weren't records on any of them, then it wouldn't be as notable. Not even fragments of records mentioning someone like Jesus.

Maybe it all got destroyed at some point. I'm just pointing out the historiography. As a historian. Y'know, doing my job and trying to help this here online community.

[Shazbot]

It should probably be noted that there are basically no roman records of Jesus.

Of all the apostles? Yes. Of John the Baptist, extra yes. But of Jesus there is a strange absence. Of course the apostles existing implies a guy named Jesus did exist and was a religious leader. But the rest is down to faith (heh).

Well, if you don't count Flavius Josephus or Tacitus, I guess. That's "basically no records". Alexander the Great also has "basically no records". What we do have is four or five hundred years after the fact and second-hand or fragmentary. The Romans were as likely to take note of Jesus at the time as a governor on the Danube kept track of any other unlanded subject executed for blasphemy against the local druidic order.

I guess I wasn't clear enough. There are roman records of John the Baptist. There are roman records of the apostles. There are roman records of pretty much everyone *around* Jesus. Except Jesus. If there weren't records on any of them, then it wouldn't be as notable. Not even fragments of records mentioning someone like Jesus.

Maybe it all got destroyed at some point. I'm just pointing out the historiography. As a historian. Y'know, doing my job and trying to help this here online community.

The Antiquities of the Jews, Book XX, Chapter 9. By historian Flavius Josephus, retainer of Emperors' Vespasian, Titus and Domitian... Roman citizen?

[Teneb]

It seems I was wrong even if it is an "en passant" (for lack of a better descriptor) mention.

But please don't be so damn passive aggressive in the future? Could've just said: "Hey Teneb, you're wrong about this one: look in this here text" instead of obliquely doing so.

[delphonso]

There are also no records of a large number of dead Jews near Jerusalem resurrecting, walking around the city, and then returning to their graves.

Just so you know, I love this joke.

[Eschar]

There are also no records of a large number of dead Jews near Jerusalem resurrecting, walking around the city, and then returning to their graves.

Just so you know, I love this joke.

Eh? I'm a little confused by what you mean

[delphonso]

Joke may have been a poor choice. I love this point, rather.

Historical readings of the Bible are pretty useless.

[Eschar]

Joke may have been a poor choice. I love this point, rather.

It's the greatest story never told.

Historical readings of the Bible are pretty useless.

The Inerrant, Infallible Word of George Lucas

[HmH]

Joke may have been a poor choice. I love this point, rather.

It's the greatest story never told.

"A horde of undead cultists infiltrating cities in Roman Judea" certainly sounds as insane a writing prompt as the combination of ideas on which Codex Alera had been built.

The real horror story wouldn't be the zombies; it would be the provincial government's attempts to cover up the ensuing clusterfuck (namely, dead people pretending that they're still alive and spreading dissent in the populace despite every document saying they're dead) before Rome's bureaucracy got wind of it and decided to 'restore order' with fire and sword.

[thompson]

You’re all missing a very important point here. If scripture is to be believed (which is a big if) the highest ranking Roman in Jerusalem, P. Pilot, publicly disagreed with the execution and only begrudgingly went along with it. He apparently even went so far as to visit the site of the execution himself and have a notice mocking Jesus’ enemies nailed above his head.

Allow me to present an alternative scenario:

While Pilot was visiting Jesus he was feeling deeply troubled by it so went aside and had a brief word with the guards asking them not to mutilate the body. So, when the time comes to speed up the deaths instead of breaking his legs they just poke him with a spear. They’re still mindful of Pilots instructions, so don’t push it in deep enough, botching the execution.

Jesus is then taken off the cross to the tomb, where John realised he is still alive. Rather than tell anyone and risk the Romans finding out, he tends to Jesus’ injuries in secret and makes up some story about Jesus rising from the dead to cover his ass from the potential legal ramifications ( this is why his account of events post-crucifixion is so shifty). The story then leads to Jesus’ entire ministry being reinterpreted in light of the “resurrection”. Jesus then dies a few weeks later from his injuries, but there were enough witnesses seeing him alive for the cult to go viral.

Not saying it’s true, just more probable than the official version.