(May 2, 2013 at 6:44 pm)Undeceived Wrote:(May 2, 2013 at 6:27 pm)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: Who told you that and why did you believe them? NOTE that LETTING means personally permitting it NOT happens on your watch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_milit...unishments
Quote:Fustuarium or bastinado — Following a court-martial sentence for desertion or dereliction of duty, the soldier would be stoned, or beaten to death by cudgels, in front of the assembled troops, by his fellow soldiers, whose lives had been put in danger.
http://www.milism.net/romanarmy.htm
Quote:The Roman army also believed in punishment. If a guard was found asleep at or left his post then he would be stoned or beaten for putting fellow soldiers at risk. The outcome of that was usually death. Even entire legions can be punished.
If there were a god I would demand to know why I am cursed by the likes of you. One that link I searched on the word prison which found only this.
"Another punishment in the Roman Military only applied to people involved in the prison system; this rule was that if a prisoner died due to the punishment inflicted by Roman legionnaires, unless he was given the death penalty, then the leader of the troops would be given the same punishment."
Can you quote what I missed? Can you agree you made it up? Can you agree that LETTING has the plain English meaning that would apply to Rome and in letting for a bribe or some such? Take your time. I have all year.
Quote:This also comes up in Acts 16:
Quote:27 The jailer woke up, and when he saw the prison doors open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself because he thought the prisoners had escaped. 28 But Paul shouted, “Don’t harm yourself! We are all here!”
Again I read nothing remotely like your original assertion.
Quote:(May 2, 2013 at 6:27 pm)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: Were they passing around a photo of him to show "exactly looked like?" I find it sort of incredible people can't get back to the real world barely a century ago try to apply it to thousands of years ago.
Thanks for pointing that out. You demonstrate that it is even easier for political officials to ignore Jesus' resurrection than I made a case for.
Yet it also shitcans your claim that the original intention was to ignore.
It still leaves you to explain your original implication that no one would report meeting the walking dead while the gospel writer did. Please address all the issues not just the ones for which you think you have a clever answer.
