Someone stole the body!

[Gemini]

Actually here's a good question where did you get that God's omnibenevolent, please supply a source.

You believe in a god who is not omnibenevolent? Doesn't this entail that you worship a deity who at times inflicts pain on his creations for the sheer pleasure of watching them suffer, or permits suffering to occur with no moral justification whatsoever, but just because he is indifferent to it?

[Minimalist]

[quote pid='1284176' dateline='1464194710']
Actually here's a good question where did you get that God's omnibenevolent, please supply a source.

[/quote]

http://www.gotquestions.org/God-omnibenevolent.html

Question: "What does it mean that God is omnibenevolent?"

Answer: The word omnibenevolent comes from the Latin word omni, meaning “all,” and the word benevolent, meaning “good” or “charitable.” When we say that God is omnibenevolent, we are saying that God is absolutely good and that no action or motive or thought or feeling or anything else about Him is not purely good. He is “all-good.” The Bible provides many testimonies of God’s goodness, including Jesus’ own, when He asserted that no one is truly good except God Himself (Mark 10:18). This can only mean that, although human beings can do good things, only God is omnibenevolent, or wholly good.

These fuckers seem to be about as crazy as you, G-C.  But they have also apparently memorized your silly book better than you.

Maybe you should read it once in a while.  Try taking the holy blinders off when you do.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

the synopics which are plagirisms of Matthew and John

"Mark" was first.  Matty and Luke are fan fics based on it.  John comes out of left field.

None of the books existed until the English wrote them.

[Minimalist]

Where the fuck did you get that from?

[Jehanne]

Roman was a political empire, not a religious one; that bullshit did not come into being under after the reign of Constantine.  The Romans respected burial places, which allowed the early Christians to meet at the catacombs in peace.  Outside of a few isolated areas, persecution of Christians was a rarity.  Usually, individuals were put to death out of obstinacy to the State and not for professing what many Roman intellectuals felt was just another dumb religion on the scene whose proponents, at least in the beginning, all believed in a flat Earth.  (See Saint Irenaeus' justification for the "Four Gospels" in the late second century.)  As for the so-called 12 disciples of Jesus, scholars know little about their fate, including, that of Paul, although, with Paul, there is some evidence that he was martyred in Rome; however, he was such a loon to begin with that the Roman authorities, after Nero's insanity, may have judged him a threat to the Empire and simply have decided to get rid of him.

 You dodged my questions to you, why? Yep, Romans respected burial sites by tossing their victims into pits to rot, now that sounds respectful to me. Tell me how is it you can take a stand for a brutal Roman Empire and yet dismiss the peaceful Christians who were causing no problems. They believed in the things Jesus taught them and one was to obey the laws of the land and be good citizens, kind to all others and no one can rightly fault you. Even though they could not be rightly faulted they were killed, why, for their belief, seems as smart as you are you could figure this out.

GC

I would encourage you to listen to a recent presentation by Professor Bart Ehrman, who makes an excellent argument that Jesus was tossed into a common burial bit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bnL-QZWNdg

The empty tomb is not an ironclad fact of history.

[Jehanne]

Yes, the Romans pioneered federalism, and so, Judea was somewhat independent but the "sovereign power" was Rome.  And, they could crucify anyone whom the Empire deemed to be a threat to the Roman peace; as Jesus was not a Roman citizen, he did not enjoy the same rights under Roman law.  Likely, the story about him causing trouble in the Jewish temple was enough to get him arrested, and instead of a good flogging, some Jewish leaders likely convinced their Roman superiors to make an example out of him, which the Romans were all too happy to do.

Why would Pilate intervene in an internal religious matter in a potentially destabilising way? According to the bible Jesus wasn't a threat to Roman overlordship in Iudea, so therefore his heterodoxy from judaism was unlikely to be acted upon.

Thinking about the situaion I have three possibilities (assuming Jesus was real and a preacher), 1) he was the leader of a jewish messianic cult, and like later jewish messiah figures (eg bar Kochkba) was planning on overthrowing Roman overlordship and erecting a temporal theocracy centred round him (as per propesy). Thus the real Yeshua had no connection to Jesus apart from the name.
2) The gospels transferred punishment from the Sanhedrin to Pilate, because at that stage jesusism hadn't fully broken with judaism and wanted to appeal to jews still. This reading would be consistent with the bible if we accepred Jesus' divinity, miracle working and teachings.
3) Jesus was killed by neither group because he was either not real or not important enough to kill. And later christianity created a martyrdom for proselyisation purposes. Remember god figures who resurrected was a common trope in the Mediterranian world at the time, and jesusism would probably wat their god to at least match competing gods in the miracle stakes.

The Romans can and did execute any non-Roman citizens "on a whim".  What happened is that Jesus, who was born in Nazareth, was a Jewish apocalyptic preacher who "prophesied" that "the Son of Man" would come to destroy the Roman empire.  Some of his followers in Galilee encouraged him to take his message down south to Jerusalem, where he got arrested by the Romans after causing a ruckus in the Temple; after a brief examination, he was sentenced to execution, likely, with the approval of the Jewish authorities.  He and Pilate, the Govenor, probably never even met.

[The Valkyrie]

"Someone stole the body!"


Bloody medical students and their pranks.

[Minimalist]

Jesus, who was born in Nazareth

The archaeological evidence for "Nazareth" in the early first century is slim to the point of invisibility.  The respected xtian scholar, Stephen Pfann excavated at the site for a couple of years under the auspices of the Israel Antiquities Authority and found a family farm.  That's a long way from a town.

http://www.uhl.ac/en/projects/nazareth-village-project/

On a visit to Nazareth Hospital in November 1996, CSEC’s director Stephen Pfann identified an ancient winepress associated with agricultural terraces on the hospital grounds and the adjacent land. Potsherds found on the surface of the terraces dated from various periods beginning with the early-to-late Roman Period.

A survey of the area was conducted in February 1997 by CSEC’s archaeological staff. Four seasons of excavation, licensed by the Israel Antiquities Authority and under the joint direction of Ross Voss and S. Pfann, have been carried out by CSEC, with the help of students and local volunteers. These excavations have confirmed the land to be a complete Roman Period terrace farm with a winepress, watchtowers, olive crushing stones, irrigation systems, and an ancient quarry, and have illuminated previously unknown aspects of terrace farming in the Galilee.

The character of the site indicates that the valley and its slopes likely comprised the property of a single family’s farm, which produced a variety of crops. Most of the extent of the original farm has been preserved. This farm remains the most important, and perhaps the only witness to the life and livelihood of the ancient Nazarenes.

Note how that does not even slow them down from building "Nazareth Village" though?  Perhaps they should go to Kentucky and build another fucking ark?

[Godscreated]

 You dodged my questions to you, why? Yep, Romans respected burial sites by tossing their victims into pits to rot, now that sounds respectful to me. Tell me how is it you can take a stand for a brutal Roman Empire and yet dismiss the peaceful Christians who were causing no problems. They believed in the things Jesus taught them and one was to obey the laws of the land and be good citizens, kind to all others and no one can rightly fault you. Even though they could not be rightly faulted they were killed, why, for their belief, seems as smart as you are you could figure this out.

GC

I would encourage you to listen to a recent presentation by Professor Bart Ehrman, who makes an excellent argument that Jesus was tossed into a common burial bit:
The empty tomb is not an ironclad fact of history.

 He isn't someone I care to listen to. I've read one of his books and found it full of errors, erroneous comments, speculations and plenty of if this, if that and any other thing you can think of. He holds no respect from me. He has nothing to go on except to parade his nonsense to people who are gullible enough to listen. There are thousands of Christian scholars who reject him at every turn.

GC

[Godscreated]

Actually here's a good question where did you get that God's omnibenevolent, please supply a source.

You believe in a god who is not omnibenevolent? Doesn't this entail that you worship a deity who at times inflicts pain on his creations for the sheer pleasure of watching them suffer, or permits suffering to occur with no moral justification whatsoever, but just because he is indifferent to it?

 Please don't be stupid or take me as stupid, God's providence over His creation means He can and does allow misery, pain, sickness and other things that He wills, not to see and enjoy anyone suffering but to complete His will that He had for His creation before He created it. Why didn't you answer the question, could it be you do not have one. God's providence over His creation is His and His alone because it's His creation and He actually can do with it a He desires.

GC