Easter Questions

[thir]

Well, here goes:

Assuming that Jesus existed, how did a mulitute of people get fed by 2 fish and 5 loaves? Was it because coming from afar, those who could brought food, and they shared it?

Why did the crowd cry 'hosiana' on the entrance to Jerusalem, and 'crucify him' a few days later? Was it two different crowds, that of Barabas's followers, assuming he was a freedom fighter, and those of Jesus?

Why did Judas betray him? Was he disappointed as some explanations would have it, that Jesus could not save them from the Romans? And why the kiss? There must have been many people who knew him by sight.

Why did he get crucified? Did he get caught in an uprising at the same time?

How did he resurrect? Was he never crucified? Or did he not die?

What did the Romans want with Palestine anyway? There cannot have been a lot to tax??

[Thorne]

Assuming that Jesus existed, how did a mulitute of people get fed by 2 fish and 5 loaves? Was it because coming from afar, those who could brought food, and they shared it?

Even if he DID exist, why are there no reports of his so-called miracles from people other than his followers? There were thousands who supposedly saw them, but no one bothered to write them down?

Why did the crowd cry 'hosiana' on the entrance to Jerusalem, and 'crucify him' a few days later? Was it two different crowds, that of Barabas's followers, assuming he was a freedom fighter, and those of Jesus?

Again, you are assuming that the reports in the gospels are true. And they don't even agree with each other!

Why did Judas betray him? Was he disappointed as some explanations would have it, that Jesus could not save them from the Romans? And why the kiss? There must have been many people who knew him by sight.

If I recall (and I'm too lazy to look it up right now) the gospel of Judas claims that he was selected by Jesus to betray him, to fulfill prophecy. And the kiss is a major problem. If Jesus was so famous, why did one of his own have to identify him? Hell, if some of the Christians around here are to be believed, he would have been the only white guy in the whole damned country!

Why did he get crucified? Did he get caught in an uprising at the same time?

WAS he crucified? The descriptions of his crucifixion in the gospels are very different from standard Roman practice. Crucifixion was intended to be a humiliating, slow, painful death by suffocation, followed by an ignominious disposal of the body. He should have been on the cross for days, struggling for each breath, not allowed to die in mere hours. His followers and/or family would NOT have been permitted to take his body for burial.

How did he resurrect? Was he never crucified? Or did he not die?

Again, the only evidence for his resurrection comes from his followers. Not exactly uninvolved witnesses. There are no extant accounts from the Romans or the Jewish temple of his existence, much less his execution. The ONLY evidence we have for his existence are texts written at least 30 to 50 years after his death (Matthew), or even longer (Luke, John, Mark). And remember these are the four texts which the RCC decided, hundreds of years later, were good enough to include in their dogma. Other texts were tossed aside and ordered destroyed! How many of those would contradict the gospels as we know them?

What did the Romans want with Palestine anyway? There cannot have been a lot to tax??

The Middle East has always been a major crossroads between the riches of India and the Mediterranean. And the Romans taxed EVERYTHING! I just saw a program the other day about an outpost on the Red Sea that handled shipments of spices and goods from India. People traveling TO the fort had to pay a tax! The equivalent of $25 for the wife of a soldier, hundreds for merchants, taxes on donkeys hauling goods, and if memory serves, the equivalent of $2500 for a prostitute! The Romans got plenty of money out of Palestine, believe me!

[IAN 2411]

Naive and uneducated? Somehow this implies that people of our times are less naive and more educated. The latter perhaps, but I do not see good behaviour by people of our times. Does this then mean that we need religion to behave?

No, I never meant that. Two thousand years ago and more all governing bodies used religion as a Mark to adhere to. They used the laws of their religion to punish, hence the [eye for an eye] etc. If you were caught thieving you lost your hand, and this was not just isolated to the Middle East and their barbaric laws, it was here in Old England before and during and after the holy wars.

Religion guided the Kings, Queens Governments etc that guided the people. The common uneducated man “Was” naive, he believed in Trolls, Goblins and Fairies. He believed that the wicked burnt in hell. He believed in monsters, curses, chants and witches.

Do we need religion now to behave? No, it should be after all this time installed in us to abide by the same moral code. However because we are all born with equal amounts of good and evil, it depends on how strong our minds and abilities are to make one of these senses dominant and push aside the other. Most people get it right, but there will always be a small percentage that are weak and travel the wrong path.

Or is it simply because greed and violence is now our religion, in place of some sort of code of honour? In other words, we do not seem to have a code of honour that fits the 21th century.

I don’t understand this question. Each person has his/her own code of honour, whether right or wrong but they all differ in some minute way.

I think that there is a good point here. Technology is changing our ways of thinking, mostly in terms of not thinking, because we do not need to, to survive.

We all need to think to survive even the lazy. To use the technology to give you the maximum benefit you have to learn the basics. Technology is a prop, to help us achieve our goals in life and advance our leisure time, it will not work without someone pushing the correct buttons.

In fact, few of us would be able to do what the smallest fielld mouse can: find food and shelter. This way a lot of meaning has fallen out of our mental Universe, and nothing new has come back in. Or so I speculate.

No i think that has to wrong in my opinion, because survival is in our DNA. If needed, we can revert back to the animal in us and live of the land. There are only the weak, lazy and infirmed that might have problems surviving in a hostile environment. We all want to live to see the sun coming up the next day.

Be well IAN 2411

[denuseri]

And just why did God put that tree in the Garden in the first place? To test his creation? Why would he need to do that? Being omniscient he would already know the results of that test.

And finally, the tree in question was the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. So why doesn't God want man to have knowledge. He prefers stupid worshipers? For that matter, why would an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being need worshipers in the first place?


And this is the crux of my problems with religion: Everyone has their own interpretation of what the Bible (or Quran, or Torah, or whatever holy book) says one needs to do for salvation, and such interpretations cause schisms within religions. How can anyone know who is right? And why would God write a book of instructions which was so contradictory and ambiguous that it can be used to justify the beliefs of a (hopefully) moral and decent person such as yourself while at the same time be used to justify the abominations of the Westboro Baptist Church? Why, it's almost as if the Bible were a concoction of ancient mythologies and fairy stories!

First off God didn't write anything...men did. Hence the imperfections.

Secondly: In some interpretations the entire creation story is allegorical with the tree of life being the ultimate goal that can only be reached by first eating one's way through the tree of knowledge. Since God is perfect, "the serpent" acting out of jealousy or not...is still doing exactly what God intended it to do (so is mankind by the way), which is prompt mankind to seek knowledge so that one day eternal life could be obtained. The act of taking the apple being one of rebellion, yet also one of seeking to be like God. After all Eve was only tempted because she was told that if she ate of it, she could indeed become like God.

Third: The overall message...that we should all become more loving and peaceful with each other and work together seeking harmony (in essence be like God wants us to be) stands alone regardless of interpretation. It is basically all about overcoming our nature's despite our inherent sinfulness and becoming enlightened and transcending mortal existence. It's not even a Christan or Jewish, or Islamic only theme either...Buddhists, Hindus and a wide wide variety of faiths ( in fact almost all religions) address such aspirations of apotheosis in like manner...as if trying to explain the same universal concept. Which is a good concept...love one another as you would wish to be loved.

[denuseri]

Well, here goes:

Assuming that Jesus existed, how did a mulitute of people get fed by 2 fish and 5 loaves?

In short...it was a miracle.

Was it because coming from afar, those who could brought food, and they shared it?

Thats perhaps one interpretation...and a very good one at that imho.

Why did the crowd cry 'hosiana' on the entrance to Jerusalem, and 'crucify him' a few days later?

Because most of them thought he was coming to free them from the Romans but latter after hearing him preach in the synagogue how they were all messing up what God wanted from them (being greedy and corrupt and sinfully full of themselves etc) they were easily swayed by his detractors who would loose the most if he was right (the high priests etc).

Was it two different crowds, that of Barabas's followers, assuming he was a freedom fighter, and those of Jesus?

There was an active sub-sect/ cult element in their society that sought a violent solution from Roman oppression yes, but its purely speculative as to how many of them were present and influencing events.

Why did Judas betray him? Was he disappointed as some explanations would have it, that Jesus could not save them from the Romans? And why the kiss? There must have been many people who knew him by sight.

Ahh but would the guards recognize him? In some versions outside the commonly accepted cannon Jesus has even been attributed to telling Judas to betray him. In others Judas was indeed part of the more militant cultists seeking freedom from Rome and dissatisfied.

Why did he get crucified? Did he get caught in an uprising at the same time?

Crucifixion was the commonly accepted punishment for anyone who wasn't a Roman citizen who pissed off the Romans. The High priests were accusing Jesus of attempting to usurp Rome's auctoritas.

How did he resurrect? Was he never crucified? Or did he not die?

Lots of possibilities bounce around out there...like his body was stolen from the tomb etc...but amongst the faithful its basically back to divine intervention, IE a miracle. Again...one can take a non-literal interpretation and assume whats being given in the bible is an example (hold faith in god and receive eternal life) but that's up to you as an individual to answer for yourself imho.

What did the Romans want with Palestine anyway? There cannot have been a lot to tax??

Outside of all the major trade routes with Asia passing right smack through the middle of the area (making it rather rich btw) it also sat in a strategically important region for the Romans to defend against Parthia and help keep a secure hold over Egypt.

[denuseri]

And just an FYI.....not all the crucified were killed in exactly the same manner. Ideally one suffocated after days of suffering. If they really were being viscous suffocation was prevented by different placement like being slanted back at a 45 degree angle. The legs being tucked up under with the heals pointing up was particularly painful and would cause lots of muscle cramping and squirming around apparently. Sometimes one died from exposure other times the Romans got bored and just speared them. Some had their legs broken to hasten the death (not out of mercy but because they wanted to make sure they were dead or would be after the guards had to be leaving the area).

In some cases (especially in regions were the Romans were trying to placate or mollify wide scale rebellion) local cultural practices prevailed and the bodies were allowed to be removed after a time for burial. Though in the Biblical account one must remember there was an eclipse and an earthquake during the event and the Romans themselves were big on augury (they invented the word lol) and perhaps decided the wiser course was not to further anger the gods by leaving one of their favored hanging.

[Thorne]

First off God didn't write anything...men did. Hence the imperfections.

That would depend upon which sect you listen to. Many of them believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, even if it was transcribed by men. Mormons believe the same of their holy books, as do Muslims. They can't ALL be right!

Secondly: In some interpretations the entire creation story is allegorical with the tree of life being the ultimate goal that can only be reached by first eating one's way through the tree of knowledge. Since God is perfect, "the serpent" acting out of jealousy or not...is still doing exactly what God intended it to do (so is mankind by the way), which is prompt mankind to seek knowledge so that one day eternal life could be obtained. The act of taking the apple being one of rebellion, yet also one of seeking to be like God. After all Eve was only tempted because she was told that if she ate of it, she could indeed become like God.

In some interpretations the creation story is literally true! Again, how can you tell whose interpretation is right? And if you are correct, and God intended for mankind to attain knowledge, why did he supposedly curse us with Original Sin? Why is attaining knowledge sinful in the eyes of so many of His followers? As a parable, I have no problem with the idea of the story of Eve, but using it as the basis for demeaning and hating women, as so many theists do, is just plain wrong! By your interpretation we should be praising Eve, and her daughters, for doing what God intended in the first place!

Third: The overall message...that we should all become more loving and peaceful with each other and work together seeking harmony (in essence be like God wants us to be) stands alone regardless of interpretation.

It stands alone without religion, too. To quote Benjamin Franklin, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." This applies to society as a whole, not just to revolutionaries.

Which is a good concept...love one another as you would wish to be loved.

It IS a good concept. I firmly believe in it myself. What frosts me is when theists, of any stripe, try to claim exclusive rights to the concept, claiming that you cannot be a good person unless you follow the tenets of their particular brand of shamanism. And then they will only apply that concept to those they deem worthy!

Religion was, and still could be, a teaching mechanism, used to inform people of the laws and morality of their society. Religions, or their gods, are not the origins of these laws and moralities, though. And given the excesses to which so many religions have fallen, they certainly don't deserve the respect and adoration given to them by their followers. Especially when they must lie and threaten to keep those followers from walking away with their money.

[Thorne]

And just an FYI.....not all the crucified were killed in exactly the same manner. Ideally one suffocated after days of suffering. If they really were being viscous suffocation was prevented by different placement like being slanted back at a 45 degree angle. The legs being tucked up under with the heals pointing up was particularly painful and would cause lots of muscle cramping and squirming around apparently. Sometimes one died from exposure other times the Romans got bored and just speared them. Some had their legs broken to hasten the death (not out of mercy but because they wanted to make sure they were dead or would be after the guards had to be leaving the area).

All quite true, and gruesome. An item I saw on TV the other day talked about the only known relic of a crucifixion, the heel bone of a first century criminal (NOT Jesus) with a nail through the heel. It was placed in an area which missed all major blood vessels, but struck a major nerve cluster. Excruciatingly painful in and of itself, you also have to remember that the victim would have had his legs bent, as described above, forcing him to push up against that nail in order to lift himself and allow himself to breath. Usually, the only reason for spearing them was to make sure they were, indeed, dead, not to ease their suffering. And breaking the legs only insured that they could NOT push up any longer, and thus suffer slow, painful, terrifying suffocation. Try hanging from your arms, outstretched as in a crucifixion, to see how difficult it is to get a breath. And as the muscles in the diaphragm become over worked, each breath becomes painful as well. It was truly a horrific way to die, and designed to last for days. Yet Jesus supposedly died within short hours. Something doesn't scan there.

In some cases (especially in regions were the Romans were trying to placate or mollify wide scale rebellion) local cultural practices prevailed and the bodies were allowed to be removed after a time for burial. Though in the Biblical account one must remember there was an eclipse and an earthquake during the event and the Romans themselves were big on augury (they invented the word lol) and perhaps decided the wiser course was not to further anger the gods by leaving one of their favored hanging.

Yes, they may have allowed them to remove the body, after he was dead, but it's doubtful they would have done anything to hasten his death. And there is no archeological, historical or astronomical evidence for an eclipse or earthquake at that time. And if you try to claim "miracle" you would have to account for the fact that no other records of an earthquake have ever been found, and that a solar eclipse which was NOT predicted by the astronomers (who were very good at that by this time) would have achieved widespread notoriety, not only in Judea. Like so many other things in the Bible, these "auguries" seem to have been completely imaginary. Though the death of their leader might have caused the Apostles to feel as if their world had been rocked and that the light had gone out of their lives, it just never happened in reality.

[rocco]

Interesting fact I read, since this discussion began. Well I say "fact" but then again, most history is written by winners!!

Anyway, if Im wrong please direct me. I read that "Easter is "NOT a christian celebration after all!! It was indoctrinated during the rule of Augustus, for fear of a
Christian uprising! During his rule it was found that there were more "christians" than romans, sending worry amongst the high officials.

Under the Jewish calender. Nissan 14, so its called. falls before the celebration of what was known as "eastradom??!" which was pagan festival to the goddess of fertility. [thats why we have the easter bunny and chocolate eggs] all symbols of fertilisation.

So in order to pacify the people, roman beliefs were mixed in with christian beliefs in order to keep a status quo.

So am I right in believing that in those times, the "Christian Faith" was looked on as a left wing "terrorist organisation" considering it was set up after Jesus was executed?? These people were hated by the Jewish leaders and Romans, like today I suppose. With any organisation being frowned on because of indifference!
i.e. us for example!! A lot of people believe that anyone involved with "bdsm" are "not" normal or "perverted" as such. Does that make sense?

Like most readings it is up to interpretation. BUT! I cant understand why people dissect so called holy books, when its written in plain english for anyone to read! If you are a "christian" then should you not believe everything written down in the bible?
People like William Tindell, were burnt at the stake for translating the bible from latin to english! Yet we as a whole rip it to pieces, just because it doesnt fit in with what we want to believe! Strange really!!!

Funny old thing religion!!!!

But thanks for letting me get involved in this topic!! I love you guys!!!

[denuseri]

All quite true, and gruesome. An item I saw on TV the other day talked about the only known relic of a crucifixion, the heel bone of a first century criminal (NOT Jesus) with a nail through the heel. It was placed in an area which missed all major blood vessels, but struck a major nerve cluster. Excruciatingly painful in and of itself, you also have to remember that the victim would have had his legs bent, as described above, forcing him to push up against that nail in order to lift himself and allow himself to breath. Usually, the only reason for spearing them was to make sure they were, indeed, dead, not to ease their suffering. And breaking the legs only insured that they could NOT push up any longer, and thus suffer slow, painful, terrifying suffocation. Try hanging from your arms, outstretched as in a crucifixion, to see how difficult it is to get a breath. And as the muscles in the diaphragm become over worked, each breath becomes painful as well. It was truly a horrific way to die, and designed to last for days. Yet Jesus supposedly died within short hours. Something doesn't scan there.

He was scourged and beaten prior to the the event...subsequent blood loss from a scourging left completely untreated is probably what killed him so soon comparatively.


Yes, they may have allowed them to remove the body, after he was dead, but it's doubtful they would have done anything to hasten his death.

In some texts they were about to break his legs along with the others and didn't because one of the guards said he was already dead and decided to prove his point by piercing his side with his spear.

And there is no archeological, historical or astronomical evidence for an eclipse or earthquake at that time.

All the bible currently claims is it was unnaturally dark (even mentioning thunder) despite it being mid day which could have simply been a dark storm front passing through.

As for the earthquake....I haven't seen any evidence what so ever that there wasn't a small quake on that day in the region.

And if you try to claim "miracle" you would have to account for the fact that no other records of an earthquake have ever been found, and that a solar eclipse which was NOT predicted by the astronomers (who were very good at that by this time) would have achieved widespread notoriety, not only in Judea. Like so many other things in the Bible, these "auguries" seem to have been completely imaginary. Though the death of their leader might have caused the Apostles to feel as if their world had been rocked and that the light had gone out of their lives, it just never happened in reality.

The only people who will ever know for sure are all gone now anyways...the rest of us will have to believe or not based solely on our faith in their account of events.

All of which is beside the point. The op isn't asking us if Jesus lived or not; only what Easter is about.

[denuseri]

Anyway, if Im wrong please direct me. I read that "Easter is "NOT a christian celebration after all!! It was indoctrinated during the rule of Augustus, for fear of a
Christian uprising!

During his rule it was found that there were more "christians" than romans, sending worry amongst the high officials.

Actually there were no Christians what so ever during the reign of Augustus since Jesus and his ministry didnt even begin until the rule of Tiberius. Maybe the Romans hand was involved a couple hundred years later though when their was a larger following of Christians prevalent in the Empire.


So in order to pacify the people, roman beliefs were mixed in with christian beliefs in order to keep a status quo.

Oh yes but the process didn't begin until some point far (a couple hundred years) after the events inspiring Christianity.

So am I right in believing that in those times, the "Christian Faith" was looked on as a left wing "terrorist organisation" considering it was set up after Jesus was executed?? These people were hated by the Jewish leaders and Romans, like today I suppose. With any organisation being frowned on because of indifference!
i.e. us for example!! A lot of people believe that anyone involved with "bdsm" are "not" normal or "perverted" as such. Does that make sense?

Yep

Like most readings it is up to interpretation. BUT! I cant understand why people dissect so called holy books, when its written in plain english for anyone to read! If you are a "christian" then should you not believe everything written down in the bible?

Depends on how literal one wishes to be. Personally I believe the entire book being a concoction of men is fallible, and symbolically rife with allegory.


People like William Tindell, were burnt at the stake for translating the bible from latin to english! Yet we as a whole rip it to pieces, just because it doesnt fit in with what we want to believe! Strange really!!!

Thomas Jefferson went so far as to remove entire pages and re-write passages in his to suit his own personal interpretation.

[Thorne]

I read that "Easter is "NOT a christian celebration after all!! It was indoctrinated during the rule of Augustus, for fear of a Christian uprising!

Most of the early Christian holy days were timed to coincide with the Roman celebrations of their gods: Christmas around the time of the winter solstice, Easter around the time of the spring equinox, and others. Primarily this allowed them to celebrate their holy days under cover of the Roman celebrations. Later, it helped in the conversion of the Romans to Christianity, letting them celebrate at familiar times of the year, even to the point of incorporating some of their pagan symbols into the Christian celebrations. But denuseri is right, this took place long after Augustus.

Like most readings it is up to interpretation. BUT! I cant understand why people dissect so called holy books, when its written in plain english for anyone to read! If you are a "christian" then should you not believe everything written down in the bible?

Well, the Bible wasn't originally written in English, of course. It has undergone many translations and retranslations, all of which introduced errors. There have also been shown to be some passages which were deliberately changed by those making the copies in order to bring more in line with their dogma at the time. Add to that standard copying errors and you have a serious problem. And when you compound these errors with contradictions and historical fictions, well, it becomes pretty hard to believe EVERYTHING! But the intent of the Bible is not to be taken literally, but to be interpreted by the priesthood, for the betterment of the ruling classes, which included the priests, of course.

People like William Tindell, were burnt at the stake for translating the bible from latin to english! Yet we as a whole rip it to pieces, just because it doesnt fit in with what we want to believe! Strange really!!!

Not so strange, actually. Since I've started reading about it, I've been astonished at the number of people who admit that the primary reason they gave up on religion was that they actually read the Bible! The Church leaders did NOT want the common people to actually read what Jesus said, as that might give them dangerous ideas. It's my understanding (based on anecdotal evidence, I freely admit) than even now most preachers do NOT recommend that their congregations actually read the whole Bible, but only selected portions of it. They would much rather their flocks rely on THEIR interpretations rather than formulating their own.

Funny old thing religion!!!!

I only WISH it were funny. When you look at the idiocy of the Westboro people, the stupidity of that preacher in Florida burning the Quran, the things only now being learned of the atrocities of the Catholic Church, I find it very hard to laugh at any of it.

[Thorne]

He was scourged and beaten prior to the the event...subsequent blood loss from a scourging left completely untreated is probably what killed him so soon comparatively.

Unlikely. The Romans were pretty skilled at such things, and their ultimate objective was for the condemned to die slowly. Still, I suppose it's possible.

As for the earthquake....I haven't seen any evidence what so ever that there wasn't a small quake on that day in the region.

I haven't seen any evidence that it wasn't caused by a flying saucer, either. A lack of evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen, but it does bring the subject into doubt. And if, as you claimed in your earlier posts, the Romans looked upon these signs as auguries, they would have to have been something more than a small quake and a thunderstorm.

The only people who will ever know for sure are all gone now anyways...the rest of us will have to believe or not based solely on our faith in their account of events.

Well we certainly agree about that! I'm just not willing to put my faith in people who gleefully admit that they are little more than evil sinners in the eyes of their gods! Especially when they are trying to convince me that I'm just like them.

All of which is beside the point. The op isn't asking us if Jesus lived or not; only what Easter is about.

Well, since the celebration of Easter, for Christians at least, is all about the death and resurrection of Jesus, I don't think that questioning the validity of the stories to be beside the point.

[rocco]

Thorne and Denuesri, Thank you! Its interesting to understand or try to any way, how it all began! And I understand the idea of how things were written and re-written too. Like chinese whispers I suppose!

Thorne, I agree. And I didnt mean it to come across as literally "funny"! It seems that the very thing that is supposed to draw us closer to God, actually causes SO much grief!
When you look at any conflict, religion seems to play a massive part!

Thanks again for the instruction, who needs history lessons. When you can come here!!!! *big grin*

[thir]

Again, you are assuming that the reports in the gospels are true. And they don't even agree with each other!

Ok, for the sake of argument then. I am just trying to avoid a very short discussion ending with 'but it never happened, so there.'
It is an experiment in thought, a way to try to understand Chrisitianity, the things I have never understood.

If I recall (and I'm too lazy to look it up right now) the gospel of Judas claims that he was selected by Jesus to betray him, to fulfill prophecy. And the kiss is a major problem. If Jesus was so famous, why did one of his own have to identify him? Hell, if some of the Christians around here are to be believed, he would have been the only white guy in the whole damned country!

Hm. Come to think of it, the story says (bear with me) that only Jesus and the disciples were there - that was the point, to arrest him at a time when he was not in the midst of thousands of followers. Threfore someone would have to point him out, but it could have been anyone of a number of people, I guess.

WAS he crucified? The descriptions of his crucifixion in the gospels are very different from standard Roman practice. Crucifixion was intended to be a humiliating, slow, painful death by suffocation, followed by an ignominious disposal of the body. He should have been on the cross for days, struggling for each breath, not allowed to die in mere hours. His followers and/or family would NOT have been permitted to take his body for burial.

Even the romand cannot decide when a person dies. But it is curious that is was so short, giving ideas that maybe he was not, in fact, dead.

Again, the only evidence for his resurrection comes from his followers. Not exactly uninvolved witnesses. There are no extant accounts from the Romans or the Jewish temple of his existence, much less his execution.

The ONLY evidence we have for his existence are texts written at least 30 to 50 years after his death (Matthew), or even longer (Luke, John, Mark). And remember these are the four texts which the RCC decided, hundreds of years later, were good enough to include in their dogma. Other texts were tossed aside and ordered destroyed! How many of those would contradict the gospels as we know them?

There is also Jesphus, the jewish historian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
But you are of course right, in that it is hard to know anything for ceratain. The whole discussion is on the basis of if it happened - then what happended? As well as what is Chrisitanity about, really?

The Middle East has always been a major crossroads between the riches of India and the Mediterranean. And the Romans taxed EVERYTHING! I just saw a program the other day about an outpost on the Red Sea that handled shipments of spices and goods from India. People traveling TO the fort had to pay a tax! The equivalent of $25 for the wife of a soldier, hundreds for merchants, taxes on donkeys hauling goods, and if memory serves, the equivalent of $2500 for a prostitute! The Romans got plenty of money out of Palestine, believe me!

Sigh. And everybody finds them sooo cilvilized..

[thir]

Secondly: In some interpretations the entire creation story is allegorical with the tree of life being the ultimate goal that can only be reached by first eating one's way through the tree of knowledge. Since God is perfect, "the serpent" acting out of jealousy or not...is still doing exactly what God intended it to do (so is mankind by the way), which is prompt mankind to seek knowledge so that one day eternal life could be obtained. The act of taking the apple being one of rebellion, yet also one of seeking to be like God. After all Eve was only tempted because she was told that if she ate of it, she could indeed become like God.

I do not quite understand what you say - seeking knowledge (eating through the tree of knowledge) was the point, but not by eating the apple??

As for the alligorical angle, I learned recently that the way Danish Christians got past Darwin as it were, without loosing their faith, was to see the words of the bible as alligorical, or 'the free word'. Thus, everything had to be interpreted, and no conflict existed between the bible and Darwin. I believe other protestant sects have this view as well.

I have had thoughts about this story about Paradise and the tree of knowledge in terms of maybe we should never have eaten of it, metaphorically speaking, because our knowledge, that which in these days makes us equal to gods in that we can create life and do very many and quite alarming things, but, lacking the wisdom of god or gods, we screw it up and Earth is no garden of Eden.

Nature never was peaceful, or that is only one aspect of it, but maybe it was more like Eden than now.

Third: The overall message...that we should all become more loving and peaceful with each other and work together seeking harmony (in essence be like God wants us to be) stands alone regardless of interpretation. It is basically all about overcoming our nature's despite our inherent sinfulness and becoming enlightened and transcending mortal existence. It's not even a Christan or Jewish, or Islamic only theme either...Buddhists, Hindus and a wide wide variety of faiths ( in fact almost all religions) address such aspirations of apotheosis in like manner...as if trying to explain the same universal concept. Which is a good concept...love one another as you would wish to be loved.

Loving one another etc is a good concept. But the idea that we are born sinful (agressive, brutal, 'red in tooth and law') I do not believe. Sometimes it feels like the discussion will have it that either we are all love and sunshine, or we are all brutes! I believe in neither. I think we started out simply doing what we had to do to survive, like all the other animals.

But somewhere along the way something happened - ?? and with it, cruelty, brutality (towards our own) greed, hate, power games and all the rest.

I do not think we were 'born' with it - as in started that way as a species. But something happened.

[lucy]

There is also Jesphus, the jewish historian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
But you are of course right, in that it is hard to know anything for ceratain. The whole discussion is on the basis of if it happened - then what happended? As well as what is Chrisitanity about, really?

But that is exactly what this religion - all of them, in fact - is about, isn't it? About belief. Not about facts. If there'd be a video on youtube of the whole crucifixion (or is that crucifiction) of Jesus, there most likely wouldn't be a religion based on him. Instead we might have a couple gazillion conspiracy theories.

[thir]

Well, Master said I got my interpretations of the doctrine all wrong.

Ok - let's have it :-)

No, Jesus died so we could be freed from our sins.
Our sins were so great that only a blood sacrifice would work, not a spanking or a "naughty people, stop that" lecture.
Even if you are sinful, you can repent and still go to heaven. That is because of Jesus. Without him, you could have repented all day long and still go to hell.
Why try not to sin then? Because Jesus asked us to.

So there you go, one more interpretation.

.. I tried to get my head round the difference between appeasing god's anger because of our sins, which we should go to hell for. And being freed of them, meaning we do not have to if we repent. Doesn't that still mean that Jesus's sacrifice made god forgive us, and we would not have been otherwise?

Then..what did this sacrifice do, if not appease anger???

Just have to add that neither of us believe this stuff. And no, it doesn't have to make sense, it's religion for God's sake.

True, but I am trying to get my head round that religion. I do appreciate your trying to help - I just do not quite understand. This is difficult stuff.

[thir]

Do we need religion now to behave? No, it should be after all this time installed in us to abide by the same moral code.

Do you mean the moral code of the 10 commandments?

However because we are all born with equal amounts of good and evil, it depends on how strong our minds and abilities are to make one of these senses dominant and push aside the other. Most people get it right, but there will always be a small percentage that are weak and travel the wrong path.

Each person has his/her own code of honour, whether right or wrong but they all differ in some minute way.

Are we really born with evil and good? But what is that exactly? And how does that get into our genes?

Maybe one problem is that in the absense of religious codes or any other commonly accepted codes many people go astray and do weird stuff, like killing other people, or wrecking the planet.

I believe that regions can agree perfectly well on codes and do by and large abide by them, but the problem arises because the world is so small now, and power is so concentrated. People in power hardly ever abide by any codes. (That is one reason I could never be a soldier, even if I had what it took, I would fear to make myself a tool for untrustworthy trouble makers.)

No i think that has to wrong in my opinion, because survival is in our DNA. If needed, we can revert back to the animal in us and live of the land. There are only the weak, lazy and infirmed that might have problems surviving in a hostile environment. We all want to live to see the sun coming up the next day.
Be well IAN 2411

To be sure survival is in our genes, but we simply no longer know how to live off the land. It does take skill and knowledge. Without electricity, heating, tools, very few people would know what to do. How many can farm? How many can hunt with weapons made off the land directly? How many people know what you can or cannot eat of what you may find?

[thir]

And just why did God put that tree in the Garden in the first place? To test his creation? Why would he need to do that? Being omniscient he would already know the results of that test.

You put your finger on one of the questions; why tempt people? For that matter, why create such a tree?

And finally, the tree in question was the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. So why doesn't God want man to have knowledge. He prefers stupid worshipers?

If I were a god, I'd either want people to have knowlegde and sense - a lot of sense! - or to have less knowledge! That part I understand, except why then put the tree in?

For that matter, why would an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being need worshipers in the first place?

A thing I have wondered many times. Gods do not need worshippers as I understand the word. They already have or are everything.

The answer could be that gods are not something we can really understand, so we create an image from ourselves - what we understand - and give them human weaknesses.

And this is the crux of my problems with religion: Everyone has their own interpretation of what the Bible (or Quran, or Torah, or whatever holy book) says one needs to do for salvation, and such interpretations cause schisms within religions. How can anyone know who is right? And why would God write a book of instructions which was so contradictory and ambiguous that it can be used to justify the beliefs of a (hopefully) moral and decent person such as yourself while at the same time be used to justify the abominations of the Westboro Baptist Church? Why, it's almost as if the Bible were a concoction of ancient mythologies and fairy stories!

Religion does not equal holy or unholy books. Only dogmatic religions, which are not all religions.

As for the books, I cannot understand anything in them - I simply do not know what is meant!

[ksst]

thir,

According to my Master, yes there is a difference. Jesus' sacrifice allows us to repent, which allows God to forgive us and let us into heaven. We were all born of original sin, so we were all going to hell. No matter how good we were were and blameless in life, because of the original sin doctrine. Fair? No. Kind? No. But that is God, from the Christian viewpoint. Jesus represents that forgiveness is possible.

[ksst]

Why tempt people? God is obviously a sadist.

[thir]

I don't understand this at all. It's a tree, and apples grow on it, hopefully, in good weather, if properly pollinated. What's that got to do with God?

Do you mean that god does the creation and sets things in mortion, and then it works or not works, according to - what? His laws?

It is simply an illutration. We are sinners not because we DO sin but because it is in our nature to sin. It is THAT nature that God changes when a person becomes saved.

But then why did he not create us so we do not sin from the start?? This is what I do not understand.
It seems to imply that the first try did not work?

He keeps punishing because people keep making the same choices. Choices He has given other alternatives for. But read the rest of the verse..... He blesses to the 1000th generation of those that love God.

But then why not undo the whole thing, and make good people instead? It would certainly be a blessing for humanity!

What good is Hell? I have never understood that either.

Again, thank you for trying to help.

[thir]

thir,
According to my Master, yes there is a difference. Jesus' sacrifice allows us to repent, which allows God to forgive us and let us into heaven. We were all born of original sin, so we were all going to hell. No matter how good we were were and blameless in life, because of the original sin doctrine. Fair? No. Kind? No. But that is God, from the Christian viewpoint. Jesus represents that forgiveness is possible.

Original sin being the apple? Disobeying?

As I said above, and no disrespect to any Christians meant here, truly!, but in that case I think God should delete this experiment and start again, with people without original sin. Give it another chance.

Thanks again for explaining, I find these things enormously complicated.

[thir]

Was it two different crowds, that of Barabas's followers, assuming he was a freedom fighter, and those of Jesus?

There was an active sub-sect/ cult element in their society that sought a violent solution from Roman oppression yes, but its purely speculative as to how many of them were present and influencing events.

The zealots, I assume. But all of this is speculative.
I speculate that the reputation of the zealots as violent and rogue may have come from their not being lead by religious leaders, and not being upper class. They do not sound a lot like the movement of Jesus, but who knows? Some say Jesus was a descendant of David, and so royal, others that he was a carpenter, a man of the people. If a man of the people, might he not have had contact with the zealots?

Why did Judas betray him? Was he disappointed as some explanations would have it, that Jesus could not save them from the Romans? And why the kiss? There must have been many people who knew him by sight.

Ahh but would the guards recognize him? In some versions outside the commonly accepted cannon Jesus has even been attributed to telling Judas to betray him. In others Judas was indeed part of the more militant cultists seeking freedom from Rome and dissatisfied.

I see Judas as one of the most enigmatic figures of the whole tale. If he were a zealot, why become a disciple of Jesus? Did he only join to ruin a competitive movement - an undercover agent? Or was the learning of Jesus not quite as peaceful as the new Testament would have it?

If Jesus told Judas to betray him, it becomes even more complex. Why? So Jesus could become a martyr? Did he not think his learning would survive without that? In that case poor Judas was an even bigger martyr!

In the musical 'Jesus Christ Superstar' Judas asks god: why did you choose ME for your horrible murder? I will be damned for all eternity!

Why did he get crucified? Did he get caught in an uprising at the same time?

Crucifixion was the commonly accepted punishment for anyone who wasn't a Roman citizen who pissed off the Romans. The High priests were accusing Jesus of attempting to usurp Rome's auctoritas.

But as I understand it, he did not actually piss off the Romans, only the high priests, who tried to involve the Romans because they themselves could not order any executions. Because his learning was a threat to their learning? It would not seem so, according to what is said about Jesus' learning. Because they feared a riot and a Roman massacre on jews? Then why not go after the zealot leaders? How was Barrabas caught?

[Thorne]

Thanks again for the instruction, who needs history lessons. When you can come here!!!! *big grin*

You're welcome, rocco. But please, don't just take my word for it, or denuseri's or anyone's! Research it, look it up for yourself. And don't just use one source, use multiple sources from both sides of the issues and see which side has the evidence to back up their stories. I don't claim to be 100% accurate. The best tactic, IMO, is to ask yourself the questions, then search for the answers.

[Thorne]

Even the romand cannot decide when a person dies. But it is curious that is was so short, giving ideas that maybe he was not, in fact, dead.

They may not have been perfect, but the Romans were pretty damned good at killing people. That was the purpose of the spear in the side, to make sure the person was dead.

There is also Jesphus, the jewish historian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

Josephus' text was written some 60 years or more after the death of Jesus, and would have relied heavily upon Christian documents. Some of the writings of Josephus regarding Jesus have been questioned, since they don't seem to be of the same quality of writing that he used.

But you are of course right, in that it is hard to know anything for ceratain. The whole discussion is on the basis of if it happened - then what happended? As well as what is Chrisitanity about, really?

That's the easy part! Christianity is the idea that Jesus died on the cross in payment for our sins so that our souls could be taken into heaven when we die to be with God for eternity. A very simplistic concept, really. But the devil's in the details!

[denuseri]

I haven't seen any evidence that it wasn't caused by a flying saucer, either. A lack of evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen, but it does bring the subject into doubt. And if, as you claimed in your earlier posts, the Romans looked upon these signs as auguries, they would have to have been something more than a small quake and a thunderstorm.

You would think so right? But No... in reality even something as small as seeing 7 birds fly over the capitol city from east too west was taken as a sign by the Augers.


Well we certainly agree about that! I'm just not willing to put my faith in people who gleefully admit that they are little more than evil sinners in the eyes of their gods! Especially when they are trying to convince me that I'm just like them.


Well, since the celebration of Easter, for Christians at least, is all about the death and resurrection of Jesus, I don't think that questioning the validity of the stories to be beside the point.

Its not all about that alone...its actually more specifically a re-defining of the Jewish Passover by the early Christians who were Jewish (later exported by Paul and others through the Roman world). And outside of one obscure Germanic inter-relation that according to actual historical texts (at least so far as Ive been able to find at this point) is not a direct adaptation of a pagan ritual in any way so much as Saxon peoples associating the word Easter with one of their already "old gods" at the time from the 800's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter Not a bad layman's reference here btw.

[Thorne]

I have had thoughts about this story about Paradise and the tree of knowledge in terms of maybe we should never have eaten of it, metaphorically speaking, because our knowledge, that which in these days makes us equal to gods in that we can create life and do very many and quite alarming things, but, lacking the wisdom of god or gods, we screw it up and Earth is no garden of Eden.

Knowledge is not evil in itself. It is only in our applications of that knowledge that we find evil. But willful ignorance is far more evil. Ignorance is the birthplace of the gods. It allows people to accept supernatural explanations for perfectly natural occurrences which they do not understand. The search for knowledge allows us to throw off the supernatural and understand how the world around us works. If you accept lightning as a punishment from a god, you are always going to find yourself at the mercy of the thunderstorms. But if you study it and learn its nature, you can protect yourself with a piece of metal and some wire! It's a pretty woeful god whose wrath can be deflected by a simple lightning rod!

But the idea that we are born sinful (agressive, brutal, 'red in tooth and law') I do not believe. Sometimes it feels like the discussion will have it that either we are all love and sunshine, or we are all brutes! I believe in neither. I think we started out simply doing what we had to do to survive, like all the other animals... I do not think we were 'born' with it - as in started that way as a species. But something happened.

Sadly, I have to go along with the idea that we are born brutes. I'm having the pleasure of watching my two granddaughters grow up, having the time to really observe them that I didn't really have with my own children. And I'm finding that children are greedy, selfish and cruel on their own. We have to teach them to share and not to hit others and that they can't have everything they want. We have the capacity to be good, but it is not innate within us. It's a learning process, lifelong.

[Thorne]

But that is exactly what this religion - all of them, in fact - is about, isn't it? About belief. Not about facts.

There's no problem with believing things. Where I have a problem is when people's beliefs fly in the face of the facts. Denying evolution, for example, simply because it feels better to believe that you are God's special child is insane.