Easter Questions

[thir]

I don’t know why but every time anyone talks about the unseen guy in the sky, I start asking myself questions. I am not an atheist, but then I am not a true believer. I have days when I sit and ponder religious thoughts, contradictions like the one that has been placed on this thread. One of Gods commandments was thou shall not kill, yet it is good to sacrifice life to God.

It is at times like this that I think the bible is a very good story, but nothing more. It was written with a mind to give moral guidance to a naive and uneducated world by “Whom?” Does it justify being adhered to as it did two thousand years ago? In my opinion “No.” It’s outdated and run its moral course.

Naive and uneducated? Somehow this implies that peole 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? 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 nost seem to have a code of honour that fits the 21th century.

This is the space age and technology dictates how we think and feel. Every time that this invisible man that made earth and the universe we live in is spoken about, I cannot help thinking about a link that [Thorne] gave me. I think that in the few weeks that I first saw the link it has changed my way of thinking and placed a lot more questions in my head.

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. 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.

[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!

[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..

[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!

[thir]

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.

Then maybe they did in fact make sure that he died quickly - maybe to get it over with and avoid any more riots than neccesary.

Josephus' text was written some 60 years or more after the death of Jesus, and would have relied heavily upon Christian documents.

Why? he was a historian, simply, not a religious person.

[quote]
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.
[/quite]

I am not sure what you mean by 'quality'? But it seems to be just a short notice, anyway.

[Thorne]

Then maybe they did in fact make sure that he died quickly - maybe to get it over with and avoid any more riots than neccesary.

What riots? This was a man selected by the Jewish people to be executed. Why would they riot about it? And killing him quickly negates the whole purpose of crucifixion, which was to humiliate and torture the victim for as long as possible, as an example. No, from an historical perspective, the whole story makes little sense.

Why? he was a historian, simply, not a religious person.

Yes, but he was also Jewish. He would have relied on any documents, especially those coming from Jewish sources, and as near as we can tell, the only documents which referenced Jesus came from those Jews who were his followers, the first Christians.

I am not sure what you mean by 'quality'? But it seems to be just a short notice, anyway.

Quality is probably not the right word. Experts can usually tell if something was written by a person, especially one as prolific as Josephus. They have many examples of his works, but those short bits which reference Jesus don't seem to fit his style. And they are only one or two short comments, something similar to an historian referencing someone like King Arthur, or Paul Bunyan.

[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.

[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?