'Rome would not have removed Jesus' body from the cross."
Traditionally, Joseph of Arimathea removed the body or caused the body to be removed. I don't think the Bible says the Romans did it. There were guards posted, but likely those were from the Jewish temple guards.
No tossing the money changers tables is not rebellion and I believe John is the only recording that accurately anyway. It had to do with pollution and would hardly constitute executing a man as that is a private crime between him and the injured party and clearly they did not press charges for the offense. It was the riding into Jerusalem and the way Jesus talked which was perceived wrong which would be truly seditious. He was perceived as an earthly King in the making, wrongly at that.
@TheGreatestProject Not really. Crucifixion was done in the book of Joshua in the days of Canaan, Babylon, Egypt, Greece, Persia, and Rome. This form of punishment as a civil punishment is entirely different from the ancient uses which were for spiting the enemy in war.
wtf does Julius Caesar and Augustus have to do with anything that happened under Tiberius? Have you ever considered the FACT that POLICIES change from leader to leader!?!?!?
NOTHING was run the same way under Tiberius, nor under Sejanus. The Empire steadily deteriorated Emperor by Emperor after Augustus died. Every Emperor between Augustus and Vespasian only added to previous problems and sunk the Empire further in the hole. I wonder how you miss this fact.
Augustus? Irrelevant. SEJANUS WAS EMPEROR AT ROME!!! How can you be missing this point? The Empire was in a state of chaos thanks to Tiberius' impotence. The man was no Augustus. Watch a documentary on Rome. There is one called EMPIRES that covers all this.
The idea of Sedition is added to Luke by the late 2nd century and your argument seems heavily reliant on that passage in Luke regarding sedition. Jesus was NOT charged with sedition. He was charged under Jewish laws and had a mock trial.
The crucifixion was hush hush and very few people were present at it. Family and Roman soldiers. They took the opportunity of the distraction of the passover festival as an opportunity.
Actually, the Romans respected the Jewish laws very often as pointed out in Josephus when he speaks about Pilate. Romans would benefit from hushing everything by getting his body down. The threat of rebellion was high BECAUSE JESUS WAS CONSIDERED A PROPHET. That is why John the Baptists was not executed in Judea. This was a big no-no that the Emperor would not be happy with. However, if you are as well read as you act, you'd know that Sejanus was Emperor in Rome so Pilate got away with it.
I'm surprised I've never noticed your original point being brought up. It seems so obvious now. And it seems odd that j the hutdweller would have cited incidents decades before and *after* jesus as being so relevant to roman policy at that particular time; I can see Rome being cautious, but 'scared shitless'? I doubt it.
There is a difference, those from the lands of Persia/Iran/Iraq, etc impaled on a stake, much like Vlad did, the crux is different, but the same concept. Google the Beshitun inscription. (hope my spelling is correct).
"Rome would not have removed Jesus' body from the cross."
Duh. Joseph of Arimathea removed the body, probably after bribing someone, but at least using his influence to get permission.
tuggleprentiss 2 months ago
'Rome would not have removed Jesus' body from the cross."
Traditionally, Joseph of Arimathea removed the body or caused the body to be removed. I don't think the Bible says the Romans did it. There were guards posted, but likely those were from the Jewish temple guards.
tuggleprentiss 3 months ago
No tossing the money changers tables is not rebellion and I believe John is the only recording that accurately anyway. It had to do with pollution and would hardly constitute executing a man as that is a private crime between him and the injured party and clearly they did not press charges for the offense. It was the riding into Jerusalem and the way Jesus talked which was perceived wrong which would be truly seditious. He was perceived as an earthly King in the making, wrongly at that.
pandirasbox 4 months ago
@TheGreatestProject Not really. Crucifixion was done in the book of Joshua in the days of Canaan, Babylon, Egypt, Greece, Persia, and Rome. This form of punishment as a civil punishment is entirely different from the ancient uses which were for spiting the enemy in war.
pandirasbox 4 months ago
Sadducee Judaizers abound
pandirasbox 4 months ago
Impalement is not the same as crucifixion. It is almost like saying a spear wound is the same as a nail wound.
pandirasbox 4 months ago
So because Joshua crucified many kings and left them to rot then Jesus had to be crucified this way? It makes perfect sense!
pandirasbox 4 months ago
You are mostly speaking of mass crucifixion in war time and using this to refute a crucifixion of 3 men.
pandirasbox 4 months ago
You mean the BEHISTUN INSCRIPTION?
pandirasbox 4 months ago
wtf does Julius Caesar and Augustus have to do with anything that happened under Tiberius? Have you ever considered the FACT that POLICIES change from leader to leader!?!?!?
pandirasbox 4 months ago
NOTHING was run the same way under Tiberius, nor under Sejanus. The Empire steadily deteriorated Emperor by Emperor after Augustus died. Every Emperor between Augustus and Vespasian only added to previous problems and sunk the Empire further in the hole. I wonder how you miss this fact.
pandirasbox 4 months ago
Augustus? Irrelevant. SEJANUS WAS EMPEROR AT ROME!!! How can you be missing this point? The Empire was in a state of chaos thanks to Tiberius' impotence. The man was no Augustus. Watch a documentary on Rome. There is one called EMPIRES that covers all this.
pandirasbox 4 months ago
The idea of Sedition is added to Luke by the late 2nd century and your argument seems heavily reliant on that passage in Luke regarding sedition. Jesus was NOT charged with sedition. He was charged under Jewish laws and had a mock trial.
pandirasbox 4 months ago
Jesus was not handled this way because he was not rebelling. That crazy idea is added to the synoptics by 2nd century writers.
pandirasbox 4 months ago
@pandirasbox
tossing the money changers tables is rebelling, is it not?
QuestioProVerum 4 months ago
@QuestioProVerum LOL. No its not.
tuggleprentiss 4 months ago
The crucifixion was hush hush and very few people were present at it. Family and Roman soldiers. They took the opportunity of the distraction of the passover festival as an opportunity.
pandirasbox 4 months ago
Actually, the Romans respected the Jewish laws very often as pointed out in Josephus when he speaks about Pilate. Romans would benefit from hushing everything by getting his body down. The threat of rebellion was high BECAUSE JESUS WAS CONSIDERED A PROPHET. That is why John the Baptists was not executed in Judea. This was a big no-no that the Emperor would not be happy with. However, if you are as well read as you act, you'd know that Sejanus was Emperor in Rome so Pilate got away with it.
pandirasbox 4 months ago
The world doesn't run according to the "rules" sir
pandirasbox 4 months ago
But my argument was Judea and jeruselam was different. jeruselam was an exception
JohnTheHutDweller 4 months ago
I'm surprised I've never noticed your original point being brought up. It seems so obvious now. And it seems odd that j the hutdweller would have cited incidents decades before and *after* jesus as being so relevant to roman policy at that particular time; I can see Rome being cautious, but 'scared shitless'? I doubt it.
LazySundayClub 4 months ago
@TheGreatestProject
There is a difference, those from the lands of Persia/Iran/Iraq, etc impaled on a stake, much like Vlad did, the crux is different, but the same concept. Google the Beshitun inscription. (hope my spelling is correct).
QuestioProVerum 4 months ago
Crucifixions were examples of what happens with you trifled with Rome. Are we to believe that Jesus was the only exception? Come on now.
colonelkentucky81 4 months ago