A response...
Uploader Comments (QuestioProVerum)
Video Responses
All Comments (26)
-
"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.
-
'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.
-
@QuestioProVerum LOL. No its not.
-
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.
-
Sadducee Judaizers abound
-
Impalement is not the same as crucifixion. It is almost like saying a spear wound is the same as a nail wound.
-
So because Joshua crucified many kings and left them to rot then Jesus had to be crucified this way? It makes perfect sense!
-
You are mostly speaking of mass crucifixion in war time and using this to refute a crucifixion of 3 men.
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