some points that puzzle me about the crucifixion story?

Question

1. why was jesus taken of the cross when he died in defiance of roman law and tradition that said a criminal had to stay until the corpse had rotted?
2. why was the chief priest allowed to call the emperor a king, which was a deadly insult and dangerous politcal act for which he would have joined jesus on a cross, the emperor was the princeps or first citizen. any allusions at being a king would have been political suicide for an emperor as the mob of rome, the patricians and the senate would have deposed and killed him. for the chief priest to have said this to a roman guvenor is highly unlikely.
3. why is there no record of the miraculous darkening of the sun and the damage to the curtains in the temple. i know the jews kept records, it would have been in one of the talmuds. i also know that thallus is supposed to have written about it, but we only hear about this from julius africanus, who is most deffinately not a reliable source. no romans record it, why not?

i called it a story!

primoa: i'm not asking about prophesy,( in fact it doesn't). i'm asking about defiance of roman law, the chief priest's unpunished sedition, and a total lack of collaborating evidence.

acta, nothing to do with valleius patercullus.
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/People/Velleius_Paterculus/Britannica_1911*.html
here's exactly what he wrote and he died in 31 ad.
here's the acta pilati, nothing to do with valleius.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Nicodemus
if you regard phlegon a a reliable source read this.
http://www.dur.ac.uk/Classics/histos/1998/morgan.html
here's why julias africanus wrote what he did about thallus.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/thallus.html
the emperor was called princeps at least up until the time of septimus severus. marcus aralius refers to himself as princeps. you could call an emperor a god but you could not call him a king.
the talmud refers to yeshua ben pandira are you saying that this reference is the the right one because it refers to him as the illigitimate son of mary the hairdresser and a roman soldier.

Answer 1

Christos Anesti!!!,thats all you need to know.

Answer 2

1) In states in the body was removed (like those of the others crucified that day) out of respect for the Jewish holiday (Passover), and because a rich Jewish leader named Joseph went a begged Pilate to release it.

2) You are a generation too late with this one. Under Augustine, the Emperor immediately before all this, the title of "king" was officially given to the "Caesar".

3) There is a record of the darkening of the sun, recorded by a historian named Thallus (who was Roman) in 53 AD, where he attempts to argue that the darkness that happened during the crucifixion was a solar eclipse. Which of course is impossible, since the crucifixion happened at Passover, which is at the Full Moon, and and solar eclipse can only happen at the New Moon. His records do not survive. All we have a rebuttal of his arguments written by Julius Africanus. While you have argued that Julius is "not a reliable source", my answer would be "why would he have bothered to write a rebuttal of Thallus' theory if Thallus never wrote such a theory?" There is no logical reason to question that Thallus wrote about the event.

The Jewish Talmud does record information about Jesus, written somewhere between 73 and 112AD. He says he was a magician who healed using black magic until he was arrested and executed by the Romans. And that his body was stolen by his followers. As the authors were not out to support belief in Jesus, they would have had no reason to include any information that would have been favorable to his cause. So, it was not included.

Answer 3

John 19:31 Therefore, because it was the Preparation Day, that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath, (for Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who was crucified with Him. "

They didn't break Jesus' legs because He was already dead.


Now, crucifixion was begun in Persia. Because the Persians considered the ground sacred, if a man was evil enough to be crucified, they felt that his body shouldn't be placed in the ground. So, they were hung on a cross. And after they died their bodies were then eaten by the vultures, and thus, their bodies did not spoil the ground. Most generally, they did not bury those who were crucified, but they left them to the vultures and to the dogs. And the Jews, however, did bury those that were crucified. But the Romans generally did not, the Carthegians did not, nor did the Persians who originated crucifixion, but left them just hanging there until they were consumed by the vultures and the dogs.

Now, they wanted to break the legs so they could hasten the death and take them down before the Sabbath.

There was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour: The remarkable darkness all over the earth showed the agony of creation itself in the Creator’s suffering. "Origen (Contra Celsus, ii,33) and Eusebius (Chron.) quote words from Phlegon (a Roman historian) in which he makes mention of an extraordinary solar eclipse as well as of an earthquake about the time of the crucifixion." (Geldenhuys)

i. Phlegon, Roman historian wrote this: "In the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad, there was an extraordinary eclipse of the sun: at the sixth hour, the day turned into dark night, so that the stars in heaven were seen; and there was an earthquake." (Cited in Clarke)

ii. This is especially remarkable because during a full moon - which Passover was always held at - it was impossible that there be a natural eclipse of the sun.

Answer 4

You know, you pull up some really good points. I'm a Christian, and I've never even quite thought about that before.

1. I don't know where you've heard of that tradition, but there were two factors in why Jesus was taken down. Joseph of Arimathea asked if he could have Jesus' body to put into his tomb, and Jewish tradition doesn't allow you to have dead bodies lying unburied overnight. That's why he had to be put into the tomb. I don't think there is any tradition where corpses had to rot - would you mind giving me your source?

2. I'm assuming you're talking about Herod. King Herod was a king, over the Judean region, but the title was more like a synonym for "governor", a person who governed the lands. But he was appointed by and was under and received his orders from Emperor. King Herod wanted to kill Jesus when he heard of a King being born in Jerusalem, remember? Because he was frightened of another king taking his place. King was Herod's rightful title.

3. I don't really know, but the curtain seperated the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies, where God dwelled. The high priest could only pass beyond this curtain once per year, when he was cleased of his own sin - anyone else who went beyond or looked at it would have died instantly. The Jewish priests and leaders would have been shocked, horrified, and terrified to see the curtain torn in two. To keep everything under control, they probably hushed it up right away and didn't talk about it. And it probably was recorded, in some hidden place, and was destroyed when Titus burned the temple down.

As for the darkness, it was a local thing and probably wasn't recorded at all. Except in the Gospels, heh.

Answer 5

Just because there's no proof, doesn't prove anything.

Well, that's got the nonsense argument out of the way...

I'm curious. If Jesus was crucified on Friday, and died on Friday, then was put in the tomb for three days, how come he was resurrected on Monday? Saturday-Sunday is only Two days.
I know it's a tired old argument, and oft repeated, but the kind of people who make smug nonsense arguments that 'explain' everything have never explained the temporal anomaly.
Hmmm. Myth....
And from memory, Joseph of Aramithea was a crucifix maker for the authorities (one step above tax collector on the loathed by society in general scale).

Answer 6

All good and legitimate questions.

But you also need to ask:
Q. Why does the Vatican continue to hide Friday 14 Nisan 36 CE as the true date for the crucifixtion of Jesus?

Q. Who really was the father of Jesus in terms of position and power given his execution was in a private garden and not a public place?

Q. How could Jesus have not been a full Roman citizen given the extensive involvement of a Roman governor? and the fact that if he was jewish the High Priests could have killed him anytime they liked (regardless of silly claims of fear of crowds, bla bla)

Answer 7

1.Jospeh of Arimathea especially requested the body.Joseph was a high profile religous leader.

2.Not sure what you mean.They were appeasing the Roman leaders.I can't imagine that the leaders would kill them flattery.

3.I don't see why you think Africanus was not a reliable source-that's just your opinion.The darkness was not a widespread event.The Roman couldn't care less about a troublemaker from a small town.It wasn't high on their list of prorities.

Answer 8

1. jesus did not defy roman law....even pontious pilate said he found not guilt in him..Jesus was crucified because the jews wanted this and pilate did not want an insurrection.

2. i do not see where you got your legal information on this. The prest was obviously trying to win the favor of pilate and Caesar, so he would not have crossed them, if it was wrong.

3. recorded in Valleus Paterculus's notes, ACTA PILATI, or pilates report to Caesar of the arrest , trial, and crucifixion of Jesus

Answer 9

the jews kept the record. it is written in the bible. Matthew Chapter 27 to 28

Answer 10

Hmm, the story makes no sense to me waaay before the end of it, like the "immaculate conception"..