Why do the Gospel accounts vary so much? They seem to disagree!

[oldbadger]

The gospel accounts don't agree with each other, or so it seems to me.

For example: Why did the Gospel of Mark tell of the 'Temple clearance' happening in the last week of his mission when the Gospel of John tells us that it happened in the first weeks? ........most strange.

...............and more to come.

[TRANSPONDER]

There has to be a better explanation for the Temple -cleansing than what we get. It makes no sense that Jesus suddenly lost his rag with the Temple -trade which he would have seen every time he visited the Temple. You can't expect anyone to believe that he had never in thirty years he had never been to any of the yearly festivals. Nor that with Pilate and 1000 soldiers on guard against any such disturbance he would get away with it.

I don't believe that Jesus 'suddenly lost his rag'. I think that he went to that feast on that occasion to deliberately do what he did. He even spent time the day before, checking the whole temple out.
I'm reminded of Barabbas whenever I read about this........ A riot, one death, Jesus Barabbas (son of the Father) arrested but later freed on an excuse because it might have been looking very dodgy if the crowd's favourite was executed.

And Paul is remarkably reticent about Jesus earthly doings and especially teachings. The teachings we get are Pauls' own. Apart from the ritualistic 'last supper' all we get is that Jesus was crucified. No argument from me about that.

Absolutely! The new religion was Paul's, absoluteky!

Why was he executed? On a charge of sedition 'King of the Jews'claimant is what the charge was. The Blasphemy charge makes no sense in Judaism - claiming to be a messiah. Any anointed (priest or ruler) was a Messiah. It only makes sense in Christian terms - claiming to be God, effectively.

The G-John version, that. Total hogwash imo.
He may have been taken down alive, or even not executed at all.
Of course that doesn't suit the Christian ideas.

There are indications that the real reason for the execution was the bust - up in the Temple First, Pilate was there - he knew what Jesus had done, and yet never was that event even mentioned as a valid charge. It is being studiously ignored.

As I said Pilate would be on guard at a festival with the Jerusalem garrison and the 500 soldiers he brought from Caesarea - 1000 in all. Jesus - sooner or later - would have been grabbed and tried for causing this disruption. I'd argue this is just what happened, at least, and the writers know it and do all the can to disguise it, John even removing the event entirely.

Agreed.

I think there's more to it than that even but that's enough o argue that we are not getting the true story but a Christian - whitewashed version of it.

Oh yes! The Christian account is nearly all church dogma and Pauline letters to the congregation. Paul's letters and G-John are repeated more often than the first three gospels.

I agree. I can't rule out that the whole thing was invented, but it reads like a real event that the writers tried to cover up. Luke shows (I think) the original form, the Temple fracas follows on from the 'Hioanna' ride, which suggests that it was at Sukkhot, not Passover (a festival commemorating liberation) and the shouts for the son of David are nore a liberating messiah rather than a suffering servant. So the event is its'own theme, not an imitation of the Gabriel stone's Simon of Peraea revolt, though Jesus did stop at Peraea to assemble his muscle before going non to Jerusalem.

John would also have the two things on the same day, if he'd left the temple bust up up where it belongs.

Mark and Matthew's version (I think an already amended gospel they both used, which is why they have the cursing of the fig -tree and Luke doesn't) has it split over two days and they try to explain this in contradictory ways. I don't think Jesus needed one day to plan his visit.He did it all in one go.

I also agree Barrabbas is 'Bar 0- Nbba 'son of the father'. In fact Jesus, split into two characters (1)and I already hinted that the Insurrection Luke mentions (Blood of the Galileans) is Barrabbas' attempted revolt, and thus also Jesus' failed attempt. It was more than a table -turning and he'd need enough musleto try to deal with 1,000 of Pilate's Auxiliaries,say, 5,000 Bethsaidan men, all fired up to make Jeses 'a king by force'.

It ball fits, Crazy conspiracy theory, but it fits the clues and explains the problems, that is, if anyone notices and admits them.

I agree with you about the crucifixion, too. It could all be made up, but I do believe the crucifixion really happened. Paul attests to it and why would the invented story have the Romans kill Jesus and then have to fiddle it so it wasn't their fault?

The apologists try to wish away the 'swoon' theory because they do not like it, but the 'assisted swoon' (drugged o wine on a stick or a roman spear perhaps) knocks Jesus out double quick (Mark invents Pilate'sm surprise'to cover up or rather wave away why Jesus dies so quickly) and in the tomb (the Lazarus tomb at Bethany, not the present tombs as in Jesus' day, that area (Bethezda) was built up - no'new tombs', or using old ones. As soon as the coast was clear 'The disciples stole the body' as Matthew tells us the Jews maintained in his day. So he invents that rather daft tomb guard to 'prove' that wasn't possible. Though the body (or recovered Jesus) would be gone before any guard was appointed to arrive And Pilate's men were in the plot anyway, And it won' be Jewish guards as (as Mr O'Reilly says "My men just won't work on a Sunday". Or the Jewish sabbath in that case.

The only problem there is - if Jesus was really the insurrectionist Barabbas, he would know Jesus was a dangerous rebel and would Not want to save an innocent man, along the gospel lines. But one could argue that Pilate was also greedy (like most Roman governors, such a post was a chance to get money to fund their political career) and maybe he thought a fat bribe was worth more than the death of a failed messiah.

And maybe the idea of coercing him 'If you let this man go, you are not Caesar's friend' could be - like Blood of the Galileans - based on a real event. If that is just what Pilate did and was the real reason Pilate was recalled, not complaints from the Jews about Pilate's rough handling of rebels, which was hardly a complaint that Tiberius would worry much about.

John 19.12 .From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jewish leaders kept shouting, "If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar."


Rabbit -hole, perhaps, but more and more it looks like the writers were well aware of the true story and were fiddling it to make it look like something else.becoming aware of the gabriel stone just recently only underpins this idea. The messiah risen after three days was already being claimed about Simon of Peraea.

(1) and the unknown passover release custom is invented to split Jesus into two to give the Jews a choice, Christian Jesus or zealot barrabbas. They choose revolt and get Jesus killed and God inflicts their ruination on them in the Jewishn war. That was the Christian take on the affair.

[LittleNipper]

All I have to say is I'm entirely in agreement with what Paul was inspired to write: I Corinthians Chapter 15 (I'm not the one working in vain)

1 Corinthians 15
1
Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand.
2
By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
3
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4
that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
5
and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.
6
After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
7
Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,
8
and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
9
For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
10
But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them--yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me.
11
Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.
12
But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13
If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.
14
And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.
15
More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised.
16
For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either.
17
And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.
18
Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost.
19
If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.
20
But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.
21
For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man.
22
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
23
But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.
24
Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.
25
For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
26
The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
27
For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.
28
When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
29
Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?
30
And as for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour?
31
I die every day--I mean that, brothers--just as surely as I glory over you in Christ Jesus our Lord.
32
If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus for merely human reasons, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."
33
Do not be misled: "Bad company corrupts good character."
34
Come back to your senses as you ought, and stop sinning; for there are some who are ignorant of God--I say this to your shame.
35
But someone may ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?"
36
How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies.
37
When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else.
38
But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body.
39
All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.
40
There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another.
41
The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.
42
So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable;
43
it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power;
44
it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
45
So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.
46
The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual.
47
The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.
48
As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven.
49
And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.
50
I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
51
Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed--
52
in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.
53
For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.
54
When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory."
55
"Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?"
56
The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.
57
But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
58
Therefore, my dear brothers, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain.

[TRANSPONDER]

Well,thank you for sharing your Beliefs with us.I can only say that I saw no argument or debate but something that resembled mere preaching.

[oldbadger]

I agree. I can't rule out that the whole thing was invented, but it reads like a real event that the writers tried to cover up. Luke shows (I think) the original form, the Temple fracas follows on from the 'Hioanna' ride, which suggests that it was at Sukkhot, not Passover (a festival commemorating liberation) and the shouts for the son of David are nore a liberating messiah rather than a suffering servant. So the event is its'own theme, not an imitation of the Gabriel stone's Simon of Peraea revolt, though Jesus did stop at Peraea to assemble his muscle before going non to Jerusalem.

John would also have the two things on the same day, if he'd left the temple bust up up where it belongs.

Mark and Matthew's version (I think an already amended gospel they both used, which is why they have the cursing of the fig -tree and Luke doesn't) has it split over two days and they try to explain this in contradictory ways. I don't think Jesus needed one day to plan his visit.He did it all in one go.

I also agree Barrabbas is 'Bar 0- Nbba 'son of the father'. In fact Jesus, split into two characters (1)and I already hinted that the Insurrection Luke mentions (Blood of the Galileans) is Barrabbas' attempted revolt, and thus also Jesus' failed attempt. It was more than a table -turning and he'd need enough musleto try to deal with 1,000 of Pilate's Auxiliaries,say, 5,000 Bethsaidan men, all fired up to make Jeses 'a king by force'.

It ball fits, Crazy conspiracy theory, but it fits the clues and explains the problems, that is, if anyone notices and admits them.

I agree with you about the crucifixion, too. It could all be made up, but I do believe the crucifixion really happened. Paul attests to it and why would the invented story have the Romans kill Jesus and then have to fiddle it so it wasn't their fault?

The apologists try to wish away the 'swoon' theory because they do not like it, but the 'assisted swoon' (drugged o wine on a stick or a roman spear perhaps) knocks Jesus out double quick (Mark invents Pilate'sm surprise'to cover up or rather wave away why Jesus dies so quickly) and in the tomb (the Lazarus tomb at Bethany, not the present tombs as in Jesus' day, that area (Bethezda) was built up - no'new tombs', or using old ones. As soon as the coast was clear 'The disciples stole the body' as Matthew tells us the Jews maintained in his day. So he invents that rather daft tomb guard to 'prove' that wasn't possible. Though the body (or recovered Jesus) would be gone before any guard was appointed to arrive And Pilate's men were in the plot anyway, And it won' be Jewish guards as (as Mr O'Reilly says "My men just won't work on a Sunday". Or the Jewish sabbath in that case.

The only problem there is - if Jesus was really the insurrectionist Barabbas, he would know Jesus was a dangerous rebel and would Not want to save an innocent man, along the gospel lines. But one could argue that Pilate was also greedy (like most Roman governors, such a post was a chance to get money to fund their political career) and maybe he thought a fat bribe was worth more than the death of a failed messiah.

And maybe the idea of coercing him 'If you let this man go, you are not Caesar's friend' could be - like Blood of the Galileans - based on a real event. If that is just what Pilate did and was the real reason Pilate was recalled, not complaints from the Jews about Pilate's rough handling of rebels, which was hardly a complaint that Tiberius would worry much about.

John 19.12 .From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jewish leaders kept shouting, "If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar."


Rabbit -hole, perhaps, but more and more it looks like the writers were well aware of the true story and were fiddling it to make it look like something else.becoming aware of the gabriel stone just recently only underpins this idea. The messiah risen after three days was already being claimed about Simon of Peraea.

(1) and the unknown passover release custom is invented to split Jesus into two to give the Jews a choice, Christian Jesus or zealot barrabbas. They choose revolt and get Jesus killed and God inflicts their ruination on them in the Jewishn war. That was the Christian take on the affair.

Very good.......
The real story, smothered later by church dogma and hogwash.

[LittleNipper]

I agree. I can't rule out that the whole thing was invented, but it reads like a real event that the writers tried to cover up. Luke shows (I think) the original form, the Temple fracas follows on from the 'Hioanna' ride, which suggests that it was at Sukkhot, not Passover (a festival commemorating liberation) and the shouts for the son of David are nore a liberating messiah rather than a suffering servant. So the event is its'own theme, not an imitation of the Gabriel stone's Simon of Peraea revolt, though Jesus did stop at Peraea to assemble his muscle before going non to Jerusalem.

John would also have the two things on the same day, if he'd left the temple bust up up where it belongs.

Mark and Matthew's version (I think an already amended gospel they both used, which is why they have the cursing of the fig -tree and Luke doesn't) has it split over two days and they try to explain this in contradictory ways. I don't think Jesus needed one day to plan his visit.He did it all in one go.

I also agree Barrabbas is 'Bar 0- Nbba 'son of the father'. In fact Jesus, split into two characters (1)and I already hinted that the Insurrection Luke mentions (Blood of the Galileans) is Barrabbas' attempted revolt, and thus also Jesus' failed attempt. It was more than a table -turning and he'd need enough musleto try to deal with 1,000 of Pilate's Auxiliaries,say, 5,000 Bethsaidan men, all fired up to make Jeses 'a king by force'.

It ball fits, Crazy conspiracy theory, but it fits the clues and explains the problems, that is, if anyone notices and admits them.

I agree with you about the crucifixion, too. It could all be made up, but I do believe the crucifixion really happened. Paul attests to it and why would the invented story have the Romans kill Jesus and then have to fiddle it so it wasn't their fault?

The apologists try to wish away the 'swoon' theory because they do not like it, but the 'assisted swoon' (drugged o wine on a stick or a roman spear perhaps) knocks Jesus out double quick (Mark invents Pilate'sm surprise'to cover up or rather wave away why Jesus dies so quickly) and in the tomb (the Lazarus tomb at Bethany, not the present tombs as in Jesus' day, that area (Bethezda) was built up - no'new tombs', or using old ones. As soon as the coast was clear 'The disciples stole the body' as Matthew tells us the Jews maintained in his day. So he invents that rather daft tomb guard to 'prove' that wasn't possible. Though the body (or recovered Jesus) would be gone before any guard was appointed to arrive And Pilate's men were in the plot anyway, And it won' be Jewish guards as (as Mr O'Reilly says "My men just won't work on a Sunday". Or the Jewish sabbath in that case.

The only problem there is - if Jesus was really the insurrectionist Barabbas, he would know Jesus was a dangerous rebel and would Not want to save an innocent man, along the gospel lines. But one could argue that Pilate was also greedy (like most Roman governors, such a post was a chance to get money to fund their political career) and maybe he thought a fat bribe was worth more than the death of a failed messiah.

And maybe the idea of coercing him 'If you let this man go, you are not Caesar's friend' could be - like Blood of the Galileans - based on a real event. If that is just what Pilate did and was the real reason Pilate was recalled, not complaints from the Jews about Pilate's rough handling of rebels, which was hardly a complaint that Tiberius would worry much about.

John 19.12 .From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jewish leaders kept shouting, "If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar."


Rabbit -hole, perhaps, but more and more it looks like the writers were well aware of the true story and were fiddling it to make it look like something else.becoming aware of the gabriel stone just recently only underpins this idea. The messiah risen after three days was already being claimed about Simon of Peraea.

(1) and the unknown passover release custom is invented to split Jesus into two to give the Jews a choice, Christian Jesus or zealot barrabbas. They choose revolt and get Jesus killed and God inflicts their ruination on them in the Jewishn war. That was the Christian take on the affair.

Very good.......
The real story, smothered later by church dogma and hogwash.

People are not saved through made up stories. People do not give up their lives to prove made up stories. None of the Apostles became monetarily wealthy through spreading the GOSPEL throughout the world. As an example: Even Jews didn't go to gas chambers for pretending to be Jews. I would suggest that you are trying to disprove something that you do not wish to accept through contriving distortion and confusion. Satan was/is the mater of that, as are those he manipulates. My honest guess is that you wouldn't allow yourself to be thrown to the lions for your "views".

[TRANSPONDER]

I agree. I can't rule out that the whole thing was invented, but it reads like a real event that the writers tried to cover up. Luke shows (I think) the original form, the Temple fracas follows on from the 'Hioanna' ride, which suggests that it was at Sukkhot, not Passover (a festival commemorating liberation) and the shouts for the son of David are nore a liberating messiah rather than a suffering servant. So the event is its'own theme, not an imitation of the Gabriel stone's Simon of Peraea revolt, though Jesus did stop at Peraea to assemble his muscle before going non to Jerusalem.

John would also have the two things on the same day, if he'd left the temple bust up up where it belongs.

Mark and Matthew's version (I think an already amended gospel they both used, which is why they have the cursing of the fig -tree and Luke doesn't) has it split over two days and they try to explain this in contradictory ways. I don't think Jesus needed one day to plan his visit.He did it all in one go.

I also agree Barrabbas is 'Bar 0- Nbba 'son of the father'. In fact Jesus, split into two characters (1)and I already hinted that the Insurrection Luke mentions (Blood of the Galileans) is Barrabbas' attempted revolt, and thus also Jesus' failed attempt. It was more than a table -turning and he'd need enough musleto try to deal with 1,000 of Pilate's Auxiliaries,say, 5,000 Bethsaidan men, all fired up to make Jeses 'a king by force'.

It ball fits, Crazy conspiracy theory, but it fits the clues and explains the problems, that is, if anyone notices and admits them.

I agree with you about the crucifixion, too. It could all be made up, but I do believe the crucifixion really happened. Paul attests to it and why would the invented story have the Romans kill Jesus and then have to fiddle it so it wasn't their fault?

The apologists try to wish away the 'swoon' theory because they do not like it, but the 'assisted swoon' (drugged o wine on a stick or a roman spear perhaps) knocks Jesus out double quick (Mark invents Pilate'sm surprise'to cover up or rather wave away why Jesus dies so quickly) and in the tomb (the Lazarus tomb at Bethany, not the present tombs as in Jesus' day, that area (Bethezda) was built up - no'new tombs', or using old ones. As soon as the coast was clear 'The disciples stole the body' as Matthew tells us the Jews maintained in his day. So he invents that rather daft tomb guard to 'prove' that wasn't possible. Though the body (or recovered Jesus) would be gone before any guard was appointed to arrive And Pilate's men were in the plot anyway, And it won' be Jewish guards as (as Mr O'Reilly says "My men just won't work on a Sunday". Or the Jewish sabbath in that case.

The only problem there is - if Jesus was really the insurrectionist Barabbas, he would know Jesus was a dangerous rebel and would Not want to save an innocent man, along the gospel lines. But one could argue that Pilate was also greedy (like most Roman governors, such a post was a chance to get money to fund their political career) and maybe he thought a fat bribe was worth more than the death of a failed messiah.

And maybe the idea of coercing him 'If you let this man go, you are not Caesar's friend' could be - like Blood of the Galileans - based on a real event. If that is just what Pilate did and was the real reason Pilate was recalled, not complaints from the Jews about Pilate's rough handling of rebels, which was hardly a complaint that Tiberius would worry much about.

John 19.12 .From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jewish leaders kept shouting, "If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar."


Rabbit -hole, perhaps, but more and more it looks like the writers were well aware of the true story and were fiddling it to make it look like something else.becoming aware of the gabriel stone just recently only underpins this idea. The messiah risen after three days was already being claimed about Simon of Peraea.

(1) and the unknown passover release custom is invented to split Jesus into two to give the Jews a choice, Christian Jesus or zealot barrabbas. They choose revolt and get Jesus killed and God inflicts their ruination on them in the Jewishn war. That was the Christian take on the affair.

Very good.......
The real story, smothered later by church dogma and hogwash.

Thank you.I apologise for the terrible typos. I must have been slovenly in checking through for misstypes.

I agree. I can't rule out that the whole thing was invented, but it reads like a real event that the writers tried to cover up. Luke shows (I think) the original form, the Temple fracas follows on from the 'Hioanna' ride, which suggests that it was at Sukkhot, not Passover (a festival commemorating liberation) and the shouts for the son of David are nore a liberating messiah rather than a suffering servant. So the event is its'own theme, not an imitation of the Gabriel stone's Simon of Peraea revolt, though Jesus did stop at Peraea to assemble his muscle before going non to Jerusalem.

John would also have the two things on the same day, if he'd left the temple bust up up where it belongs.

Mark and Matthew's version (I think an already amended gospel they both used, which is why they have the cursing of the fig -tree and Luke doesn't) has it split over two days and they try to explain this in contradictory ways. I don't think Jesus needed one day to plan his visit.He did it all in one go.

I also agree Barrabbas is 'Bar 0- Nbba 'son of the father'. In fact Jesus, split into two characters (1)and I already hinted that the Insurrection Luke mentions (Blood of the Galileans) is Barrabbas' attempted revolt, and thus also Jesus' failed attempt. It was more than a table -turning and he'd need enough musleto try to deal with 1,000 of Pilate's Auxiliaries,say, 5,000 Bethsaidan men, all fired up to make Jeses 'a king by force'.

It ball fits, Crazy conspiracy theory, but it fits the clues and explains the problems, that is, if anyone notices and admits them.

I agree with you about the crucifixion, too. It could all be made up, but I do believe the crucifixion really happened. Paul attests to it and why would the invented story have the Romans kill Jesus and then have to fiddle it so it wasn't their fault?

The apologists try to wish away the 'swoon' theory because they do not like it, but the 'assisted swoon' (drugged o wine on a stick or a roman spear perhaps) knocks Jesus out double quick (Mark invents Pilate'sm surprise'to cover up or rather wave away why Jesus dies so quickly) and in the tomb (the Lazarus tomb at Bethany, not the present tombs as in Jesus' day, that area (Bethezda) was built up - no'new tombs', or using old ones. As soon as the coast was clear 'The disciples stole the body' as Matthew tells us the Jews maintained in his day. So he invents that rather daft tomb guard to 'prove' that wasn't possible. Though the body (or recovered Jesus) would be gone before any guard was appointed to arrive And Pilate's men were in the plot anyway, And it won' be Jewish guards as (as Mr O'Reilly says "My men just won't work on a Sunday". Or the Jewish sabbath in that case.

The only problem there is - if Jesus was really the insurrectionist Barabbas, he would know Jesus was a dangerous rebel and would Not want to save an innocent man, along the gospel lines. But one could argue that Pilate was also greedy (like most Roman governors, such a post was a chance to get money to fund their political career) and maybe he thought a fat bribe was worth more than the death of a failed messiah.

And maybe the idea of coercing him 'If you let this man go, you are not Caesar's friend' could be - like Blood of the Galileans - based on a real event. If that is just what Pilate did and was the real reason Pilate was recalled, not complaints from the Jews about Pilate's rough handling of rebels, which was hardly a complaint that Tiberius would worry much about.

John 19.12 .From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jewish leaders kept shouting, "If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar."


Rabbit -hole, perhaps, but more and more it looks like the writers were well aware of the true story and were fiddling it to make it look like something else.becoming aware of the gabriel stone just recently only underpins this idea. The messiah risen after three days was already being claimed about Simon of Peraea.

(1) and the unknown passover release custom is invented to split Jesus into two to give the Jews a choice, Christian Jesus or zealot barrabbas. They choose revolt and get Jesus killed and God inflicts their ruination on them in the Jewishn war. That was the Christian take on the affair.

Very good.......
The real story, smothered later by church dogma and hogwash.

People are not saved through made up stories. People do not give up their lives to prove made up stories. None of the Apostles became monetarily wealthy through spreading the GOSPEL throughout the world. As an example: Even Jews didn't go to gas chambers for pretending to be Jews. I would suggest that you are trying to disprove something that you do not wish to accept through contriving distortion and confusion. Satan was/is the mater of that, as are those he manipulates. My honest guess is that you wouldn't allow yourself to be thrown to the lions for your "views".

People are not 'saved' in the Christian sense at all in my view, though you are of course entitled to have your own (or the Church dogma) view on this.

People do give up their lives for 'made up stories' or false religious claims. You will be aware of Muslim Martyrs or various other Glorious Death mindsets.

The faith did not spread to make the 12 wealthy, it spread because Paul reinvented it to suit Gentile (Greco - Roman) preference and they took it up and it became as popular as Isis, Mithras, Serapis, Attis and Cybele. It so happened that Constantine's mum was a Christian, so he legitimised Christianity (though I doubt he was ever a Christian himself) and after his death Christianity began suppressing all the rival religions.

I reject your accusation of Bias, (in fact I maintain the Crucifixion was real, as that is how I see the evidence). Christian Faith is equally biased, and just wants to explain away or dismiss the evidence.

You may be right that I might might pretend to b Christian if threatened by being tossed on the bonfire along with Non KJV Bibles, but then atheism does not punish people with hellthreat for not dying for it. However I am more than willing to accept mass dislike and rejection for my lack of Faith, as are atheists in the US. Fortunately, through the efforts of people like me or more effective, they are being given a few more rights and credits.

[The Nice Centurion]

People are not saved through made up stories. People do not give up their lives to prove made up stories. None of the Apostles became monetarily wealthy through spreading the GOSPEL throughout the world. As an example: Even Jews didn't go to gas chambers for pretending to be Jews. I would suggest that you are trying to disprove something that you do not wish to accept through contriving distortion and confusion. Satan was/is the mater of that, as are those he manipulates. My honest guess is that you wouldn't allow yourself to be thrown to the lions for your "views".

Please not again the ole " Thy wouldnt die for a lie " line ! ( I refuse even to call it " argument ". )

And Transponder of course finds nothing better to do then jumping head on into your trap.

We have threads on this very forum that sucessfully refute the TWDFAL.

Yesterday I had to support someone on Twitter who fell also for the TWDFAL and also answered with the " Transponder in Trap argument " ( TITA ).

Now I go to the work of explaining once more;

There were not gruesome biblical deaths of apostles/disciples.
IT IS A PROPAGANDA TRICK FROM LATER CHRISTIANS TO CLAIM THIS!

As for not one of the apostles getting wealthy; HOW DO YOU WANT TO KNOW THAT?

Peters analogues, the prophets Muhammad and Joseph Smith, absolutely gained material benefits with their Jobs.
And what do you assume from out of what, for example, was payd Pauls missionary ancient world tour ? Do you think Felix and Faustus were his secret sponsors ?

AND NOW you top it all by bringing on the 20th century Jews with their Gas chambers. LET THEM ALONE.
It is enough that disgusting german evangelist pseudo scientist Werner Gitt uses the Holocaust card to make an analogy to eternal torture in hell to effectively scare people into his evangelical religion.

Now you are disproven ( perhaps with a little help from my ole pal Satan ) and I close with one other fact:

THERE IS ZERO EVIDENCE THAT CHRISTIANS WERE EVER FED TO LIONS!
death
That is invented Propaganda too!

Perhaps the romans rather bored christians to by having them read Pauls letters.

[oldbadger]

People are not saved through made up stories. People do not give up their lives to prove made up stories.

This looks like you're selling football and other popular sports.
This also looks as if you've given up the debate about bible errors.

None of the Apostles became monetarily wealthy through spreading the GOSPEL throughout the world. As an example: Even Jews didn't go to gas chambers for pretending to be Jews.

The disciples were nearly all from the peasant classes..hence they were poor throughout. But Matthew was wealthy by comparison.
No Jews needed to pretend. And person could become a Jew.

I would suggest that you are trying to disprove something that you do not wish to accept through contriving distortion and confusion.

We are waiting for your answers to our posts.
I don't accept Christianity because I believe in Deism, and there do not believe in an aware or interested God.
I've already said that much of G-Msrk could be true.

Satan was/is the mater of that, as are those he manipulates. My honest guess is that you wouldn't allow yourself to be thrown to the lions for your "views".

What.....the devil? You actually believe in the devil?
You still are not answering our posts!

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to The Nice Centurion in post #267]

I think it worthwhile to explain how the 'die for a lie' argument fails, rather than just dismissing it.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #269]
That substancially is in my post, which on a rare occassion you conveniently not quoted!