>Be me
>Be a Roman Governor in Judea
>Life is good. Jews are annoying sometimes, but nothing important.
>One day, they asked me to execute a man called Jesus.
>WhatsThis.jpg
>After trying to save him, I had to execute him. Couldn't choose.
>Many years later, I died.
>I go to a very beautiful place.
>God appears in front of me. My polytheist religion was wrong after all.
>He says humans don't live after dead until the Judgment Day, but he wanted to talk with me before "sending me to sleep".
>He says I killed his prophet, Jesus.
>I said I was sorry, I did what I could to save him.
>He says I'm forgiven, but I have to do something.
>ohshit.jpg
>He gives me a paper and a feather.
>I suddenly feel inmense knowledge, start writing this.
>He says he's going to show this to the people in the future.
>He says I'm saved. I'm writing here all what he says.
>He says it's time to sleep. I have to go.
>mfw i had better clothes in Earth than here
Be me
Could you explain why the Romans had to kill Jesus? Why couldn't they "save" him?
Read Hobbes' "Leviathan" to understand the motivation. Religions have a great capacity to disrupt a stable nation. The existence of such a man was a direct threat to the Romans.
Because Romans said they wouldn't want to meddle with petty jewish matters plus the jews weren't able to prove the charges they have brought against Jesus'
Then the Jews kept on shouting at him, it was a huge crowd, in fear of riot he asked the Jews what to do to him instead and the Jews shouted to crucify him. He washed his hands clean and declared the burden of Jesus' death to fall on the Jews, not him
the old jew church killed him, pilate didnt wanted to kill him, he washed his hands
> implying Pilate tried to save Jesus
> implying the > lel pick someone to let go happened
> implying the bible is a historical, rather than a political document that reenforced the Roman hegemony
> implying God as depicted in the bible is forgiving of Pilate when Judas was sent to hell
Sup Forums is for politics, not gay bible fan fiction. Saged
The Jewish people killed Jesus, Pilatus is innocent.
He literally washes his hands in innocence and declares that the verdict by the Jewish people is what will kill Jesus.
Haven't you read the bible?
So you think killing Jesus was in the Roman's best interests?
Surely the Romans, as powerful as they were, could have prevented this still?
what if judas was always a bad guy? in every part of the Bible he sound shady af
Can someone explain this to me? What did God tell Pilatus to write? What did Pilatus' clothes on earth have to do with anything?
Pilate didn't give a fuck about a jew pleb.
Pilate didn't betray Jesus though brah.
the jews had a major uprising that was just put down
it wasn't worth it and a just man said it was alright
The Jews are everywhere
> twelve apostles
> literally 14-16 different 'books', only four of which are in the bible
Guess which four are the most critical of Judas. Judas has a 'book' of his own (not written by him obviously) that paints him as being sent by God to play the part of betrayed, and a few other of the apostles accounts agree. There's even a gospel of Mary, but that wasn't published > woman & who're, can't be holy Jesus book
The bible is not gods word. It's a heavily censored political document that was organized in such a way to create a convenient and consistant narrative. Jesus would be pissed, stop bumping this cancer and go read something about the bible's physical history.
Jesus and all his followers deserved to die. Christianity is what brought the downfall of Rome, the greatest civilization the world has ever seen. Christianity is nothing but a Semitic religion that goes against European heritage.
boards.Sup Forums.org/pol/thread/83417425#p83417425'
OP's greentext sounds a lot like the subplot to "The Master and Margarita" -- a great book BTW
that's the book God wanted to give us, men can't do nothing if God does not allow
Witches are my fetish.
I've heard of one of those "books", i think it was the "gospel of Peter" supposedly written by St. Peter that mentioned that Judas was actually bribed by Jebus Crust to betray him and promised him lots of great things and i think even mentioned Jebus showing Judas some heavenly secrets and it drove Judas insane... interesting stuff
You might want to invest in a whetstone because you just used up all of your edge on that comment.
By that justification, doesn't it seem oh-so-convenient that the bible painted Pilate as a regretful man with his hands tied, despite agreeing to fucking crucifying Jesus? The Jews didn't put him to death, the Romans did.
You know who convened the council to write the bible? The Romans. Really makes you think...
But a lot of these "books" were basically 1st and 2nd century fan fictions about jebus
Jesus was a very wise guy
first he proclaimed to be the son of god and they let let em be
then he started a new religion that fucked with the old testament and they let em be
then he ask his servants to baptize and they let em be
one day he walked in the temple and do the Jews trading inside, got mad and threw the shekels on the ground at which point the Jews scream crucify em...
the moral of the story is, you can put yourself between a Jew an his god but once you start fucking with his shekels blood will be drawn
Finding scripture carbon dated before the existence of rome claiming bible written by rome the facts are against you.
>Christianity is what brought the downfall of Rome,
How come the far more Christian Eastern Empire survived for a thousand years after the West fell then?
Anyone who blames Christianity for the fall of Rome outs themselves as a shill.
i hate the romans now, fuck you Itali
alot of these books "surfaced" centuries after the original gospels and you cant even prove they are factual, contradict the older accounts and dont have theology consistent with what's actually in the canon. why would somebody intellectually look at these books and assume they are somehow the 'hidden truth?' in the court of law it would look like one side is obviously lying because the outsider accounts simply dont add up with multiple witnesses having consistent and parallel testimonies.
Rome had no vested interest in trying to push christianity as its religion even after constantine made it legal to be a christian. not to mention the entire bible has stories of individuals who oppose their respective opressive governments/kings/empires, so your complaint isnt even consistent with the message of the bible in the first place.
It clearly says in the Bible that the Jews threatened to take the matter to Caesar... Caesar having no time for such trivial matter would have killed them all, so Pilate fearing Caesar, went along with the wishes of the Jews.
This also illustrates that the Jews actually did respect Caesars authority. In fact there were many Jewish senators back in Rome...
There's more gospels than apostles. what's more, there's accounts from Tacitus that the prophet 'Yashua' who preached what we recognise as proto-Christianity was crucified, although he's silent upon who was crucified along side him. Whether Jesus was the son of God or not, it's pretty indisputable that the bible doesn't reflect his personal preaching, since the gospels are varied in their descriptions of him, and weren't written down unt at least 100 years after his death, some not until 300 years. Then you've got translation errors, the Roman intervention in the writing of the bible (because no state allows religious material critical of them specifically because it's so powerful in motivating revolution).
Who's to say the 4 'Canon' gospels aren't then? Paul's wasn't written until 300 years after he died I think.
Wikipedia ok?
> It is commonly thought that the writers of the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke used Mark as a source, with changes and improvement to peculiarities and crudities in Mark.
>Most modern scholars hold that the canonical Gospel accounts were written between 70 and 100 or 110 CE,[16] four to eight decades after the crucifixion,
en.m.wikipedia.org
>be alien
>ship crashed
>bored
>attempt to fit in
>try to educate, and show examples of science
>inhabitants think it's magic
>some inhabitants gets upset
>they killed me
>friend teleported me to his ship, and revived me
>come back to earth few hundred years later
>many worship me as god
>mfw
So is this a case of Jews being good citizens?
SHEKELS?
> why would somebody intellectually look at these books and assume they are somehow the 'hidden truth?'
What's hidden? None of the gospels are historical accounts. The council that decided what was going into the bible actuay considered more than 40 different testimonies for the bible, so all those 'books discovered centuries later' were actually known about at the time, and suppressed later
>Rome had no vested interest in trying to push christianity as its religion
Constantine didn't make Christianity an official religion until centuries after the 'official' record of the bible was decided upon. Also, every state has a vested interest in allowing certain religions to flourish, because religion is a powerful motivator.
I don't care what you believe, but the bible isn't what Jesus preached. Love thy neighbor probably is made up too, sorry. Believe in a god, but certainly don't trust a book that's at best, merely paraphrasing an unknown holy man
Nigger you said the bible not just the gospel accts. Way to move the goal posts.
I am aware that there are "gospels" from non apostles. And i never said that the 4 canon bibles werent untrue, i said that a lot of these resurfaces of different gospels that contradict the bible are proven to be fanfiction. I'm not saying that the biblical gospels arent fanfiction, im saying that these newly resurfaced ones and "non canon" gospels contradict the 4 main gospels in the bible, because they are most likely fan fictions...oh, and paul didnt write any gospels. He wrote epistles
> thinking the Talmud (old testiment) isn't just jewery.
> what is the new testiment if not the 4 gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and revealations
Nigger, you just went full retard. Go look at a bible and tell me if I'm missing anything in the new testiment, then find out when that shit was written. Hint hint, it's waaaay after the gospels :^)
Resorting to insults calling the Old Testament jewry get rekted troll.
>proven to be fanfiction
Not one of the canon gospels call Jesus by his real name. They're ALL fan fiction, and fan fiction written for the benefit of the Roman provinces.
Also, Paul didn't write shit. He told some dudes who told their kids, who wrote it down a hundred years later. Think Chinese whispers in a land where an average lifespan is 40, and the bible as the 'word of God' arguement starts to fall apart.
Believe in God all you want, I can't even bring myself to give a shit, but the bible is a political document. Our one chance to learn what God wanted was fucked by the Romans, so don't defend those cunts
> (((old))) testament
> Jesus literally said to forget about it, even in the 'new' Canon
Stop pretending this matter
bro is this a bait post? the talmud was written over two centuries after jesus. its literally jews telling you how they think you should interpert the old testament.
WE
>the talmud was written over two centuries after jesus
It's jewery of the highest order
> (((old))) testament
> Jesus literally said to forget about it, even in the 'new' Canon
>Stop pretending this matter
that's wrong brah
and the first part is just >blah blah my opinion
so i cant say much
Jesus draws from the old testament all time did you even read the bible?
He also says he's come to dismantle it. Contradictions abound in the bible, never mind the fact that much of its value as a historical document is ruined by the fact it was word of mouth for decades. It's not the word of God, it's an attempt to sneak Jesus under the Roman radar. Don't we have better things to do than discuss how obviously innacurate the bible is
>a political document depicts the corruption of rulers, kings and governments and has jews and christians in opposition of those governments
>rome "supressed" and "altered" this "political document" to stop the jews and christians from uprising, but we left all of that stuff about people who defied their governments in there
>Be roman governor
>Have to govern fucking backwards as Judea
>Full of monotheistic fanatics who refuse to even consider the roman gods
>Constantly revolting
>Constantly fucking up roman culture and not assimiliating like literally everybody else
>One day they bring yet another cult leader and demand his execution for offending their retard religion
>Sure, what the fuck ever, leave me alone
>billions of people thereafter judge you and wonder why you didn't try harder to save who was obviously the innocent son of god
>it was word of mouth for decades
>jews compiled a comprehensive greek version of the old testament called the septuagint as far back as 3rd century BC
> 56 gospels
> Roman run council funded by and overseen by Romans considers the account of Jesus with word of mouth stories that happened 100 years ago
> somehow, only 4 books are chosen, all of which that conveniently agree with one another
> 3 of which are pretty much derivatives of the gospel of Mark
> "b-but mah pastor says it's th' word of God, amen!"
I've provided sources, go read them and realize how stupid this whole arguement is. If it's the word of God, then why is it so varied across the 56 different accounts? God wasn't exactly present for when they decided which versions to include.
> Most modern scholars hold that the canonical Gospel accounts were written between 70 and 100 or 110 CE,[16] four to eight decades after the crucifixion,
en.m.wikipedia.org
Dunno about the Talmud, I'll assume you've got a source for that. Either way, it's still shifty, since the great flood story was literally ripped from Babylon mythos wholesale
>we find a book that some random dude wrote that have nothing to do with the others Gospels
>for some reason we have to include it
>???
>they find proof of a great flood in distants part of the world
>it was just a babylon mythos
muh dude
>implying jesus actually existed
Tacitus "wrote" 2 very weird and cryptic sentences on a so called prophet and strangely enough in the very next page he wrote 3 paragraph on a dog that save 2 kids drowning. That dog is also the second entry with the least words written about.
> we have 56 conflicting accounts
> we'll pick these four since they're sorta consistant and the Romans don't think they're too 'out there' because they were written by a woman, or the guy who betrayed Jesus, or blame Pilate
> oh look at these other 3 accounts, they're all derivatives of the gospel of mark
> (((((pure conincidence)))))
> (((((((((word of (((God))))))))))))
Which inere you talking about? There's been a fuckton of ancient floods, it's just the babylons had the first account of one. Even has one of the gods helping a human make a boat and taking animals on it. Floods aren't uncommon, and the myth was Babylonian before it was jewish
Yeah, he said something about "yashua, also called Jesus" who Pilate visited with "exquisite tortures". Jesus was pretty much a footnote to the Romans. Pilate didn't give a shit about him
Tensions were high in Judea at the time and the Romans didn't want a fucking revolt to break out over religious tensions because one guy was pissing off the Jewish elders.
Judea revolted about sixty years later anyway, until the revolt was crushed by Vespasian about two years later.
wtf do you have with the romans man, if you focus in the romans you are missing the point, also you dont know what the missing books say , do you have some source that i can check?
>Floods aren't uncommon, and the myth was Babylonian before it was jewish
so what? it could have happened too
> If you focus on the Romans, you're missing the point
What's the point? Accurate records say there was a guy called yashua, and he was crucified. Then, almost a hundred years later, there's written records of twelve apostles and a man named jesus who was also God. Of those 56 or so written records, 14-16 of which are the testimony (word of mouth) of the apostles or close friends (e.g. mary), only 4 become the bible, three of which are wholesale based on the 4th. I really don't see what the point you're making is. Mine is that it can't possibly be the word of God except as a very, very poor abridgement, and it's exjstance occured at a time that makes it more likely to be a political document
> so what? It could have happened too
You don't understand, I'm not saying there were two floods, one in Babylon and one for the Jews. There is a Babylonian myth about a god causing a flood and a boat being built that housed animals, and there's also a Jewish one written many hundreds of years later. The Jews took the story and made it their own,the same way the Romans combined the date of crucifiction with their midwinter festival to make Christmas. Maybe two floods happened, maybe more, but the Jews are talking about the same story as the babylonians
If it isn't the word of God how could Christianity have grown so fast?
>What's the point?
my point is that everything is co related with the OT, and dont tell me the OT is roman too, to me it's likely the Word of God, at least the basic that he want us to know
> The Jews took the story and made it their own
what if the story from the babylonion was about a jew named noah?
Pretty good, except for the heretical mistake regarding going to sleep until the General Judgement (Our bodies remain on Earth, but we still enjoy heaven, or the other place, by our souls.)
Pilate did make attempts to save Christ, but gave in to the Jews' demans for blood. But why?
The Gospels relay a lot of critical facts: the Jews played up the need for friendship with Caesar, knowing that Pilate had a difficult relationship with the Emperor. In effect, they were implying that they would cause trouble if Pilate did not acede. Trouble meant putting a revolt, which meant Pilate might get his head chopped off.
There is a reason Jews have the repudation as le Happy Merchant.
> If it isn't the word of Allah (Praised be his sharts) then how did it come to be the dominant religion in Germany?
It's a religion, and it was sponsered by the Roman empire, carried to all 4 corners of the globe, and then carried further by the British, who got it from the Romans. It's a great story, and has important messages for living a 'good' life. I like it more than the Roman and Greek pantheons since it has a nicer afterlife and has a loving God. Everyone wants to be wanted, I guess that's why it happened.
>everything is co related with the OT, and dont tell me the OT is roman too, to me it's likely the Word of God, at least the basic that he want us to know
It's a book that was oral tradition for centuries, and ripped off other stories. If it's what God wanted, why send Jesus? It's clear from the temple encounter, the Jews had gone astray with what they were given.
> what if the babyloian myth was about a Jew named Noah?
It isn't
bible-history.com
>jews killed rome
>germans killed rome
>romans killed rome
>christians killed rome
>women killed rome
>degenercy killed rome
>economics killed rome
>social unrest killed rome
etc etc
>It's a book that was oral tradition for centuries
nothing wrong with it, Jesus was doing something else, the Bible is for people outside the Hebrew faith
When a time machine proves that Jesus is not the son of God what will religion fags do?
>inb4 time machine proves he is the son of God and world goes crazy
> Bible is for people outside the Hebrew faith
> 'everything is based on the OT'
I'm having trouble seeing how this refutes the point that an oral tradition can be corrupted over time. Even if we assume God DID say something that caused the old testiment to be written, it still doesn't change the fact the written account is a massive game of Chinese whispers
>>He says I killed his prophet, Jesus.
stopped reading right there
I hope this is a copy-pasta OP and you didn't made this, because it's pretty damn retarded
Fuck no
i believe 66 ad is the argument against jews being good citizens in those times
Jesus needed to spread the Word of God outside Israel, they took the chosen people too literal, and he found the way by pandering the empire next to him, they did their job
that shit about corruption of the oral corruption, i dont care, we have this Bible
Alright, let's assume Jesus wanted the Romans to spread the word. Why are the 56 gospels so divergent, aside from the 3 that are based on the 4th? Wouldn't God make them more consistant?
> inb4 the 4 in the bible are true
There's 1 in the bible, the other 3 are copies seething earlier replies
>he thinks Jews of today are the Judeans of history which Christianity fundamentally opposed
Fuck off with your kike fairy tale nigger.
have you read the other 3? John is pretty based, Luke too, the others 2 are just introductions
To appeal to different peoples and spread it faster
...
...
>he thinks they're not
Read the Old Testament, they've always been vile cunts and the sooner we eliminate everything semitic on this planet the better.
>66 years later
Nigger have you seen what has happened to American citizens since the 1950s? We've developed into degenerate filth.
Fun fact: The manuscript was hidden for decades before it was finally published. USSR wasn't a fan of this sort of thing.
Jews did that?
They didnt and romans werent germanic
I know that very well, but how is it fucking related to what i've said?
66 ad is not 66 years after Jesus died, more like 33
I was talking about this