This Doco aired on TV recently here in NZ.

A cold case investigator goes to the middle east to investigate the 'ultimate' cold case.

http://tvnz.co.nz/the-investigator/jesus-video-4312878

IIRC it's a one hour doco, but well worth watching.

That's stupid. The government could have used this money to feed the poor but instead they waste it searching for fairy tales. I didn't even open the link, the mere notion of such unproductive activity disgusts me.

That's stupid. The government could have used this money to feed the poor but instead they waste it searching for fairy tales. I didn't even open the link, the mere notion of such unproductive activity disgusts me.

Thankyou for your... Insightful commentary.

Perhaps you could take the time to clarify which government you think was involved, and why you think they were involved?

I'm fairly sure it's not the government you think it was, and I'm fairly sure the doco was made without government assitance.

Thankyou for your... Insiteful commentary.

Perhaps you could take the time to clarify which government you think was involved, and why you think they were involved?

I'm fairly sure it's not the government you think it was, and I'm fairly sure the doco was made without government assitance.

I'm pretty sure it's "Insightful", sir. And I don't need to read it to know the idiocy of theist politicians and their wastefulness.

I'm pretty sure it's "Insightful", sir. And I don't need to read it to know the idiocy of theist politicians and their wastefulness.
I'd say it's more like uninsightful, and politicians had nothing to do with it.

Don't be naive. Corrupt politicians have to do with everything that happens. Trust me on this one, bro. You'll learn the truth of things eventually too.

Trippy, it won't let me watch it! I'm not in NZ...



Don't be naive. Corrupt politicians have to do with everything that happens. Trust me on this one, bro. You'll learn the truth of things eventually too.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRyjAyUrMCkT-MfNoqUTv8j7_xS7IOJQ_X5FXdTPnLqGPCSAuVHkQ

Trippy, it won't let me watch it! I'm not in NZ...




http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRyjAyUrMCkT-MfNoqUTv8j7_xS7IOJQ_X5FXdTPnLqGPCSAuVHkQ

Really? That sucks.

No worries. Scientific minds like ours need not watch a bunch of christian propaganda anyway.

No worries. Scientific minds like ours need not watch a bunch of christian propaganda anyway.

It's not christian propaganda you twit.

Sir, let's keep this conversation intelligent. If you cannot logically argue with someone without the use of ad hominem, I say this forum might not be for you.

Sir, let's keep this conversation intelligent. If you cannot logically argue with someone without the use of ad hominem, I say this forum might not be for you.
Present some intelligent conversation or argument, and we'll see.

Just because you disagree, doesn't mean my arguments were not intelligent. Remember, it's only your opinion.

Just because you disagree, doesn't mean my arguments were not intelligent. Remember, it's only your opinion.

You have yet to present an argument, let alone an intelligent one.

Thus far all you have done is present uninformed opinions on a documentary that you haven't yet actually watched.

But please, feel free to elaborate how you can produce an inteligent, verifiable argument pro or con any piece of media that you have not yet perused.

Thankyou for your... Insightful commentary.

Perhaps you could take the time to clarify which government you think was involved, and why you think they were involved?

I'm fairly sure it's not the government you think it was, and I'm fairly sure the doco was made without government assitance.


You have yet to present an argument, let alone an intelligent one.

Thus far all you have done is present uninformed opinions on a documentary that you haven't yet actually watched.

But please, feel free to elaborate how you can produce an inteligent, verifiable argument pro or con any piece of media that you have not yet perused.

Scroll up. And if you can't figure out from my posts what I said, it's your problem.
You really shouldn't judge people based on their opinions. That's frowned upon in the science community. Just saying.

Scroll up. And if you can't figure out from my posts what I said, it's your problem.
My response to you was this little thing called sarcasm.


You really shouldn't judge people based on their opinions. That's frowned upon in the science community. Just saying.
Your assertions fail to meet ontological parsimony - a government conspiracy, which you implied here:

Don't be naive. Corrupt politicians have to do with everything that happens. Trust me on this one, bro. You'll learn the truth of things eventually too.
Is by definition unverifirable.
You've also failed to meet the rule of laplace - providing no evidence of government involvment in the documentary, which you have not watched, and no proof of propaganda.

This comment:

That's stupid. The government could have used this money to feed the poor but instead they waste it searching for fairy tales. I didn't even open the link, the mere notion of such unproductive activity disgusts me.
Makes an assertion without proof.
It presents your opinion as a fact - strictly speaking, presenting an something as a fact without knowing whether or not its a fact is called a lie.


No worries. Scientific minds like ours need not watch a bunch of christian propaganda anyway.
Again, you're presenting an assertion as a fact, without proof, and without taking the time to verify your assertion - again, this is known as lying.

So where does that leave us?

Your assertions fail the principle of ontological parsimony.
You fail to meet the rule of laplace.
You present assertions and opinions as fact, without knowing whether or not they are actually true.

For all you know, the producer of that documentary was an atheist, and it blames christians for the holocaust.

Too long. Didn't read.

In the Gospels, the account of the events leading up to the death of Jesus contains elements of pure anti-semitism.

A contaminated text in my opinion.

If you ever went to a Catholic Church on Good Friday, (possibly unlikely) you would understand why there were so many pogroms in the ages of Faith.

Too long. Didn't read.

Ok, whose re reg are you?

In the Gospels, the account of the events leading up to the death of Jesus contains elements of pure anti-semitism.

A contaminated text in my opinion.

If you ever went to a Catholic Church on Good Friday, (possibly unlikely) you would understand why there were so many pogroms in the ages of Faith.

This was actually one of the points that the Doco made. It was a way of distancing themselves from the Jews and cosying up to the empire after the Jewish rebellion that led to the sacking of Jerusalem by the Romans. The same antisemitism eventually lead to the legitimisation of Christianity in the Roman Empire, and its eventual adoption by Constantin.

Too long. Didn't read.
OMG...
Phlogistian?



Isn't your handle Duke Whittaker from the Adventure in Odyssey (http://www.whitsend.org/) series?
i think your avatar is also? (um..i pm'd this..you didn't reply..)

These are christian creations,(BTW Excellent series,even atheist can get into these)
confuses me when you speak anti-theist..

That's stupid. The government could have used this money to feed the poor but instead they waste it searching for fairy tales. I didn't even open the link, the mere notion of such unproductive activity disgusts me.Do you really think it's money better spent feeding the poor? As a Citizen I'd rather the money spent on archaeology :shrug:


As for who really killed Jesus. This is akin to asking: Who really killed Harry Potter. I surely hope they weren't funded for such an asinine question. A much better question would be: How many different Jesus Archetypes were in existence between 300 and 700CE? Of these, which were martyred and why was this important for the development of early "Christian" superstition?

This was actually one of the points that the Doco made. It was a way of distancing themselves from the Jews and cosying up to the empire after the Jewish rebellion that led to the sacking of Jerusalem by the Romans. The same antisemitism eventually lead to the legitimisation of Christianity in the Roman Empire, and its eventual adoption by Constantin.

This makes no sense.

The Romans where the ones who killed Jesus at the behest of the Jewish religious authorities. So if the Christians where making up a story to cosy up to the Roman empire it would have made the execution of Jesus a totally Jewish affair.

You would never have heard about pontius pilate and there would be no account of roman solders whipping Jesus and nailing Him to the cross.

Anti-christs will go down some silly argument paths in the zeal for being anti Christian.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

This makes no sense.

The Romans where the ones who killed Jesus at the behest of the Jewish religious authorities. So if the Christians where making up a story to cosy up to the Roman empire it would have made the execution of Jesus a totally Jewish affair.

You would never have heard about pontius pilate and there would be no account of roman solders whipping Jesus and nailing Him to the cross.

Anti-christs will go down some silly argument paths in the zeal for being anti Christian.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

That is basically what the did though - compare the historical account of Pilate to the New Testament account. The historical account has him being pretty ruthless, but in the New Testament he lets himself get bullied around by some second rate citizens, and yelled at by a crowd?

Look into what Philo and Josephus have to say about him. This is the man, who, according to Josephus, spent temple money to build an aquifer, and when the Jews protested, had roman soldiers dressed as drews infiltrate the crowd, and at a signal, had his soldiers beat and kill people.

And we're supposed to believe that, according to accounts written 50 to 300 years after the fact, during the roman persecution of christianity, that Ponitus Pilate reluctantly executed a jewish trouble maker and rabble rouser, after being bullied into it by the Jewish priests, who held a trial during the passover, and being yelled at by a crowd of Jews?

Isn't that a little hard to swallow?

That is basically what the did though - compare the historical account of Pilate to the New Testament account. The historical account has him being pretty ruthless, but in the New Testament he lets himself get bullied around by some second rate citizens, and yelled at by a crowd?

The biblical account does not have Pilate being bullied around. Pilate was a consummate politician who played the potentially explosive situation very well. The jewish religious authorities where trying to get the Romans to kill Jesus without taking a share in the decision because they feared the populace (many of whom thought Jesus was a prophet) Pilate played it hard and well. He only changed his resistance to the execution of Jesus until the jewish crowd said:

Matthew 27
19 While he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent to him, saying, “Have nothing to do with that just Man, for I have suffered many things today in a dream because of Him.”
20 But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitudes that they should ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus. 21 The governor answered and said to them, “Which of the two do you want me to release to you?”
They said, “Barabbas!”
22 Pilate said to them, “What then shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?”
They all said to him, “Let Him be crucified!”
23 Then the governor said, “Why, what evil has He done?”
But they cried out all the more, saying, “Let Him be crucified!”
24 When Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult was rising, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, “I am innocent of the blood of this just Person. You see to it.”
25 And all the people answered and said, “His blood be on us and on our children.”
26 Then he released Barabbas to them; and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified.

That’s what Pilate was waiting for. He wanted to cover His and the roman authorities ass by forcing the jews to take their share of responsibility for the execution of Jesus. That way the jewish religious authorities could not later direct the anger of the jewish common people against the roman occupiers for the execution of Jesus. Once they said that "“His blood be on us and on our children.”" Pilate had no trouble sending Jesus to His death.



Look into what Philo and Josephus have to say about him. This is the man, who, according to Josephus, spent temple money to build an aquifer, and when the Jews protested, had roman soldiers dressed as drews infiltrate the crowd, and at a signal, had his soldiers beat and kill people.

Beating a crowd is one thing. Walking into a trap that would see Him facing the possibility of a popular jewish uprising over the death of a significant religious figure is another. Do you think Pilate and the romans had no idea about what was goin on with Jesus? They knew He was a significant figure. He was the Hot potato they wanted to get out of their hands.


And we're supposed to believe that, according to accounts written 50 to 300 years after the fact, during the roman persecution of christianity, that Ponitus Pilate reluctantly executed a jewish trouble maker and rabble rouser, after being bullied into it by the Jewish priests, who held a trial during the passover, and being yelled at by a crowd of Jews?

Isn't that a little hard to swallow?

Well to give the jewish religious authorities credit they nearly played a perfect game with Pilate. They even insinuated that if Pilate did not execute Jesus he was guilty of treason to Caesar. Now that would have put Pilate in the hot seat. But Pilate had a lot of intestinal fortitude and lucky for him the jewish authorities mob got a bit too enthusiastic and blurted out "“His blood be on us and on our children.”".

I don't think Pilate gave a rats ass about Jesus. Pilate was a man who was dealing with a potentially explosive situation and He needed all his political nous to make it through it unscathed.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

The biblical account does not have Pilate being bullied around. Pilate was a consummate politician who played the potentially explosive situation very well. The jewish religious authorities where trying to get the Romans to kill Jesus without taking a share in the decision because they feared the populace (many of whom thought Jesus was a prophet) Pilate played it hard and well. He only changed his resistance to the execution of Jesus until the jewish crowd said:

Matthew 27
19 While he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent to him, saying, “Have nothing to do with that just Man, for I have suffered many things today in a dream because of Him.”
20 But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitudes that they should ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus. 21 The governor answered and said to them, “Which of the two do you want me to release to you?”
They said, “Barabbas!”
22 Pilate said to them, “What then shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?”
They all said to him, “Let Him be crucified!”
23 Then the governor said, “Why, what evil has He done?”
But they cried out all the more, saying, “Let Him be crucified!”
24 When Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult was rising, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, “I am innocent of the blood of this just Person. You see to it.”
25 And all the people answered and said, “His blood be on us and on our children.”
26 Then he released Barabbas to them; and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified.

That’s what Pilate was waiting for. He wanted to cover His and the roman authorities ass by forcing the jews to take their share of responsibility for the execution of Jesus. That way the jewish religious authorities could not later direct the anger of the jewish common people against the roman occupiers for the execution of Jesus. Once they said that "“His blood be on us and on our children.”" Pilate had no trouble sending Jesus to His death.
This only serves to illustrate my point though - the gospel according to Matthew derives much of its material from the gospel according to mark and was written after the destruction of the temple in Jeruesalem in 70AD (probably between 80 and 90 AD), and portrays Pilate as an unwilling accomplace.


Beating a crowd is one thing. Walking into a trap that would see Him facing the possibility of a popular jewish uprising over the death of a significant religious figure is another. Do you think Pilate and the romans had no idea about what was goin on with Jesus? They knew He was a significant figure. He was the Hot potato they wanted to get out of their hands.
Jesus was a trouble maker and a rabble rouser - consider his actions in the temple, that alone is enough to sign his death warrant.


I don't think Pilate gave a rats ass about Jesus. Pilate was a man who was dealing with a potentially explosive situation and He needed all his political nous to make it through it unscathed.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days
I disagree - History suggests that Pilate had no qualms what so ever about putting down Jewish rebellion harshly and efficiently, I don't think he gave a rats ass about Jews in general - his fellow prefects called him to Rome to account to Tiberius for his actions in putting down later jewish rebellions. I tend to agree with the idea that if Pilate had any prior knowledge of Jesus, it would have been through the events at the temple, and as a trouble maker and a Rabble rouser.

This only serves to illustrate my point though - the gospel according to Matthew derives much of its material from the gospel according to mark and was written after the destruction of the temple in Jeruesalem in 70AD (probably between 80 and 90 AD), and portrays Pilate as an unwilling accomplace.

Of course he wasn't a willing accomplice. He probably did not care about the internal religious controversies of the Jews. He was unwilling to be used as a pawn by the jewish religious authorities in cleaning up their problem and at the same time taking all the risk.



Jesus was a trouble maker and a rabble rouser - consider his actions in the temple, that alone is enough to sign his death warrant.

Yes the jewish authorities wanted him dead because of the trouble He was causing them. But they knew many of the comon people supported Jesus. They where afraid of the populace so they hatched a plan to force Pilate and the roman Authorities into fixing their problem. But it did not work out as they wanted.



I disagree - History suggests that Pilate had no qualms what so ever about putting down Jewish rebellion harshly and efficiently, I don't think he gave a rats ass about Jews in general -

Yes when the need arose He was very willing to use force to put down a rebellion. But he wasn't a moron who would get himself into that situation by being used as a pawn by the local religious authority to kill of their problem.



his fellow prefects called him to Rome to account to Tiberius for his actions in putting down later jewish rebellions. I tend to agree with the idea that if Pilate had any prior knowledge of Jesus, it would have been through the events at the temple, and as a trouble maker and a Rabble rouser.

Well you must have a very low estimation of the intelligence gathering ability of the roman authorities. Jesus never hid His activities; It is not like He was a leader of a secret society. Jesus caused no problems for Pilate and the romans. He even told the jewish people to pay their taxes to Caesar. Jesus was not Pilates problem and Pilate did not want him to be his problem.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

compare the historical account of Pilate to the New Testament account.

Which historical account are you referring to?

Which historical account are you referring to?

Do you often comment in threads without reading through them?

Look into what Philo and Josephus have to say about him. This is the man, who, according to Josephus, spent temple money to build an aquifer, and when the Jews protested, had roman soldiers dressed as drews [sic] infiltrate the crowd, and at a signal, had his soldiers beat and kill people.


First of all, you only quote one example from one historian, Josephus. Why mention Philo if you don't adduce anything to support your claim from him?
This means you only have one example of Pilate's supposed ruthlessness which supposedly vitiates his behavior as recorded in the Gospels.

Secondly, I assume by "drews" you meant to type "Jews". Why would a ruthless tyrant feel the need to "infiltrate" a crowd of Jews with agents in disguise? If he was so powerful and ruthless, why not just send in Roman soldiers frontally to subdue them? This by itself raises something fishy, which would have to be settled by reading the Josephus passage you are basing your conclusion on. Do you have a citation for that Josephus passage I can check?

Jesus was a trouble maker and a rabble rouser - consider his actions in the temple, that alone is enough to sign his death warrant.


If Pilate was a ruthless powerful tyrant as you allege, why would he care what some rabble-rouser does to the temple of the Jews? If any of them got out of line -- whether the anti-Jesus Jews or the pro-Jesus Jews -- he would logically just send in his Roman SWAT team to mop up and restore order.

If, however, you are conceding that Pilate did care about the sensibilities of the Jews and their precious Temple (among other things important to them), then that begins to restore sense to the Gospel accounts and his diplomacy with the Jews he was using as local crowd control, so to speak. Their representatives appealed to him that there was this rabble-rouser causing trouble -- so he said, okay, let me see what I can do about this. Even a tyrant wants to rule without too many headaches (unless he's an irrational psycho). The Gospel account indicates such a ruler who chose the path of least headaches -- let the Jewish authorities have what they want, kill the "blasphemer", so we can get back to the ordinary business of ruling this Godforsaken outpost of the Roman Empire again, for Jupiter's sake!

First of all, you only quote one example from one historian, Josephus. Why mention Philo if you don't adduce anything to support your claim from him?
This means you only have one example of Pilate's supposed ruthlessness which supposedly vitiates his behavior as recorded in the Gospels.
Tetchy much?


Secondly, I assume by "drews" you meant to type "Jews".
I would have thought that would have been bordering on tautological from the context. Unless you think that maybe I meant to suggest that Roman soldiers might have more success, for example, infiltrating a crowd of Jews, protesting actions taken against Jews, dressed as Samaritans?


Why would a ruthless tyrant feel the need to "infiltrate" a crowd of Jews with agents in disguise? If he was so powerful and ruthless, why not just send in Roman soldiers frontally to subdue them?
Maybe it appealed to his sense of humor, and he thought it would be funnier.

Why do tyrants feel the need to set up secret police forces in the first place?


This by itself raises something fishy, which would have to be settled by reading the Josephus passage you are basing your conclusion on. Do you have a citation for that Josephus passage I can check?
Sure, I suppose it raises something fishy, if you're inclined to accept the bible as the literal truth. Aside from that, not really.

As far as the citation goes. I'll look into it when I have more time.

If Pilate was a ruthless powerful tyrant as you allege, why would he care what some rabble-rouser does to the temple of the Jews? If any of them got out of line -- whether the anti-Jesus Jews or the pro-Jesus Jews -- he would logically just send in his Roman SWAT team to mop up and restore order.
I don't think you understand the significance of what happened at the temple, and its potential significance?

Perhaps he cared about the actions of some rabble rouser because it had the potential to precepitate a full on rebelion (as happened in the end anyway) or simply make him look bad.

Perhaps he cared about the actions of some rabble rouser because it had the potential to precepitate a full on rebelion (as happened in the end anyway) or simply make him look bad.

And how do the Gospel accounts contradict this implication?

I'm pretty sure it's "Insightful", sir. And I don't need to read it to know the idiocy of theist politicians and their wastefulness.

Beats the hell out of satanic politicians. Check the song War Pigs.

And how do the Gospel accounts contradict this implication?
Because the gospel accounts, which were written as much as three hundred (there's even a clear game of chinese whispers being played) years after the events are alleged to have taken place, portray him as an unwitting accomplace, a patsy, if you will, which is seems to be at odds of the accounts given of him by Philo and Josephus.

Too long. Didn't read.

I think Duke has a touch of A.D.D. here . It seems to be prevalent in society as a whole these days . I had a problem with younger new employees in this manner . Were as they just could not seem to stay focused on the task at hand. Now to the credit of a generation there is lots of sharp brilliant peoples that excel at there work . O.C.D. types Ah yeah !!!

O.K. I couldn't watch the video. Not available , but in all fairness Jesus Killed Jesus . He was a suicidal maniac with a death wish cause of his ass hole step father . He could not help him self because of his conditioning in his society . I suspect he had that thing *Pangean ? I forget . Lots of people have it . I have considered I have it .

The spelling is wrong , but the likes of John Nash had it . Lots of Artist have it . I am going to see if I can track it down

I can't find it . Starts with a P

Because the gospel accounts, which were written as much as three hundred (there's even a clear game of chinese whispers being played) years after the events are alleged to have taken place, portray him as an unwitting accomplace, a patsy, if you will, which is seems to be at odds of the accounts given of him by Philo and Josephus.

I don't get the sense that the Gospels portray Pilate as a "patsy" at all. In the Gospels he comes across as a man confident in his power in the situation, and parenthetically curious about this strange character Jesus -- curious from the standpoint of the Greek philosophical school of Skepticism he apparently subscribed to: "What is truth...?" he asks Jesus rhetorically; to which Jesus, knowing his interlocutor isn't about to be impressed by what he has to say, either remains silent (according to one Gospel account) or answers with some cryptically mystical utterance he evidently doesn't care if Pilate understands or not.

When the time comes to take care of this civil disturbance in this Headache (the Middle East -- plus ça change...) he has been assigned to control, he prudently lets the influential Jewish priesthood and the mobs they are able to sway have their way -- and meanwhile controls all the proceedings of the official Roman execution, granting the Jewish priesthood a few concessions as crumbs for their curious cultural practices.

That's what I get from the Gospels in this regard.

With regards to taking the Gospel as the Gospel:


Material which refers to Jesus includes the books of the New Testament, statements from the early Church Fathers, hypothetical sources which many biblical scholars argue lie behind the New Testament, brief references in histories produced decades or centuries later by pagan and Jewish sources[24] such as Josephus, gnostic and other apocryphal documents, and early Christian creeds.[25] Many scholars believe not everything contained in the gospels to be historically reliable,[26][27][28][29][30][31] and elements whose historical authenticity is disputed include the two accounts of the nativity of Jesus, as well as the resurrection and certain details about the crucifixion.[32][33][34][35][36]

The evidence for the existence of Jesus all comes from after his lifetime.[37][38][39] As a result, some critics argue that Biblical scholars have created the historical Jesus in their own image.[40][41] A very small number of scholars believe the gospel accounts are so mythical in nature that nothing, not even the very existence of Jesus, can be determined from them.[42]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

So for all we can know with any reliability, the ones responsible for Jesus' execution are none other than the ones who wrote the story and chose to kill their character off, just like Achilles and a whole host of other heroes people used to believe in. I guess that would still leave the Jews at fault ;)