Can you all "red pill" me on Jesus Christ.
Is it true that in Rome, during the era of Jesus, the Romans reserved crucifixion for the most abominable criminals? Which implies that Jesus wasn't that great of a guy and was causing lots of disruption in Rome?
>red pill
>obvious b8
>>>/pol/ and sage
Romans made a pastime out of women getting raped by baboons so fuck them desu
>>754540
>the expression red pill only belongs to /pol
I never even browse there f a m
>>754510
jesus was a revoloutionary proletarian so of course he was the most criminal of criminals
>>754540
Pol is a Christian board you stupid faggot.
>>754558
You took the meme seriously, buddy
Hate to break it to you
No, Romans did not reserve crucifixion for only the most extreme cases. It was done to non-roman enemies of the state and slaves. Literally thousands of people were crucified during the third servile war alone.
Jesus was causing disruption in Judea and the local Jewish leaders wanted him dealt with by the Roman governor or else they would revolt. I mean I guess it comes to your own definition, he wasn't exactly a bad guy but he was rustling jimmies
Non-christion fag here.
You start preaching and converting a populace in an already unstable region of a government, you're gonna be made an example of.
All things considered, he had it coming and damn well knew it.
>>754510
Yeah, Jewish law says anyone hung on a tree is cursed, too. Jesus suffered that, so that we might live.
They had to coin a new word for how painful crucifixion is: excruciating.
>Redpill you on someone that never existed
>>754510
Jesus likely never existed, so any stories about him are what filtered through fanatical christians after 2k years of making shit up.
>>755494
>>755500
He existed and he exists. Sorry your need to be top intellectual keeps you from confronting this possibility with an open mind
And yes, I used an image of a male human being wearing a fedora hat. It sybolizes you and your post
>>754510
Romans crucified people to send a message, and they did not fuck around when it came to putting down rebellions or insurrections of any kind. If they even though you were thinking of starting a rebellion, they would crucify you in a heartbeat.
All four gospels have Jesus titled "King of the Jews" on his cross. The Romans probably thought he was trying to make himself king (they might have just misunderstood him) and crucified him for it - the only king allowed was a Roman approved one.
>>754510
You are correct. Crufixation was a really fucking serious thing. More so than our concept of 'death penalty' since there were many ways to die: some more mericful or dignifying than others.
>>755556
Cool. If people approach this with an open mind, this is what they discover - that jesus never existed as a historical figure. Same as moses btw, which is mainstream historian view by now. With jesus, not yet, but the arguments are sound.
Enjoy your fantasy of having an open mind while not watching this because you already "know" you're right:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYRoYl7i6U
>>755592
>implying I didn't think I was oh so smart and believe all of the philosophers I read when I was younger
>implying all historians have the same opinion on if Jesus existed
>Implying God can be reasoned out of existence
Also why do you guys keep posting this bundle of sticks?
>>754510
They literally crucified him next to a dude who stole bread or some shit
I don't think it was a big deal, just Romans being Roman
Yeshu ben Stada aka Yeshu ben Pandira aka Yeshu ben Pantera was the rape-baby of a roman soldier with the wife of a carpenter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshu#Yeshu_ben_Pandera
They have actually found the grave of the reported father of Jesus, he was a lebanese archer that was eventually sent with his unit to Germany, just google Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera
>>755614
We don't know what the thief was guilty of. And stealing was a really big deal back than, it wasn't a minor crime.
Another of Jesus's prison mates was barabbas who was supposed to instigate riots (funny enough barabbas's first name is Jesus and his last name means "son of the Father" which is a title Jesus once called himself). There is a lot of theory that this is not a coincidence and he is some other part of Jesus: either historical revision to split Jesus into two people or a weird metaphor about Jesus having two identities, a 'guilty' and 'innocent' one
>>755614
Why does it matter who he was crucified next to?
>>755629
Fuck off Schlomo
>>755629
Okay Jew boy
Did Jesus get his power from demons as well?
>>754551
> the expression red pill only belongs to /pol
It does, it's cancer incarnated if your brain is so mushy you can't just ask "educate me on Jesus Christ".
>>755609
Reasoned out of existance? Fuck no. Noone can prove a negative.
Reasoned into existance? Now thats hasn't been done yet.
Not that this has anything to do with a historical jesus. Which I see you sidestepped into philosophy for some reason? Way to stay on topic there buddy.
Reza Aslan pls go.
>don't believe that Jesus was a good guy, only heinous criminals were crucified! the Gospels are a lie!
>but how do you know he was crucified?
>well, uh, the Gospels say so!
>>755638
It's literally from the Matrix movie through reddit. Not exclusive to /pol/ at all.
>>754510
>Which implies that Jesus wasn't that great of a guy and was causing lots of disruption in Rome?
Gee what would a multi-theistic society in which the Emperor is a God think of a bunch of sandniggers who are telling people there is only one true God?
>>755609
You can't argue god into existence.
>>755632
Or the crucifixion was an allegory for the Jewish Yom Kippur ritual sacrifice.
>>755661
>True, he always existed and always will so there's no need to
Reaching.
>>755661
>he always existed and always will
>be openminded!
>Bye retard
>I'm not in a cult btw
As a statistician I find Richard Carrier to be humorous because he completely misunderstands Bayesian statistics and is the walking, talking example of a highly subjective prior.
>>755676
>Cherrypick things I said trying to disprove the things I said, but not doing that
>Add nothing to the conversation
Well done sir
>>755682
Any specific example?
>>755683
Where's your evidence that god exists? Why does god need to be a conscious being? Why does god have to be a human god-man? If it's not then why call it god? These are the most arrogant parts of the human condition.
>>755695
Here's a good article on it: https://irrco.wordpress.com/2012/09/08/a-mathematical-review-of-proving-history-by-richard-carrier/
Carrier gets into "not even wrong" territory where you'd have to understand
Suffice to say, Bayesian estimation is grounded in how you interpret probabilities of an event. Inference works by having a prior belief in a probability of an event happening, then using data to update that to a posterior belief in the probability of an event happening.
This is all well and good and how I think most historians do reasoning anyway, even if it's not as numerically rigorous. It works especially well in the field of history because the frequentist interpretation of probability completely fails. The problem is that if you want to make it numerically rigorous like Carrier does, you need hard data (that needs to be rigorously justified) in order to plug into equations and make Bayes work properly. But you obviously can't get that with history, so Carrier just kind of...makes up the numbers he needs to get the result he wants.
>>755715
*Not even wrong territory where you have to understand Bayes theorem well to understand why he's wrong.
>>755717
All he does with Bayes theorem is advocate for it to be used. How can he be wrong about that?
The guy was walking around calling himself the son of God and the king of kings. He should have saw that cross coming.
>>755715
Doesn't he justify his propabilities with his pretty solid education on the exact timeframe he's writing about?
On a sidenote, his argument does not require bayes, it works without exact quantification.
And thanks for the link!
Quid est veritas?
>>755813
Sure. I swear there was a review by a statistician but I can't seem to find it. Maybe I'm remembering things.
The #1 thing I'll accuse Carrier of is lack of rigor. He'll be very rigorous in defining and using Bayes theorem, or in his definition of a probability of an event (which seems to be sort of pseudo-frequentist, not Bayesian at all), until his rigor doesn't seem to get him where he wants...and then he'll just sort of handwave an explanation and continue on like nothing is wrong.
Here's a couple of good blog posts where he takes on a cosmologist arguing about whether the universe is fine tuned for human life (Carrier arguing it isn't, the cosmologist arguing it is - and it's not a theistic argument at all). I'm not a cosmologist in any capacity but the cosmologist makes a bunch of good points about Carrier's use and misuse of probability whenever it suits him:
https://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2013/12/13/probably-not-a-fine-tuned-critique-of-richard-carrier-part-1/
https://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/what-chance-looks-like-a-fine-tuned-critique-of-richard-carrier-part-2/
And here's Carrier's response if you're interested:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/9429
