What if he hit the skull?!...

julio
atheist
Posts: 290
Joined: 2008-12-27
User is offlineOffline
What if he hit the skull?!...

Peter drew the sword and whooshed it fast across the air, but the victim saw it in time!
Swerving his head very quickly, he had only his ear chopped off and a deep wound to his shoulder.
Jesus picked up the ear, and in the dark, plastered it back on the guy’s head.
Now, what if Peter had cracked his skull and some brain tissue was spilt?
Read the four DIFFERENT accounts of this bizarre story in the holy canonical gospels!!

No gods with indirect messages to me.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Chapter and verse? Or is

Chapter and verse?

 

Or is this just some silly game to get us to open a book that you think none of us have read and will instantly be converted by doing so?

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


julio
atheist
Posts: 290
Joined: 2008-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Chapter and verse?

 

Or is this just some silly game to get us to open a book that you think none of us have read and will instantly be converted by doing so?

 

Matthew 8:30. I meant, if Peter hit Malco's head what would Jesus do? Fix his brains?!...

No gods with indirect messages to me.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
OK, did you mean

OK, did you mean Matthew 26:51, Mark 14:47 and John 18:10? BTW, a full text search for sword+ear from Matthew through Romans came up blank for Luke. That and you seem to be supplying a level of detail not present in the original. Which version of the bible are you working from?

 

In any case, for a guy who runs around healing people even when they are not asking to be healed and raising people from the dead, I don't imagine that sticking the guys brains back would be impossible to manage.

 

However, you are asking for conjecture there and my understanding of matters is that one is expected to not just guess at stuff that is not in the book. Apparently, even though the book is a bunch of stuff that people just made up because it sounds cool, one must not make up new stuff. Is that about right?

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


julio
atheist
Posts: 290
Joined: 2008-12-27
User is offlineOffline
 Sorry for my wrong

 

Sorry for my wrong reference; I was thinking about another topic I had posted somewhere else. Your references are OK. Well, in Peter’s case the intention was to smash Malchus’ brain for sure. Missed; that’s all. Not by God’s providence, I’m sure, but the guys’ fast reflexes.Jesus had ordered the swords, and so he is also guilty of the crime. And so the story goes on and on. I interpret the Bible MY WAY with the view to DISCREDIT it the most possible, since I consider it not a book of God, but a DANGEROUS WEAPON of man, which should be symbolically burnt in front of the UN and the ashes removed from the planet. The sooner the better! 

 

No gods with indirect messages to me.


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2354
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is onlineOnline
reality check

 

     If you think that story in any of the versions is true, let us start with a few rational question. Why did the prince of peace need armed body guards just to pray (this sounds like Jim Jones and David Koresh syndrome).  When did these fishermen learn to use swords and knives; and when did they get the balls to take on a squad of Roman soldiers?

     A Rational evaluation of the scene; Jesu Christos didn't realy exist, he is just a variation of a much older Mithra (or mirothea) myth of the Zorastrian religion.

     If any dumbass fisherman took a swing at a Roman soldier his buddies would slice and dice J.C. & the boys into  small bits,   with no sweat off the Roman governors ass.  The story didn't make any sense when I first heard it (cir. age 5) for this reason and the more I learn about Roman soldiers over the years the less it makes sense.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


julio
atheist
Posts: 290
Joined: 2008-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Lovely; I never thought

Lovely; I never thought about your first point. It makes sense.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
OK, now that I know

OK, now that I know what the question is, there is more to be said in the way of a reality check.

 

Just what does the bible tell us about the arrest? The key question to this specific inquiry is who was actually present in the garden. As it happens, most of the English translations say that Judas led “a band” or group of men when he betrayed Jesus. But what does that even mean? For that, we need to turn to the Greek text.

 

Reference here is to Matthew 27:27, Mark 15:16, John 18:3 and John 18:12.

 

In every case, the earliest texts use the word speira or speiran and that word has a fairly clear meaning. Judas led a cohort of soldiers to arrest Jesus. And as it happens, a cohort is well understood to be a unit of Roman soldiers of about 500 to 600 in total number.

 

Hold on here, why send such a large detachment to bring in the Prince of Peace and possibly eleven guys with a hooker on the side? Judas surely would have known what he was walking into. And he would have known that that many soldiers was overkill for the task at hand if what we read in the bible is accurate.

 

Conversely, if he had been offered a couple of dozen soldiers and he knew that they were going to march into hostile territory controlled by probably a couple hundred men at arms and with a watch posted in the event of an attack by the Romans, he would have known that it would be futile to even attempt.

 

I could possibly see maintaining some numerical superiority. Perhaps a couple hundred more soldiers than followers would be appropriate. Then an attempt at combat might seem reasonable. But if you want to maintain that there were eleven disciples and a hooker as the only other people, they simply would not attempt to fight a force of several hundred soldiers.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


julio
atheist
Posts: 290
Joined: 2008-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Speculating too much?

 

Isn’t that speculating a bit too much? Why would the text not give more detail, then? I also doubt though whether the text is accurate, in view of the conflicting accounts in the canonical gospels.

 

No gods with indirect messages to me.


Conor Wilson
Posts: 451
Joined: 2008-01-07
User is offlineOffline
I'll take a stab at it, Answers...

1. Re: "...one is expected to not just guess at stuff that is not in the book."  Actually, if you get to know the (...pardon the phrasing...) "study" of theology at all, the first thing you notice is that this can in fact *always* be done...if it is done in favor of saying that your church's favorite ideas are correct.  Otherwise, no.

 

2. Re: the detachment of Roman soldiers.  The current favorite opinion of many in Christianity is that the word "Iscariot" is actually a corruption of "sicarii" (sp?) which more or less means "rebel," "revolutionary," etc.  So, Judas would in such a scenario have been trying to provoke Jesus into displaying his divine power and begin what Judas wanted: Jesus leading the Israelite resistance to Roman rule in an effort to regain Israel's independance.  Of course, this all assumes that Jesus actually existed to begin with, and we all know how well that is supported by evidence...

 

Conor


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2354
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is onlineOnline
good story

 

   It makes a good story, like I said earlier. But it does not make sense. For a simple arrest an  officer would have sent a Decurion (leader of ten) who would have assigned  his deputy (a pentcurion= leader of five) so J.C. (god jr.) and the boys would have faced off on five to ten Romans.

    Now the idea of ex-fishermen useing their new toys (swords--knives) against profesional Roman soldiers;  with  any success; is rediculous!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  The Romans would have sliced them into small pieces at the least bit of resistence. There was no 'bill of rights' or 'internal affairs unit' to deal with.

     Let me take you to the Roman warrior helmet of the first century; It had ear and neck flaps, Peter could not hack off an ear,  no matter what he was aiming for.  He could piss off a group of skilled warriors who would defend themselves with "extreme prejudice".    Ole'  Pete, J.C. & whoever would have been sliced and diced in short order.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


julio
atheist
Posts: 290
Joined: 2008-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick…

 

 … I like that. It made me think, and I posted your previous answer in another forum where we are discussing the same topic.

 

No gods with indirect messages to me.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Connor, I am inclined

Connor, I am inclined to agree with you on point #1. But only if we are talking about the pop-theology that tends to happen in fundie churches where it is acceptable to make shit up. In a more scholarly environment, making shit up just does not work.

 

Regarding point #2, would not “Judas Iscariot” be Strong's # 2455 and 2463? In that case, it translates precisely to “Judas of Kerioth”. Basically, his last name in the bible refers to the city he was born in.

 

Of course, if we are allowed to make shit up, then yes, he wanted a display of god jr's power. And he clearly got one because the dude knocked an entire army on it's ass with a wave of his hand in the same scene.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Anonymous09 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Not a Roman soldier

The man that got his ear cut off was not a Roman soldier, but rather a servant or slave of the high priest.  It says this in the Matthew, Mark and John accounts...so it is entirely possible for Peter to cut off the man's ear.  It was not a bunch of "ex- fishermen using their new toys," but rather just one man..who happened to be a zealot, which is why he would be carrying a weapon...as the zealots believed that the Messiah would come and bring salvation to the Jews by using violence to defeat their enemies.  But all that aside, I believe that Peter was making a statement with his actions.  It was not allowed for anyone to enter the temple who was crippled or deformed in any way...so by cutting off the ear of the servant of the high priest, Peter was essentialy condeming the man.  Just a thought.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
What difference does it make

What difference does it make who lost an ear?  There were hundreds on men sent to perform the arrest.  And yah, the Romans were almost certainly wearing helmets the covered thier ears.  That was standard issue equiptment for the time.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


julio
atheist
Posts: 290
Joined: 2008-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Anonymous09 wrote:The man

Anonymous09 wrote:

The man that got his ear cut off was not a Roman soldier, but rather a servant or slave of the high priest.  It says this in the Matthew, Mark and John accounts...so it is entirely possible for Peter to cut off the man's ear.  It was not a bunch of "ex- fishermen using their new toys," but rather just one man..who happened to be a zealot, which is why he would be carrying a weapon...as the zealots believed that the Messiah would come and bring salvation to the Jews by using violence to defeat their enemies.  But all that aside, I believe that Peter was making a statement with his actions.  It was not allowed for anyone to enter the temple who was crippled or deformed in any way...so by cutting off the ear of the servant of the high priest, Peter was essentialy condeming the man.  Just a thought.

 

Hard to believe. The story is probably a myth or folklore. But if he hit the guy’s eye, what do you think Jesus would do?…

 

No gods with indirect messages to me.


Blackroseseeker
Posts: 25
Joined: 2009-01-22
User is offlineOffline
Conor Wilson wrote:   Of

Conor Wilson wrote:

 

 

 Of course, this all assumes that Jesus actually existed to begin with, and we all know how well that is supported by evidence...

 

Conor

Go find a good historian and talk to them. The question is not rather a person named Jesus existed and gained many followers. The question to historians is rather or not Jesus was divine and preformed all the miracles accredited to him. I know I've asked. Just so you know one of the historians was atheist.

If God doesn't do things the way you think they should be done maybe you should entertain the idea that it's you who doesn't understand.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2478
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
julio wrote:Anonymous09

julio wrote:

Anonymous09 wrote:

The man that got his ear cut off was not a Roman soldier, but rather a servant or slave of the high priest.  It says this in the Matthew, Mark and John accounts...so it is entirely possible for Peter to cut off the man's ear.  It was not a bunch of "ex- fishermen using their new toys," but rather just one man..who happened to be a zealot, which is why he would be carrying a weapon...as the zealots believed that the Messiah would come and bring salvation to the Jews by using violence to defeat their enemies.  But all that aside, I believe that Peter was making a statement with his actions.  It was not allowed for anyone to enter the temple who was crippled or deformed in any way...so by cutting off the ear of the servant of the high priest, Peter was essentialy condeming the man.  Just a thought.

 

Hard to believe. The story is probably a myth or folklore. But if he hit the guy’s eye, what do you think Jesus would do?…

 

This game of what if is kinda pointless.

What if he sliced off his head and all his blood pumped out onto the ground.

What if he cut his body in half like Valek did in John Carpenter's Vampires and the body slumps to the ground and all his blood spurts out.

What's your point?

The myth is pretty clear or not.

Mark 14:43-52

A great multitude came from the high priests with swords and staves. One of those with Jesus attacked the high priest's servants cutting off his ear, which one is not mentioned.

He is not healed.

Luke 22:47-53

A multitude arrived with Judas and there is no indication they are armed. One of those with Jesus smote the servant of the high priest cutting of his right ear.

Jesus healed him.

Matthew 26:47-56

A great multitude came from the high priests & the elders with swords & staves. One of those with Jesus slices off the ear of a servant of the high priest.

He is not healed.

John 18:1-14

A band of men & officers from the chief priests & Pharisees came with torches & weapons. Peter sliced off the ear of Malchus the high priest's servant.

He is not healed.

Four versions and only one case of healing is mentioned. All you have proved by your pointless what if questions is you don't even seem to know the mythical story has multiple versions of which only one contains a healing of an ear.

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Blackroseseeker
Posts: 25
Joined: 2009-01-22
User is offlineOffline
julio wrote:Hard to believe.

julio wrote:

Hard to believe. The story is probably a myth or folklore. But if he hit the guy’s eye, what do you think Jesus would do?…

 

Heal it. These questions about what would Jesus do are kinda pointless in this context don't you think.

If God doesn't do things the way you think they should be done maybe you should entertain the idea that it's you who doesn't understand.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2478
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Blackroseseeker wrote:julio

Blackroseseeker wrote:

julio wrote:

Hard to believe. The story is probably a myth or folklore. But if he hit the guy’s eye, what do you think Jesus would do?…

 

Heal it. These questions about what would Jesus do are kinda pointless in this context don't you think.

3 of 4 versions do not mention healing so based on this sampling the odds are more likely he'd do what was done in Matthew, Mark or John, nada. Luke being an incredible author of Sci-Fi of course added ear healing.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


julio
atheist
Posts: 290
Joined: 2008-12-27
User is offlineOffline
“What if?…”

 

“What if?…” is a religious game in every other doctrinal department. What if you believe you are saved by the blood of this crucified hero?!…

 

No gods with indirect messages to me.


RespectfulButBe...
Posts: 48
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
answers to your excellent questions

julio wrote:
Jesus had ordered the swords, and so he is also guilty of the crime.
The priests ordered the arrest, so they are guilty of the crime.  And Jesus fixed the ear, so what exactly is your beef with Him?

Quote:
I interpret the Bible MY WAY with the view to DISCREDIT it the most possible, since I consider it not a book of God, but a DANGEROUS WEAPON of man, which should be symbolically burnt in front of the UN and the ashes removed from the planet. The sooner the better!
So you're basically saying you're closed minded.  That's just sad.  You'll get your wish, though, when the Universal Church comes to power after the Rapture, they will destroy all of the Bibles they can find.

Jeffrick wrote:
Why did the prince of peace need armed body guards just to pray (this sounds like Jim Jones and David Koresh syndrome).  When did these fishermen learn to use swords and knives; and when did they get the balls to take on a squad of Roman soldiers?
Excellent questions, and her are some rational answers:  (1) Jesus didn't need armed bodyguards.  However, had his group not carried swords, the Romans would not have arrested him for fomenting insurrection.  (2) They didn't learn to use swords, which is why they only managed to slice a single ear.  (3) With Jesus by my side, I'd fight a cohort of Roman soldiers, too, if that's what I thought He wanted.
 
Quote:
If any dumbass fisherman took a swing at a Roman soldier his buddies would slice and dice J.C. & the boys into small bits, with no sweat off the Roman governors ass.
You're ignoring the fact that they were Roman soldiers, which means they were disciplined.  They did not attack people without orders, and their officers obviously realized that there would be no more bloodshed after Jesus healed the servant's ear.  They were sent to make an arrest, not to fight a battle.
 

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
most of the English translations say that Judas led “a band” or group of men when he betrayed Jesus. But what does that even mean? For that, we need to turn to the Greek text.  In every case, the earliest texts use the word speira or speiran and that word has a fairly clear meaning. Judas led a cohort of soldiers to arrest Jesus. And as it happens, a cohort is well understood to be a unit of Roman soldiers of about 500 to 600 in total number.... why send such a large detachment to bring in the Prince of Peace and possibly eleven guys with a hooker on the side? Judas surely would have known what he was walking into. And he would have known that that many soldiers was overkill for the task at hand if what we read in the bible is accurate.
If you're trying to arrest a guy who performs miracles on a regular basis, why not send overwhelming force?  It's not as though Pilate was lacking for soldiers.

Once an athiest, now a believer, and always ready to debate issues respectfully.