Cardinal Pell and Evolution

[TagliatelliMonster]

In Biblical point of view wanting it is as bad. Like in this example:

You have heard that it was said to the ancients: "Do not commit adultery." But I say to you, Everyone looking at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Matt. 5:27-28

You have once again succesfully shown why the bible is not the basket you should put all your eggs in.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

God did a lot of murdering, how did that get justified?

"might makes right" seems to be the overall conclusion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So, if you would give life, you would not have the right to decide how long life you give?

No.

Arguably, I could say I created life since I have a boy and a girl. But likely you don't mean "that" kind of "created".

Now suppose I have the knowledge and technology to assemble a human atom by atom, and decide freely on its genetic configuration.
This would essentially be a human but with no biological parents, completely custom made in the lab.

Suppose I could do that and I then do it. Do you then feel that I should get to just kill it whenever I please? Do I get to torture it for my entertainment? Is there ANYTHING I could do to it that would be "immoral" in your opinion?


You should perhaps try to understand that just because you could do something, doesn't mean that you should.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

People don't have right to decide how long someone is allowed to live, because they have not given the life.

Ow? So hospitals, IC units etc are evil places that interfere with god's wonderful plan?
We shouldn't extend people's lives by organ transplants, reanimation, drugs, etc?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, I believe Noah ark history is true. And I believe you can't prove it wrong.

Here's a fun story...

A couple hundred years ago, in the 17th century, christians were trying to prove bible authenticity by finding scientific evidence that the flood occurred.
Before this, geology wasn't really a thing. There was some cartography etc, but no real study of soil and geological formation was going on.

The increased interest of christians trying to find evidential support of the biblical, greatly increased the amount of geological observations. Much data was gathered, fossils were found, stratigraphy became a thing.

Eventhough at first people were trying to shoehorn all this data into a biblical myth, it quickly became apparent that it didn't fit.
Not only that, find after find began to show that the earth had to be much older then people believed.
Quickly it was apparant that it had to be at least a couple million years. Then 10s of millions, then 100s of millions. Eventually it became clear it had to be billions.


So it is ironic that geology as a field is now categorically blindly dismissed by the very same type of people that 300 years ago actually kickstarted it when attempting to prove the very beliefs that these dismissers are trying to protect.

300 years ago, your spiritual ancestors tried to find evidence for their beliefs. They concluded the very opposite, and kickstarted geology as a proper scientific field in the process. You, today, have to literally ignore and deny those 3 centuries of rigorous study of the geology of this planet, so you can teleport your mind back to the level of knowledge of 1650s.


You should think and reflect about that.

 

[Muffled]

If there's a god it probably wouldn't.

You, otoh, are fill of them.

I believe I have not detected any recent ones but I do make one now and then.

 

[Muffled]

OK
Home » Food For The Soul

THE 42 LAWS OF MA'AT​

The 42 Laws of Ma'at are a set of divine laws transcribed by the Ancient Egyptians in (or around) 2925 B.C.E. Transcribed in hieroglyphics on a scroll called the Papyrus of Ani, the 42 laws were discovered in 1888 in Luxor, Egypt.

THE 42 LAWS OF MA'AT​

The 42 Laws Of Ma'at are sometimes referred to as "The Negative Confessions" or "The Declaration Of Innocence."

1. I have not committed sin.
2. I have not committed robbery with violence.
3. I have not stolen.
4. I have not slain men or women.
5. I have not stolen food.
6. I have not swindled offerings.
7. I have not stolen from God/Goddess.
8. I have not told lies.
9. I have not carried away food.
10. I have not cursed.
11. I have not closed my ears to truth.
12. I have not committed adultery.
13. I have not made anyone cry.
14. I have not felt sorrow without reason.
15. I have not assaulted anyone.
16. I am not deceitful.
17. I have not stolen anyone’s land.
18. I have not been an eavesdropper.
19. I have not falsely accused anyone.
20. I have not been angry without reason.
21. I have not seduced anyone’s wife.
22. I have not polluted myself.
23. I have not terrorized anyone.
24. I have not disobeyed the Law.
25. I have not been exclusively angry.
26. I have not cursed God/Goddess.
27. I have not behaved with violence.
28. I have not caused disruption of peace.
29. I have not acted hastily or without thought.
30. I have not overstepped my boundaries of concern.
31. I have not exaggerated my words when speaking.
32. I have not worked evil.
33. I have not used evil thoughts, words or deeds.
34. I have not polluted the water.
35. I have not spoken angrily or arrogantly.
36. I have not cursed anyone in thought, word or deeds.
37. I have not placed myself on a pedestal.
38. I have not stolen what belongs to God/Goddess.
39. I have not stolen from or disrespected the deceased.
40. I have not taken food from a child.
41. I have not acted with insolence.
42. I have not destroyed property belonging to God/Goddess.

These items are far older than torah by 1000's of years.

Moses per HIM, per Torah was born and raised in egypt and specifically lived in the 'house of pharaoh'

To learn the amount of material found in Torah, the man had to learn from the libraries of egypt and speaking to god was a easy as coming home for dinner conversations with, pharaoh.

What is so awful about, learning and conveying to the population on how to be as good as even the gods of the time. IN a sense, that is the key and core of an emancipation (exodus) of a central control.

I consider the comprehension as the best reality to develop. As then, like now, accepting that a man (Moses) could contribute as a matter of choice, just to do what is right. Enabling people to overcome a central authority and think for a living.

About like now as you want to have an answer to measure for yourself.

What is your proof that older means things were copied? There is never a testimony by Moses that he is copying anything or using common knowledge.

 

[metis]

How?

By killing another person.

If person has lost his freedom and can't really live, I think it is the same as being dead, or possibly worse, because it can be torturing.

Then why not ask him/her if they wish to be executed?

But it's "interesting" that you've blown what Jesus said off.

 

[Bthoth]

What is your proof that older means things were copied? There is never a testimony by Moses that he is copying anything or using common knowledge.

Per torah, per Moses, HE said that he was raised in the house of pharaoh.

DO you think that he learned all of that material from magic? No! The libraries of egypt of course

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't know what to say about the differences between Mark and John. There are a number of ways to reconcile the problem and I think one of them is correct and you think none of them are correct.

Yes we know the usual practice for the Romans was to leave bodies on the cross.
We also know that the usual practice of the Jews (and the one commanded in the Law) was to not do that and that they would not allow it if possible.
That is what happened in the gospel stories.
John 19:31 Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away. 32 So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first, and of the other who had been crucified with him. 33 But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34 But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water. 35 He who saw it has borne witness—his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth—that you also may believe. 36 For these things took place that the Scripture might be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken.” 37 And again another Scripture says, “They will look on him whom they have pierced.”
38 After these things Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus, and Pilate gave him permission. So he came and took away his body.

They would have done that. But Judea was under Roman control. And can you see something as silly as taking Jesus down and then putting up a Roman Guard so that no one would steal him? It would have been far far simpler to leave him up especially since that was the standard back then. They would leave them up until the rotted off. That means that more than one sabbath would have passed.

By the way, doesn't the ten year difference between the birth of Jesus in Matthew and Luke bother you at all?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is your proof that older means things were copied? There is never a testimony by Moses that he is copying anything or using common knowledge.

That is because Moses is fictitious. There is all sorts of evidence for that. Where is your evidence to the contrary?

 

[Brian2]

They would have done that. But Judea was under Roman control. And can you see something as silly as taking Jesus down and then putting up a Roman Guard so that no one would steal him? It would have been far far simpler to leave him up especially since that was the standard back then. They would leave them up until the rotted off. That means that more than one sabbath would have passed.

So any explanation other than what the gospel text tells us happened.
But of course what you are saying is that Jesus was left to rot on the cross and that showed that Jesus did not rise from the dead.
Yet a short time later the disciples were running around saying that Jesus rose from the dead and the Jews never say that they know it did not happen because Jesus was left to rot on the cross.
Sorry, the logical conclusion of your claim proves that it is a false claim.

By the way, doesn't the ten year difference between the birth of Jesus in Matthew and Luke bother you at all?

Both Matthew and Luke have the birth of Jesus in the reign of Herod so how can there be 10 years difference?
Your claim about the census of Luke is just a claim that presumes the gospel must be wrong because there is no definite proof of it in external history.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So any explanation other than what the gospel text tells us happened.
But of course what you are saying is that Jesus was left to rot on the cross and that showed that Jesus did not rise from the dead.
Yet a short time later the disciples were running around saying that Jesus rose from the dead and the Jews never say that they know it did not happen because Jesus was left to rot on the cross.
Sorry, the logical conclusion of your claim proves that it is a false claim.

Yes, Jesus rising from the dead is almost certainly a myth. And the fact that Romans left up their dead only supports that. There is one body possibly recovered from crucifixion that has been found. But there is no clue as to when it was taken down. The family probably wanted the body regardless of condition. That is shown somewhat by the spiked that was still going through a foot.

Both Matthew and Luke have the birth of Jesus in the reign of Herod so how can there be 10 years difference?
Your claim about the census of Luke is just a claim that presumes the gospel must be wrong because there is no definite proof of it in external history.

No they don't. Both mention Herod, who died in 4 BCE, but Luke is very clear as to when Jesus was born. It was during the Census of Quirinius and we know when that was and why there would not have been a census before that.

 

[Brian2]

Yes, Jesus rising from the dead is almost certainly a myth. And the fact that Romans left up their dead only supports that. There is one body possibly recovered from crucifixion that has been found. But there is no clue as to when it was taken down. The family probably wanted the body regardless of condition. That is shown somewhat by the spiked that was still going through a foot.

What I showed is that the leaving of Jesus body on the cross is just a claim that could have been used to support the claim that there was no resurrection, but was not.
So we are back in the place that the gospels tell us. Jesus was buried and the Jews claimed the body was stolen from the tomb by His disciples.

No they don't. Both mention Herod, who died in 4 BCE, but Luke is very clear as to when Jesus was born. It was during the Census of Quirinius and we know when that was and why there would not have been a census before that.

Luke and Matthew have Jesus born in the reign of Herod the Great. Both Luke and Matthew are clear about this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What I showed is that the leaving of Jesus body on the cross is just a claim that could have been used to support the claim that there was no resurrection, but was not.
So we are back in the place that the gospels tell us. Jesus was buried and the Jews claimed the body was stolen from the tomb by His disciples.

Where did you show that? What historical sources did you use?

Luke and Matthew have Jesus born in the reign of Herod the Great. Both Luke and Matthew are clear about this.

No, they are not. Let me quote from Luke:

2 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2 (This was the first census that took place while[a] Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3 And everyone went to their own town to register.

By the way, you are now being inconsistent. You are trying to use Jewish law when it helps you and you are ignoring it when it harms you.

We know when Luke first became governor of Syria. More important we know when he had to take over Judea and why. And once Judea was an official Roman province it had to be taxed. Under Herod it was not part of the Roman Empire. It was a client state and still had its own laws. When he died, around 4 BCE his kingdom was divided between his three sons and his sister. Archelaus took over Judea. He did not do well. He did so poorly that the people were revolting and Rome took over. They exiled Archelaus and put Quirinius over Judea. As I said he had to tax it and ran a census. That went against Judaic law. That dated back to King David's time. Censuses were illegal in Israel since then. Do you remember David and his census?

At any rate the census caused riots that had to be put down. This was recorded in history too. By the way, a key player . . . Judas. But not that Judas:

Census of Quirinius - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Brian2]

Where did you show that? What historical sources did you use?

How can I provide historical sources that show the rotting body of Jesus was not used to prove the resurrection false?
If you want to show that it was, then provide your evidence.
In the meantime the idea that Jesus was left to rot is a skeptic fantasy made up to try to discredit the Gospel account.

No, they are not. Let me quote from Luke:

2 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2 (This was the first census that took place while[a] Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3 And everyone went to their own town to register.

By the way, you are now being inconsistent. You are trying to use Jewish law when it helps you and you are ignoring it when it harms you.

We know when Luke first became governor of Syria. More important we know when he had to take over Judea and why. And once Judea was an official Roman province it had to be taxed. Under Herod it was not part of the Roman Empire. It was a client state and still had its own laws. When he died, around 4 BCE his kingdom was divided between his three sons and his sister. Archelaus took over Judea. He did not do well. He did so poorly that the people were revolting and Rome took over. They exiled Archelaus and put Quirinius over Judea. As I said he had to tax it and ran a census. That went against Judaic law. That dated back to King David's time. Censuses were illegal in Israel since then. Do you remember David and his census?

At any rate the census caused riots that had to be put down. This was recorded in history too. By the way, a key player . . . Judas. But not that Judas:

Census of Quirinius - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I claimed that it is clear that Matthew and Luke both have Jesus born in the reign of Herod. Here is the proof.
Matthew 2:1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
Luke 1:5 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah,

If you want to talk about the Census that Luke mentions and the historical evidence that it is unlikely to be true, that is fine but there is also historical evidence that shown it is possible that it is true.
You have no historical proof, just a possibility that the story is not true. I also have no historical proof, just a possibility that the story is true.
The historical evidence shows it is possibly true. No problem there.
In the meantime both Matthew and Luke clearly show that Jesus was born when Herod reigned.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How can I provide historical sources that show the rotting body of Jesus was not used to prove the resurrection false?
If you want to show that it was, then provide your evidence.
In the meantime the idea that Jesus was left to rot is a skeptic fantasy made up to try to discredit the Gospel account.

You are trying to claim that your beliefs are rational. You have failed at doing so. And please. No strawman arguments. I never said you needed to show that Jesus's body was taken down. You claimed that it happened regularly during high holy days. You need evidence for that. Not just handwaving. I can provide historians that will say the opposite. I do not know of any historians that agree with you. Apologists, yes, but they are not historians.

I claimed that it is clear that Matthew and Luke both have Jesus born in the reign of Herod. Here is the proof.
Matthew 2:1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
Luke 1:5 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah,

I have to interrupt. That is not "proof". That is only evidence at best so far. And it does not even support your claim.

If you want to talk about the Census that Luke mentions and the historical evidence that it is unlikely to be true, that is fine but there is also historical evidence that shown it is possible that it is true.
You have no historical proof, just a possibility that the story is not true. I also have no historical proof, just a possibility that the story is true.
The historical evidence shows it is possibly true. No problem there.
In the meantime both Matthew and Luke clearly show that Jesus was born when Herod reigned.

What are you talking about? Roman censuses were well recorded. The Census of Quirinius was well recorded. You rely on one of the historians that recorded it. Josephus was one of the historians that confirmed the date of that census.

And you are ignoring your own inconsistencies. Once again, Jewish law made censuses illegal. They would not have one when they had a Jewish rule especially not when they were not part of the Roman Empire. Rome would not have ordered a census of them. At the most they would demand tribute which the ruler has to come up with. They would not tax the people. Second you are ignoring your own Bible. Since the failed census of King David they were illegal in Israel. There were riots recorded by Josephus and others when Rome instituted the census in Judea after they took it over. All of this is well recorded.

You cannot claim that the Bible is historic when history disagrees with it. This is a well known failure of the Bible.

And have you read those myths? Anyone older than ten should be able to see that they are myths. You need to concede this one.

 

[Brian2]

You are trying to claim that your beliefs are rational.
You have failed at doing so.

That the supernatural is real is more rational than saying it is not, considering the witness evidence for it.

And please. No strawman arguments. I never said you needed to show that Jesus's body was taken down. You claimed that it happened regularly during high holy days. You need evidence for that. Not just handwaving. I can provide historians that will say the opposite. I do not know of any historians that agree with you. Apologists, yes, but they are not historians.

I had historical source (Josephus) for Jews wanting bodies buried and not left hanging on the cross.
Here is another,,,,,,, from this site:

JOSEPHUS ON CRUCIFIXION AND BURIAL​

The most pertinent statement comes from Josephus, who complains of the crimes of the rebels during the great Jewish revolt (AD 66–73). He finds particularly heinous the rebels’ treatment of the ruling priests, whom they murdered:
They actually went so far in their impiety as to cast out the corpses without burial, though the Jews are so careful about funeral rites that even malefactors who have been sentenced to crucifixion are taken down and buried before sunset. (J.W. 4.317)
What Josephus says here is especially relevant for the question of the burial of the crucified Jesus. Josephus is speaking of his own time, that is, from the time of Pontius Pilate, prefect of Samaria and Judea, to the time of the Jewish revolt. He clearly states that those executed by crucifixion were “taken down and buried before sunset.” Because only Roman authority in Samaria and Judea could execute anyone ( Josephus, J.W. 2.117; Ant. 20.200–203; John 18:31), we must assume in the statement by Josephus that those who do the crucifying are the Romans. Though executed by the Romans, those crucified were buried. If condemned by the Jewish council, it was incumbent on the council to arrange for the burial of the executed (m. Sanhedrin 6.5–6; more on this below). This was done out of concern for the purity of the land, not out of pity for the executed or his family (Deut 21:23).

The meaning is plain. Ooops it is from a Christian University website. I guess it must be a Josephus quote that is lying. They must have changed the quote or taken it out of context. Nothing about holy days, it seems it did not matter if the day was a holy day or not,,,,,,,,,,, my bad.

I have to interrupt. That is not "proof". That is only evidence at best so far. And it does not even support your claim.

Whata? I give quotes from Matthew and Luke which show that they both agree that Jesus was born in the reign of Herod and you say the quotes don't support my claim. I could have quoted the whole page in each case but I figured if you were interested you would read the source of the quotes and see that they showed that Luke and Matthew wrote that Jesus was born in the reign of Herod.

What are you talking about? Roman censuses were well recorded. The Census of Quirinius was well recorded. You rely on one of the historians that recorded it. Josephus was one of the historians that confirmed the date of that census.

And you are ignoring your own inconsistencies. Once again, Jewish law made censuses illegal. They would not have one when they had a Jewish rule especially not when they were not part of the Roman Empire. Rome would not have ordered a census of them. At the most they would demand tribute which the ruler has to come up with. They would not tax the people. Second you are ignoring your own Bible. Since the failed census of King David they were illegal in Israel. There were riots recorded by Josephus and others when Rome instituted the census in Judea after they took it over. All of this is well recorded.

You cannot claim that the Bible is historic when history disagrees with it. This is a well known failure of the Bible.

And have you read those myths? Anyone older than ten should be able to see that they are myths. You need to concede this one.

From this site: History of the Jews in the Roman Empire - Wikipedia

"Roman general Pompey conquered Jerusalem and its surroundings by 63 BCE. The Romans deposed the ruling Hasmonean dynasty of Judaea (in power from c. 140 BCE) and the Roman Senate declared Herod the Great "King of the Jews" in c. 40 BCE. Judea proper, Samaria and Idumea became the Roman province of Iudaea in 6 CE. "

The area was firmly under Roman rule when Herod was the puppet King and paying tribute tax it seems. And there was a Judas who rebelled because of tax reasons in Herod the Great's reign.
This following site is an interesting read (even if skimmed) and suggests that mistakes by Josephus makes the history more reasonable than accepting Josephus at face value. Enjoy the read.

https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/54/54-1/JETS_54-1_65-87_Rhoads.pdf

There is plenty of historical reason to see Luke as accurate about the census as being in Herod's the Great's rule. I don't just accept what a majority of historians might say. Neither history nor science would progress is we all did that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That the supernatural is real is more rational than saying it is not, considering the witness evidence for it.



I had historical source (Josephus) for Jews wanting bodies buried and not left hanging on the cross.
Here is another,,,,,,, from this site:

JOSEPHUS ON CRUCIFIXION AND BURIAL​

The most pertinent statement comes from Josephus, who complains of the crimes of the rebels during the great Jewish revolt (AD 66–73). He finds particularly heinous the rebels’ treatment of the ruling priests, whom they murdered:
They actually went so far in their impiety as to cast out the corpses without burial, though the Jews are so careful about funeral rites that even malefactors who have been sentenced to crucifixion are taken down and buried before sunset. (J.W. 4.317)
What Josephus says here is especially relevant for the question of the burial of the crucified Jesus. Josephus is speaking of his own time, that is, from the time of Pontius Pilate, prefect of Samaria and Judea, to the time of the Jewish revolt. He clearly states that those executed by crucifixion were “taken down and buried before sunset.” Because only Roman authority in Samaria and Judea could execute anyone ( Josephus, J.W. 2.117; Ant. 20.200–203; John 18:31), we must assume in the statement by Josephus that those who do the crucifying are the Romans. Though executed by the Romans, those crucified were buried. If condemned by the Jewish council, it was incumbent on the council to arrange for the burial of the executed (m. Sanhedrin 6.5–6; more on this below). This was done out of concern for the purity of the land, not out of pity for the executed or his family (Deut 21:23).

The meaning is plain. Ooops it is from a Christian University website. I guess it must be a Josephus quote that is lying. They must have changed the quote or taken it out of context. Nothing about holy days, it seems it did not matter if the day was a holy day or not,,,,,,,,,,, my bad.



Whata? I give quotes from Matthew and Luke which show that they both agree that Jesus was born in the reign of Herod and you say the quotes don't support my claim. I could have quoted the whole page in each case but I figured if you were interested you would read the source of the quotes and see that they showed that Luke and Matthew wrote that Jesus was born in the reign of Herod.



From this site: History of the Jews in the Roman Empire - Wikipedia

"Roman general Pompey conquered Jerusalem and its surroundings by 63 BCE. The Romans deposed the ruling Hasmonean dynasty of Judaea (in power from c. 140 BCE) and the Roman Senate declared Herod the Great "King of the Jews" in c. 40 BCE. Judea proper, Samaria and Idumea became the Roman province of Iudaea in 6 CE. "

The area was firmly under Roman rule when Herod was the puppet King and paying tribute tax it seems. And there was a Judas who rebelled because of tax reasons in Herod the Great's reign.
This following site is an interesting read (even if skimmed) and suggests that mistakes by Josephus makes the history more reasonable than accepting Josephus at face value. Enjoy the read.

https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/54/54-1/JETS_54-1_65-87_Rhoads.pdf

There is plenty of historical reason to see Luke as accurate about the census as being in Herod's the Great's rule. I don't just accept what a majority of historians might say. Neither history nor science would progress is we all did that.

Too late at night. But here are some mistakes you made.

You forgot to include a link for your Josephus claim. There is no way to tell if he was talking about Hebrew crucifixions or Roman ones. The Hebrews also used crucifixion. They would have taken their victims down.

Your last claim is worthless because you relied on apologists instead of historians. That is a clear loss on your part. Like most apologists they made the mistake of assuming that? Josephus was the only historian of that time.

Try again.

 

[Brian2]

Too late at night. But here are some mistakes you made.

You forgot to include a link for your Josephus claim. There is no way to tell if he was talking about Hebrew crucifixions or Roman ones. The Hebrews also used crucifixion. They would have taken their victims down.

Sorry about that. Here is the site, it is an article by Craig Evans, the guy Bart Ehrman speaks of.

The Resurrection of Jesus in the Light of Jewish Burial Practices | Houston Christian University

By Craig Evans The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, who was put to death on a Roman cross, in Jerusalem, in the early spring of either AD 30 or 33, lies a ...

hc.edu

All death penalties (the official ones and not the stonings etc that would have happened unofficially as attempts to kill Jesus show ) were carried out by the Romans even if instigated by the Hebrews, which is the case with the crucifixion of Jesus. The burial was a preoccupation with the Jews and they were the ones who did the burials before sunset, which Joseph of Arimathea did).

Your last claim is worthless because you relied on apologists instead of historians. That is a clear loss on your part. Like most apologists they made the mistake of assuming that? Josephus was the only historian of that time.

Try again.

Why should I try again just to satisfy your biases against Christian historians?