But Really, Why Was Jesus Crucified?

[Ben Masada]

That's a fairly approximate date for the four gospels (Mark circa 70 AD, 40 years after Jesus and the earliest of the gospels, compared to John, circa 90-125 AD and the latest of the four gospels). Perhaps I misunderstood something in your opening post. You mentioned Constantine in 312 AD and how he engaged in "pious forgery". If you agree with a 1st Century dating of the gospels (John, possibly early 2nd Century), in what way did Constantine engage in said pious forgery? Your example brings up both Pontius Pilate and the author of Acts, but both of these accounts come from 1st Century texts, so forgive my confusion).

Thanks for any information you might be able to add for me

~ Regards,

No gospel was written before the war which ended up with the destruction of the Temple. The first gospel to come out was indeed the one of Mark but the year given is 75 ACE.

Ben

[Jor-el]

I am sorry, but now you have complicated the whole thing on a double. How could have Jesus been born into the Tribe of Judah if he was not a biological son of Joseph's who was the one from that Tribe? An adopted Jew, according to Judaism, could never become of the Tribe of his adopting father. Tribal lineage could never be acquired through adoption. Do you want to give a try at this one? There are many other points in this post of yours but I'll reserve them for another occasion.

Ben

Are you certain you are jewish?

Do you know of the concept of levirate marriage?

I know today it is not practiced, but that was not the case in past ages in Israel, before the fall of Jerusalem and in Jesus time.

He was of the tribe of Judah by Mary and by Joseph as adopted son by blood.

Both were descendants of David.

[Jor-el]

I have been guided by Logic and Reason, as well as evidential indications in the gospels themselves to have come to that conclusion.

Ben

Then you should read this and get reacquainted with further information...

The complicated and much debated issue regarding how the individual expired on the cross has generated widespread debate over the years. While many researchers have believed that death occurred as the result of a ruptured heart11 due to the story in John 19:34 of the water and blood flowing out of the wound, pathologists such as Zugibe, have ruled this out as medically untenable. Other scholars have regarded asphyxiation as being the cause of death, however the latest research findings have shown the issue to be more complicated, depending upon the manner in which the victim was affixed to the cross. A series of experiments carried out by an American medical examiner and pathologist on college students who volunteered to be tied to crosses, showed that if the students were suspended from crosses with their arms outstretched in the traditional manner depicted in Christian art, they experienced no problems breathing. Thus the often quoted theory that death on the cross is the result of asphyxiation is no longer tenable if the arms are outstretched. According to the physiological response of the students, which was closely monitored by Zugibe, death in this manner is the result of the victim going into hypovolemic shock. Death is this manner can be in, a manner of hours, or days depending on the manner in which the victim is affixed to the cross. If the victim is crucified with a small seat, a sedile, affixed to the uptight for minimum support in the region of the buttocks, death can be prolonged for hours and days. In fact, Josephus reports that three friends of his were being crucified in Thecoa by the Romans who, upon intervention by Josephus to Titus were removed from the crosses and with medical care one survived.

If, however, the victims are tied with their hands extended over their heads and left hanging, death can occur within an hour or, in minutes if the victims legs are nailed so that he cannot use his arms to elevate the body to exhale. For exhaling to occur in a normal manner two sets of muscles are needed, the diaphragm and. the intercostalis muscles between the ribs. With the victims being suspended by their arms directly over their heads, these sets of muscles cannot function properly which results in the victims inability to exhale and results in asphyxiation. Eyewitness accounts by prisoners of war in Dachau during WWII reported that victims suspended from beams by their wrist, which were tied, expired within ten minutes if their feet were weighted or tied down and within one hour if their feet were unweighted and the victim was able to raise and lower himself to permit respiration. Death in this manner, which is one form of crucifixion, was the result of suffocation.

Crucifixion in Antiquity

Details and History of Crucifixion

[Ben Masada]

Excuse me but let me ask, again, where does it state that it was not his will to be crucified?

The Jews believe in bodily resurrection, they did so then, they do so now.

Exodus 32:33

The LORD replied to Moses, "Whoever has sinned against me I will blot out of my book.

Jeremiah 31:34

No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the LORD. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."

And I wonder where you get from the following two verses you quotes, that no man can die for another?

And yet again where do you get that they were not supposed to eat from the tree of life, the only tree under prohibition was the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil?

According to the Gospels, Jesus equated himself with divinity, he was divine, as such he has the power that God had, to forgive sins, he did so on a number of occasions, to the amazement of the Pharisees themselves.

Mark 14:36 - "Father, take this cup away from me. But let it be as you would have it; not as I." How would Jesus have it? As he prayed for three times. Take this cup away from me. It is only obvious that he did not want to go though such a sacrifice. It means he was forced to. Then, you seem

to assert that Jews do believe in bodily resurrection. Go right ahead and give me an example in our Scriptures. I am all ears.

Exodus 32:33 - It means that only the one who has sinned is blotted out of the book. Not one by another. That's when Moses said to erase his name

from God's book for the salvation of the people.

Jeremiah 31:34 - In my translation it says, "Through his own fault shall any one die." What you read is in verse 35 in my translation. Try verse 33 or 35 in yours.

Regarding the tree of life, you have not checked the quote I put down. It is in Genesis 3:22,23. Here it is: "The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad. Therefore, he must not be allowed to put out his hand to take fruit from the tree of life also and thus eat of it and live forever. The Lord God, therefore, banished him from the Garden of Eden." He could not have eternal life.

Regarding Jesus, he was not god. The problem is that the gospels were written by Hellenists whose education had been according to Greek Mythology. As

a Jew, Jesus could never be a god, or demigod, which is the son of a god with an earthly woman.

Ben

[Robbie333]

BUT REALLY, WHY WAS JESUS CRUCIFIED?

There is no secret about it; and the NT can't be more clear. On the day Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a white donkey, some among the crowd of his followers would proclaim him king of the Jews. (John 12:13) And Jerusalem of all cities, especially for being The abode of Pilate, a man whose day was not made till he crucified a Jew!

Josephus reports in his "War of the Jews" that Pilate took so much pleasure from crucifying Jews that he exceeded into thousands of them. In the case of Jesus, he nailed the reason on the top of his cross: For being proclaimed king of the Jews in a Roman province, which was the Land of Israel at the time.

On the year 312 ACE, Christianity was being considered for the choice to become the official religion of the Empire by Emperor Constantine, and the charge that Rome had crucified Jesus was a liability bordering on disqualifying the Church for that promotion. Therefore, some pious forgery was in order. For instance, that Pilate had been forced by the Jewish authorities to crucify Jesus, hence the washing of Pilate's hands, by which, guilt would be transferred from Rome unto the Jews. For another, they even set Peter charging the Jews with having crucified Jesus in a speech written by Luke but never delivered in Jerusalem. (Acts 2:14,36) Though it made no sense, as they were well aware, it didn't matter; the Church needed that promotion, and any thing else would be justified. Anyways, the Jews needed to pay for rejecting the new religion.

Ben

It was tradition to let a prisoner go during the Jewish holiday. Pilot said he could find no fault with this man ( Jesus) but they wanted him Crucified for his claims of being the Messiah. Pilot washed his hands of the matter and freed Barabas and had Jesus Crucified. The messiahs coming was foretold in Ezekial. Jesus knew what was going to happen to him and did this for us.

In his last hours, Jesus encouraged his followers to love one another as he loved them (john 15:12-15). Yes, there would be a time of grief, but their grief would turn to joy (john 15:12-15). Jesus prayed for himself, for his disciples, and for all future disciples who would eventually come to believe in him.

Then Jesus and his disciples went out to the Mount of Olives, to an olive grove called Gethsemane. Jesus wanted to pray by himself, and he wanted his disciples to pray as well, that they would not be tempted in the midst of what was to come. He was "overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death" (Matthew 26:38) and prayed: "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will," he told God, "but as you will." Three times Jesus went to check on his disciples, and three times found them sleeping. Meanwhile, Jesus was praying with such intensity that "his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground." As he prayed, an angel appeared to strengthen him (Luke 22:43-44).

When Jesus went to wake his disciples the third time, a crowd came up to them armed with swords and clubs. Judas stepped forward and gave Jesus a kiss. At this signal several men approached to arrest Jesus.

Peter jumped forward, swinging a sword and hit the ear of a servant of the high priest, a man named Malchus. Jesus stopped Peter, explaining that he could summon legions of angels if he wished. However, the arrest was something he was expecting. Jesus reattached Malchus' ear and went with the arresting officers while his disciples ran. Jesus asked his captors, "Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? Every day I sat in the temple courts teaching, and you did not arrest me. But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled" (Matthew 26:55-56)

The Trial

Jesus was taken to Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest (john 18:12-14, then to Caiaphas himself, who questioned him about his teaching before a large assembly of "chief priests, elders, and teachers of the law" (Matthew 26:57-68). Caiaphas insisted he answer whether he was "the Christ, the SOn of God." Jesus replied: "Yes, it is as you say. But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven" (Matthew 26:64). At once Caiaphas pronounced him guilty of blasphemy. Some of those present spat in his face, struck him with their fists, slapped him, taunted him, and pronounced him worthy of death. The next morning, the entire Sanhedrin - the highest court concurred.

With Jesus pronounced guilty, the Jewish leaders took him to Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea, to ask for the death penalty. When they got there, Pilate did not see how this Jewish quarrel had anything to with him. Why did they not sentence the prisoner themselves? Under Roman law, the Jews had no power to put someone to death. Their charge of blasphemy would not have meant much to Rome, so they told Pilate that Jesus claimed to be a king and opposed paying taxes to Caesar.

Pilate summoned Jesus inside and asked Jesus if he was a king. Jesus replied, "My kingdom is not of this world." (john 18:36). Pilate took Jesus back to his accusers and told them he found no reason to kill him. They were shouting out all sorts of charge, but Jesus did not say a word in response, which amazed Pilate. But when someone let it slip out that Jesus was a Galilean, Pilate thought he discovered a loophole. Rather than sentencing Jesus, he sent him to Herod. Pilate was the governor over all Judea, but Herod was the specific ruler over Galilee.

In response to Herod's questions, Jesus remained silent. At that point Herod and his soldiers began to ridicule Jesus. They dressed him in a knightly robe and sent him back to Pilate. Pilate suggested that Jesus be flogged and then released. After all, it was traditional at Passover for the governor to pardon a prisoner as a gesture of good will. But to Pilate's surprise, the crowd voted to release a convicted thief and murderer named Barabbas rather than release Jesus. Pilate turned Jesus over to his soldiers, who flogged him, dressed him in a purple robe, placed a crown of thorns on his head and placed a staff in his hand. Mockingly some bowed down as others struck him and spat in his face.

Pilate then tried one final time to convince the crowd to leave Jesus alone. But when they threatened to go over Pilate's head to Caesar, Pilate finally relented and turned Jesus over to be crucified. Before doing so, Pilate washed his hand in front of the crowd and told them, "I am innocent of this man's blood. It is your responsibility!" (Matthew 27:24)

An inscription was posted above Jesus on the cross. It was written in three languages, Hebrew, Latin and Greek.

It read, JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. -John 19:19

The chief priests were very disturbed by this inscription. They did not want people to think Jesus was their king, for that is the reason they wanted Him put to death.

So they went to Pilate and said, "Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am the King of the Jews.

"Pilate answered: What I have written, I have written." -John 19:21-22

The soldiers took clothes of Jesus and divided them amongst themselves. His tunic was made of one piece so rather than dividing it they said to one another, "Let us not cut it, but let us cast lots for it, whose it shall be." -John 19:24

Many people were passing by on their way into the city for the Passover. They ridiculed Jesus as He hung there on the cross, saying things such as...

"Thou that destroyest the temple of God, and in three days dost rebuild it: save thy own self: if thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross." -Matthew 27:40

The chief priests and scribes also ridiculed Him saying, "He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the king of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him." -Matthew 27:42

The soldiers, giving Him sour wine taunted, "If thou be the king of the Jews, save thyself." -Luke 23:37

One of the thieves that was crucified with Jesus also ridiculed Him. He dared to say, "If thou be Christ, save thyself and us."

The Good Thief reproached the other for his blasphemy. He defended Jesus as he rebuked the other saying, "Neither dost thou fear God, seeing thou art condemned under the same condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this man hath done no evil."

"And he said to Jesus: Lord, remember me when thou shalt come into thy kingdom.

"And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise." -Luke 23:39-43

Mary mother of Jesus, was standing near the cross along with John and Mary Magdalene and the other Holy Women.

When Jesus looked down upon His sorrowing mother, He said to her, "Woman, behold thy son." Then looking at St. John, Jesus said, "Behold thy mother." -John 19:26-27.

Jesus was not only asking St. John to care for Mary, which he did, but Jesus was also giving Mary to be the mother of all.

From about noon until 3 o'clock the sky became dreadfully dark.

This fearsome occurrence terrified many of the onlookers and their demeanor changed from mockery to that of dread and repentance.

Then at 3 o'clock, Jesus cried out, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" -Matthew 27:46 those near the cross thought Jesus was calling out to Elijah.

Then Jesus said, "I thirst."

The executioners filled a sponge with vinegar and put it up to the mouth of Jesus. Some of the bystander said, "Let us see whether Elias will come to deliver him." -Matthew 27:49

Then Jesus said, "It is consummated." -John 19:28-30

"And Jesus crying out with a loud voice, said: Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit. And saying this, he gave up the ghost." -Luke 23:46

The head of Jesus bowed and His spirit departed.

When Jesus died, there was a great earthquake and the Temple was torn in two.

St. Matthew's Gospel says that the graves of the dead were opened and that the bodies of the saints rose and went into Jerusalem where many people saw them.

The soldier and many of those who witnessed the death of Jesus repented and believed. The centurion said, "Indeed this was the Son of God." -Matthew 27:54

The chief priests however, went to Pilate and asked him to have the legs of those being crucified broken because they did not want the bodies to stay on the cross on the sabbath day.

Upon Pilate's command, the soldiers went and broke the legs of the thieves first but when they came to Jesus they saw He was already dead. But to be sure, they speared open His side and "immediately there came out blood and water." -John 19:34

Mary and John and Mary Magdalen silently gathered at the foot of the cross worshiping Jesus the God-man and their Savior.

The pain Mary felt when Jesus was lost in the Temple all those years ago was drastically renewed as this new sorrow pierced her suffering heart.

The body of Jesus was taken down from the cross and placed in the arms of His sorrowful mother.

Edited April 9, 2012 by Robbie333

[Ben Masada]

John the Baptist knew it, he stated it twice...

John 1:29-36

29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is the one I meant when I said, ‘A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’ 31 I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel.”

32 Then John gave this testimony: “I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. 33 And I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’ 34 I have seen and I testify that this is God’s Chosen One.”

35 The next day John was there again with two of his disciples. 36 When he saw Jesus passing by, he said, “Look, the Lamb of God!”

What exactly can this mean beside the paschal lamb, which is sacrificed on the eve of Passover?

Jonh the Immerser, aka, John the Baptist was a Jewish man; he could have never mentioned such an unJewish statement. Then, I asked you for a quote from the Jewish Scriptures, because that's where the idea of a paschal lamb comes from. About 80% of the NT is composed of Hellenistic myth.

Ben

[WoIverine]

BUT REALLY, WHY WAS JESUS CRUCIFIED?

There is no secret about it; and the NT can't be more clear. On the day Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a white donkey, some among the crowd of his followers would proclaim him king of the Jews. (John 12:13) And Jerusalem of all cities, especially for being The abode of Pilate, a man whose day was not made till he crucified a Jew!

Josephus reports in his "War of the Jews" that Pilate took so much pleasure from crucifying Jews that he exceeded into thousands of them. In the case of Jesus, he nailed the reason on the top of his cross: For being proclaimed king of the Jews in a Roman province, which was the Land of Israel at the time.

On the year 312 ACE, Christianity was being considered for the choice to become the official religion of the Empire by Emperor Constantine, and the charge that Rome had crucified Jesus was a liability bordering on disqualifying the Church for that promotion. Therefore, some pious forgery was in order. For instance, that Pilate had been forced by the Jewish authorities to crucify Jesus, hence the washing of Pilate's hands, by which, guilt would be transferred from Rome unto the Jews. For another, they even set Peter charging the Jews with having crucified Jesus in a speech written by Luke but never delivered in Jerusalem. (Acts 2:14,36) Though it made no sense, as they were well aware, it didn't matter; the Church needed that promotion, and any thing else would be justified. Anyways, the Jews needed to pay for rejecting the new religion.

Ben

Because he tried to change the status quo.

[Jor-el]

Mark 14:36 - "Father, take this cup away from me. But let it be as you would have it; not as I." How would Jesus have it? As he prayed for three times. Take this cup away from me. It is only obvious that he did not want to go though such a sacrifice. It means he was forced to. Then, you seem

to assert that Jews do believe in bodily resurrection. Go right ahead and give me an example in our Scriptures. I am all ears.

He was forced? Who exactly forced him?

His problem wasn't death on the cross, they misunderstand what he meant by the "Cup", that cup, is what happened because he went forward onto the cross.

Matthew 27:46

About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"--which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

In those moments, Jesus was expressing His feelings of abandonment as God placed the sins of the world on Him. He felt alone and without Gods presence. It was at this time that “God made Him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.” Jesus became sin for us, so He felt the loneliness and abandonment that sin always produces, except that in His case, it was not His sin – it was ours.

That was the cup he was referring to, not his death, not the cruxifixion.

Exodus 32:33 - It means that only the one who has sinned is blotted out of the book. Not one by another. That's when Moses said to erase his name

from God's book for the salvation of the people.

Our sins blot us from the book, that is a given, but nowhere does it state that One man cannot die for the sins of another. The ancient Hebrews did it all the time, but they didn't use people, they used animals, specifically, the lamb, who is the archetype of such an offering. A spotless lamb, given in sacrifice, as a sin offering. No man who is guilty of sin can take another mans sin, only a man who is innocent of sin could possibly do so.

The Word does not say that a man cannot take, the lambs place, what it does say in the imagery used, is that that man has to be spotless and without sin.

Jeremiah 31:34 - In my translation it says, "Through his own fault shall any one die." What you read is in verse 35 in my translation. Try verse 33 or 35 in yours.

Ok, yet let us examine the words, through his own sin, shall a man die, so what would take his sin away from him? In the law, that sin would be taken from him by a sin offering. The imagery repeats itself. There is nothing to prevent a man from taking the animals place as long as the man fulfills the law. Spotless and without blemish.

Regarding the tree of life, you have not checked the quote I put down. It is in Genesis 3:22,23. Here it is: "The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad. Therefore, he must not be allowed to put out his hand to take fruit from the tree of life also and thus eat of it and live forever. The Lord God, therefore, banished him from the Garden of Eden." He could not have eternal life.

Go back to the Genesis account, you will see that nowhere does it state before the sin actually took place, that they were prohibited from eating of the tree of life. The subsequent expulsion, was that they could not continue to eat from it. If death is said to only exist after the expulsion of man from Eden, it stands to reason that before their sin, mankind did not know death and was therefore logically partaking of the tree of life already.

It was the partaking of the tree of life in sinfulness that God abhored, hence the expulsion. Or do you think that it would have taken only one bite of the tree of life to have eternal life?

It is exactly the same today. We have to continually partake of God to commune with him. It is not a one shot deal.

Regarding Jesus, he was not god. The problem is that the gospels were written by Hellenists whose education had been according to Greek Mythology. As

a Jew, Jesus could never be a god, or demigod, which is the son of a god with an earthly woman.

Ben

Sorry, that is not what the Old testament says, in many passages, it is not what the ancient Jews believed in their concept of the Memra of God. It had nothing to do with Hellenists, or Greek or Roman mythology. It was uniquely and purely Jewish.

I can demonstrate this to you from nearly all the books of the Old testament, especially the Torah. I can demonstrate it from the historical documents we have, I can demonstrate it from scholarly articles published by Jews and Non-Jews alike.

[Jor-el]

Jonh the Immerser, aka, John the Baptist was a Jewish man; he could have never mentioned such an unJewish statement. Then, I asked you for a quote from the Jewish Scriptures, because that's where the idea of a paschal lamb comes from. About 80% of the NT is composed of Hellenistic myth.

Ben

He couldn't? I see, so the Gospels from which this was taken are fabrications and they are lying about what John the Baptist said?

You want a quote from the Tanakh?

Ok what about these?

Leviticus 17:11

For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life.

The substitutionary shedding of blood, the life-for-life principle, is essential to the true "at-one-ment" with the LORD God.

Isaiah 53

1Who has believed our message

and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?

2He grew up before him like a tender shoot,

and like a root out of dry ground.

He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,

nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

3He was despised and rejected by men,

a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.

Like one from whom men hide their faces

he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

4Surely he took up our infirmities

and carried our sorrows,

yet we considered him stricken by God,

smitten by him, and afflicted.

5But he was pierced for our transgressions,

he was crushed for our iniquities;

the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,

and by his wounds we are healed.

6We all, like sheep, have gone astray,

each of us has turned to his own way;

and the Lord has laid on him

the iniquity of us all.

7He was oppressed and afflicted,

yet he did not open his mouth;

he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,

and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,

so he did not open his mouth.

8By oppressiona and judgment he was taken away.

And who can speak of his descendants?

For he was cut off from the land of the living;

for the transgression of my people he was stricken.

9He was assigned a grave with the wicked,

and with the rich in his death,

though he had done no violence,

nor was any deceit in his mouth.

10Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,

and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering,

he will see his offspring and prolong his days,

and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.

11After the suffering of his soul,

he will see the light [of life] and be satisfied;

by his knowledgef my righteous servant will justify many,

and he will bear their iniquities. .

12Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,

and he will divide the spoils with the strong,

because he poured out his life unto death,

and was numbered with the transgressors.

For he bore the sin of many,

and made intercession for the transgressors.

Notice please that whether you accept or not that this refers to the Messiah (which is irrelevant to the point I am making) it is quite clearly demonstrating a parallel where a man is taking the place of the sin or guilt offering. I bolded the relevant parts. It also quite clearly mentions resurrection (in blue).

As for the jewish belief in the bodily resurrection, follow the link, point 13 is quite clear I believe.

What Do Jews Believe?

1.G-d exists

2.G-d is one and unique

3.G-d is incorporeal

4.G-d is eternal

5.Prayer is to be directed to G-d alone and to no other

6.The words of the prophets are true

7.Moses' prophecies are true, and Moses was the greatest of the prophets

8.The Written Torah (first 5 books of the Bible) and Oral Torah (teachings now contained in the Talmud and other writings) were given to Moses

9.There will be no other Torah

10.G-d knows the thoughts and deeds of men

11.G-d will reward the good and punish the wicked

12.The Messiah will come

13.The dead will be resurrected

[Arbitran]

He couldn't? I see, so the Gospels from which this was taken are fabrications and they are lying about what John the Baptist said?

You want a quote from the Tanakh?

Ok what about these?

Leviticus 17:11

For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life.

The substitutionary shedding of blood, the life-for-life principle, is essential to the true "at-one-ment" with the LORD God.

Isaiah 53

1Who has believed our message

and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?

2He grew up before him like a tender shoot,

and like a root out of dry ground.

He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,

nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

3He was despised and rejected by men,

a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.

Like one from whom men hide their faces

he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

4Surely he took up our infirmities

and carried our sorrows,

yet we considered him stricken by God,

smitten by him, and afflicted.

5But he was pierced for our transgressions,

he was crushed for our iniquities;

the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,

and by his wounds we are healed.

6We all, like sheep, have gone astray,

each of us has turned to his own way;

and the Lord has laid on him

the iniquity of us all.

7He was oppressed and afflicted,

yet he did not open his mouth;

he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,

and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,

so he did not open his mouth.

8By oppressiona and judgment he was taken away.

And who can speak of his descendants?

For he was cut off from the land of the living;

for the transgression of my people he was stricken.

9He was assigned a grave with the wicked,

and with the rich in his death,

though he had done no violence,

nor was any deceit in his mouth.

10Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,

and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering,

he will see his offspring and prolong his days,

and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.

11After the suffering of his soul,

he will see the light [of life] and be satisfied;

by his knowledgef my righteous servant will justify many,

and he will bear their iniquities. .

12Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,

and he will divide the spoils with the strong,

because he poured out his life unto death,

and was numbered with the transgressors.

For he bore the sin of many,

and made intercession for the transgressors.

Notice please that whether you accept or not that this refers to the Messiah (which is irrelevant to the point I am making) it is quite clearly demonstrating a parallel where a man is taking the place of the sin or guilt offering. I bolded the relevant parts. It also quite clearly mentions resurrection (in blue).

As for the jewish belief in the bodily resurrection, follow the link, point 13 is quite clear I believe.

What Do Jews Believe?

1.G-d exists

2.G-d is one and unique

3.G-d is incorporeal

4.G-d is eternal

5.Prayer is to be directed to G-d alone and to no other

6.The words of the prophets are true

7.Moses' prophecies are true, and Moses was the greatest of the prophets

8.The Written Torah (first 5 books of the Bible) and Oral Torah (teachings now contained in the Talmud and other writings) were given to Moses

9.There will be no other Torah

10.G-d knows the thoughts and deeds of men

11.G-d will reward the good and punish the wicked

12.The Messiah will come

13.The dead will be resurrected

The teaching of blood atonement in Christianity is against the teachings of God to Moses: http://www.whatjewsbelieve.org/explanation1.html

This is clear.

[Jor-el]

The teaching of blood atonement in Christianity is against the teachings of God to Moses: http://www.whatjewsbelieve.org/explanation1.html

This is clear.

Funny how the imagery of Isaiah 53 contradicts you quite clearly.

It may be what they believe now, it isn't what they believed then, I take the mea culpa, in that this is a natural reaction to the christian stance.

by his knowledgef my righteous servant will justify many,

and he will bear their iniquities.

Here are some clear historical references to what many of the ancient Rabbis thought of Isaiah 53, notwithstanding the modern Jewish interpretation.

1. Targum Jonathan interprets Isaiah 53 with reference to the Messiah, but with a fairly radical reworking of the text, emphasizing the Messiah’s victory rather than his suffering, and with some application of the text to the nation of Israel as a whole.

Cf. the discussion in Samson H. Levey, The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College–Jewish Institute of Religion, 1974); see further Pinkhos Churgin, Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, repr. with Leivy Smolar and Moses Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan to the Prophets (New York: Ktav, 1983); more recently, see Bruce D. Chilton, The Aramaic Bible: The Isaiah Targum: Introduction, Translation, Apparatus and Notes (Collegeville, MN: Michael Glazier, 1999). For the text in Aramaic and English, see S. R. Driver and Ad. Neubauer, eds. and trans., The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah according to the Jewish Interpreters (repr.; New York: Ktav, 1969), 1:4–5; 2:5–6 (hereafter cited as Driver-Neubauer).

2. The Talmud refers Isaiah 53:4 to the Messiah in Sanhedrin 98b; as rendered in the Soncino translation, “His name is ‘the leper scholar,’ as it is written, Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted.”

Rab (Abba Arika) said:

--"The world would not have been created except for David."

(Rabbi) Samuel (bar Abba) said:

--"For Moses!"

Rabbi Johanan (bar Nappacha) said:

--"For the Messiah!"

What is his name?

The school of Rabbi Shila said:

--"His name is Shiloh, for it is said:

--'until Shiloh come' (Gen 49:10)!"

The school of Rabbi Jannai said:

--"His name is Yinnon, for it is said:

--'He shall endure forever,

before there was a sun his name is Yinnon' (Ps 72:17)!"

The school of Rabbi cHanina said:

--"His name is cHanina, for it is said:

--"as I will not give you favor [chanina]' (Jer 16:13)!"

Others say his name is Menachem, the son of Hezekiah, for it is said:

--'For the comforter [Menachem] is far from me,

the one who revives my soul" (Lam 1:16b)!"

But the rabbis say:

--"His name is the leper teacher, for it is said:

--'Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows

yet we deemed him stricken [nago'a: "plagued", esp. leprosy],

laid low by God and suffering" (Isa 53:4)!

Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 98b

3.Ruth Rabbah interprets 53:5 with reference to the Messiah.

4. Midrash Tanchuma applies both 52:13, speaking of the servant’s exaltation, and 53:3, “a man of pains and known to sickness,” to the Messiah.

5. Yalkut Shimoni (a thirteenth compilation of earlier midrashic writings) applies 52:13 to the Messiah, stating that the Messiah, called the great mountain according to the Yalkut’s interpretation of Zecheriah 4:7, is “greater than the patriarchs . . . higher than Abraham . . . lifted up above Moses . . . and loftier than the ministering angels” (2:571; see also 2:621). Isaiah 53:5 is applied to the sufferings of “King Messiah” (2:620).

This is the midrash to Psalm 2:6, dealing with the Hebrew word ִתּיְסָנ, interpreted here to mean, “I have woven him,” with reference to Judges 16:14, “i.e., I have drawn him out of the chastisements. R. Huna, on the authority of R. Aha, says, ‘The chastisements are divided into three parts: one for David and the fathers, one for our own generation, and one for the King Messiah; and this is that which is written, “He was wounded for our transgressions, etc.”.’” See Driver-Neubauer, 1:7–8; 2:9–10.

6. Rambam (Maimonides) refers Isaiah 53:2 (along with the “Branch” prophecy in Zech. 6:12) to the Messiah in his Letter to Yemen (Iggeret Teman).

See Douglas Pyle, comp., What the Rabbonim Say about Moshiach (n.p.: Douglas H. Pyle, 2008), 57–58, citing Abraham S. Halkin, Moses Maimonides’ Epistle to Yemen, ed. from MSS; Eng. trans. Boaz Cohen (New York: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1952), 8. For a free online edition of Pyle’s useful compilation, see www.moshiachontheweb.com.

7. Ramban (Nachmanides), while stating that the text in reality referred to Israel, followed the messianic interpretation of the text found in the Midrash, beginning with the Messiah’s highly exalted state based on 52:13.

8. Noteworthy also is the oft-quoted comment of Rabbi Moshe Alshech, writing in the sixteenth century, that “[o]ur rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet is speaking of the Messiah, and we shall ourselves also adhere to the same view."

9. The messianic interpretation of our passage is also found in the Zohar as well as in some later midrashic works, including Leqah Tov, which applies 52:13 to the Messiah.

Why don't you go here for a more detailed view. http://www.moshiachontheweb.com./

[Arbitran]

Funny how the imagery of Isaiah 53 contradicts you quite clearly.

It may be what they believe now, it isn't what they believed then, I take the mea culpa, in that this is a natural reaction to the christian stance.

by his knowledgef my righteous servant will justify many,

and he will bear their iniquities.

Here are some clear historical references to what many of the ancient Rabbis thought of Isaiah 53, notwithstanding the modern Jewish interpretation.

1. Targum Jonathan interprets Isaiah 53 with reference to the Messiah, but with a fairly radical reworking of the text, emphasizing the Messiah’s victory rather than his suffering, and with some application of the text to the nation of Israel as a whole.

Cf. the discussion in Samson H. Levey, The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College–Jewish Institute of Religion, 1974); see further Pinkhos Churgin, Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, repr. with Leivy Smolar and Moses Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan to the Prophets (New York: Ktav, 1983); more recently, see Bruce D. Chilton, The Aramaic Bible: The Isaiah Targum: Introduction, Translation, Apparatus and Notes (Collegeville, MN: Michael Glazier, 1999). For the text in Aramaic and English, see S. R. Driver and Ad. Neubauer, eds. and trans., The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah according to the Jewish Interpreters (repr.; New York: Ktav, 1969), 1:4–5; 2:5–6 (hereafter cited as Driver-Neubauer).

2. The Talmud refers Isaiah 53:4 to the Messiah in Sanhedrin 98b; as rendered in the Soncino translation, “His name is ‘the leper scholar,’ as it is written, Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted.”

Rab (Abba Arika) said:

--"The world would not have been created except for David."

(Rabbi) Samuel (bar Abba) said:

--"For Moses!"

Rabbi Johanan (bar Nappacha) said:

--"For the Messiah!"

What is his name?

The school of Rabbi Shila said:

--"His name is Shiloh, for it is said:

--'until Shiloh come' (Gen 49:10)!"

The school of Rabbi Jannai said:

--"His name is Yinnon, for it is said:

--'He shall endure forever,

before there was a sun his name is Yinnon' (Ps 72:17)!"

The school of Rabbi cHanina said:

--"His name is cHanina, for it is said:

--"as I will not give you favor [chanina]' (Jer 16:13)!"

Others say his name is Menachem, the son of Hezekiah, for it is said:

--'For the comforter [Menachem] is far from me,

the one who revives my soul" (Lam 1:16b)!"

But the rabbis say:

--"His name is the leper teacher, for it is said:

--'Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows

yet we deemed him stricken [nago'a: "plagued", esp. leprosy],

laid low by God and suffering" (Isa 53:4)!

Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 98b

3.Ruth Rabbah interprets 53:5 with reference to the Messiah.

4. Midrash Tanchuma applies both 52:13, speaking of the servant’s exaltation, and 53:3, “a man of pains and known to sickness,” to the Messiah.

5. Yalkut Shimoni (a thirteenth compilation of earlier midrashic writings) applies 52:13 to the Messiah, stating that the Messiah, called the great mountain according to the Yalkut’s interpretation of Zecheriah 4:7, is “greater than the patriarchs . . . higher than Abraham . . . lifted up above Moses . . . and loftier than the ministering angels” (2:571; see also 2:621). Isaiah 53:5 is applied to the sufferings of “King Messiah” (2:620).

This is the midrash to Psalm 2:6, dealing with the Hebrew word ִתּיְסָנ, interpreted here to mean, “I have woven him,” with reference to Judges 16:14, “i.e., I have drawn him out of the chastisements. R. Huna, on the authority of R. Aha, says, ‘The chastisements are divided into three parts: one for David and the fathers, one for our own generation, and one for the King Messiah; and this is that which is written, “He was wounded for our transgressions, etc.”.’” See Driver-Neubauer, 1:7–8; 2:9–10.

6. Rambam (Maimonides) refers Isaiah 53:2 (along with the “Branch” prophecy in Zech. 6:12) to the Messiah in his Letter to Yemen (Iggeret Teman).

See Douglas Pyle, comp., What the Rabbonim Say about Moshiach (n.p.: Douglas H. Pyle, 2008), 57–58, citing Abraham S. Halkin, Moses Maimonides’ Epistle to Yemen, ed. from MSS; Eng. trans. Boaz Cohen (New York: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1952), 8. For a free online edition of Pyle’s useful compilation, see www.moshiachontheweb.com.

7. Ramban (Nachmanides), while stating that the text in reality referred to Israel, followed the messianic interpretation of the text found in the Midrash, beginning with the Messiah’s highly exalted state based on 52:13.

8. Noteworthy also is the oft-quoted comment of Rabbi Moshe Alshech, writing in the sixteenth century, that “[o]ur rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet is speaking of the Messiah, and we shall ourselves also adhere to the same view."

9. The messianic interpretation of our passage is also found in the Zohar as well as in some later midrashic works, including Leqah Tov, which applies 52:13 to the Messiah.

Why don't you go here for a more detailed view. http://www.moshiachontheweb.com./

Care to explain why Jesus failed to fulfill all of the actual messianic prophecies?

[Jor-el]

Care to explain why Jesus failed to fulfill all of the actual messianic prophecies?

Which ones, the ones presented today, or the ones that existed back then?

Please take note that the Messianic expectations back then are NOT the same as the ones presented by modern Jewish exegetes.

This would also derail the thread, so I'll answer you either in PM or on a new thread if you think its worth your time. Get back to me on that please.

[Arbitran]

Which ones, the ones presented today, or the ones that existed back then?

Please take note that the Messianic expectations back then are NOT the same as the ones presented by modern Jewish exegetes.

This would also derail the thread, so I'll answer you either in PM or on a new thread if you think its worth your time. Get back to me on that please.

Fine, forget it.

[Mr Walker]

Do you believe that Jesus was a loyal Jewish member of the Jewish community? I hope you do. How could he go against the Scriptures that say that "by

his own fault only shall a man die?" (Exo. 32:33 and Jer. 31:30) This, as far as I am concerned, means that no individual can die for another.

Ben

Loyal to wha tpart of which jewish community? Obviously some segments of the the jews did not find him "loyal"; they had him crucified. Others found him a preacher /teacher and perhaps messiah within the understandings of their own faith and community. Those close to him had a loyalty and love which eventually surpassed even their fear of death although, in the context of the story, it tokk jesus' physical ressurection to give them that faith and courage.

And i do not read that simple statement as you do/ To me it just says that, in the end we are responsible for our own deaths through the way we live our lives (both in this life and in the next.) That does not preclude one man dying to save another nor a man /god dieing to save alll mankind. What that statement does say is that no innocent (or faultless) man should be put to death. It does not say that a "guilty" man cannot be saved from death.

Any man can die "for another" if they chose to. That is perfectly clear. In a fortnight we celebrate anzac day, and hundreds of thousands of men and women who died so that others might live.

Jesus illustrated this point perfectly.

I must assume you do not believe that, theologically, jesus could die as a sacrifice, and thus save humanity from their disconnection with god, which leads to our deaths, (by reuniting in body and spirit each one of us with god?)

I have god within me and god is all around me. I walk with god in the same way and form as the ancient jews. (But also as any man can do from any time) God has always been with us but jesus's sacrifice alow d US to apprecaite this and allowed US to reconnect to god on a physical and spiritual/metaphysical level.

It is possible to find and experience this reconnecton in other ways, (again because god is in us and all about us, always) but christ makes it explicit and simple. Open your heart and mind and let him in. Thats all it takes.

Edited April 10, 2012 by Mr Walker

[hellig heilige]

BUT REALLY, WHY WAS JESUS CRUCIFIED?

Then when we retire we can write the gospels

So they'll still talk about us when we've died

[Shiloh17]

Now, to use Isaiah talking about God Himself and apply it to Jesus, I believe that if Jesus could think of it, he would turn in his grave. Why? Because he was a Jewish man and, according to Judaism, there is no such a thing as the Greek myth of the demigod who is the son of a god with an eartly woman. Read Isaiah 46:5. "Who would you compare Me with as an equal or match Me against as though we were alike?" It means that God is absolutely One and there is no other. Jesus himself affirmed that truth in Mark 12:29.

Ben

Psa 82:6

I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

Joh 10:34

Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

Joh 10:35

If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Joh 10:36

Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

[Arbitran]

Psa 82:6

I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

Joh 10:34

Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

Joh 10:35

If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Joh 10:36

Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Cool! I didn't know that I was equal to God Almighty! Thanks for that!

[Shiloh17]

Cool! I didn't know that I was equal to God Almighty! Thanks for that!

Isa_40:25

To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One.

[+Paranoid Android]

No gospel was written before the war which ended up with the destruction of the Temple. The first gospel to come out was indeed the one of Mark but the year given is 75 ACE.

Ben

Ok, I think I understand. Your use of words is perhaps a little misleading because by saying that Constantine engaged in pious forgery implies that he is the one who committed the forgery (or at the least ordered said forgery to be made). Perhaps you intended to say that the texts he used were evidence of pious forgery, because they were dated so many years after Jesus' actual existence. Would this be accurate? I have two follow-up thoughts to consider:

1- Does 40-50 years after the event mean that a text is a "forgery"?

2- While circa 50 years represents the earliest gospel, it does not represent the earliest New Testament text. Some texts date only 15-20 years after Jesus' death. 1 Thessalonians, for example, is written about 20 years after the event, long before the destruction of the Temple. In chapter 1 of this text, we get several pieces of information, including that Jesus is identified as God's son who was raised from the dead in order to save humanity from the wrath to come. Philippians, likewise, comes from a near-identical date, and in chapter 2 acknowledges that Jesus Christ was "in very nature God", but came as a servant not a King, dying a painful death on the cross, after which God raised him from the dead in order that "every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord".

These all come from possibly less than 20 years after the events (and definitely less than 30), letters written to the various churches that had sprung up in the decade and a half after the Jesus movement began. I think it is a mistake on your part to focus only on the gospels. Even though these are the earliest of the biographies we have of Jesus, they are not the earliest texts we have that attest to Jesus' death and resurrection on a cross.

Just a few thoughts,

~ Regards,

Edited April 10, 2012 by Paranoid Android

[+Paranoid Android]

Jonh the Immerser, aka, John the Baptist was a Jewish man; he could have never mentioned such an unJewish statement. Then, I asked you for a quote from the Jewish Scriptures, because that's where the idea of a paschal lamb comes from. About 80% of the NT is composed of Hellenistic myth.

Ben

Just a point I seem to have noted in a few of your posts, you seem to assert that many of these statements are unJewish, and therefore could not have been said or believed by Jews. I was just wondering then why the earliest followers of Jesus (those who professed Jesus' death and resurrection) were actually Jews. Saying that the Jesus story is not Jewish does not account for the many Jews who converted to Christianity, both then in the early days of Christianity, and even today those who call themselves "Messianic Jews", who are Christian converts from the Jewish faith. They would obviously disagree with you, would they not?

~ PA

[Arbitran]

Isa_40:25

To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One.

Well, at least I know I somehow had a hand in creating the world! After all, if I'm an el, just like elohim in Genesis!

[Tiggs]

It was tradition to let a prisoner go during the Jewish holiday.

Actually - there is no record of any such tradition outside of the New Testament.

[Arbitran]

Actually - there is no record of any such tradition outside of the New Testament.

Very well stated. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that such a tradition ever existed.

To my knowledge there isn't any evidence of the Roman Empire requiring people to return to their ancestral home for a census either...

[Mr Walker]

Very well stated. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that such a tradition ever existed.

To my knowledge there isn't any evidence of the Roman Empire requiring people to return to their ancestral home for a census either...

Dont know about the former, but when you look at the requirements on people during the census period and the power of the censors and censorial laws, eg to require all people to be married and produce children, then it would make sense, especially in the provinces, for people to return to their home places in order to verify the cenus requirements. It was not just a matter of having your name etc checked off. And with apologies the following is only a part of it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_censor

First he had to give his full name (praenomen, nomen, and cognomen) and that of his father, or if he were a Libertus ("freedman") that of his patron, and he was likewise obliged to state his age. He was then asked, "You, declaring from your heart, do you have a wife?" and if married he had to give the name of his wife, and likewise the number, names, and ages of his children, if any.[37] Single women and orphans were represented by their guardians; their names were entered in separate lists, and they were not included in the sum total of heads.[38]

After a citizen had stated his name, age, family, etc., he then had to give an account of all his property, so far as it was subject to the census. Only such things were liable to the census (censui censendo) as were property according to the Quiritarian law. At first, each citizen appears to have merely given the value of his whole property in general without entering into details;[39] but it soon became the practice to give a minute specification of each article, as well as the general value of the whole.[40]

Land formed the most important article of the census, but public land, the possession of which only belonged to a citizen, was excluded as not being Quiritarian property. If we may judge from the practice of the imperial period, it was the custom to give a most minute specification of all such land as a citizen held according to the Quiritarian law. He had to state the name and location of the land, and to specify what portion of it was arable, what meadow, what vineyard, and what olive-ground: and of the land thus described, he had to give his assessment of its value.[41]

Slaves and cattle formed the next most important item. The censors also possessed the right of calling for a return of such objects as had not usually been given in, such as clothing, jewels, and carriages.[42] It has been doubted by some modern writers whether the censors possessed the power of setting a higher valuation on the property than the citizens themselves gave, but when we recollect the discretionary nature of the censors' powers, and the necessity almost that existed, in order to prevent fraud, that the right of making a surcharge should be vested in somebody's hands, we can hardly doubt that the censors had this power. It is moreover expressly stated that on one occasion they made an extravagant surcharge on articles of luxury;[43] and even if they did not enter in their books the property of a person at a higher value than he returned it, they accomplished the same end by compelling him to pay a tax upon the property at a higher rate than others. The tax was usually one per thousand upon the property entered in the books of the censors, but on one occasion the censors compelled a person to pay eight per thousand as a punishment.[44]

A person who voluntarily absented himself from the census was considered incensus and subject to the severest punishment. Servius Tullius is said to have threatened such individuals with imprisonment and death,[45] and in the Republican period he might be sold by the state as a slave[46] In the later times of the republic, a person who was absent from the census might be represented by another, and be thus registered by the censors.[47] Whether the soldiers who were absent on service had to appoint a representative is uncertain. In ancient times, the sudden outbreaks of war prevented the census from being taken,[48] because a large number of the citizens would necessarily be absent. It is supposed from a passage in Livy[49] that in later times the censors sent commissioners into the provinces with full powers to take the census of the Roman soldiers there, but this seems to have been a special case. It is, on the contrary, probable from the way in which Cicero pleads the absence of Archias from Rome with the army under Lucullus, as a sufficient reason for his not having been enrolled in the census,[50] that service in the army was a valid excuse for absence.

After the censors had received the names of all the citizens with the amount of their property, they then had to make out the lists of the tribes, and also of the classes and centuries; for by the legislation of Servius Tullius the position of each citizen in the state was determined by the amount of his property (Comitia Centuriata). These lists formed a most important part of the Tabulae Censoriae, under which name were included all the documents connected in any way with the discharge of the censors' duties.[51] These lists, insofar as they were connected with the finances of the state, were deposited in the aerarium, which was the temple of Saturn;[52] but the regular depositary for all the archives of the censors was in earlier times the Atrium Libertatis, near the Villa publica,[53] and in later times the temple of the Nymphs.[54]