Psychology meets philosophy with a cynical twist. What makes humans tick? Deep dives into consciousness, character psychology, and human nature through cartoons and sharp analysis.
Morning TV Politics: Waking up to Spicy Breakfast TV
1 to 2 min read
Full English Breakfast
Remember when morning television was just the weather and a half-baked celebrity chef? Look at things now! It's turned into a gladiatorial arena where lions grill politicians harder than a full English. Good Morning Britain has practically become 24 hours in police custody with better lighting and more makeup!
The Interview Olympics
Watching politicians evasion skills on morning shows has become its own form of entertainment. The presenters lean forward with that 'I've got you now,' expression, but their political guests are trained in slippery dialogue and navigate questions like it's literally a verbal version of ninja warrior. If their skills were translated into a physical context these Westminster folk would br wrestling silverbacks over banana rights.
If you can recall there was an information problem surrounding the Southport tragedy? Certain MPs suggested the police were being a bit tight-lipped about details. Like cats on a laser pointer, breakfast show hosts pounced. Everything about the pair was, 'How dare you question the authorities!' However, we all know questioning authority is supposed to be the media's primary job description It’s like what The Angry Bootneck said in his video: police do withhold info!
The Information Dance
Here's the thing about police investigations; the transparency is like a brick wall with decent rendering and a lick of black paint. We waited ages for the full story on the Manchester Arena bombing. The Salisbury poisoning? Same deal. It's like trying to get your teenage son to explain why he has no socks anymore—you get bits and pieces, then the emerging picture makes you appreciate why people keep quiet.
The authorities have their reasons, of course they do! Legal procedures, ongoing investigations, not wanting to prejudice potential trials. On the same token, it does leave Joe Bloggs Public feeling like everythings turned into a true crime Netflix series with missing episodes.
Like a Nasty Accident at the National Break Dancing Championship
As usual, a new government comes in centre-stage bopping up and down with music, grand promises to fix everything, then discovers that running a country is a tad more awkward than their campaign leaflets said before face-planting the floor. Oh shit, indeed! They know it feels like they're expected to solve a Rubik's cube while powering a speedboat over the rapids. The PM has that startled-deer-look in his eye, he knows he's screwed.
The housing crisis is doing really well, the beached NHS continues its heroic fight against the national sense of guilty pessimism, and town centers keep promoting nostalgia for the good old days when most shops weren't charity.
The Fairness Circus
Two tier this, immigrants that. We do get annoyed when some people get more than others do, inequality is it or discrimination? I was told about English Heritage offering free memberships to some certain groups while others pay full whack—cue the inevitable arguments and tensions. It's like trying to share a pizza fairly at a party where everyone has a strong opinion about toppings.
We all want fairness, but defining what's objectively fair for everyone is like trying to nail jelly to a wall—messy and ultimately futile.
International Intrigue
Our foreign policy adventures are great, we seem lost. Britain's international affairs is like a social inadequate being asked to explain quantum physics using only emojis. The public gets simplified versions of complex situations. Our leader is like an embarrassing parent who lies through his teeth to get in with the 'cool kids'.
Finding the Silver Lining
But here's the thing—despite all the chaos, confusion, and morning TV theatrics, Britain keeps chugging along like an octogenarian chain smoking amputee. We've survived worse times relying on our impenetrable wall of deliberate comedic humour and foolishness as well as flatulence.
Maybe the answer is to remember that democracy is a bit like a communal garden—it only works when everyone does their bit, okay, maybe that'll never happen! Simply paying attention and occasionally rolling your eyes at the absurdity of it all is as good as it gets?
My Conclusion...
At least it isn't boring? No? On our television screens full of negative news and silly problems, perhaps a bit of ignorance is exactly the kind of solution we need? Surely there's a lot of delightful news to be shared instead of gloom, doom and, imagine another rhyming word. Instead, play video games, walk your dog, we can't stop stupid. What sort of conclusion is this?
Please leave me a comment, it would be nice to hear your ideas!
Schofield Island: Disgraced Celebrity Victim Special
5 min read
What Can You Do These Days?
The country has taken a step toward televised celebrity redemption, an interesting turn that could save a fortune on PR. Philip Schofield's reality TV appearance follow the theme of him surviving as a survivor, an outcast. The show format raises questions about how we should handle disgraced celebrities. I mean, did his platform really serve as genuine redemption or was it simply about him having his rant after getting caught? Why did TV bosses even bother to begin with?
The Schofield Approach
Schofield's career trajectory offers a case study, one day this will be taught in media studied to completely dumbfounded students: module F: celebrity recycling and PR. Once Schofield was a prominent breakfast television presenter, his departure from mainstream TV followed a personal scandal and genuinely seemed final! However, his exclusive reappearance on a 'survival show' was calculated.
Past Conduct Concerns
During his television career, Schofield's presenting style lost him respect. He challenged guests in quite unnecessarily confrontational ways. He led almost sadistic interviews that were uncomfortable to watch. They weren't limited to celebrities and public figures, but regular Joes alike. His approach often appeared to prioritize dramatic television, putting himself in the frame more so than sticking to quality interviewing and rapport.
The circumstances surrounding his departure from television - involved a romantic relationship with a young male, who was a teenager when he initially met Schofield. Of course it raised serious questions about power dynamics and yet again, professional conduct in the industry. As expected, Philip Schofield stressed and maintained that the relationship was legal, it was a desperate thing to witness. The significant age gap, his liars to his wife and children. His workplace environment created concern for us all, ringing unpleasant notes of the BBC and children. This all added to his clear history of condemning guests be shared across the internet shaping an algorithm, which led inflammatory accusations and anger.
The Redemption Question
The broader issue here extends beyond one individual. How should society handle the nasty public figures? Are traditional consequences evolving into entertainment opportunities? Wouldn't that raise a few questions? Televised redemption arcs designed to trick the masses into believing a re-purposing is happening to their staff caught offending! It could be made to look like a service to justice if the right rings align. There's little to no doubt the BBC would've loved going all 'vatican rules' but, my imagination is running away with me.
Marketed favourably
The survival show format could not address the underlying issues that led to the downfall of Philip Schofield. Instead, it trivialized his misconduct because it was treated as material for entertainment! The boy/victim was not even present to share his experience!
Moving Forward
Perhaps what's needed is a more thoughtful approach to accountability? Imagine if the entertainment industry focused on genuine reflection, making amends to those harmed, and demonstrated real intolerance of sexual misconduct, rather than silence, going legally defensive or by seeking quick public sympathy like we have seen in the past!
What do you think about giving disgraced celebrities a televised platform to explain themselves? Drop us a comment!
Marieha Hussain: The Controversial ‘Coconut’ Placard Case
Fact:
When a person of colour behaves in a way perceived to be associated with white people, they could be called a 'coconut' by non-white individuals, because the flesh of a caucasian person and a coconut are both called white. Is this racism?
The Case:
Around the time of the Palestine marches in 2023 - 2024, Marieha Hussain, a teacher, faced legal action for holding a placard up showing Rishi Sunak and Suella Braverman as coconuts. Regardless of any humour which she insisted it was, the racial context was flagged as pejorative or derogatory. Although Hussain was acquitted, she lost her career and faced online abuse, but still defended the placard as satire throughout. It can appear petty to be put on trial over a placard, but is it always so? Marieha Hussain's protest board does pale in comparison to modern celebrity acts of racism.
The Placard
It was unfortunate that the Hussain family faced such harsh treatment. However, despite the racial nature of her legal proceedings, Hussain spoke to the press and accused the system of misusing hate speech laws against ethnic minorities:
'The laws on hate speech must protect us, but this trial shows they are weaponised to target ethnic minorities'.
Naturally, the uncivilised treatment she endured would have warranted her to bite-back, so to speak. Taking things objectively, one trial—of which she was acquitted—is not proof of an entire systemic persecution of the ethnic population.
What if this was a Keir Starmer Cornish pasty placard (brown on the inside) during an alternative version of the summer protests? Would it have led to fewer legal outcomes? More?
The Reality
An insightful blog here shows terms like 'coconut' and 'Oreo' are not new. They mean brown on the outside, 'white on the inside' and they are hurled at black or brown people who don’t conform to their racial stereotype. If Marieha Hussain fully understood the term before creating the placard, it wouldn't have been a surprise. Consider the archetypal activist; bold, purpose driven, passionate and focused on improving things. In certain circumstances, 'coconut' metaphors are not considered racist. Caution is advised with social sensitivities, and so, would more leniency with racial offences help? Especially after years of high profile racism? Are the less scrupulous more likely gamble with low level racial offences?
Race Politics
Think back to the Black Lives Matter movement in the UK, when Sasha Johnson openly criticized whiteness as perpetuating systemic racism. She promoted Blackness with the intensity of a supremacist. Once, while on camera this BLM matriarch bullied a black man, calling him a 'coon,' with no legal consequence. It is a similar slur implying conformity to racist stereotypes. It’s reasonable to suggest that a non-Black individual would could very easily be prosecuted for the same act. The same laws are needed for everyone because racism is not housed in certain quadrants of the country.
Holding a candle to our inherent racial differences will eventually lead to stereotyping, strengthening our racial biases. Race-baiters' may present their ideology as a political agenda or choose to defend one specific culture over another. Professor Andrews is an expert in black studies, and he spoke in defence of the placard, stating:
'Who says it’s racialised? These terms, coconut, come from struggle, from others... you can’t tell me I should be proud to have a brown prime minister and a brown home secretary and then say, well, actually, when they do things which are racist, we can’t criticise them. This is political language, and the judge made it clear this is political satire!'
Racially charged insults like 'coconut,' 'monkey,' or 'elephant washer' clearly follow old generalisations. Whereas surprisingly, many anti-immigration concerns do lack the same overt racial overtones, yet they are often fiercely condemned as such! Judge for yourselves, but if Prof. Andrews' argument concerning the Placard is that Sunak and Braverman’s 'whiteness' is inherently racist, he is undeniably reinforcing negative racial stereotypes and demonising white people—which is racism.
In an ideal world, we would all practice forgiveness and champion care before speaking. In reality, we need rules to live by.
Final Thoughts
The trial raises important questions about whether such debates are ultimately more harmful or helpful. Human diversity—cultural, physical, historical, linguistic, and genetic—demands respect for each individual. However, this respect often runs dry.
Excessively labeling every slight as 'racist' can exacerbate modern racial hostility rather than build better bonds. As we venture these grounds, it’s crucial to strike a balance that acknowledges and respects our wonderful differences without failing standards of decency and good faith.
Disclaimer: this post covers unpleasant themes, discretion is advised.
6 to 7 min read
The nation was gripped right from the first news report. It was a case that got under everyone's skin - familiar TV reporters telling us about the rising death toll among babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital. The wider media speculated: were these deaths negligence? Criminal? Incompetence?
The knock-on effect for police was tremendous public expectation to catch someone. Coverage began in 2017 and created those intense 'turn the telly up' moments - we all needed to find out if they'd uncovered the monster responsible! Was this feeding the masses a premature conclusion?
How Quickly The Focus Turned to Lucy Letby
And of course, it was quite speedy how the focus landed on Lucy Letby. People were saying the young nurse was present during those infant deaths. I was convinced like many others! The reports said she was directly there when the tragedies happened. Our news is trusted by everyone I know - it must be right? Yeah?
But looking back, I think we let that 'Angel of Death' archetype take shape too easily. She became the dark shadow of that hospital ward. We stoked our own fires - did your circle of friends talk about bringing back the death sentence? Mine did. Social media painted her with a 'psycho vibe' and all of it contributed to presuming guilt before her trial started. That's a terrible climate for any investigation, let alone legal proceedings.
The Numbers Don't Add Up For Me
The prosecution's case relied heavily on statistical evidence linking deaths to when Letby was on duty. The correlations are noticeable, I'll give them that. But here's what bothers me: six deaths happened when Letby wasn't even there.
The Guardian wrote that Dr John Gibbs emailed colleagues in 2016 saying the increase in deaths "might be within 'expected' statistical variance (but I'm not sure because my stats isn't good enough)." Numbers don't prove how someone died or who killed them. They just don't.
Medical Experts Argued Over Evidence Validity
The expert witnesses spent time analyzing how infants died - mostly air embolisms and insulin overdoses, suggesting deliberate harm. Dr Evans, an ex-consultant paediatrician, claimed babies had air injected through nasal feeding tubes.
But other clinicians questioned his reasoning, saying the methods weren't practically feasible. It does seem fiddly and awkward. When NHS professionals say the likely consequence would just be wind, it raises doubt. Think about it - reporters don't write articles by balancing scrabble pieces in a bath, do they? They use practical methods. Murderers would too.
Professor Jones, one of Europe's leading experts, told the court that tests for insulin poisoning needed better validation for solid evidence. His testimony was essentially rejected, which must have made NHS workers uneasy about their own jobs.
Those Handwritten Notes
The prosecution thought they'd struck gold with Letby's handwritten notes - troubling references that could paint her as a clinical killer. Many people were swayed by these scribblings, literally interpreting them as admissions of guilt.
Her legal team said the notes were emotional expressions from someone in a distressing job. Nursing isn't easy. As a student nurse years ago, I was reprimanded for my notepad - it was full of unsavory handwritten reflections I'd accidentally left at the cook's station. It was taken as an insult. Can't any nurse do the same? Letby's notes might have been completely innocent.
No One Found Her Crazy
No psychiatric evaluation found any sinister diagnosis or psychopathology you'd expect from someone capable of systematic murder. She was cleared. Of course she'd experience emotional distress during the trials media circus. She had no apparent motive.
She showed no psychological disorders either. These are serious personality conditions that would typically be present in someone committing such crimes.
Systemic and Institutional Factors:
The Hospital Was A Mess
All my life, every news outlet has said the NHS is struggling. It's been underfunded for decades. The Countess of Chester Hospital had equipment problems, was understaffed, with high volumes of infants needing care. The demand was excessive.
Think about it - would an overworked, tired nurse even have time to carry out elaborate killings in a busy ward? By 2024, the hospital itself was investigated for manslaughter. After media attention, they increased staff, decreased admissions, improved equipment - and mortality rates improved.
Compromising Factors
Sensationalism and public scrutiny pressurised the direction of the investigation. We all wanted our witch to stand trial for what we perceived to be the worst of all crimes, but in reality, it may been caused by something else. It was the hospital vs the witch. Solid evidence was rejected in court, played down under the weight of personal notes and speculation. Is that good enough?
Would those death rates have been different if Letby's team had worked in a well-funded private hospital? Have we forgotten how dangerous failing hospital wards can be?
The Pressure Got To Everyone
Sensationalism and public scrutiny pressured the investigation's direction. We all wanted someone to blame for what seemed like the worst possible crimes. But maybe it was caused by something else entirely. It became the hospital versus the witch hunt.
Solid medical evidence was downplayed under the weight of personal notes and speculation. Is that really good enough for a life sentence?
Smart People Are Worried
Professor Philip Dawid of Cambridge, along with twenty-four other experts, wrote to Health and Justice secretaries about poor evidence use in this trial. They requested the hospital inquiry be postponed for better evidence processing. That's not conspiracy theorists - that's serious professionals raising serious concerns.
Why I Think She Might Be Innocent
I'll be honest - I lean toward thinking Lucy Letby might be innocent. Here's why:
The statistical evidence doesn't account for the hospital's systemic problems. The medical evidence faced significant challenges from qualified experts that weren't properly addressed. The hospital's own failures provide a simpler explanation for increased deaths. She showed no psychological signs of someone capable of serial murder.
Most importantly, when qualified professionals question evidence standards in such a serious case, we should listen.
I Could Be Wrong
A jury heard all the evidence and found her guilty. They might have been convinced by testimony I haven't fully considered. The families of those babies deserve justice, and if Letby is guilty, she should face consequences.
But the stakes are too high to get this wrong. A woman's life, grieving families' closure, public trust in our justice system - it all depends on getting this right.
What I Think Should Happen
Has Lucy Letby's case been sufficiently scrutinized? I don't think so. When this many medical and legal experts raise concerns about evidence quality its a strong indicator. When the hospital itself faces manslaughter charges its a clear sign. When three ex-bosses are arrested for investigations into infant death that really is a smoking gun. We are looking at systemic failure directly. It points to a realistic explanation rather than a monstrous infant murderer - we need to investigate properly and be realistic. What's more common a nurse who kills babies or an incapable NHS system?
If there's reasonable doubt, it needs addressing. My son waited numerous hours for a mere blood test, do we honestly believe the NHS does not fail to provide care? Those babies' deaths demand justice, but real justice means being certain we've got the right explanation for what happened.
I'm not screaming injustice or demanding her release. I'm asking for the thorough investigation this case deserves - one that properly weighs institutional failures against individual responsibility, that takes expert concerns seriously, and that ensures our justice system's integrity.
Because if we got this wrong, it's not just Lucy Letby who suffers - it's every family who trusted that hospital, every NHS worker doing their best in impossible conditions, and our faith in justice itself.
Lucy Letby Trial * Was it Thorough? * Is She Really Guilty?
Alternative Narratives of Christ: The Crucifixion.
In the Famous Gospel Stories...
12 to 18 min read
Jesus of Nazareth is said to be the son of God who chose to take up his divine mission to save mankind by dying on the cross for all sins. For me this sounds ridiculous. The religiously obsessed and the literalist tend to believe it! Anyway, despite Jesus being a mesmeric persona, he is shrouded by countless years of mythological bollocks and religious symbolism, which may not be relevant to what really happened.
People bullshit, exaggerate. They lie. Now, Critical Scholars and literalist evangelicals are still arguing on what parts of the New Testament are authentic or not. Doesn't that say something? Verily, verily I say unto thee, the prevailing belief among scholars is that they don't really know what is one hundred percent historical. For instance, conservative scholar Craig L. Blomberg said, 'Strictly speaking, the gospels are anonymous.' According to Bart Ehrman, ancient gospel writers chose anonymity to keep Jesus as the focus of their narratives, and I sort of agree, but would like to add that every community would have established their own verbal recollections of the Jesus years.
The Mystery of Gospel Authorship
Gospels were all written at different times. John is attributed to an unnamed witness and is dated around 80-100 CE. Mark is considered the oldest, expert roughly guess it was written between 65-75 CE, while Matthew and Luke are believed to have been compiled around 80-100 CE. E.P. Sanders points out that early followers of Jesus owned fragments of scripture that were updated over time. After the crucifixion, the apostles didn’t produce any grand biographical literature like Harry's attempt with 'Spare' because the followers were illiterate. It's factual.
The Evolution of Christian Doctrine
The New Testament has been interpreted countless times, which has spawned numerous denominations. Calvinists, for example, believe in predestination, while Catholics emphasize faith and baptism. Unitarians, like me don't all view Jesus as the literal and only Son of God. Humanity has had its fair share of Christology, from the Viking chieftain Jesus in the poem called the Heliand, to the blue eyed right-wing American bible-belt Jesus. Theissen and Merz (1996) suggest aspects of the crucifixion were written much later, and others suspect the resurrection historically differs to how we might imagine it, here. I am pretty biased.
Historical Accuracy
Most NT text is in Old Greek, a very difficult language to master. Dr. John Dominic Crossan noted inconsistencies with Paul's letters. As well as this, the decision to include text into Christian communities led to variations in early manuscripts. For instance, Papyrus 75 (200 AD) miss passages in the later Codex Sinaiticus (300 AD). This might suggest modern additions are not true representations of how shit went down.
Contradictions and Theological Issues
Seems I'm not alone, Carrier (2011) also cast doubt on the historical accuracy of the crucifixion narratives, saying the phenomena are absent from contemporary Roman and Jewish accounts of crucifixions, which, he added, raises doubt on the entire events write-up! But, I'm biased.
The Bible contains notable contradictions. Genesis 32:30 suggests seeing God face-to-face, while John 1:18 claims no one has seen God. These silly pedantic details simply highlight the conflict between historical fact and developing Christian theology. Johannine literature contains Greek terminology and ideas, see the Jesus the Philosopher blog. This Hellenic Jewish far cry from the Elite Jewish Orthodoxy of historical Jerusalem!
The Harsh Reality of History
If you look into Rome through a historical lens, a perspective informed by sources like Britannica, John Dominic Crossan or Bart Ehrman, we see Jewish protesters did not grind down Pontius Pilate. This is important! In fact, just as much as Rome itself, this old knight of the Samnites was an oppressor, which both historical and religious sources equally illustrate.
Stick with me here, I'm going somewhere! Pilate's Jewish subjects hated him. A total bastard to say the least. He over taxed them, and showed little if any respect for their culture and laws, as well as that, he provoked riots by displaying images of the emperor across their country. It was not uncommon for him to crucify people without a trial. In fact, this man stood trial himself in Rome for cruelty! Think about that! A complete and utter sociopath who enjoyed hurting people.
Britannica describes Pilate as eventually removing the offending images, but only after he had threatened disgruntled Jewish citizens with death after they refused to halt their protests; they showed bravery, a quality he found admirable. Be that as it is, Rome never kept Kosher rules, nor adhered to the sabbath. Rome did not respect the native laws of Briton either when it violated Boudica, the Queen of the Iceni's two daughter's. Neither did it bend the knee to Israel when it built its own pagan monument inside their Jewish Temple! These things are significantly more offensive than leaving a treacherous sect leader to desecrate on a cross! That's why I say, I do not believe the crucifixion narrative is correct.
"The portrayal of Jesus in the Gospels is not simply a neutral recording of what Jesus said and did. The Gospel writers shaped and interpreted Jesus' message in light of their own theological agendas..."
Bart Ehrman
A Less Known Jesus Story
Let’s get with it. Jesus would most likely have been crucified outside the temple, given the site's foul smell, and horror. It would have been festering with flies and the process of squirming decay. It might not have been easy to make-out the facial features from high up beyond inside the city walls, which realistically, lessened the unsightliness of recognising the dying. Then again, we mustn't forget that crucifixion predated Rome, it is very ancient and goes back to Assyria. Jewish celebrants arriving for the passover would have seen Jesus on his cross as just another of the crucified; he would not have been anything special or out of the blue! This was sexing up the text.
In the gospels, we see sentiment against wealth. Jesus is described as telling potential followers to give all their money to the poor and to follow him if they want salvation. Well, er, Joseph of Arimathea, on the other hand, was a 'wealthy follower,' so, it brgs the question why was he allowed to 'follow'? Was it because he paid for Jesus' tomb? The story never explains that contradiction, it just leads on to resurrection theology. Going on historical norms, Rome would have made an example of the Jewish King by leaving his body is situ for anyone entering the city to see. Romans would have left Jesus much longer than six hours on the cross.
A Rare Jesus Story...
The New Testament stories are theological developments from real historical events. The contradiction and alteration of biblical text still always raise a question, but here is one of mine:
Could Pilate Have Historically Ordered The Jewish Authority To Punish Jesus?
This theory is not popular among most scholars or religious people who mostly support the Roman crucifixion. What is compelling is how the bible doesn't show Jesus having any beef at all with Rome! In all truth, experts say Rome had a practice of leaving complex domestic disputes such as cultural and religious law to the natives, who, in that case, were the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. According to this religious council, Jesus called himself 'King of the Jews' a messianic blasphemy from a prophetic perspective. I featured the Pantera tradition in my 'was Jesus a cult leader?' blog, here. Tabor (2006) questions the reliability of the crucifixion in the gospels.
People Were So Easily Upset!
Against the prevailing view of most scholars, E.P. Sanders discovered the diverse beliefs of Second Temple Judaism, including legalistic and covenantal elements. He shed new light on Paul’s communication about grace holding much broader Jewish context, he was not brand new or separate from it. The Pantera tradition, always in question, is seen as a mere polemic claiming Jesus was stoned to death on the eve of the passover, and that he was hung on a tree.
Undeniably, this was still an ancient Jewish punishment for blasphemy, his actual charge! Why couldn't it have happened? Bart Ehrman has blogged about this alongside James Tabor! To hang, was a euphemism for Roman crucifixion, hanging on a tree was a valid Jewish post mortem exhibition on 'the cursed tree,' arbori suspendere, which encompassed and summised the entire punishment process—it dishonoured the criminal. Killed and then exhibited. Like Roman crucifixion, it was done outside the city walls. Most importantly, always before dark. Leaving the dead outside throughout the night offended their God, and they deemed it to be unlawful.
Stoning was vindicta publica, the general public would execute the unfortunate accuse. Amongst other things, Jesus was called sorcerer, and accused of leading the people astray and religious men insisted he was aligned with the devil. After he was stoned for blasphemy, he was hung up for all to see! It aligns perfectly with historical practices.
'... the wise king of the Jews – they killed him and did not take thought. But God took thought for them, and their land was desolated because of them'.
MaraBar Serapion 1st century Pagan
If Pilate could not find a crime against Rome and washed his hands of the Jesus case, he must have tasked the Sanhedrin with executing him. It follows the judicial path. It follows perfectly if we consider the speedy retreival and entombment of the body in the biblical accounts. If we acknowledge theological retrojection exists around the trial and with the mafe up Barabas character, a much valid historical story emerges, supporting experts like E.P. Sanders and Theissen.
Around 150 CE, in his first apology to the Roman Emperor Pius, Justyn Martyr wrote that Jews accused Christians of atheism and impiety. They also insinuated Jesus himself of being the first born of Satan and a deceiver (Dodds, and Reith, 2023). Those sentiments, as well as what we see in the New Testament align with Talmudic criticisms of Jesus.
Saint Asaph Cathedral Skeleton
It says in deuteronomy 21:22–23: A man guilty of a capital offence is put to death and you hang him on a tree, you must not leave the body on the tree overnight. Be sure to bury it that same day, because anyone who is hung on a tree is a curse of God.
Paul shaped Christian theology by referring to this law in Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”
Acts 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree.
Acts 10:39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree.
This is why I doubt the crucifixion narrative. You should too.
References
Blomberg, Craig L. "The Historical Reliability of the Gospels." IVP Academic, 2007.
Codex Sinaiticus. British Library, 300 AD
Editors of Encyclopedia Briticannica. "Pontius Pilate" Britannica 1st Jun 2024
Ehrman, Bart D. "How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee." HarperOne, 2014.
Dodds, M, and Reith, G "First And Second Apologies of Justyn Martyr" Dalcassian, 2023.
Sanders, E.P. "The Historical Figure of Jesus." Penguin Books, 1993.
Crossan, John Dominic. Lecture on "Paul and the Creation of Christian Theology."
Papyrus 75. Bodmer Library, 200 AD.
Tabor, James D. (2006). The Jesus Dynasty: The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity. HarperCollins.
Theissen, Gerd, and Annette Merz. (1996). The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide. Fortress Press.
Alternative Narratives Of Christ: How Can We Really Know The History?
Did Jesus decompose on his cross? -Did Jesus decompose on his cross? - Did Jesus decompose on his cross?
Did Jesus decompose on his cross? -Did Jesus decompose on his cross? - Did Jesus decompose on his cross?
Was this a historical possibility?
7 to 10 min read
The traditional Christian story of the crucifixion is deeply ingrained in our Western consciousness. Crucifixes hang from gold chains, beautify our skin and stand central on t-shirts. However, to be honest, I love to offer an alternative theory showcasing a historical, human Jesus, because these accounts mostly serve theological, and not historical purposes! We know Roman aristocracy considered early Christian's to be anti-state criminals. We can reasonably hypothesise, that if Jesus was crucified by Pilate for somehow committing crimes against Rome, he would have decomposed on his cross on display to dissuade others. That was the Roman way.
Understanding Crucifixion in the Roman World
Crucifixion in the Roman world was a punishment reserved for those perceived as the lowest of society, and also, those who posed a threat to the social order, namely, Rome itself. After the Spartacus rebellion, for example, Crassus crucified 6000 slaves along the Appian Way to make a point (Appian, Civil Wars). The bodies were often left hanging for extended periods, emphasizing the dire consequences of being enemies of Rome. Exceptions to this practice, such as removal for burial, were rare and dependent on factors like family petitions or the social status of the condemned.
The Early Christian Movement and Roman Criminality
The early Christian movement was perceived as a significant threat to both the social order of Roman and the religious order of both the Jewish Pharisee and the Sadducee. As such, Christians were often brought to trial on charges of "hatred towards mankind," atheism, or other accusations of disrupting societal norms (Pliny's Letters to Trajan). The public nature of punishments, including crucifixion and stoning, served to deter potential followers and maintain the status quo.
Non-Christian Sources on Jesus and the Crucifixion
Non-Christian sources, such as Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny the Younger, provide valuable external insights into the life and death of Jesus Christ. Tacitus, for instance, confirms the crucifixion of Jesus under Pontius Pilate (Annals, 15.44). However, the details of Jesus' burial are not mentioned in these sources, leaving room for speculation and alternative interpretations.
The Gospels as Theological, not Historical, Narratives.
The Gospels were written to convey the theological significance of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection, not to provide a historically accurate account. The accounts of Jesus' burial, therefore, should be understood in this context. For instance, the empty tomb narrative is pivotal to the resurrection story, a cornerstone of Christian faith, but lacks external corroboration. The inconsistencies across the Gospels further underscore their theological, rather than historical, motivations.
Synthesizing the Evidence: Jesus Left on the Cross?
When we synthesize the historical, non-Christian, and theological evidence, the possibility of Jesus Christ being left on the cross aligns with the consistent practice of Roman crucifixion. Its purpose of deterring the following Christians into sedition mighy have been considered a success by Roman aristocrats.
Conclusion
I aimed to spark some thoughts about an alternative crucifixion of Jesus Christ. One that aligns more closely with Roman historical practices and non-Christian thinking. This theory underscores the importance of critical engagement with religious narratives and their historical contexts. Further research into this aspect of early Christianity and Roman history is recommended.
Did Jesus decompose on his cross? - Did Jesus decompose on his cross? - Did Jesus decompose on his cross?
Alternative Narratives of Christ: A Socratic Saviour?
Did Jesus Enjoy the Sages?
7 to 9 min read
Did Jesus embrace the ideas of the great Greek philosophers? To understand how Hellenistic philosophy may have influenced his teachings, we should try to appreciate these influences, let's consider the following:
Alexander the Great introduced Greek culture making Israel a cultural synchronicity, it lasted well beyond his era! Jewish communities were also living in Greece since those times! However, around 160-170 BCE in Israel, Judas Maccabeus fought against Greek assimilation, succeeding and finally establishing his family dynasty called the Hasmoneans. Unfortunately, after internal conflict, it all ended. Roman conquest happened. Pompey Magnus in 63 BCE marched in and Greek and Roman culture planted itself firmly, yet still resisted.
Greek Settlements in Galilee
During the Jesus years, cities like Tiberias and Sepphoris existed in Galilee. Sepphoris was adorned with Greek architecture and cultural influences—the ruins still exist. Galileans were rural people with access to philosophical ideas. Stoicism, Aristotelianism, and Platonism would have informed Nazareth, Capernaum and Magdala. The hellenic worldview integrated with old Rabbinic paradigm. Even figures like Paul of Tarsus and the author of John’s Gospel used specific philosophical themes into their writings.
Sepphoris
John 8:32: Jesus’s teaching, 'Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free,' parallels Plato’s idea that philosophy liberates the soul (Phaedo 67d).
Matthew 6:34: Jesus's advice to not worry about tomorrow resonates with Seneca’s Stoic emphasis on focusing on the present (Letters from a Stoic).
The Anti-Jesus Sources
The Talmudic portrayal of Jesus 500 CE stems from an older verbal 'Pantera' tradition, pre-dating Celsus 120-130 CE, who mentioned the polemics therein, in his writings against the Christians. The Talmud includes accusations of Jesus violating Jewish law, burning food on the Sabbath. Yes, it sounds petty, but there are more to these things than I can cover here. The offence of food burning, seems to imply that his prosecutors were framing him of practicing some kind of pagan ritual. In the bible the man was called a Samaritan. Orthodox Jews recognised these people as heretics—this snobbery is a common theme.
How do you think traditional Jews saw their hellenised townsfolk, given that Greco-Roman culture was shared by their Roman oppressors?
The Galilean in the Talmud was considered to have 'led the Jews astray'. What is interesting is the polemic about him burning his food in public; is it a reference to how Greeks made their offerings to their gods? It also points at poor behaviours like consuming it openly, an attempt at discrediting any divine rumours by pinning old hellenised stereotypes onto him.
Overlaps and Striking Similarity
Philo of Alexandria said the soul is divine and virtuous people are 'sons of God,' reflecting Stoic ideas of the divine Logos and universal reason. This sounds like Christianity.
The universalism and inner spirituality of Jesus, was at odds with strict ritual observances that later followed. We know Jesus was not welcomed at all by religious leaders because it contrasted with covenantal law going back to Abraham and Moses. The shift aligns with philosophical values surrounding personal virtue and the universality of the divine.
Heraclitus: “The divine is the logos, present within all things, and accessible through inner reflection.” (Fragments, 50)
Jesus: "The kingdom of God is within you." (Luke 17:21)
Plato: “He who loves the truth and is gentle in spirit is the true philosopher, akin to the divine.” (Republic, 514a)
Jesus: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God." (Matthew 5:9)
Tiberias Galilee
People who lived within synchronised Jewish communities achieved new visions surrounding moral and intellectual enlightenment. They could consider one another as 'sons of God' under such paradigms. When God, Eloah or Elohim could be interchangeable with Platonic and Stoic ideals. This synthesis of divine qualities may easily have shaped the Jesus movement, driving theological discourse with the rigid Rabbinic Orthodoxy of the time.
Conclusion...
The Greek translation of Hebrew Scriptures (the Septuagint) also introduced subtle philosophical perspectives into Jewish discourse. Torah consuming Galileans inherited generations of Zeus, Hermes and Socrates, and all that comes with it! A synthesis of the philosophical and theological took form, poles apart from the prevailing Jewish norms of the Sanhedrin in Roman occupied Jerusalem.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_Israel_(16457821932).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)