It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Crucifixion, Did Jesus really have to die?

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 02:50 AM

originally posted by: LABTECH767

originally posted by: knightsofcydonia
I have a been a follower of Jesus since I can remember. What I've learned is:







By Matthew Kalman USA TODAY

Quote from Professor Ze'ev Herzog of Tel Aviv University

NOTE: Professor Herzogs quotes---Mine in gray


"The many Egyptian documents known to us do not make any reference to the sojourn of the Children of Israel in Egypt or the events of Exodus.

This is coming from a University right in the middle of Israel, and they say that the Egyptian documents dating back ages make no mention of the exodus.

Generations of scholars tried to locate Mount Sinai and the stations of the tribes of Israel in the desert. Despite all this diligent research, not one site was identified that could correspond to the Biblical picture.

Generations of scholars have not been able to find one site identified in the Bible.

An Israeli archeologist is drawing fire for claiming that the biblical history of the Jewish people is probably fiction.

Consider the courage this archeologist has for saying the truth, right in the middle of Israel.

In an article in Ha'aretz newspaper, Ze'ev Herzog a professor at Tel Aviv University argued that the Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt probably never happened, the Ten Commandments were not given on Mt Sinai and Joshua never conquered the land of Israel.

So there are three big Biblical stories that you have read about all your life, that a university in Israel says never happened.

Herzog says there is no evidence that Joshua led the children of Israel into the Holy Land or brought down the walls of Jericho.

Repeated excavations by various expeditions have only yielded disappointments he says.

During the period when the conquest would have taken place, there were no cities there and of course no walls to bring down.

Consider that.

Joshua could not have knocked down the walls of Jericho because there was no Jericho there at the time, and no walls.

Herzog has been criticized by religious leaders and is surprised at the criticism.

I don't think it is right to guess at motives based on the results of scientific inquiry he says. Archaeology has always been used in this society and used to point in one direction, (to prove the Bible), now I'm suggesting that perhaps it should be used to point in another direction.

What professor Herzog says here is that archeology can also be used to prove that the things in the Bible never happened.

They are symbolic, just as the Bible says.

Atheists and disbeliever's come onto the religious thread's but mostly the christian one's and sit there and make grandiose statement founding in biased and biggoted opinions that are self serving, then they star one another.

We know you are there, we know you do not want to believe as it scares the hell out of you that you might one day have to answer for the wrong's you have done and feel free thinking there is no god but in the word's of christ "Those who say there is no god are foolish", and that is from the very being who warned us to call no man a fool.

What kick do the get out of trying to drag people out of there faith, to push them into a bleak world where they will feel no one can help them not even themselves and are less inclined to help one another.

Where there is an alter there you will find civilization, So what kind of civilization would atheists build, the pyramid's were constructed with primitive tool's by people who whole heartedly believed in something, they may not have been correct but at least they were not souless machines with empty heart's and driven by greed, lust and vindictive hatred of they who do believe.


By the way there are two school's of archeaology, one that is trying to disprove and one that is trying to prove, the bible is a matter of faith but what of Ron wyatte and his solomon era pillar's on both sides of the red sea, the one of the egyptian side though eroded had four readable inscriptionsi in pheonician.

Oh that is right he was a religious guy so his opinion did not count
You know he is far from alone, but a hard core of atheists have taken over this profession over time and there secular view's are totally crap, they teach there own personal opinion's as though they were actual fact, biased and hypocritical abuse of position.

And also remember the like's of herzog have a vested interest in seeing a religon that they find offencive and consider blasphemous disproven so will even make up or interpret proof with that biased intention.

I actually think Wyatt's mount sinai is the real one but have a look at Har Karkoum and remember the tribe's of Israel wandered for decade's as god toughened them us and made a tainted generation pass away.

You really have no idea how much proof there really IS for the bible.

that post was so good, i want to get up and slap someone!

Jesus had to die on the cross, that was why He was born.
it would have been cheating if He used His powers.

any other outcome would not have fulfilled the old covenant and started the new covenant.

i love how some of these people put so much faith in someones words about something neither believes in and thousands of years after the fact, to boot.

posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 05:37 AM
a reply to: sacgamer25

Jesus died at the hands of men. He allowed himself to be killed by men to put an end to the human sacrifice that had been going on since the foundation of the world--Cain killing Able. He surrendered his life into the system of death, to break the machinations of death that are the foundations of the empire.

He came to show the heart of the Father, which contrary to popular opinion is non-retributive, non-violent, all love no hate. Instead of calling down legions of angels and destroying his enemies, which is the typical human response to violence, he did not return violence with violence. He said "Father forgive them for they know not what they do".

His life was vindicated by the Resurrection, which became victory over death, and the machinations of empire. His life became a seed that had fallen into the ground/earth/adamah/flesh/us. That seed sprouted and began to grow life within our dead flesh. The new man began to form within the womb/tomb/earth/humanity.

His life, death, resurrection made an open show of the principalities and powers. He exposed the machinations of sacrifice, scapegoating, religion, control.

Obviously all things have not been subjected under his feet/rule/life yet. The creation is eagerly waiting for this, but it is not in some end of the world scenario, doom and death, and destruction by an angry god. (That angry god is the one that Jesus set out to expose, as not his father.) The creation is not waiting for a sky-Jesus to come down and seek revenge for atrocities committed.

The creation is waiting with eager longing, suffering like in labor pains, for the Revealing or Unveiling of the SonS of God.

A company of the new man that will walk in the new life, and spread the new life to all of mankind, and then to all of the cosmos.

Jesus did not die at the hands of an angry god. He did not take the wrath of god on himself in place of others. He did not die because god needed a sacrifice.

Man requires sacrifice not the FAther of Jesus.

"Sacrifice and burnt offerings I did not desire, require or enjoy. "

posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 02:12 PM
a reply to: zardust

I agree, man needs an example and Jesus was that example. I think the revelation of Christ is already in front of us, even though we have yet to grab hold of it.

posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 04:30 PM
Either way, he died far too young to come to any proper conclusions about reality.

posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 06:37 PM
a reply to: sacgamer25

Two words:

Jesus survived

No thanks to the line of thinking often expressed by people calling themselves Christians, that the crusifixion of Jesus was a willing acceptable sacrifice God somehow desired. It's a sheep they worship, a sacrificial beast, not the Son of God or God. Talk to them for a few minutes and they have called him the Lion of Judah and the Son of Man and still claiming their sacrifice was and is acceptable. And they don't even realise they are nibbling on rocks, standing on an awful high mountain wondering if the angels would catch them if they jumped.

ETA: In my dialect the sound of the words for 'sacrifice' and 'why' are the same
edit on 28-8-2014 by Utnapisjtim because: eta

new topics

top topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in