It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
And when I was sent by Titus Caesar with Cerealins, and a thousand horsemen, to a certain village called Thecoa, in order to know whether it were a place fit for a camp, as I came back, I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician's hands, while the third recovered…
Jesus was an enemy of the state, a man who lived by teh sword, literally.
being informed that all Galilee had not yet revolted from the Romans…they sent me and two others of the priests,…I came into Galilee, and found the people of Sepphoris in no small agony about their country, by reason that the Galileans had resolved to plunder it, on account of the friendship they had with the Romans,…
It said he was Hung on a TORTURE STEAK or in other words a lim from a TREE. Never Cross, that never came in existence untill the Catholic religion added it in their own words
Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Why the resurrection of Jesus is a bogus tale:
With his ‘word’ God created the universe; every planet; every element; atom, sub-atomic particle; mountain and every rock therefore. He parted two seas; brought plagues at will; destroyed nations and caused a woman to grow a human without benefit of fertilizing her ovum.
He had no need therefore for a stone, how large is a stone? and one placed by man yet, to be removed by angels or even himself to attest that the body lying within was resurrected. Divine intervention is better served by having that stone remain in place, have Jesus appear in the flesh to the non-believers and the towns-people, then have them move away that stone to find his body as well as his funerary garments missing. To suggest that God would choose a lesser convincing manner is to suggest that the ineffible in the character of a Christain God, who was apt to toying with his human pets and had no desire for them to actually witness his supposed promise of a saviour, or to believe that which cannot be refuted.
Originally posted by siriuslyone
All there theories were ingeniously explored in the Martin Scorsese film..Last Temptation of Christ.
We had to wade through fundie protestors to see it, but the image/place in the life of Christ of Magdalene makes it worth seeing.
Shows Christ sitting in the whorehouse until Magdalene was finished to speak to her..
It is wonderfully done and well worth anyone's time to see it.
Yes, it had to get out of the tomb, to assume that God’s ability is limited to moving the stone is to place limitations on his omnipotence. I fail to understand why the corporeal aspect would be more satisfying to the believer than if they in fact were to witness along with the non-believers a manifestation of Jesus given the strong belief in Paul. This not only presumes that manifestations when witnessed in numbers by both his followers and his detractors bear little relevance, but place Paul’s vision in an even more disputable light. Considering your abstraction then, Paul should be severely distrusted. However, if the corporeal body is the essence of proof, then God, in his omnipotence and further to my statement, need only leave the stone in place and remove the body. Can you imagine the import of the witnesses who saw him walk through stone, as well as those who saw his manifestation then found no body and the stone in tact? Easy after all, since this should be of no consequence to the creator of the universe. The problem is however, that the ignorant of 2,000 years ago decided they needed a body to prove reincarnation of man, instead of reincarnation of the spirit. Somehow flesh revitalized is more sacrosanct than one's soul.
Originally posted by drileyAs far as the stone in front of the tomb is concerned, I would think that the bodily ressurection would explain why the stone is rolled away. Orthodox Christianity holds that the body, the physical substance of Jesus, was resurrected from the dead. It had to get out of the tomb, no? And despite Jesus walking through walls later, it seems the easiest way to do that would be to roll the stone away.
Yes, they supposedly died from suffocation, but you jump to conclusion that the lung was pierced, and since neither you nor the authors knew where the exact location of the piercing was, nor the depth of the wound, we do not know that the lung was in fact pierced, nor that water buildup in same would flow outside of the ribcage and skin without internal action of the body. With no quantifying of the amount to come from same for it to be notable per John, means the authors were either stupid to not expect the expelling of minimal fluids in the dead, or their medical knowledge was lacking. I hold to the latter. Further, the suffocation aspect was directly related to the broken legs not being able to support the torso.
Someone said that the account of Jesus's side being pierced would tend to suggest he was alive. To the contrary, if piercing his side resulted in a mixture of blood and what looked like water running out, it would suggest the spear punctured his lung which had filled with fluid. This is the way most people who were crucified probably died.... from suffocation.
This is speculation. As you can see from the Josephus' quote, these men were alive on the cross. We have no idea if they were whipped or not, and to presume that Jesus was subjected to harsher methods by Pilate a man who had no argument with him, is ludicrous.
Evidently, he wanted a quick death for the man because he ordered that he be whipped before being crucified. The whipping would have cut the muscles on Jesus's back and made it harder for him to pull himself upright once crucified. This would have shortened his life on the cross considerably as a man hanging from his arms can't breath well when his torso is bent.
Also subjective. We in fact have no evidence at all that nails alone were used for crucifixion. In fact, the majority argument leans against same as the bones in the hands are not capable of sustaining the weight, and would therefore tear through the hand. This also does not explain Josephus’ beneficiaries.
Secondly, Pilate (or someone) nailed Jesus to the cross instead of simply tying him up there, which was the normal approach. Using nails may seem more cruel (like the whipping), but the resulting blood loss would have also weakened Jesus and caused him to die faster.
There is no evidence to support to speedy death. Further, to believe Pilate cared about inciting a riot from Jews who willing condemned this man to death, or about their riots when the Romans were accustomed to same is preposterous. Rome controlled Judea, not the other way around, and Jews were very reluctant to wage any war on their holy days. You fail to consider that not one Jew stepped up to the plate to clear this man’s name.
As for them wanting to get the crucifixion over quickly, remember that Jesus was condemed on a Friday. The Roman authorities probably weren't being considerate of Jesus's family so much as trying to avoid a riot by the Jews who were protective of their Sabbath which started at sundown. In other words, they were just trying to keep from inciting the population.
More presumption, and from the least believable of all the Gospels. Luke and Matthew may as well be the same gospel, where Luke who never met the man, adds much more detail in some parts than any of the others, this is liberal licence at work, some 40-60 years after the death of Jesus and from a non-credible source. On top of which, “a band of men and offices from the chief priests and Pharisees” (John) cannot be 600 soldiers. This multitude can only not tackle Peter for his insolence in cutting off the ear of one of theirs, they decide to just walk off with their prize, only in the eyes of those who write fiction is this plausible.
It is worth note that when Jesus was arrested they sent a cohort of men according to Luke. (This is usually vaguely translated in the English.) This is about 600 soldiers. Not a small group. You have to assume that Jesus had a sufficent number of followers at this point that the Romans didn't want to provoke them more than they had to in order to keep order.