It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

theory of the faked crucifixion of Jesus

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 10:37 PM
link   
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.

The only witnessing of this event is passed on by a measly 4 of dozens, even hundreds of those we are told are Jesus’ followers, where only a pittance 4 of multitudes of people who supposedly cheered this man and were in awe of him, could find this a miraculous event. Scribes (non-apostles) followed this man everywhere, and not one scribal account supports this event. Aside from which, the 4 accounts cannot agree amongst themselves as to who was at the tomb, who saw what, and who heard what.

Did he die on the cross? Possibly. The piercing might suggest otherwise, while with the impending Passover feast hours way it was imperative for his family to bury him before the start of same, and requisition his removal from the cross to an already sympathetic governor. People have been known to survive for many more days than a scant 36-48 hours under adverse conditions, especially if they are being treated upon rescue, to wit:

Josephus-

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…


As stated previously, the story of Jesus reads like a poorly written play extracted from the works of Josephus:

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,…
Jesus was an enemy of the state, a man who lived by teh sword, literally.

There is much more evidence against this resurrection, evidence already proffered in previous threads.


[edit on 4/15/05 by SomewhereinBetween]




posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 10:50 PM
link   

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



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 10:50 PM
link   

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.


That's a very interesting point I've never heard.
Moving the stone does seem pointless to a "resurrection" of anything but earthly origins doesn't it? I've always taken note of the enormous difference in "miracles" between the OT and NT.

OT miracles were literally of Biblical proportion. NT seems like parlor tricks at best and very hard pressed in the writings to serve as "proof." Why try so hard? I guess when you're rewriting a religion from a sect to serve the mass population of an Empire, it takes alot of convincing.



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 11:01 PM
link   
is nothing sacred ?

shudder



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 08:17 AM
link   
the question on the table here is not whether this whole crucifixion/resurrection story is sacred - I think it is because so many people hold it to be sacred.

The question before us is simply "is it true?" I think there is a lot of evidence that supports the point that it may not be historically accurate. Historical accuracy may not be important to Christians and that's fine with me. However, history is important to me and I don't like it when it is distorted or reportedly falsely.



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 08:39 AM
link   
In, John 19:36-37 also can prove that Jesus was never crucified, (God promised to protect Jesus’body and not let single bone to be broken)

Now how can this be possible if he got nailed in the feet? Without a bone been broken? They most have been some very expert doctors to do that while nailing Jesus on the Cross.

Now, you have Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12, Zechariah 12:10 and Psalm 34:20, that supposedly prove the believe about Jesus crucifixion.

In Isaiah 52:13 It said “He will be raised and lifted up” so are we having some problems with translation or that will tell you that Jesus was picked up from the cross and saved? That means that he did not die on the cross because he was “Raised and lifted by God to havens”

In Hebrew 5:8 “Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered” now in versus 7 it said that God heard Jesus’ cries, Jesus was badly beaten before he was in the Cross so God decided to save him.

Now this will bring also the “third day of resurrection of Jesus” as been fabricated taken in consideration that it was never prophesied in the old testament.

The problem I see with the whole concept of Jesus crucifixion is that when the scribes sat down to write the story, too many accounts were taken in consideration making a different story of the events of that day.

The apostles fled and deserted Jesus, they were afraid for their lives, one possible witness may have been Peter, he followed Jesus and later he denied him three times when others confronted him.

Matt 26

33- Peter said “Even if all fall away on account of you, I never will”
34- “I tell you the truth” Jesus answered, “this very night, before the rosster crows, you will disown me three times”
35- Peter said “Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you.” and all the other disciples said the same.

Matt 26

74- Then he began to call down curses on himself and he swore to them, "I don't know the man!"

75- Immediately a rooster crowed. Then Peter remembered the word Jesus had spoken: "Before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times." And he went outside and wept bitterly.

Taking in consideration that the Gospels were written by the apostles and obviously they missed the event I guess they gather their information from willing witnesses of the accounts.



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 12:22 PM
link   
....
Somewhere.........you said.quote///////With his ‘word’ God created the universe/
YES,the ''WORD'' LOGOS''
who is GOD......
He was from the beginning......with His WORD...LOGOS is God....

quote//John1:1.....In the beginning was the WORD(LOGOS) and the WORD was GOD ........etc.....

The crucifiction of Christ....
St. Paul affirms: For since by man came death(sin by the first man.Adam), by man(God took flesh as the Son of Man) came also the resurrection of the dead (I Cor. 15:21).

In Romans 5:12 St. Paul says that By one man sin entered the world, and death by sin, and a little later, in Romans 8:20–21, he says that the creation entered into corruption because of man's sin.

Source quote///By His death Christ ransomed man out of servitude to sin, and redeemed man from the eternal consequences of sin which had been incurred at the Fall.
Christ Himself spoke of this.
He said of Himself: The Son of Man came … to give His life as a ransom for many (Matt. 20:28).
In the Epistle to the Hebrews we read: Christ is the mediator of the new testament,
that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament,
they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance (Heb. 9:15). And in the book of Apocalypse: Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by Thy Blood (Apoc. 5:9).

Christ paid the debt of sin that man himself could never pay.
The Apostle John writes in his first Epistle: He [Christ] is the propitiation for our sins,
and not for ours only,
but also for the sins of the whole world (I John 2:2).
And the Apostle Paul tells us: Ye are bought with a price (I Cor. 6:20, 7:23). St. Paul even says that Christ was made to be sin for us and made a curse for us (II Cor. 5:21, Gal. 3:13).
Out of His infinite love for us,
Christ died in place of us, so that we could be given life.
St. Paul says: … That He [Christ] by the Grace of God should taste death for every man (Heb. 2:9);
and elsewhere he says, God commendeth His own love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Rom. 5:8).
..
www.orthodoxinfo.com...
....................
again somewhere.........you say..quote///and caused a woman to grow a human without benefit of fertilizing her ovum...
Yes, because of Eve.......she also sinned and was the cause of SIN and therefore the Virgin Theotokos(God -Bearer)has to be the SECOND Eve....
through Her......God took flesh (with permission.......please no stupid questions here)and gave birth to God .....the Son of God.the LOGOS who was always present in the Beginning...

quote///"Blessed art thou among women..." (St. Luke 1: 40-42). In response, the Theotokos observes that "...henceforth all generations shall call me blessed." (Luke 1:46-49).
CHRIST proceeded forth from the Virgin Mary, as Adam had from the earth: Adam by the inbreathing of the Spirit of God—And breathed into him the breath of life;—and Christ by the coming of the Holy Spirit—the Holy Spirit shall come upon thee—was said of the Virgin Mary. Thus Christ came forth according to the likeness of Adam (Gen 2:7; Luke 1:35).

But Christ also proceeded forth accordingly to the likeness of Eve: thus Eve came forth from a father without a mother ("from the rib"), so Christ came forth from a mother without a father (she "knew not a husband").
Just as the first Adam brought forth from Eve without the participation of a woman,
so Mary brought forth Christ without the participation of a man.
Eve appeared only by the "seed" of a man, and Christ appeared only by the "seed" of a woman.
The means whereby Eve and Christ came into being are identical: both received human nature by the power of God from one sex. At first the woman (Eve) did so from a man, and thereafter the man (Christ) did so from a woman.
Thus Christ received the nature of the first Adam, the nature of all mankind, or the whole Adam from Mary, who gave Him this nature of Adam. For this reason as Adam said of Eve so can we say of Mary,
and through her even of Christ: This is now bone of my bones,
and flesh of my flesh.
Through the Virgin Mary our nature exists in Christ, the Second Adam (Genesis 2:21, 23; Luke 1:34).

Just as Christ is the Second Adam,
so Mary is the second Eve.
This is evident from a comparison of the temptation of Eve with the Annunciation of Mary.

Then there was a manifestation of a fallen Angel, the serpent, the devil. Here there is a manifestation of a holy Angel, Gabriel. Genesis 3:1 (Rev. 20:2) Luke 1:26.

The first promised Eve, that through her man would be as God,—ye shall be as gods. The second promised Mary that through her God would become man—He shall be called the Son of the Most High ... the Son of God. Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Genesis 3:4—Luke 1:32, 35; Matt. 1:23.

Eve showed disobedience to God and to His commandment—thou shalt not eat of it (of the tree) ... she took of the fruit thereof and did eat.
Mary was obedient to the will of God at the Annunciation without any doubt and she said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord. Genesis 2:17, 3:6—Luke 1:38.

Eve became proud in her thoughts—ye shall be as gods.
Mary was the humble handmaid of the Lord, both in receiving the good tidings of the advent through her of God in the flesh, and also even before this event, for which cause He had looked upon the lowliness of His handmaiden,
and it was precisely for this quality of her soul that He turned His attention to her, and for it that He deemed her worthy to be His Mother.
Then through pride Eve desired to be God, and now in humility Mary is deemed worthy to receive God into herself and give Him human nature for the sake of our salvation. Genesis 3:4—Luke 1:48.

www.orthodoxinfo.com...

too much info.........

quote//by marg6043
, John 19:36-37 also can prove that Jesus was never crucified, (God promised to protect Jesus’body and not let single bone to be broken)

Now how can this be possible if he got nailed in the feet? Without a bone been broken? They most have been some very expert doctors to do that while nailing Jesus on the Cross.

"Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" which means, "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?
" These were the beginning words from the 21st psalm of King David(OLD Testament ) in which David clearly foretold the suffering on the cross of the Saviour.
By these words the Lord for the last time reminded people that He is the true Christ, Saviour of the world.

Friday evening came. At that hour, it was necessary to partake of the Passover meal.
The Jews did not want to leave the bodies on the cross on the Sabbath because it was the Passover Sabbath considered a feast day.
Therefore, they asked Pilate permission to break the legs of the crucified so that they would die more quickly and might be removed from the crosses and taken away.
Pilate gave permission.
So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who had been crucified with him.
When they came to Jesus Christ they saw that He was already dead, and thus they did not break His legs.
One of the soldiers, in order to leave no doubt that He was dead, pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out.


Note: See the Gospels of Matthew 27:33-56; Mark 15:22-41; Luke 23:33-49; John 19:18-37.

Standing by the cross of Jesus,
there were His mother,
the Apostle John,
Mary Magdalene,
and several other women who revered Him.
It is impossible to describe the grief of His mother seeing the unbearable suffering of Her Son.
When Jesus Christ saw His mother and the disciple whom He loved standing near, He said to His mother,
"Woman,
behold Your Son!"
Then, He said to John,
"Behold your Mother!"
And from that hour the disciple took Her to his own home and cared for Her until the end of Her life.

Meanwhile,
during the suffering of the Saviour on Golgotha(Meaning the land of the skull...ADAM'S SKULL BURIAL...also for future reference, this where the two prophetsENOCH AND ELIJAH WILL BE PUT TO DEATH)), there occurred a great sign.
From the hour that the Saviour was crucified,
from the sixth hour (about 12 o’clock noon by our calculation),
the sun darkened,
and there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour (three o’clock in the afternoon by our calculation), until the Saviour died.

This remarkable, worldwide darkness was noticed by pagan historians,
the Roman astronomer Flegontus and Junius Africanus.
A noted philosopher from Asia,
Dionysius the Areopagite,
in Egypt in the city of Heliopolis at the time, observed the sudden darkness and said, "Either the Creator is suffering or the world is coming to an end." Later Dionysius the Areopagite converted to Christianity and became the first bishop of Athens.

MORE........
www.fatheralexander.org...

Sorry for this long thread....
Glory be to God...
helen....



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Helen,

The only source you have cited other than the bible (mostly the NT) was a few historical references to the darkness (maybe an ecllipse or maybe something else). So, if I'm generous, I'll give you the "darkness" part of the story since there are other sources for that.

But, we're discussing whether the stories of the crucifixion as told in the Christian bible are historically accurate so, I think logic would suggest that you've got to have something more than quotations from the very source that is being questioned.

Nice long set of bible verses, though. Just no points. Sorry. I'm trying hard not to sound rude.

[edit on 16-4-2005 by Al Davison]



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 04:23 PM
link   
I'm surprised that none of you have read The Passover Plot.



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Just for additional information, apparently there is a sumerian story that is similar.

The goddess inanna travels to the underworld. She is judged by a panel called the Anunuki (or somesuch), they condem her. She is strung up on a pole, and quickly dies and shrivels into a corpse. Then, later (at the action of her consort tho) she is re-vivified, and returns from the underworld, bringing the souls of the dead that she 'saved'.

I just noticed now that one of your issues was the jesus dies really quickly. And in this story, inanna actually shirvels into a corpse quickly. Interesting.

Then there is the osiris myth. Osiris is a god who dies. He's put into a sacrophagus. It falls into a river or some such, and ends up having a tree grow up around it and incorporate it, so he's 'crucified' also.


And then there's the monkeys.

Apparently Chimpanzees have a ritual. They'll all be playing. Then one or two will start a ritual dance, going around in circles, and the rest will join in. Often its around a tree or similar pole. That dance is an actual rythmic dance with emphasis on different feet for a very simple beat.

So the "god-on-a-stick" motif is very old, perhaps an 'archaetype' in the brain of man and even other primates.



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 06:22 PM
link   
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.



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 01:41 AM
link   

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.


And some FILM is going to make it seem all the more real?

How can a Film ever potray the Word of God ?

the problem is the Media ...clever trick of the twentieth century stupidity of man....And the FOOLISHNESS of the people....
helen..

[edit on 4/17/2005 by helen670]

[edit on 4/17/2005 by helen670]



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 02:08 AM
link   
Interesting comments as all other in all topics. Curious to understand where you learned all your theories on your subject comments please..?
Support is being in support of varifyable facts.. answers are respectable of the same questions and sources too..

Dallas


[edit on 17-4-2005 by Dallas]



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 02:58 AM
link   
>>And some FILM is going to make it seem all the more real?

How can a Film ever potray the Word of God ?

the problem is the Media ...clever trick of the twentieth century stupidity of man....And the FOOLISHNESS of the people....
helen..>>>

Quite the contrary, Scorsese shows Jesus leaving the cross to marry Magdalene and that the crucifixion was a figment of his imagination..
Just another viewpoint...


[edit on 17-4-2005 by siriuslyone]



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Ref Thomas Jefferson
I have examined all the known superstitions of the world and I do not find in our
particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature.They are all alike
founded on fables and mythology.Millions of innocent men,women and children,since
the introduction of Christianity,have been burnt,tortured,fined and imprisoned.
What has been the effect of this coercion?To make one half of the world fools and
the other half hypoxrites to support roguery and error all over the world.(End quote)
Before discussing fairy tales conc. god-saviors,you just have to read ONE book:
"The Christ Conspiracy" by Ancharya S.
Baloria



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Dallas:

I'm not sure time will ever permit me to catalogue all I've read, watched, listened to, participated as a student, etc. Some other posters here have compiled some terrific reading lists and I'm just beginning to slog my way through their recommendations. I'm just an amateur, hobbiest, slightly-more-than-casual observer, and profoundly inept as any kind of scholar - focusing on the intertwining of the effects of religion on anthropology/sociology/history all around one central theme - how on earth did we arrive a this point in western society and is it possible for us to ever escape this quagmire of religious tensions?

So, that's a rambling non-answer to your question...the short answer is: read everything you can find on the subjects at hand with an open mind, never forget the context of history and politics and the things that motivate us; and question absolutely everything - rinse and repeat.



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 04:23 PM
link   
The early Christian church was far from united on the topic of the crucifixion of Christ. You have to remember that crucifixion wasn't just a method of torture and execution. It was a particularly public and humiliating way of killing a man. So, it's no suprise that opinions varied.

Some Gnostics believed that Christ swapped bodies with Simon (the guy who is portaryed as carrying the cross after Jesus stumbled the third time). This view is supported by the Gnostic testement "The Acts of John" which is probably from around 450 CE.

Doceitism, an early heresy, held that Christ wasn't crucified but only a sort of illusion of his body. Some followers of this heresy went so far as to say that Christ never occupied a human body, but was a sort of divine Ghost.

As 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.

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.

As far as him not lasting very long on the cross (the Romans used the term loosely for any fixture to which one was crucified -- there were a variety of styles), you have to remember that he was treated than many people. The Gospels claim that Pilate was reluctant to take action against Jesus and finally only ordered his death when pressured to do so.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I find the cohort sent to arrest Jesus very suggestive that the "Lamb" image we have isn't the whole story.



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 10:27 PM
link   
In response to those points relative to the thread topic:


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, 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.


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.
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.


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.
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.


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.
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.


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.
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.


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.
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 not enough therefore to play fast and loose with the evidence to suit one’s purpose, for everytime you have to do this means that you have to make excuses for your beliefs.

There are several aspects within this post that further diminish the theology behind the Jesus figure, but since they have not been addressed I limit my response accordingly.



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Somewhereinbetween,

I have some trouble following a few of your arguments. Of necessity, it is the case that any argument concerning the crucifixion of Jesus will be based on a considerable amount of speculation and require some conclusions to drawn from scanty evidence.

I wasn't arguing, incidently, any particular side. I was just pointing out some other points to consider. My personal belief is that Pilate gets a bad rap from most Christians.

You are correct that nailing the hands wouldn't allow the body to be supported. Which is why many people think Christ was tied and nailed or nailed in the space between the bones in the wrist, which might hold the weight. In either case, it would cause blood loss.

I can't, however, agree that suffocation only occured after the legs were broken. People hung on a cross would have to hold their torso up in order to avoid breathing difficulty. After a very short time in this position, the muscles of the back begin to spasm. For relief, the victim leans forward, causing compression in the chest and limiting the ability to draw a full breath. Over time, this becomes increasingly difficult until finally the lungs fill with fluid and death results.

You are correct that the accounts only say that Christ was speared "in the side." But the account does say that a mixture of blood and water ran from the would, convincing the soldiers (who were experienced in crucifixion, especially in Jerusalem) that Jesus was dead. The best medical understanding, I think, is that they enthusiastically pierced the side and into the lung.

The word 'band' in the quote you give, is actually cohort -- which is a specific military term of the day which means about 600 men. (Reform of the Legions by Ceasar had taken full effect by then, so we can assume people weren't using the larger, pre-reform cohort size as a measure.)

Lastly, please don't say I'm defending my beliefs. I'm not. I'm just having a discussion about history. My beliefs are not affected by the reality or falsity of the accounts of a death two thousand years ago.



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 02:52 AM
link   
Interesting topic this is.
I have a slightly off-topic but also on-topic question regarding one story that is quite similar to Jesus resurrection.

A while ago I read a book about early christianity and the author mentioned something interesting (me being me, I forgot to write the names and dates down, now I can't remember anymore)
There was a prophet who appeared a few decades before Jesus. He preached the same message as Jesus, had a few followers, he was eventually captured, tortured, killed and then just left on the street for 3 days as an example to others. After 3 days the Prophet got up and walked away. ( I think this whole story happened in Jerusalem).
Witnesses called it a miraculous resurrection.
Apparently there was a whole movement of such prophets, all trying to fulfil the old prophecies.
The author of the book refered to him as Lost Prophet I think (or Forgotten Prophet), or something like that. I haven't been able to find anything on internet about him. Maybe some of you more knowledgable people have heard of this story and can shed more light on it....



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join