theory of the faked crucifixion of Jesus

One of the main challenges of the Christian resurrection is that as long as is keep in the bible is not arguing.

The only documents that are to prove it are in fact the New Testament Gospels and occurs they were written by Christian believers to enlist others into believing that the Resurrection indeed happened.

Everything was written down to prove one thing and one thing only that Jesus was real and that he was the son of God and that he was resurrected we have entire gospels to repeat over and over that is true.

One fact that cannot be proven is that the body of Jesus was never produced so that is a prof that he was resurrected but another fact also included that are no records beside Christian and bible records that Jesus was ever buried.

So again the dependency on the bible for believes and reassurance comes again as a necessity.

The problem is that people like me ask for more evidence while a believer doesn’t need anything else.

Then we have the fact that the evidence of the accounts of Jesus resurrection also contradicts each other.

Then We must question how an omnipotent God has to bring his Son in a poor setting in an effort to fulfill a prophecy and to show that he is real, reason tells is all human made,I find it very inadequate and too human like to be divinely make.

Then to bind believers the story about dying for our sins comes to center state, excuse me by incredibility but how in the world an all-powerful God has to show any proves of himself, when he can very much erase us out of the universe and start all over again, another prof of human feeling in the concept of God.

Funny that for 70 years after Jesus death and resurrection it was completely forgotten until the revival of Christianity from a sect to a religious movement.

And then the magical gospels and the base of Christianity were born.

Yes, today Christianity is a Religion of faith, because if you dig enough in History it will leave you with a bad taste in your mouth.

Maybe the new testament is a myth?

As for the author's point number two, Jesus was beat 39 times with a cat-of-nine-tails, a whip made out of bits of broken glass, animal bones, and pieces of iron, so it would lodge into the flesh and rip it apart with each whipping.. This was called "scourging". Scourging and crucifixion were both done quite commonly at the time, but it was always one or the other, if the prisoner lived through scourging (which he normally didn't), he was considered punished and released. Crucifixion and scourging were never done together, until the crucifixion of Jesus, so that would explain the swiftness of his death.

OK, that's an interesting point that one could read either way:

A) what you just stated is factual and presents good reason for the "unusually" swift death;

- or-

B) it points out yet another of the historical inaccuracies surrounding the event (perhaps the authors/editors were not aware that scourging and crucifixion were mutually exclusive punishments)

I'm not arguing for "A" or "B" - just pointing out that there are clearly 2 ways to read this and, IMO, each is equally plausible.


[edit on 23-4-2005 by Al Davison]

"Faked crucifiction"?The hole story about JC is fiction and myth,as well as
the New as the Old Testament:inform yourselves;the truth about these
tales are even available for reading online.
The hole story is a copy of all those savior-gods that lived up to thousands
of years before JC;so,there has been no crucifixion or resurection of the
last known savoir-god and everything is nothing else than worshipping
the Sun,the "Sol Invictus".
Baloria

Originally posted by baloria
"Faked crucifiction"?The hole story about JC is fiction and myth,as well as
the New as the Old Testament:inform yourselves;the truth about these
tales are even available for reading online.
The hole story is a copy of all those savior-gods that lived up to thousands
of years before JC;so,there has been no crucifixion or resurection of the
last known savoir-god and everything is nothing else than worshipping
the Sun,the "Sol Invictus".
Baloria

And so we all should GET ONLINE and learn the mysteries of life?

Gee I love the internet!
I have learnt so much!
C'mon ............you mean to tell me that you actually beleive everything that you read?
Especially on the IN-TER-NET.....something like ....get into the net (WEB....yes, we are all caught into the WEB! )

QUOTE//
Many prophecies of the Old Testament foretell the resurrection of the Messiah.
Among them are those places in the Holy Scriptures which say that the Messiah shall be not only a person but also God and,
therefore,
immortal by His divine nature.
See,
for example, the following texts: Psalms: 2, 45 and 110; Gen. 9:6; Jer. 23:5; Mich. 5:2; Mal. 3:1. Prophecies which predict the eternity of Christ's Kingdom indirectly refer to His resurrection — because an eternal kingdom implies an immortal king. See Gen. 49:10; 2 Samuel 7:13; Psalm 132:11; Ezek. 37:24; Dan. 7:13.

The clearest prophecy about the resurrection of Christ is the one pronounced by Isaiah 700 years before Christ.
This prophecy occupies the whole 53rd chapter of his book. Isaiah,
after describing the sufferings of Christ in detail as if he were standing right beside the foot of the Cross,
finishes his narration with the following words:
"They assigned to Him a grave with the wicked,
but He was buried in a rich man's,
because He did not sin nor His mouth did say any lies.
But God saw fit for Him to suffer,
and to put Him to torment.
But when His soul shall make a sacrifice of appeasement,
He shall see life eternal. And God's will shall be successfully fulfilled by His hand.
He shall look benevolently upon the exploits of His soul.
Through His knowledge,
the Just,
My Servant,
shall justify many and shall carry their sins upon Himself.
Therefore,
I shall give Him a place among the great and He shall share a prize with the strong." The concluding words of this prophecy clearly say that the Messiah, after His redeeming suffering and death,
shall come to life and shall be glorified by God the Father.

The resurrection of Christ was also predicted by King David in the 16th Psalm, in which David says on behalf of Jesus:
"Always have I seen God before me,
because He has me in His right hand,
I shall not quake … Therefore My heart has been filled with joy,
and My tongue has become merry.
Even My flesh shall rest in hope.
For You shall not leave My soul in hell nor allow Your Holy one to see putrefaction.
You shall indicate to Me the path of life.
A plenitude of joy before Thy face, bliss in Your right hand — forever" (Ps. 16:9-11, see also Acts 2:25 and 13:35).

Thus,
these prophets laid down for their people a foundation of faith toward the advent and the resurrection of the Messiah.
That is why the Apostles so successfully spread among the Hebrews the belief that Christ was resurrected from the dead,
despite all the obstacles that were perpetrated by the religious leaders of the Jewish nation.

As all die in Adam,
so in Christ shall all revive" (1 Cor. 15:22).
These Apostolic words expound upon not only the physical resurrection of people,
but, in the first place, upon spiritual rebirth.
As death can be either physical or spiritual (when the soul loses divine grace), so resurrection can be either physical (when the soul returns to its body) or spiritual (when the soul acquires the grace of God).
The spiritual death of Adam,
coming from the loss of communication with God, preceded his physical death. Death,
because of moral damage,
has come from Adam to all mankind.
The resurrection of Christ constitutes the beginning of our spiritual resurrection, the awakening of spiritual longing in us toward our moral rebirth.

Referring to this spiritual resurrection of believers our Lord said: "Time is coming,
and has already come,
when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God,
and having heard it — shall come to life" (John 5:25).
This is that "first" resurrection which the Book of Revelations discloses (Rev. 20:5).

www.fatheralexander.org...


AND......
“For these things were done,” i.e.
not only the piercing of the side,
but also that the Lord’s legs were not broken,
“that the Scripture should be fulfilled.”
This was foretold in the Book of Exodus 12:46: the Paschal lamb, transfiguration of the Lord Jesus Christ,
had to be eaten without any bones being broken and what remained,
had to be burned.
There is another section of the Bible that prophesies: “they shall look unto me whom they have pierced” (Zach. 12:10).
In this segment,
Jehovah is depicted as the Messiah that had been pierced by His people,
and having looked upon the wounded Messiah,
the same people are presented as bringing penitence with weeping and sobbing before Him.
These words are slowly being fulfilled with the Jews that condemned Christ to death — and will continue to be fulfilled to the end of the world,
when there will be a universal conversion of Jews to Christ, as foretold by Saint Apostle Paul in his Epistle to the Romans 11:25-26.

helen.....

Why not helen?
It's obvious that you believe everything that you read.

Originally posted by freddieb
Why not helen?
It's obvious that you believe everything that you read.

freddie........who says that I beleive everything that I read?

helen...

I am technically 'mad' cuz I don't think like 'them'. That is insanity.
I say that all this self assured certainty about Jesus is silly. Nobody knows for sure. Heck, no one knows who shot Kennedy 40 yrs. ago, how can they be sure what happened 2000 yrs. ago?
He may have survived the crucifixion, if he existed, but imho, it wasn't faked, he was just rescued, and the Romans were tricked into thinking he was dead. Just my view, no more.

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
I am technically 'mad' cuz I don't think like 'them'. That is insanity.
I say that all this self assured certainty about Jesus is silly. Nobody knows for sure. Heck, no one knows who shot Kennedy 40 yrs. ago, how can they be sure what happened 2000 yrs. ago?
He may have survived the crucifixion, if he existed, but imho, it wasn't faked, he was just rescued, and the Romans were tricked into thinking he was dead. Just my view, no more.

Hey blackGuard....

You say that Jesus Christ may have survived the crucifiction!

It was foretold in the Old Testament what would happen......
Quote///“For these things were done,”
i.e.
not only the piercing of the side,
but also that the Lord’s legs were not broken,
“that the Scripture should be fulfilled.”
This was foretold in the Book of Exodus 12:46: the Paschal lamb, transfiguration of the Lord Jesus Christ,
had to be eaten without any bones being broken and what remained,
had to be burned.
There is another section of the Bible that prophesies: “they shall look unto me whom they have pierced” (Zach. 12:10).
In this segment,
Jehovah is depicted as the Messiah that had been pierced by His people,
and having looked upon the wounded Messiah,
the same people are presented as bringing penitence with weeping and sobbing before Him.
These words are slowly being fulfilled with the Jews that condemned Christ to death — and will continue to be fulfilled to the end of the world,
when there will be a universal conversion of Jews to Christ, as foretold by Saint Apostle Paul in his Epistle to the Romans 11:25-26.

helen......

If we start with crediting the prophecies of the crucifixion in the OT, then how do we get to the point of believing that the authors/editors of the NT stories did not also use those prophecies as an "outline" for their stories?

Once again, I'm not saying that this is absolutely what happened. I'm just saying that there are still too many parts of this story that don't really jive with the historical record (see the many previous posts for examples too numerous to repeat).

I know if I were going to craft a new religion, I'd certainly want to begin with most of the parts that most people already believed. Pulling from many well-traveled tales that people all over the world already accepted would be a great place to start. In fact, it was virtually requred that you begin the stories of any new God-head with a virgin birth - that was formulaic. Persecution and execution by non-believers was also part of the formula - it seems to justify the new doctrine if the "old boys" fought so hard against it that they would resort to violence. That's been a tried-and-true formula that has worked since recorded history.


Given the historical and political contexts of the times, there is plenty of room for doubt, I think.

[edit on 24-4-2005 by Al Davison]

Styrofoam nails with glue on the ends? Colored corn syrup instead of blood? Floggings with cotton whips? Barbed crown made with 'push-in' thorns?

Also, what's with all the bitterness? I don't understand what the big deal is to non-believers whether he was killed not if they're not going to believe he was the son of God anyway.

(posted by Saint4God)
I don't understand what the big deal is to non-believers whether he was killed not if they're not going to believe he was the son of God anyway.

This is an improper concept, if not a sacrilegious or blasphemous one, for Islam, as explained in at least two passages of the Koran:

1) Surah V, 171: "(...) say not 'Three' --Cease! (it is) better for you!-- Allah is only One God. Far is it removed from His transcendent majesty that He should have a son."

2) Surah XIX, 35: "It befitteth not (the majesty of ) Allah that He should take unto Himself a son."

This is not to go around stepping on others' tender toes, but just to point out a glaring incongruence between two Sacred Scriptures.
*

[edit on 3-5-2005 by Macrento]

Originally posted by Macrento

(posted by Saint4God)
I don't understand what the big deal is to non-believers whether he was killed not if they're not going to believe he was the son of God anyway.

This is an improper concept, if not a sacrilegious or blasphemous one, for Islam, as explained in at least two passages of the Koran:

1) Surah V, 171: "(...) say not 'Three' --Cease! (it is) better for you!-- Allah is only One God. Far is it removed from His transcendent majesty that He should have a son."

2) Surah XIX, 35: "It befitteth not (the majesty of ) Allah that He should take unto Himself a son."

This is not to go around stepping on others' tender toes, but just to point out a glaring incongruence between two Sacred Scriptures.
*

Huh? To say I don't understand a non-believer's position on something is improper, if not a sacrilegious or blasphemous? Please explain.

[edit on 3-5-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by Al Davison
the book, Holy Blood, Holy Grail by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln has an interesting (and pretty wild, maybe) consipiracy theory about how the whole crucifixion of Jesus might have been faked. Other books have referred to some parts of the story from the Gospels that just don't add up to anything remotely close to a typical Roman execution of an enemy of Rome (which is precisely what this form of execution was used for - not common crimes).

The points the authors make that are most compelling about how fishy this story is that I found most believable:
1) dead bodies were never removed from the crosses - they were left to rot and be picked over by the birds; burials were refused as part of the punishment
2) people rarely died quickly and sometimes didn't die at all (so, there were some escapes?) unless they had not been provided with support for their feet - that was considered a more merciful death
3) the Jewish leaders who supposedly asked Pilate to assist or order the crucifiction were said to have met at times that were specifically prohibited by Jewish law - this seems just really clumsy story-telling on the part of the Gospels; plus, these leaders were perfectly within their authority to execute Jesus on their own without involving Roman authorities
4) there was a private tomb near the site of this crucifixion ? really? no way!

OK, I am now prepared to have you all tell me how preposterous all of this is and, indeed, it may be. I'm not saying I believe all of it. But, I can't find any info that refutes it other than the Gospels themselves and writers who say that whatever is in the Gospels must be believed in spite of any evidence to the contrary.

Fire away!

This is how I started off this thread - just to bring us back to the subject of an historically important tale of an execution. Forget for a moment, if you can, about divinity (if you can't then perhaps you are in the wrong discussion) and let's focus on HISTORY and conflicting accounts of the EVENT.

What has Kenneth Humphrys to say about this subject:
What should alert us to wholesale fakery here is that practically all the events of Jesus’s supposed life appear in the lives of mythical figures of far more ancient origin. Whether we speak of miraculous birth, prodigious youth, miracles or wondrous healings – all such 'signs' had been ascribed to other gods, centuries before any Jewish holy man strolled about. Jesus’s supposed utterances and wisdom statements are equally common place, being variously drawn from Jewish scripture, neo-Platonic philosophy or commentaries made by Stoic and Cynic sages.
www.jesusneverexisted.com...
Baloria

Originally posted by baloria
What has Kenneth Humphrys to say about this subject:
What should alert us to wholesale fakery here is that practically all the events of Jesus’s supposed life appear in the lives of mythical figures of far more ancient origin. Whether we speak of miraculous birth, prodigious youth, miracles or wondrous healings – all such 'signs' had been ascribed to other gods, centuries before any Jewish holy man strolled about. Jesus’s supposed utterances and wisdom statements are equally common place, being variously drawn from Jewish scripture, neo-Platonic philosophy or commentaries made by Stoic and Cynic sages.
www.jesusneverexisted.com...
Baloria

Bull. Have a nice day.

still reading...and reading every link...quite an interesting read with plenty of sources that support what many others have posted in very general terms (not a criticism of any kind)...


Thanks for the references!

I remain without a firm opinion on this but, collecting information is always a good thing.

(of course, all of this will inevitably lead to more research regarding the author - the fun never stops)

[edit on 3-5-2005 by Al Davison]

this is little off topic but this is my favorite part, so far:

" We can trace the subsequent elevation of Nazareth in the Gospel of Luke. Luke is the writer who emphasizes JC's ties to 'Nazareth.' Luke is the writer who goes out of his way to demonstrate an anti-Capernaum stance. Scholars have concluded Luke was not a Jew himself because of his 'glaring errors in things Jewish'. He also makes mistakes in his geography. He knows little about the place and in his mini-drama describes an impossible incident:

'... and brought him to the precipice of the mountain that their city was built upon.'
(Luke 4).


Nazareth, in fact, is located in a depression, set within gentle hills. The whole region is characterized by plains and mild rises with no sharp peaks or steep cliffs. The terrain is correctly understood as a high basin, for in one direction is the much lower Plain of Esdraelon. But there is no disguising Nazareth is built in a valley and not on a mountain. Even the mediaeval town sat below the summit – protected from the wind. Beginning only in 1957, the Jewish suburb called 'Nazerat Illit' ('Upper Nazareth') was built to the top of the hills to the east of the city.


www.jesusneverexisted.com...
Foreground
(below that pointy building): – supposed location of 1st century 'city' of Nazareth


Background & right:
www.jesusneverexisted.com...
'Mount of Precipice' (aka 'Lord's Leap')

Perhaps the Multitude might really have threatened to roll JC down the slope?

It would take quite some time to get from the downtown 'synagogue' and scramble to the top of the 'cliff'!"

Kinda funny, really.

[edit on 3-5-2005 by Al Davison]

Quoting what Baloria hath quoted:

"What has Kenneth Humphrys to say about this subject:

" 'What should alert us to wholesale fakery here is that practically all the events of Jesus’s supposed life appear in the lives of mythical figures of far more ancient origin. Whether we speak of miraculous birth, prodigious youth, miracles or wondrous healings – all such 'signs' had been ascribed to other gods, centuries before any Jewish holy man strolled about. Jesus’s supposed utterances and wisdom statements are equally common place, being variously drawn from Jewish scripture, neo-Platonic philosophy or commentaries made by Stoic and Cynic sages. ' "

Forgetting, for a moment, about divinity, in order to honor the request that we concentrate on the subject of the present thread, and discuss the "conflicting accounts" of the execution, Baloria brings up a vital matter: that the man called Jesus might be merely a mythical character, like Moses and Abraham...in which case discussing the authenticity of any of the particulars relating to a life that never was would be pointless.

In the 70s the medium Jane Roberts published a series of books in which she presented the messages of an entity calling itself Seth. I'm not trying here to recruit people for another zany cult. All I'll say is that these books seem to me to be far more convincing than many of the passages in a Holy Writ that the scholars have shown to have been corrupted by thousands of copyists and Church authorities with an axe to grind, and that this is what Seth has to say about Jesus: "There were three men whose lives became confused in history and merged, and whose composite history became known as the life of Christ (...)."
*

[edit on 3-5-2005 by Macrento]

Ok I'm not a doctor nor do I play one on television but maybe we have one on here who can answer a question....

Everyone is pointing out that Jesus had to be dead because of the fluid mix that came out when he was stabbed with the lance -- is it possible that he hadn't died yet but was near death and that when he was stabbed and the fluid was released it saved him rather than killed him?