theory of the faked crucifixion of Jesus

If the Christians are right and Jesus was Divine, then mankind has the opportunity to once again "Know The Word Made Flesh". With the cooperation of the Roman Catholic Church, a miscellaneous artifact with His DNA could be released for forensic testing. The Bloodline of the Christ would once and for all time/mankind be known. I mean, they just gotta have a few spare pieces of the True Cross lying about, Right? How much blood-soaked wood would a good test take?

"CSI" meets "The DaVinci Code"!

I can almost see this happening under Pope Benny....Yeah, right, I got to get back on my Meds!

Originally posted by justme1640
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?

Interesting thought but I'm not qualified to give a medical opinion, either.

I've heard two different more knowledgeable historians argue each side about the removing of the body. One argues that bodies were never allowed to be removed because crucifixion by the Romans was never used for mere executions - they were only used for extreme cases (as a form of terrorism, if you will) for enemies of the state (which Jesus really was not to the Romans but, that's a different argument) and in order to make the example fulfill the requirement of "most hideous", bodies had to be left to, well, you know...
The other side seems to have cited instances where bodies were allowed to be removed. I'm still thinking about that though, in terms of punishment by execution, crucifixion was a helluvalot of trouble for the Romans to go through compared to a simple sword thrust, a stoning by a mob, starving in a cell, or a beheading (to which I find few references as a Roman method). The most common execution seems to have been simple stabbing with a sword or spear. Crucifixion required a lot of work just to make somebody dead.

So, for all those reasons, the use of crucifixion doesn't seem to fit with the NT story of Jesus' relationship with the Roman authorities nor does it seem to fit all that well with the relationship between the corrupt Jewish leaders and Pilate.

As an aside, it most certainly does not fit with what is commonly taught in Christian Sunday Schools about their being 2 theives along with him - common theft was never (to the best information I can find) punished by crucifixion - that part is just plain ridiculous!

Originally posted by Al Davison... I'm still thinking about that though, in terms of punishment by execution, crucifixion was a helluvalot of trouble for the Romans to go through compared to a simple sword thrust, a stoning by a mob, starving in a cell, or a beheading (to which I find few references as a Roman method). The most common execution seems to have been simple stabbing with a sword or spear. Crucifixion required a lot of work just to make somebody dead.

You are correct in a sense. The romans used crucifixion only for murderous crimes and crimes against Rome/Romans. When it came to Jews settling affairs with Jews, the usual death sentence was by stoning at the hands of Jews.

It is commonly only taught in Christian Sunday Schools about their being 2 theives along with him - common theft was never (to the best information I can find) punished by crucifixion - that part is just plain ridiculous!

Take a gander at MT 20:20;24 where the sons of Zebedee, John and James, with their mother approaches him (I'll overlook the discrepancy in the other gospel as to who asks for what) wanting to on either hand with him in his kingdom, then refer to MT27:38 for the very same description of the thieves crucified with him: "one on the right hand another on the left." Now for an interesting tidbit.

Josephus in his autobiography writes of a certain fellow named John Of Gischela who led a band of nasty men, robbing, looting and killing Jews of other towns as well as raising sedition against the Romans. The story has a Simon his brother, a James if memory serves, several Jesus' who are rather dispicable characters, including one Josephus refers to as a mariner, a Philip, a Joseph, a Jonathan, and even a Judas who betrays them. Best of all, it speaks to 12 messengers and seventy men sent out by them.

Now this John lived in Gaschala a very mountainous region NW of Capernum where he built a fortress like area and because the terrain made it difficult to be hunted. One day John was feeling a bit besieged and sent for his friend Jesus to assist with an uprising John wishes to bring about partly because of his demanding possession of corn that major commodity. I won't tell the rest, it is best read.

Now, Matthew writes that Jesus and his parents on their return from Egypt went to Nazareth to fulfill the prophecy. Luke prior to his birth, had Mary running into the hill country of Jud(e)a, (which is way south of Gischala) to speak with Elizabeth, then returning home to her own house. He also has He and Joseph leaving Galilee where they obviously live, to go into the city (way south again) to register for taxes.

Jesus meanwhile, according to Matthew, starts his preaching and heads off to Capernum which is at the NE tip of the Sea of Galilee, well north of Bethlehem and between Nazareth and Giscala, to the east. There he is up and down the mountains, leaving "a" house to sit by the seaside, and going in and out of boats crossing to the other side. When he hears that John is killed, he immediately sets sail across the Sea of Galilee for a desert place where he just happens to find 5,000 to raise an army, I mean preach to. He then follows a rather odd route via boat, to Genessaret and various places back to his abode at Capernum.

The story is fabulous and is found in extra detail throught four of Josephus' works. The autobiography with most of it, is not too long a read.
www.ccel.org...

Does anyone ever wonder how Jesus managed to have money? After all, the confusion his disciples had when he pegged Judas was because they thought he gave him money to buy provisions.

Does anyone ever wonder how Jesus managed to have money?

Maybe I missed something while I was scanning this thread, Howerver;

The tomb used belonged to his uncle, who was one of his followers, and quite rich (He was involved in import/Export with the romans), He is the one who "Bought" the body so it could be laid to rest. With the corruptability of Pilatte it's possible that this occured. It is also possible that when they raised a sponge to Christ that it contained a drug to impersonate death - it would have been something like ko drops. There are also roumors of a tunnel leading out of the tomb. (Which would likely also contain supplies for a few days)

So, Sure it's possible, and in my book quite plausable.

Also Currious is that Black Mary (Magdelin) did not recognise Christ when she saw him later, this is partly explained -> he was wearing a disguise, Ok, but if he was Really dead, and returning in "Spitit" why was a disguise necessasary?

Yes, I do concider myself a Christian (although More Gnostic than Christian)

Heres a wild theory, what if Jesus never existed, it was just a ploy to control the mases e.g Jesus died for your sins so you should not sin or burn in hell for eternity. basically to stop crime and so on.

[edit on 5-5-2005 by TerminatorX]

Originally posted by TerminatorX
Heres a wild theory, what if Jesus never existed, it was just a ploy to control the mases e.g Jesus died for your sins so you should not sin or burn in hell for eternity. basically to stop crime and so on.

What's wild about this theory? It's the same old 'brushing off reality' excuse for not investigating it. Jesus the crime stopper? The man was crucified like a theif for heresy. Just by believing in him, throughout history many, many people have been killed for it.

Pray, train, study.
God bless

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by TerminatorX
Heres a wild theory, what if Jesus never existed, it was just a ploy to control the mases e.g Jesus died for your sins so you should not sin or burn in hell for eternity. basically to stop crime and so on.

What's wild about this theory? It's the same old 'brushing off reality' excuse for not investigating it. Jesus the crime stopper? The man was crucified like a theif for heresy. Just by believing in him, throughout history many, many people have been killed for it.

Pray, train, study.
God bless

Have you met Jesus, if not how do u know he existed, thiers no evidence to prove he existed apart from pages in a book you need to get a grip on reality, and dont preach to me about jesus. I know if we are going to start worshiping characters in a book lets worship Bilbo Baggins.

Originally posted by TerminatorX
Have you met Jesus,

No, but I do know Him.

Originally posted by TerminatorX
if not how do u know he existed, thiers no evidence to prove he existed apart from pages in a book you need to get a grip on reality, and dont preach to me about jesus.

Maybe there's no evidence for you yet, but I talked to God about it and got my answer. An angel also told me to look to him too when I was getting off-track. I guess we each have to get our own proof. Aha, now questioning my grip on reality? Test me however you like. I doubt it will make a difference for you though. Again, want proof? Go get it. God isn't going to serve us up like a V.I.P customer at a fine restaraunt because He wants a relationship, which requires steps by both parties involved.

Originally posted by TerminatorX
I know if we are going to start worshiping characters in a book lets worship Bilbo Baggins.

Good luck finding him. Let me know if you need help getting out of the Misty Caverns.

God was good to me when he gave me muscular dystrophy.

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by TerminatorX
Heres a wild theory, what if Jesus never existed, it was just a ploy to control the mases e.g Jesus died for your sins so you should not sin or burn in hell for eternity. basically to stop crime and so on.

What's wild about this theory? It's the same old 'brushing off reality' excuse for not investigating it. Jesus the crime stopper? The man was crucified like a theif for heresy. Just by believing in him, throughout history many, many people have been killed for it.

Pray, train, study.
God bless

Just for the record, theives were not crucified by the Romans and neither were heretics. In fact, heresy wasn't even "invented" until a few hundred years later. (Maybe someone can check my facts but I think Constantine may have begun the practice. If not, we'd have to jump ahead to Innocent III.) Now, the Romans did use crucifixion for extreme acts of sedition and crimes against the empire but you really had to work at it to get yourself crucified - there was no value in crucifixion unless the person was rather well-known or part of a well-known band of rebels.

Originally posted by Al Davison
Just for the record, theives were not crucified by the Romans

Matthew 27:38 - "Two robbers were crucified with him, one on his right and one on his left".

Originally posted by Al Davison
and neither were heretics.

Notice Pontius Pilate refusing to do so as the Pharisee's requested. It took a lot more convincing. King of the Jews and all...

Originally posted by Al Davison
In fact, heresy wasn't even "invented" until a few hundred years later.

Aha! Semantics. Nice catch - the word heresy was not invented until later. *nods* What was it that the Pharisees accused him of in front of Pilate?

Originally posted by Al Davison
Now, the Romans did use crucifixion for extreme acts of sedition and crimes against the empire but you really had to work at it to get yourself crucified - there was no value in crucifixion unless the person was rather well-known or part of a well-known band of rebels.

I don't know how popular the robbers were. Do you?

[edit on 5-5-2005 by saint4God]

Do you ever read Robert Ludlum?
One of the best books I've ever read was The Gemini Contenders.
Very good read - it is along these same lines.

Well, Saint, I've recently read that this may be just another case of poor translation of the story. I don't have any of my sources here to cite but, it seems that the word that was translated as "theif" or "theives" was actually a word meaning something like "seditionist" or "conspirator". (I could use some help here from the more scholarly posters.)

Anyway, my main point is that the form of execution/punishment that we're discussing was primarily intended to send a very strong message to the general populace as an emphatic deterrant to those who would rise up against the empirial rulers. Hence, it was horrible in every sense of the word and very public. Not only was it intended to be a cruel death but it was also a desecration of the body by leaving it there to be picked over by carrion eaters and to decompose. It was carefully conceived for maximum impact.

I hold open the possibility that Pilate could have been persuaded to placate Caiphus by using this most extreme method of punishment to send a message to other Jews (and Jesists) that to challenge the authority of the Temple would meet with the same punishment as openly challenging the authority of Rome. Persuading Pilate to do their dirty-work also circumvented the Jewish laws against desecration of a body. But, if that were the case, then how did Pilate then reverse himself and allow the removal of the body almost immediately after the death.

These are some of the questionable parts of the story - still possible but just not consistent.

Originally posted by Al Davison
Well, Saint, I've recently read that this may be just another case of poor translation of the story. I don't have any of my sources here to cite but, it seems that the word that was translated as "theif" or "theives" was actually a word meaning something like "seditionist" or "conspirator". (I could use some help here from the more scholarly posters.)

You are doing just fine. Trust me when I tell you that the two thieves line was a sucker punch which hit only air.

The Roman laws of that time are available for all to find for those who want to be enterprising, and they distinctly state that crucifixion was left to the equivalent of what we might call capital crimes today. Robbing some old codger in a dark alley unless it was a Roman, was not subject to such a penalty. Further, and as you allude, heresy when it came to Roman-Hebrew relations at the time of the 3 tetrarchs, even nasty old Herod the Great himself previously, did not extend to the Jews in Judea, because by imperical decree, they were excused from honouring the Roman gods, and were explicitly permitted right to their own religion.



[edit on 5/5/05 by SomewhereinBetween]

Originally posted by Al Davison
Well, Saint, I've recently read that this may be just another case of poor translation of the story. I don't have any of my sources here to cite but, it seems that the word that was translated as "theif" or "theives" was actually a word meaning something like "seditionist" or "conspirator". (I could use some help here from the more scholarly posters.)

If true, How does this 'earth-shattering' revelation make any difference?

Originally posted by Al Davison
Anyway, my main point is that the form of execution/punishment that we're discussing was primarily intended to send a very strong message to the general populace as an emphatic deterrant to those who would rise up against the empirial rulers. Hence, it was horrible in every sense of the word and very public. Not only was it intended to be a cruel death but it was also a desecration of the body by leaving it there to be picked over by carrion eaters and to decompose. It was carefully conceived for maximum impact.

*shrug*. I'm good to go with those crucified being well-known or at least to set an example not to mess with the empire. Gruesome executions usually were. Again, don't see anything earth-shattering here either.

Originally posted by Al Davison
I hold open the possibility that Pilate could have been persuaded to placate Caiphus by using this most extreme method of punishment to send a message to other Jews (and Jesists) that to challenge the authority of the Temple would meet with the same punishment as openly challenging the authority of Rome. Persuading Pilate to do their dirty-work also circumvented the Jewish laws against desecration of a body. But, if that were the case, then how did Pilate then reverse himself and allow the removal of the body almost immediately after the death.

The answer is in Matthew 27:57 "As evening approached, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus. Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus' body, and Pilate ordered that it be given to him. Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock. He rolled a big stone in front of the entrance to the tomb and went away."

A rich man asked Pilate...hm. One of two conclussions a person can draw from that:
1.) Joe of Arimathea had enough influence as a rich guy of his land that he was pretty much used to getting his say.
2.) Joe paid Pilate for the body.

I'd go with #2. Nothing rang like a bell in the empire moreso than the sound of gold coins.

Originally posted by Al Davison
These are some of the questionable parts of the story - still possible but just not consistent.

There was some confusion what exactly happened on the resurrection, which is why I believe we have four accounts of the situation. Reading the four, I've come to the conclusion that they happened according to their perspectives. It's like debating who made Jesus' shoes. Who cares, it had no bearing on the fact that he walked on water.

[edit on 6-5-2005 by saint4God]

Saint - a very reasonable set of responses. Thank you.

I can agree that from a perspective of the core of Christianity, the points I was just making would not be anything to shake the ground.

Since my perspective is along the lines of the history and reconciling the various accounts (this is just an area of intellectual interest of mine; you could call it a hobby), a lot of the details here are fascinating for me to explore. It has never been, nor will it ever be, my goal to try to change another person's beliefs. As a non-Christian, I am under no charge to convert others to my way of thinking or believing.

What makes all of this so interesting to me is the incredible impact that the NT has on the world. I've got enough background and experience to understand the faith side. No need for me or anyone else to even go there. It's more along the lines of how much and which parts of what we accept as history are really what happened.

I think you're a shining example of how a devout Christian can participate meaningfully in these kinds of discussions. I've never known you to whack anybody upside their head with your faith. Keep it up!

Originally posted by Al Davison
Saint - a very reasonable set of responses. Thank you.

Sure thing. I love a discussion where both parties can at least see where the other is coming from so kudos right back at ya

Originally posted by Al Davison
I can agree that from a perspective of the core of Christianity, the points I was just making would not be anything to shake the ground.

Since my perspective is along the lines of the history and reconciling the various accounts (this is just an area of intellectual interest of mine; you could call it a hobby), a lot of the details here are fascinating for me to explore. It has never been, nor will it ever be, my goal to try to change another person's beliefs. As a non-Christian, I am under no charge to convert others to my way of thinking or believing.

Neither am I, thank God for that. I could not image a bunch of people who think like me running around . That's why I'm always pointing people to talk to God directly. Going through a vessel like me all the time isn't going to give someone exactly what they need in the way they need it. Though I do my best to keep my personal opinions out of it, I know I cause interference without my realiztion of it. He loves me anyway though, works with me to get it right and for that I'm eternally grateful.

Originally posted by Al Davison
What makes all of this so interesting to me is the incredible impact that the NT has on the world. I've got enough background and experience to understand the faith side. No need for me or anyone else to even go there. It's more along the lines of how much and which parts of what we accept as history are really what happened.

I think the primary challenge to the Bible is that people see the words as 'the dead-word'. Something that happened but isn't happening. God is still there, Jesus' words still apply, and we can have the daily relationship needed to be spiritually complete each and every day.

Originally posted by Al Davison
I think you're a shining example of how a devout Christian can participate meaningfully in these kinds of discussions. I've never known you to whack anybody upside their head with your faith. Keep it up!

Double thanks! I do worry about that sometimes (and yes, have been chastised for worrying so much. I should explain more as my next blog entry when I can get to it). If you or anyone sees me out of line, call me out, please! Even if I 'snap back' I'm sure I'll shortly recognize that I went with my will instead of God's will. Anger, fear, and hate have no place in the kingdom of God. Also thank you for your patience. There's a lot of viewpoints I do not understand and the ones you've brought up had me doing homework, which is the best way to learn.

[edit on 6-5-2005 by saint4God]

You both exemplify the word 'adult', to me. Kudos and bravo. I was starting to wonder if there were any people so respectful and courteous in this bunch. My faith is renewed.

Originally posted by TerminatorX
God was good to me when he gave me muscular dystrophy.

Hi,

I am one of Jesus believers as well. I cannot say I understand the grief that you have gone through with this disease. My wife was a missionary and now a nurse who works with and often is present when terminal cancer patients die. She also sees suffering on a daily basis and counsels families and patients on how to make the best of someone's final days. Some have died with agonizing cancers riddled through their bodies. She has made friends with the patients who have died and I can remember her getting sick from exhaustion after one friend died.

There are several points I should make here.

1. God provides many blessings for us on the earth, many of which we take for granted on a minute-by-minute basis.

2. I don't know why some people contract diseases, are born blind, have birth defects, are injured or killed. It is clear that nothing happens to anyone unless the Lord has allowed it. It is clear that God will curse a family line to the third and fourth generation for their ancestor's sins. It is also clear that some are sick to demonstrate the power of God in healing.

In the last two years, I have become painfully aware that the church, the saints who follow Jesus, have let you down. I am convinced that there is a power and authority over disease, like muscular dystrophy, to heal people as they accept the gospel of Christ. It was also intended that the power of God would confirm the Word of God wherever we go, but we have let you down. Healings are rare and the church has somehow come to believe that we cannot or are not supposed to be doing this now. For all of this, I am deeply sorry.

I am praying that Jesus will show me how to once again assume the position intended for me as one of His followers. Jesus said, "all these signs will follow those who believe, they will heal the sick, they will cast out demons (I was delivered in 1999)" and other signs that demonstrate that the grace of God overcomes the curse of sin and its consequences in this world.

It is possible and maybe even likely that the outpouring of God's spirit in the next few years (called the "latter rain") will restore that power and authority that we gave up, gave away (I don't completely understand how yet, but I am convinced that it happened) over the centuries and that, if you can be open to healing then, you can be healed of this.

3. This life, in comparison to eternity with Jesus in the kingdom of God, is a mere blink. Some of the saints will be martyred in extreme persecution in the next 10 years and some die in Sudan andother muslim countries (try reading Voice of the Martyrs) for simply believing in Jesus. it is estimated that, around the world, 80,000 Christians are being martyred per year right now. That is some 220 per day or about one every 6 minutes in the world, simply for believing in Jesus as I do. This persecution will come to the US in droves in the next 10 years and I will be a target.

Because of the eternal perspective of God, while He knows the pain and agony of suffering, He allows it for an eternal purpose. It is always true that God causes all things to work for our eternal good and that may not mean that we are comfortable in the physical world in the process. There is something in the human internal makeup that requires suffering in its various forms to conform the character and soul of a person to become more like Jesus. Mankind has continually (look at the US now) rejected the Lordship of Christ and gone our own way when surrounded by comforts and blessings. I really wish this was not the case, but it has proven true in my life and those other believers I know.,

4. It is God alone who understands what it takes to draw each person to the Lord for their eternal good. I cannot claim to understand all of the particulars of why and how, but the conceptions and plans of the God who knows each of us deep in our hearts individually cannot be constrained to ways that make sense only to mankind all the time.

These answers always seem simplistic to the one suffering, I know. Please know that I am trying to help and understand.

[edit on 10-5-2005 by managerie]

[edit on 10-5-2005 by managerie]

OK, I somehow completely fail to understand how this last post is in anyway relevant to the discussion of the facts concerning a particular historical (or not) event.

Care to explain? I'm all ears.