theory of the faked crucifixion of Jesus

Originally posted by Al Davison
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.

What this poster has done is tried as best as he could to offer words of comfort and support to someone whom he felt needed them. His faith is apparent in his words of solace, and his compassion compelled him to reply to the referred poster whose personal trials he hoped to explain.
You likely knew that, I assume.

Perhaps an apology, from me, is in order.

I fear that the message to which I responded too quickly and without compassion was separated in my train of thought on that day from the previous message to which the poster was responding. I had grown impatient with the evangelistic responses which seemed to appear all too frequently in the midst of these discussions and simply reacted. I mistakenly assumed this was just another of them.

Now that I see the context, I know that I behaved as a cad and I am embarrassed. Please accept my sincere apology.

Al

Originally posted by helen670

It was foretold in the Old Testament what would happen......

Trying to fit Jesus into the Tanakh (OT) is like trying to stuff a fat man into a Speedo. Eventually, it falls apart at the seams.

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.

I would love to suggest a course in basic Judaism. That would seriously help you understand your "proof" texts. "It shall be eaten in one house: you shall not take any of the flesh outside the house; nor shall you break a bone of it." So let's see. Who ate Jesus? Exodus 12:46 is two of the 613 mitzvohs. And literally, it's part of the rules for Pesach. In case you don't know, the bone used is representative of the lamb's blood on the doorposts in Egypt.

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.

I'm going to assume you mean Zechariah. Christians tend to use the above as part of a second coming prophecy which is NOT a part of Judaism. All of the messianic scriptures in the Tanakh are about a first coming. Now as if you are reading any other book, you must read the entire paragraph to get the meaning. "In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the Valley of Megiddo." Let's look at the keyword....as. The prophecy is about the General of the Israeli Army in the final war of the world. He will be killed and the Jews will mourn his death like that of King Josiah. I think it's kind of funny and odd at the same time that Christians use this as a second coming prophecy when John refers to it as a first coming (19.37).

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.

I guess it won't be the first time a Jew will die at the hands of Christianity. But seriously, you don't seem to have any working knowledge of what the Jewish mosiach will be. IF Jesus had a sperm donor, then he could claim the tribal heritage. In Jewish law, a Jew is a Jew by way of the mother. The father provides the tribal heritage should he also be a Jew (and technically, he should be). Joseph was said to be of the House of David which would give Jesus ONE messianic prophecy fulfillment. The other things such as the river in Egypt running dry, new fruit on the trees in Israel each month, death ceases, the dead resurrected, an ingathering of Israel, all Jews will agree, etc would have happened. We can see that none of that happened. Another thing that has gotten twisted is that the mosiach is NOT G-d, nor is he part of G-d. There have been plenty other "messiahs" throughout the history of Judaism, including Moses, etc. If I had to pick a place for Jesus to appear in the Tanakh, it would be embedded in the parshas Emor about the Jewish woman with the Egyptian suitor whose son blasphemes G-d and is put to death. Look closely and the Hebrew name for Jesus just very well may appear!

Other than the writings of Josephus and the NT, are there any other ancient documents that mention Jesus? Other than the NT is there any other document that decribes the death, burial or resurection? I ask this because most people get their impression of this series of events from the NT. If we are to exclude the NT as a basis for our belief, what do we use to base our opinions? And how could a conspiracy of this magnitude have been kept secret for 2000 years.

Originally posted by darkelf
Other than the writings of Josephus and the NT, are there any other ancient documents that mention Jesus? Other than the NT is there any other document that decribes the death, burial or resurection? I ask this because most people get their impression of this series of events from the NT. If we are to exclude the NT as a basis for our belief, what do we use to base our opinions? And how could a conspiracy of this magnitude have been kept secret for 2000 years.

Daniel, Isaiah, Ezekiel, I'm sure there's more around and in that general area. That's just off the top of my head. I know there are people who don't believe this fit's Jesus' description, so I say read it and talk to God.

Pray, train, study,
God bless.

Thanks Saint, I am familiar with OT prophecies and the fullfillment thereof in the NT. I should have quantified my question by including OT also. My point was if we take away the Bible, what proof do we have of the death, burial and resurrection?

OP wanted a discussion on this theory without using the Bible as a source for what we believe to be the truth. I was asking if he knew of any other source.

I always thought Jesus did die at the cross and then Mary fled to France and gave birth to Sarah. Although I watched a show the other day and it talked of a primitive anasthetic at the time of Jesus. Now when someone was crucified, Romans would put a sponge soaked in vinegar to their nose to see if they were alive. The anastehic could have been mixed into the sponge and thats how Jesus survived the cross. All the paintings of Him on the cross are wrong because on all of them He has no support for his feet, if that was the case His arms would tear off because of the pressure. If support is added to the feet this pressure is instantly relieved, allowing some to survive on hte cross, in pain, for days......

Originally posted by Atomix
I always thought Jesus did die at the cross and then Mary fled to France and gave birth to Sarah.

Why do you beleive this completely unsupported and rather modern theory??

The anastehic could have been mixed into the sponge and thats how Jesus survived the cross.

This is an interesting idea, but there is no mixture known from back then that could've done this. Seems possible, but nothing to actually indicate that its true.

His arms would tear off because of the pressure.

I don't know about that. But what is thought is that the nails couldn't've been driven into the palms of the hand, because then they'd just be sitting in raw flesh, but if they were hammered into the wrist or thereabouts, there is actual bone and sinew to support the person's weight.

anastehic would not help the blood loss... only the pain. No?

I think he may be suggesting that an anesthetic would make Jesus appear to dead. Then he could be revived later on. I doubt that they had any anesthetic strong enough to reduce the pain by very much, let alone mimic death.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by Atomix
I always thought Jesus did die at the cross and then Mary fled to France and gave birth to Sarah.

Why do you beleive this completely unsupported and rather modern theory??

Because I'm not very good at deciding for myself.... And I saw a test where thay gave a guy spesial gloves that were attached to a cross and the pain in his arms went away when his feet were supported. Power to the people!!!

Wow, an honest answer.

Keep searching, you'll find the truth.

Originally posted by darkelf
I think he may be suggesting that an anesthetic would make Jesus appear to dead. Then he could be revived later on. I doubt that they had any anesthetic strong enough to reduce the pain by very much, let alone mimic death.

K

At the point Christ was done being scourged, it was only a matter of time. The cross at this point was the humiliation and speeded it up.

'Isa 52:14 As many were astonished at you-- his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance, and his form beyond that of the children of mankind--
'

He was turned into hamburger meat. Once that was done, ...

" 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"

yeah true, but Jesus was beaten till he was unreckonisable, his guts were hanging out of him, if they had sat him in a chair I would doubt he could live for a few hours in that condition, let alone hanging on a cross. cant be applied to Jesus, he was beaten more than anyone else put on the cross

I have not heard of this one before !!!

Until the day that God himslef comes and takes His people away, there will always be the ones that try to discredit HIM.

As God himself said " He is not the ruler of earth but satan " The prince and power of the airs. God gave this earth over to satan to prove HIS law of "FREE WILL" Without a satan we would not have a free will.

So far everything that I have read has absolutley no validity to it at all to support that the crucifixion was faked ? Need to look into this further in history and get a history lesson on crucifixion.

God never said it would be easy to believe. It takes Faith !

Like said by someone previously- I would rather believe and become a good person in society from beleiving God's word than to turn my back and lose my soul. In laymen common sense terms. It's not worth gambling your own soul.

Anyway- Keep searching !

maybe you guys missed the part where scourging and crucifixion were basically mutually exclusive punishments - it's probably unlikely that both were done...rather than proof that Jesus died, it's more likely that it's proof that the story was embellished, no?

Sorry, but I'm having real troubles believing that. No doubt because I've never heard that in or out of Church.. perhaps I have been brain washed to the point of total disbelief that this thread could even exist?

Dallas

As a product of both Christian and Jewish Sunday Schools and adult bible studies, I can understand where Dallas is coming from - all the Christian churches discourage and admonish all doubters and questioners of fact.

In Judaism, it's practically a requirement to question everything! It's even a long-standing Jewish tradition to publish the "minority report" - try finding that in your Christian texts.

where in Christianity or church are you not supposed to ask questions? I've been to a good number of churches and as anyone who spent any time in academics will tell you the more answers you get, the more questions you have. The Bible itself encourages you to "seek and you'll find". In addition, you can even ask God as a resource when you feel you've searched everywhere. James chapter 1.

[edit on 28-5-2005 by saint4God]

Seems to me that the best the jews of the day could offer , were all answered by Jesus Christ.
Right from the start christianity has been asnwering questions. The books of the NT are full of them.
If I wasnt allowed to question things, I wouldnt follow it.

I understand there are many things out there that you could have run into that would not allow questions, but I have not experienced them.