It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 7
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 02:15 PM
For those of you on this thread, i started a link you may find interesting and want to comment on. It has nothing to do with me wanting "points", i have about 5000 points now and never use them and never will.
I really would just like to get others views on the thread i started, thanks.

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 08:24 AM
When searching for the truth, I did not seek out Jesus, I sought out God. It was God who turned me around to look at his Son before I could accept Him. It's interesting how a lot of us feel the need to validate the Book when what we should be validating is that which exists right now first.

posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 05:25 AM
Some things to mention:

For one thing the word Crucification comes from crucifix which means "cross". Romans put robbers and people they punished on the cross. Jesus was put on the cross, and that's why the symbol of Christianity is one.

Some things to mention, I believe it is mentioned in the Qoran (I don't remember) that another person was put in the place of Jesus on the cross (One of God's doings). It is said God would never punish his prophet. So the whole idea of him rising from the dead was actually him already still alive. But I have no idea what happened to him. The Jews were the one who pressured the Roman emperor to kill Jesus. BTW if God can open the Red sea, Make Mary pregnant-why can’t he bring Jesus to life???

What interests me is I've read in a book how Jesus traveled to Tibet in the missing years between 13-30 years of age. That's how he learnt his healing powers. Interesting, huh?

All I can say about religion is that in the early days they changed it to whatever they thought best suited their needs. Constantine changed Christianity to best suit the Romans, and the Vatican approves and disapproves what ever should be right or wrong. We all know they have libraries full of things that were taken from hiding would change the course of religion forever…

Because of their breaking the charter, their disbelief in God's signs their killing the prophets without any right to do so, and their saying: your hearts are covered over," instead, God has stamped them with their disbelief. They only believe a little because of their disbelief and talking such terrible slander about Mary and (also) for their saying: "We killed God's messenger Christ Jesus, the son of Mary!" They neither killed nor crucified him, even though it seemed so to them. Those who disagree about it are in doubt concerning it; they have no [real] knowledge about it except by following conjecture. No one is certain they killed him! Rather God lifted him up towards Himself God is Powerful, Wise!

posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 08:03 AM

Originally posted by d3vilishan9el
Some things to mention:

For one thing the word Crucification comes from crucifix which means "cross". Romans put robbers and people they punished on the cross. Jesus was put on the cross, and that's why the symbol of Christianity is one.

Interesting POV in the rest of your message - I've heard that before but have not had time to investigate it further on my own.

In the quoted section that I included here, I believe you may be mistaken. In fact most scholars and historians agree that crucifixion was a death sentence used only for criminals convicted of extreme crimes - never for simple theft, robbery, etc. even in those cases in which they issued a death sentence. Crucifixion was an expensive and time-consuming (for the Romans) method of punishment and was primarily intended to send a strong message...anyway, most of this is already covered by other posts in this thread.

posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 10:26 AM
Faked? We are talking about the Son of God, just just an average man. It would appear the theories I see hear are assuming he was just any man in which case I could see some points that were made. There are some unknowns in life that we will never know until our time comes. Perhaps more engery should be put into learning to be kind to each other than tearing down each others beliefs.

posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 10:44 AM
I don't believe they are trying to tear down beliefs, but uncover the truth. You see, the dark ages are over, and the enlightenment has fully transformed the process of scientific thinking. People do not wish to live in blissful ignorance, just accepting things, they want to learn and uncover any lies, and find out whats true or not. Its not about destroying other peoples beliefs.

posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 10:51 AM
It is tearing down beliefs. Sometimes people are so intent on trying to take away what others believe in just because it is different than what they believe in. The same folks that want to "enlighten" us poor misguided religion folks are doing the same thing they accuse us of. They are trying to instill their opinions onto others. Just because I believe in my faith does not make be some backwards dark age person living in ignorance. I could make the same statements about people that believe in aliens or conspiracies etc.

Just because I do not think the same way you do does not make me wrong, it just makes us different and that is ok to be. I do not attack those that do not have religion, it is not my place to do so and I still listen to their perspectives. I have close friends that do not believe in God and those that do. We are all friends and we discuss religion without tearing at each other. We understand it is not a matter of right or wrong but just a difference for each side to understand.

posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 11:02 AM
I didn't say you were a backwards person living in the dark age. But lets look at it, do they not have the rights to question theories and beliefs? Do they not have the right to uncover any potential false information? They aren't really attacking your beliefs necessarily, theyre trying to LEARN. Is that really such a scary concept, to learn things beyond what one written paradigm states, and to take knowledge to find truths and errors in what was once considered a known fact?

posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 11:13 AM
Perhaps I am not phrasing my thoughts right. I have not real concern with discussion of just about anything. Trying to disprove God to people of faith is like trying to disprove evolution to people of science. Of course the two sides will not agree and that is fine. But neither side should accuse the other of being ignorant because of difference. You are not enlightening me to anything. I am not in the dark just because I believe in the bible and in God nor are you for not believing.

We just have different views on how life began what things mean but that is what this world is about, differences. I could spend all day if I had the time running around debunking alien threads and 911 conspiracy threads but why do that. People have their right to their opinion and sometimes folks need to learn how to agree to disagree vs bicker until someone agrees with them. I like to read the various things here and I make my comments as I feel. Thanks for the input.

posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 12:16 PM
I started this thread to gather more information (i-n-f-o-r-m-a-t-i-o-n) on the question of the historical accuracy of the NT accounts of the alleged crucifixion.

My purpose remains to simply compare notes from scholars and scholarly amateurs/laypersons. It is not surprising that some devout Christians have expressed frustration, anger, shock, sadness, and a variety of other emotions regarding the fact that these questions would be raised. As much as I prefer not to offend anyone and try not to, you have to ask questions to get answers and I do not have the luxury of spending the rest of my life doing all the research on my own. I truly appreciate those who've made some great factual and historical contributions. For others whom have simply urged me to some kind of faith or prayer, I also thank you but you've missed my point entirely.

I fear that many who have posted to this thread in just the last few weeks have not carefully read all that was written in it - you should because it's very good stuff!

Finally, I cannot help but add a comment that, once again, I see someone posting that any questioning of the historical accuracy of the NT is an attack on God. I must remind you that I do not believe in the divinity of the Christian Jesus but I do believe in God. Therefore, in my mind, your constantly equating this Jesus with God could be equally offensive to my religious beliefs - except that I don't have much use for organized religion in the first place. My God does not need any man's dogma. I respect your right to hold whatever beliefs are sincere.

OK, we understand each other? Good.

posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 06:15 PM

Actually "Crucifixion" comes from the Latin verb "crucifigo, crucifigere" (whose third principle part is "crucifixi") literally, "to affix to a CRUX, or "cross beam", a compound noun derived from two separate Latin words "crux, crucis" (cross beam) + "figo, figere" "to affix", and is generally (in many ancient writings) associated with the image of a "sedilla" or "little seat" when used in sentences in the Latin literature of the period e.g. Juvenal, "take your seat upon the cross" which was a famous insult in 1st century Rome

The sedilla, (or "little chair") was actually an "anal plug" inserted into the anal cavity o the criminal and was meant primarily to keep the victim's body humiliatingly fixed in place during the torture (by relieveing the gravitational stress on the wrists) which included (often but not always) nails driven through the wrists (common) and also through the sides of the ankles (optional) so that the victims legs straddled the upper stake: the torture was specifically designed for SEDITIONISTS against Rome (e.g. people who declare themselves to be Caesar during the enforcement of the LEX MAIESTATIS, the socalled No King but Caesar Law in effect during the reign of Tiberius in AD 36.

Having Daviddic blood did not help his case, apparently, during yet another time of Insurrection against Rome, i.e. AD 36 the 100th anniversary of Pompey's triumphal entry into Jersualem in BC 63....and the gospel message was clearly stated in the Greek words placed into Iesous' mouth in gospels :


and of course all that sword purchasing on the eve of the Arrest...("And Iesous said to them, Let he among you who is without a sword, go now and sell your outer garment in order to purchase one immediately," see Luike chapter 22:43-46) qualiied the Daviddic pretender to be a seditionist (from Rome's point of view) who was organizing a coup on the eve of the 100th anniversary of Pompey's hostile invasion...

As has been already discussed on this thread and others, the brutal Roman Crucifixion methods varied widely, but in terms of the length of time it took for most persons to die on a cross, could involve a period of anywhere from about 24 to 90 hours--- depending on the health and age of the indiviudal. Most were left in public areas to rot, their bodies often debowelled and castrated while they were still alive.

The horror of crucifixion is rarely understood these days, despite Mel Gibson and his flagellation fetish film of The Passion...(from the Latin word "patior, patiri, passus", = " to suffer")

The four "canonical" Gospels are of course not "pure history" (whatever that is) but are more midrashic expansions of messianic and other Judaic "prophecy" (inlcuding the psalms!) e.g. "these things were written so that you might believe that Iesous is the Christos..." as it says in John's gospel.

In other words the details of the story are not always derived from eyewitness testimony (despite the phrase in John's gospel which suggests someone saw something on a gibbet, e.g. "this is the testimony of the disciple who saw these things...and WE know that HIS testimony is true," whoever WE are !!) that would stand up in court, but were heavilly influenced by liturgy with all those 3s:

(remember Mark's gospel? "it was the 3rd hour when they crucified him...and it was the 6th hour and darkness came upon the land...and it was the 9th hour and Iesous cried with a loud voice, I am thirsty!! etc. which sounds like stations of the cross broken out into periods of worship) and also influenced by the so-called "suffering servant" passages in the OT e.g. Psalms 22 and Isaiah 53 etc.

This is not the way "history" is normally written, even in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD: so we cannot always be sure we are dealing with historical details all the time with the gospel passion narratives of the crucifixion.

But some details in the gospel narratives are hard to place in a purely midrashic context, e.g. the shortness of his time on the cross (6 hours is far from 70 hours and does not seem to have a midrashic source?)

and the little story in Mark's gospel (the earliest of the 4 in the canon) which has Pilate "astonished that he could possibly be dead so soon...". also without midrashic (i.e. old testament verse) back viewing.

Also Mark's gospel mentions that when he was taken from the cross, he uses the curious word SOMA (live body) in Greek to refer to "Iesous" and not the word PTOMA ("corpse")...

All these details taken together extracted from Mark's gospel (the earliest) may suggest that the writer of the 2nd gospel may have wished to declare in some oblique way that "Iesous" was still breathing (??) and that somehow God had spared his life (paralleling the Binding of Isaac), although the survival rate of crucified criminals (at least according to Jospehus) of criminals being taken down prematurely from their crosses was 30% or less:

Josephus mentions 3 criminals whose bodies were taken down still alive, and two later died of their injuries, while one apparently survived....

So he could have survived (even for 40 days, as Luke suggests, "before he was ingathered") for a time and may well have even been able to speak...but historical details were apparently not the conscious objective of the gospel writers...but rather (not to put too fine a point on it...) something more akin to what we today would call "propaganda..." ("these things were written SO THAT YOU MIGHT BELIEVE..." etc.)

posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 09:25 PM

Originally posted by anniejhops
It is tearing down beliefs. Sometimes people are so intent on trying to take away what others believe in just because it is different than what they believe in.
Yes it is and that is why man has progressed to what we are today. Slow progression in many aspects but superior in many others compared to that of old. You only need to consult history for the numerous changes brought about by those few who did not adhere to the norm to see this is so. It is after all the standout which shakes the foundations of the world and invokes change, all else are but ordinary men and women who accept the norm. Your purported Christ is advanced as such a man, no?

The same folks that want to "enlighten" us poor misguided religion folks are doing the same thing they accuse us of. They are trying to instill their opinions onto others.
Presuming that you are a Christian, I can toss that back into your yard and proclaim that with the hybrid teachings of the likes of Paul and the backing of the Roman Empire later on, Christianity chose to do exactly that which you describe. In fact, trace it back to Egypt and you will see that going against the norm is not a revelation of this generation.

posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 10:20 PM

Originally posted by Al Davison

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.

Totally agree

Gaining control over History, for even a generation, and having it re-written to your own purpose, will forever alter the thinking of future generations.
You will have people believing what you want them to believe, and thinking the way you want them to think.
Once the war is won, this takes relatively little effort.

Example 1): Hitler and his Nazi goons burned unacceptible books, and "disappeared", sent to concentration camps, or just outright murdered any scholar that disagreed with his/their philosophy/view of history and objected to the destruction of "contrary"(non-state sanctioned) knowledge/

Example 2):the Christian Church has taken these same actions for the last 1800 years of its 2000 year history. The brutal, sanctioned, murder of Hypatia (the Librarian of Alexandria, mathematician, astronomer, leader of the Neo-Platonic School) by "saint" Cyril and his pack of rabid followers, and the destruction of the Library (900,000 texts). The destruction of the Libraries of Celsus at Ephesus, Pergamum, Mani (Mexico (100,000 texts)), Tenochtitlan (Mexico (700,000 texts)), Texococo (Mexico).Ancient Libraries Not to mention the fact that the during the Crusades the Church commanded Crusaders to destroy/burn every library that they came across, especially ones with "heretical" texts.

Who knows what really happened, when the Church has made sure that anything that was encountered and was contradictory to it's dogma, was destroyed. The only alternative accounts of Rabbi Yeshua that survive today are the Dead Sea scrolls, the Apocryphal Gospels, and the Nag Hammadi Library . The second, preserved by the Eastern Church, and the first and third escaping destruction only because they were concealed and forgotten for 2000 years until found in 1947 and 1945, respectively.

To the victor goes the Spoils, and History is the Ultimate Prize.

[edit on 9/6/05 by isisraven]

[edit on 9/6/05 by isisraven]

posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 02:42 PM
if that's all there is to this theory, I'm satisfied that Jesus' crucifixion wasn't faked.

posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 12:03 AM

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.

This seems unecessarily complicated in that it assumes there is any historical truth to any of the Jesus myth.

I'll reiterate what a couple of other posters suggested; the resurrection story is a myth with no credible documentation to support it. Taking that further, the crucifixion is poorly attested to as well, as is the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth himself.

Why complicate the issue with odd conspiracy theories, swoon theories, twin theories, etc. when a simple explanation will suffice, which is, none of it happened.

posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 09:16 PM

Originally posted by SinCity702
Actually if you want to get technical in the Orginal Hebrew Bibles it never said Jesus was hung on a Cross. 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 basically they made the whole Cross thing up, and that right their misguided many people. Also it is known even in Encyclopedias (correct my spelling) even stated that the Catholic Religion took out many words of the Bible and added their own.

For one the Torture Steak was turned into CROSS. Second Gods Name in Hebrew and even Jewish bibles was JEHOVAH. Once again the Catholics turned that name into Lord or exchanged it with God. Gods name was really Yeh Weh(cant spell) but translated in english Jehovah. To me the people that made those books were just people to throw people off once again in religion. Anyways good topic!

Crucifixion was fairly common, actually. Curtius Rufus writes of Alexander the Great crucifying some 2000 prisoners. Archeologist uncoverded the remains of a Jewish man who was likely crucified as a result of the census revolt in 7 AD.
Persians, Greeks, Romans, and Carhaginians all practiced crucifixition - records date back to the 6th century BC.

You are very welcome to believe what you want to believe, but make sure you have your facts straight


posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 11:21 PM
hmmm....I was thinking about revisiting this thread and suddenly, it pops right up.

I don't want to cross-post from another thread in this forum but, you may wish to see what I've written in the Shroud of Turin thread recently - not that any of it are my original thoughts. I've been reading a book that focuses on the Shroud history/mystery - a book entitled "The Jesus Conspiracy" by Kersten and Gruber for a few months.

The whole second half of the book goes into a lot of detail regarding the bizarre and unusual circumstances surrounding this crucifixion story.

anyway, these 2 threads are both covering some of the same ground but with some different info, opinions, writers, and references. check it out starting on the second page at:
this link

posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 11:33 AM
reply to post by Al Davison

I agree but i dont know who posted the crusifix(?) thing was not right cause it says he was crucified on a part of a tree forgoton the word.

new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6   >>

log in