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.


Jesus Papers

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 01:03 PM
Thanks Icarus

That link you provided is awsome. And you're right, there does seem to be some story behind it.

Still have'nt finished it yet though

(makings of a new topic)

posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 01:48 PM
look at the facts according to the gospel accounts,
nicodemus, in john19:39, comes at night with myrrh and aloes, these are not particularly funeral spices, the opposite, they're for healing, being renowned healers i'm pretty sure this would have been plain to the deciples, also of note is the fact that joesph of arimathea was able to secretly ask pilate if he could remove jesus' body, that kind of acess hints at influence, and pilate never did seem that happy to kill him in the first place, outside all the magic potion crap, the gospel of john seems to hint at the fact that christ never died in the first place.

posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 08:54 PM
As I stated before, Jesus/Yeshua was given a drink with certain intoxicants that made him appear dead to the untrained eye. From

"Soma (Sanskrit), or Haoma (Avestan) (from Proto-Indo-Iranian *Sauma) was a ritual drink of importance among the early Indo-Iranians, and the later Vedic and Iranian cultures. It is frequently mentioned in the Rigveda, which contains many hymns praising its energizing or intoxicating qualities. It is described as prepared by pressing juice from the stalks of a certain mountain plant, which has been variously hypothesized to be a psychedelic mushroom, cannabis, or ephedra. In both Indian and Iranian tradition, the drink is identified with the plant, and also personified as a god, the three forming a religious or mythological unity."

Both Soma and Haoma are derived from Proto-Indo-Iranian *sauma-. The name of the Scythian tribe Hauma-varga is related to the word, and probably connected with the ritual. The word is also preserved in Persian hom. The word is derived from an Indo-Iranian root *sau- (Sanskrit su-) "to pressed", i.e. *sau-ma is the drink prepared by pressing the stalks of a plant. The root is probably Proto-Indo-European (*seuh-), and also appears in son (from *suhnu-, "pressed out" i.e. "newly born")."

I'll look for the link I found describing Yeshua's use given to him by Joseph of Aramatheia and his Essene priests.

posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 05:14 AM

Originally posted by Grailkeeper

I feel he doesn't have enough tangible evidence to prove his theory.

Although the theory itself could be plausible, there's just no evidence.

Isnt this the case with almost everything in religion? Where is the evidence?
So far with Christianity, we have theories of Jesus being drugged, as mentioned in your post, and elsewhere he is married to Mary, and the list of alternatives goes on.

We have more and more documents that support the Gnostic theory, so what happened?
Almost all of the New Testament text were written way after the fact of what happened...if it happened at all.

People were really waiting for his return, I suppose, and thus did not write accounts until later.
In Judaism there are 2 Messiahs. Messiah ben Yosef & Messiah ben david.

The one Messiah will try in his endeavors to bring about "redemption", and die. And the latter will resurrect the former and bring about the final "salvation"

The theory is that "Yehoshuha" thought he was Messiah ben Yosef & that Messiah ben david was going to resurrect him. Now in Judaism the messiah (both of them) are not "God" as in Christianity which are to be worshipped.

This extra tag of worshipping who you call Jesus has made it almost impossible to talk about him in Judaism. But he is no different than other "failed" messiahs such as Shabbetai Szevi and Jacob Frank, and thus should be able to be discussed along side of them.

So the point of this was, if there was a "Jesus" then it goes to say that they were waiting for him to be resurrected by Messiah ben david, and it just didnt happen. So they wrote text down years after with great conflicting reports. Again, I dont know...this is speculation.

Gods Peace


posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 12:11 PM
The 2 Messiahs ( at least as I recall) simply identified would have been
the priest(Levite) messiah and the king(Davidic) messiah. Most accounts that
I have seen show John (the Baptist) as being the priest Messiah and Jeshua
as the King messiah.

What is unclear is who succeded John at his arrest and subsequent execution.
It is clear that even after his arrest John was not sure that Jeshua was the "
One Expected." as he John sent messengers to Jeshua to ask " Are You The One?"

Some traditions say that James became the "priest Messiah" after John, others say it was Thomas Didymas - The Twin who was Johns succesor and died in place of Jeshua the "Royal Messiah". Preserving the primary royal bloodline.(Jeshua being the first born of the twins).

It is also from this point of observation that the mobs choice of barAbbas takes on some form of logic.

bar-Abbas is consistantly identified by various translations of the term Lestai (sp?). A term variously defined as thief,(the 2 men executed with Jeshua are called Lestai), robber, rebel, and or Zelot(e)(( this term is also used in refering to at least 2 of Jeshua's close followers)). In KJV translations
of 40 yrs ago bar-Abbas was identified as Jesus bar Abbas, who was arrested after a recent "disturbance" in Jerusalem. The only historical record
of a "disturbance" in Jerusalem ( that I have found) around this time is the one recorded in the canonical gospels, IE: the driving out of the money changers. If this is in fact the case it would place barabbas in intimate contact with Jeshua and his inner following, thus marking him as more than a common rebel or bandit. Possibly the Son of the teacher (thus the bar Abbas designation).

It would be logical for the followers to choose the Son over the Father and
by doing so have the chance at least of a ressurection of the bloodline at a later date.

Why did it not happen? Who knows. Perhaps in the continued and incessant
persecution of Jews by the Pauline church for the last 18 or so centuries can be found an answer.

posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 02:30 PM

Originally posted by stalkingwolf
The 2 Messiahs ( at least as I recall) simply identified would have been
the priest(Levite) messiah and the king(Davidic) messiah. Most accounts that
I have seen show John (the Baptist) as being the priest Messiah and Jeshua
as the King messiah.

Here is an article ( it will automatically download when you click link, alternatively it may load in browser.)
This is taken from Kosher Torah from Rabbi Tzadok, and it is in regards to the 2 messiahs.


Gods peace


posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 10:36 PM

Originally posted by biggie smalls
which has been variously hypothesized to be a psychedelic mushroom, cannabis, or ephedra.

None of which will make a person appear to be dead though. Also, soma might never have actually existed, its a mythological substance, like ambrosia and nectar. Or like the plant that gilgamesh has to get from the bottom of the ocean.

Intersting analysis though, particulalry interesting about the tribe that might've given the drink its name.

Now in Judaism the messiah (both of them) are not "God" as in Christianity which are to be worshipped

In what judaism is this? Are you talking about a particular tradition that awaits for these things? I recall, for example, that the Lubavitch hasidics in NY in the US, their 'grande rebbi' died not so long ago, and that a group of them are eagerly awaiting his return as the messiah. They revere him so greatly that they have people waiting at his grave, for him to step up out of it, and they have built replicas of his brooklyn apartment in Israel and Brazil, so that he will feel at home. Also, notice that amoung the muslims, another semetic peoples, that they beleive that a messiah will come to the world, the mahdi. Amoung some of them, they beleive that the mahdi did come, and that he 'is hidden' now, and will return as the messiah. So it seems to be a pretty common amoung these semitic religions that there is the idea of a saviour or redeemer or reformer who will come about or return and fix everything. Intersting that there is this ben yofef and ben david idea also.

it goes to say that they were waiting for him to be resurrected by Messiah ben david

The problem is that they didn't expect him to be resurrected, the idea is that he'd already been resurrected, and that he will return again. Also, was this ben yosef ben david idea universal amoung the jews??? Or is it something that got started around that time? I understand who the 'son of david' is supposed to be, but who is the 'son of joseph' supposed to be? Is it something that came up to explain why jesus wasn't the saviour?

The pdf is interesting, and might contain a possible dating clue. It states that the messiah is the one that will rebuild the temple, however, the temple isn't destroyed until long after the jesus mythos. SIt also seems to connect the josef/david messiahs with the kabbala, which is from long after the jesus mythos too. o perhaps it was indeed something that came about to explain why jesus wasn't 'the' messiah. The two messiahs aspect is interesting as its also replicated amoung the muslims, where the mahdi comes a short while before jesus comes back.

[edited to correct quote tags -nygdan]

[edit on 10-4-2006 by Nygdan]

posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 02:47 AM

You may want to fix your quote tags. The 2nd (of 3) doesnt give the authors name, which may help people.
And the 3rd has one line quote from the author, but the rest appears to be your responce?

Again, this is just a suggestion for clarification purposes.

The pdf file goes a long way in helping to explain the Jewish perspective on the 2 messiahs.
As to which branch, let me just say that the article is from an Orthodox Sephardic Rabbi, and the Chassidic group (orthodox) believe this as well.

This explanation, of 2 messiahs, can be tied into the various messianic claims within Judaism perhaps.
The key, I believe, is that within Judaism they do not worship the messiah, whoever it may be.

As for Kabbalah, true, what you have today is mainly from the Ari. (Or from the writings of his student Rabbi Chaim Vital)

However, if you can accept this or not, it is supposed to come from an ancient tradition, back to the school of the prophets mentioned in the "Old Testament".

As far as Kabbalah is concerned in Judaism, the only group that has tied it in to their belief, per say, are the Chassidic group. However, as mentioned, it is not foreign by any means to the Sephardic Orthodox.
(Now I believe non-orthodox groups, like reform, will dismiss it, but we already know that there is more than this that they disagree on.)

edit: interesting note about the belief in Islam, I did not know this.
I would be interested if Catholicism alludes to this at all. I say this only because they have the teaching of purgatory, which is similar to the Jewish belief of punishment in the afterlife. Hell, the modern Christian theology, of eternal punishment, is basically unheard of in Judaism.

Thank you for your interest

Gods peace


[edit on 10-4-2006 by dAlen]

posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 07:16 AM
It would seem that Mr Baigents advance/presales check will have a large bite out of it.

according to the Judges ruling Baigent and Leigh must pay 85% of the legal fees
of Random and Brown estimated at 1.75M.

DVC Ruling

posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 04:16 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 03:23 PM

Originally posted by Prot0n
What you mean there's no evidence? There's plenty of evidence that Jesus could have survived. The people in Kashmir talk of Jesus coming to them in 30 AD, same here Jesus supposedly died.

you've confused TALK with evidence.


posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 03:41 PM

Originally posted by dAlen
I have heard all kinds of various theories about the death of Jesus.
does anyone even know if he existed? really?

Nah, it looks pretty clear Jesus was completely mythical.


posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 03:46 PM

Originally posted by onesharpbroadhead
All of these stupid satanic theories - always neglect the evidence to the contrary.

1. At the time - the enemies of Christ did not claim that he survived the crucifixion. The enemies of Christ claimed that the Apostles stole His Body.

That's just what the STORY says.

The REAL facts show that NO-ONE had even HEARD of Christianity till decades after the alleged events. There was NO "at the time" at all.

No-one ever claimed to have met Jesus,
nor anyone else who met Jesus.

Jesus left NO mark AT ALL on history in ANY way.

But, decades later - when the NT stories became known, the pagan response was to call them "lies", "based on myths", "fiction", "spurious", "invented."


posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 03:53 PM

Originally posted by d60944

Naturally, it's all speculation, since there has yet to be discovered a single shred of good, archeological evidence to suggest that any demi-god such as the "Jesus" written about in the Gospels even existed.

Archaeology requires patience. For example, until a short while ago there was no modern proof that a governer called "Pontius Pilate" existed.

So, until MODERN times, there was NO MODERN evidence?
Gee, really?

However, Pilate was known to be a historical figure since ancient times - NO-ONE EVER claimed Pilate was not historical.

Originally posted by d60944
Not that I want to get embroiled into a "Jesus did/didn't exist" thing, but from my point of view, all these events were set in real places at a real time.

So is James Bond and Harry Potter.
So what?

Originally posted by d60944
If they were fiction it seems very strange that a lot of people died over them.

People die for false beliefs all the time.

Originally posted by d60944
Furthermore it seems utterly bizarre that at least the members of the Church in Jerusalem shortly after the resurrection didn't call foul on the whole business (we're talking months here, not even decades). They lived there and would have had first-hand knowledge of the events.

NOT ONE SINGLE Christian claims 1st hand knowledge.
NOT ONE SINGLE Christian claims to have met Jesus.
NOT ONE SINGLE Christian claims to have met anyone who met Jesus.

Originally posted by d60944
They would *know* if they were untrue. It would also have been pretty easy for the Romans (never the greatest fans of these Christians, and in their very much best interesets to do so) to debunk the thing if they had never executed such a person.

Oh please !

Why didn't the people of Gondor denounce Gandald as FICTIONAL?
Because they were fictional too!

The disciples never existed.
Neither did Jesus.

What you have is STORIES from LONG after the alleged events by unknown people from unknown places who NEVER met Jesus or antyone who ever met Jesus. Stories that are mythical and spiritual and magical.


posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 03:55 PM

Originally posted by d60944 don't have any good evidence of his existence, other than stories. You might as well believe Sherlock Holmes really existed.

Or Charmlemagne, or Marlowe, or King George V,

Or Harry Potter or James Bond or Hercules or Krishna or Adam...


posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 04:46 AM
I have heard this theory before. It is a long-running theory that says that the Romans slipped a drug into the vinegar that they gave Jesus which actually put him to sleep so that he survived the crucifiction by appearing to be dead.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in