It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Was Jesus Crucified? But Not Stoned?

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 02:44 PM
link   
I'm still missing the part about Jesus killing anyone and being a trouble maker.
How about you find that and post a link?






[edited quotes, please don't make big quotes with small responses -nygdan]

[edit on 17-4-2006 by Nygdan]




posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 02:46 PM
link   
because technically I think he was under roman juridiction. They crucify not stone.



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 05:32 PM
link   
MrJones wrote "They didn't care about vitals, they wanted him dead ASAP to keep the crowds from rioting."

what crowds would have rioted? that's an interesting theory, indeed!
At that time, there weren't enough Jesists in the world to have a decent tea party much less a riot. There certainly weren't more than a handful in the area at the time of the crucifixion. Maybe I am misunderstanding you in terms of who you are suggesting would be rioting and why...

If there was a concern about a riot, which I doubt given the Romans heavy hand in dealing with unruly crowds, then there might have been a "riot" protesting the removal of the body since the anticipation was that it would be left there to rot and be picked over by the carrion eaters as was usually the case.

I'll check out the site you reference later and see what it has to say about the forensic miracles of human physiology.
Edited to add:
Well, it didn't take very long to review that site. I didn't find it to be very credible against all the other in-depth forensic and medical studies I've read. Maybe my first clue was the author's attempt to use the Shroud of Turin as part of the evidence. It was clearly written from a very Christian-biased perspective. The studies I've seen that were far more credible were mostly conducted by Christian doctors and forensic experts as well but they simply could not corroborate the stories in the NT as much as the would have preferred to.

[edit on 17-4-2006 by Al Davison]



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 07:28 PM
link   
mrjones, I don’t have much regard for the Infancy Gospels. Since I do not believe in the divinity of Jesus nor in any alleged super-natural acts, they are not helpful to me.



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Truly, the Word is sealed from non-believers. They are deaf, dumb, and blind to God's Holy wisdom.

Belief, like salvation by grace through faith, is a choice. We are all free to make, or decline, that choice. The consequences of that choice should not be underestimated.

May God have mercy on your immortal soul, donwhite.

That is, if you ever decide you have one.



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Icarus -

Oh, please! We're discussing history - not someone's immortal soul (or your thinly-veiled insinuations about whether their lack of one).

Maybe you're in the wrong forum. The "Saving Souls" forum is probably somewhere else or maybe you can start one.

[edit on 17-4-2006 by Al Davison]



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 09:42 PM
link   
don has said he doesn't believe in the divinity of Jesus or in the afterlife. I am simply expressing my concern for him in holding that viewpoint. I know that don has an immortal soul, that we all do, my concern is that for some reason he is denying it.



(or your thinly-veiled insinuations about whether their lack of one)


The above statement is, therefore, unveiled nonsense.

Imo, we are discussing the history of the Son of God, fully God and fully man. Never before, and not yet since, has there been One like Him.

You are free to voice your opinion as well.

[edit on 17-4-2006 by Icarus Rising]



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite

mrjones, I don’t have much regard for the Infancy Gospels. Since I do not believe in the divinity of Jesus nor in any alleged super-natural acts, they are not helpful to me.


I was argueing against them anyways because someone said jesus killed a kid when he was 5 and i couldnt find it anywhere, including the sources he provided...



Originally posted by Al Davison
what crowds would have rioted? that's an interesting theory, indeed!
At that time, there weren't enough Jesists in the world to have a decent tea party much less a riot. There certainly weren't more than a handful in the area at the time of the crucifixion. Maybe I am misunderstanding you in terms of who you are suggesting would be rioting and why...

If there was a concern about a riot, which I doubt given the Romans heavy hand in dealing with unruly crowds, then there might have been a "riot" protesting the removal of the body since the anticipation was that it would be left there to rot and be picked over by the carrion eaters as was usually the case.


John 19 : 31
Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jews did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down.


So, had they left the bodies up a riot may have ensued due to the special Sabbath or the normal Sabbath the next day.
Makes sense to me, alot of these people were deeply religious and seeing His corpse on a holy day may have given them reason to riot, hence why the JEWS asked for Him to be taken down.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
Truly, the Word is sealed from non-believers. They are deaf, dumb, and blind to God's Holy wisdom.


Don't make it sound like something mystical and magical
It happened and theres evidence of it.
Some of us Doubting Thomas's need to touch the wounds of Jesus to believe.
The history is here and all we need to do is read it and understand it.
God loves you and Jesus died for you, that's the only things in life you need to take on faith.
All the rest is documented in history and we just need to uncover it.


Side notes, completely off topic:
To all you who like to discredit things based on carbon dating, it's flawed.

Not discrediting uranium dating...yet, so go ahead and believe the universe is as old as you want, just don't base it on the Red Shift

[edit on 18-4-2006 by mrjones]



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrjones
So, had they left the bodies up a riot may have ensued due to the special Sabbath or the normal Sabbath the next day.
Makes sense to me, alot of these people were deeply religious and seeing His corpse on a holy day may have given them reason to riot, hence why the JEWS asked for Him to be taken down.


Well, I'd argue that this makes no sense given the Jewsih customs that persist to this day that observant Jews are prohibited from going anywhere other than to the Temple and back home on the Sabbath and their routes would not have taken them anywhere near the execution site. The Jews would not have seen the body on their Sabbath. What the scripture you have referenced really shows is that it was not written by people who were familiar with Jewish laws and customs of the day. If you continue reading the Gospel of John from this point, you'll find even more evidence of this. That, in a nutshell, is why many scholars find this account to be suspicious and lacking in historical accuracy. Even many devoutly Christian scholars are left scratching their heads over the NT accounts of one of their most sacred stories.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 07:30 AM
link   
if you want to take up this dating business - assuming you want to reference the Shroud of Turin - you might be interested in this thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The controversy over the dating of the Shroud is not in the method used for the dating - it's in the broken chain of custody of the samples used and a decent body of evidence that indicates that the labs were not given the parts cut from the Shroud - it's a very interesting read and a real conspiracy theory with some decent research behind it.

OK, back to the topic at hand.

[edit on 18-4-2006 by Al Davison]



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Al Davison
Well, I'd argue that this makes no sense given the Jewsih customs that persist to this day that observant Jews are prohibited from going anywhere other than to the Temple and back home on the Sabbath and their routes would not have taken them anywhere near the execution site. The Jews would not have seen the body on their Sabbath.


You're grasping at straws now, nit-picking my theories as to why some things happened they way they did.


What the scripture you have referenced really shows is that it was not written by people who were familiar with Jewish laws and customs of the day.

Actually since it was my theory as to why they wanted him taken down off the cross before the Sabbath, it is not the people who wrote it that were not "familiar with Jewish laws and customs", but rather myself. The book just says they wanted him down, no explanation given.


If you continue reading the Gospel of John from this point, you'll find even more evidence of this. That, in a nutshell, is why many scholars find this account to be suspicious and lacking in historical accuracy. Even many devoutly Christian scholars are left scratching their heads over the NT accounts of one of their most sacred stories.


Just glanced through the rest of the book, didn't see anything out of place.
Would you care to actually point out any actual evidence whatsoever that what you say is true.

It's enough to link to a site even, as long as you list where on the site you found what you are claiming.



as for the other comment,

Originally posted by Al Davison
if you want to take up this dating business - assuming you want to reference the Shroud of Turin...[edit]

Actually i just wanted to add that comment, hence why I listed it as a side note.



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 09:33 AM
link   
Actually, not nit-picking - we're having a discussion and I'm just making some points that you may not have considered or may not be familiar with. Really, I'm just trying to help.

I'll try to get you some references that you can use, later, but I tend to read actual books a lot more than web sites. I may be able to find some links that are either posted by some scholars or some discussions of the work of these scholars but, my amateur research includes the internet as a secondary source that points me to the actual writings which I then acquire and study. I mean, who would have the time or inclination to read something like The Works of Flavius Josephus on a computer screen?!

I'll see if I can get you pointed if you are genuinely interested. However, if you are not able or interested in taking the time to read and critically consider all the info, then I don't really want to put the time into building a "reading list" for you. It's an honest offer but not one that I consider lightly.

I know there are many who visit this site who only want the "Reader's Digest" or "Clif Notes" versions and I don't have the time or inclination to help those folks - that's what Google is for, I guess.



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 11:25 AM
link   


Also, Jewish law didn't permit stoning for what was considered Jesus offense.
The Jews however, had been stripped of most of their power and did not have the authority to order executions.

Blaspheme was a capitol offence, punishable by stoning under Jewish law.
And
Yes the Jews retained this right under the roman government. I would refer you
to the canonical rememberences of the stoning of Stephen ( at which the most beloved Paul held the mens coats). And the Stoning of James ca 65ce. . these are just two examples.






Other Gospel’s say Mary M. and a woman named Elizabeth went together to the tomb and it was First Light. Dawn.


There can be a great deal of time pass betweenfirst lightand dawn depending on how the individual in question defines first light.

First light CAN be defined as the time when the morningstar first breaks the horizon, up to the first hint of sunrise on the horizon.




Well, I'd argue that this makes no sense given the Jewsih customs that persist to this day that observant Jews are prohibited from going anywhere other than to the Temple and back home on the Sabbath and their routes would not have taken them anywhere near the execution site.


This arguement might not hold water if as many believe the execution and other events alluded to took place in the "New Jerusalem" of Qumran and not
the polluted Roman Jerusalem.



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Also, modern jews aren't permited to travel on the sabbath, but do we know that that was the case 2,000 years ago? Judaism then was, in some respects, very different. There are no jewish preists today, for example, and there is no Jewish Temple (as in solomon's) today. Other things may have been different.



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Good point. I don't know the definitive answer to that because I'm not sure at what point in history the Torah laws regarding the requirement that the Sabbath was restricted to "a day of rest and Torah study" were interpreted to prohibit any sort of traveling. Perhaps a Judaic scholar could tell us but, I do know that there were multiple Rabbinical Counsels convened just as the later Christian councils convened to argue and make decisions on the meaning and application of their specific dogmas, doctrines, and laws. The cool part of Judaism is that there was always a "minority report" issued so that even the opinions of those who did not prevail were recorded.

Stalking Wolf: Hmmm...I've not heard of or read anything about the possibility of the New Jerusalem of the Qumran being the site of these events. Can you tell me where I can find info about that? That would change quite a lot of things that people hold about all of this - like the locations of some sites revered by Christians, right? Is the Church of the Holy Sepulchre of Jesus in the "wrong" place? Any help you can give me on that would be appreciated.


[edit on 19-4-2006 by Al Davison]



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by stalkingwolf



Also, Jewish law didn't permit stoning for what was considered Jesus offense.
The Jews however, had been stripped of most of their power and did not have the authority to order executions.

Blaspheme was a capitol offence, punishable by stoning under Jewish law.
And
Yes the Jews retained this right under the roman government. I would refer you
to the canonical rememberences of the stoning of Stephen ( at which the most beloved Paul held the mens coats). And the Stoning of James ca 65ce. . these are just two examples.



Actually Stephen was stoned by a mob while spreaking at a local Jewish council. He was not condemed to death by the official Jewish representatives to the Roman authorities. More akin to a lynch mob than capitol punishment.



Other Gospel’s say Mary M. and a woman named Elizabeth went together to the tomb and it was First Light. Dawn.




Well, I'd argue that this makes no sense given the Jewsih customs that persist to this day that observant Jews are prohibited from going anywhere other than to the Temple and back home on the Sabbath and their routes would not have taken them anywhere near the execution site.


The regular weekly Sabbath ended at dark on Saturday night. Firstfruits, which is ressurrection day, started at dark on Saturday night is not a high Sabbath so there was no provision against travel on that day.

The Gospels record 3 or 4 seperate trips to the tomb that day. What is important is that the tomb was empty before the first trip, which took place "while it was yet dark".

If the train leaves the station at 6 and you arrive at 7 the train is already gone not just leaving. It will still be gone if you come back at 8, 10 and 12.



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 04:03 PM
link   

The fact that Pilate allowed Joseph and Nicodemus to remove and bury the body is further proof that Rome had no axe to grind with Jesus, thereby showing no rebellion occurred, and his execution was allowed solely to placate the Jewish Religious leadership of the day.


Actually, Joseph of Arimathea, who I assume you're talking about (?), was imprisoned for many years for his interference with Jesus' burial. Joseph had many powerful friends and had to do alot of work (and maybe bribery) to get Jesus's body released to him. I just saw this in a documentary on Naational Geographic channel, I think.
The Romans were indeed afraid of Jesus. He talked alot about the Kingdom of Heaven that he had come here to establish. Being somewhat concrete types, the Romans thought he literally meant that he was going to foment rebellion, overtake Roman lands and start a new kingdom. This scared them. So they sought to humiliate him as a troublemaker as much as they could, i.e. whipping, crucifixion, etc. Of course there was no rebellion, but the Romans were trying to stop it from happening, which is why they went along with the Jewish priests (sanhedrin?) who were also afraid of Jesus taking over the (their) temple, which of course is something Jesus would probably never have done, since he was interested in more esoteric things.


[edited quote code, it was missing a ']' -nygdan]



[edit on 20-4-2006 by Nygdan]



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Riddle
Actually Stephen was stoned by a mob while spreaking at a local Jewish council. He was not condemed to death by the official Jewish representatives to the Roman authorities.

Good point. Wasn't John the Baptist killed by them though? If they had wanted him dead, either way, they didn't need to reference the romans. The romans themsleves must've perceived him as a threat, in addition to the jews. Hell, its possible that the jews didn't perceive him as a threat at all, and that that stuff was added to the tradition to serve as a scape goat. Kinda hard to be in the Forum at Rome and say that Rome was to blame!


What is important is that the tomb was empty before the first trip, which took place "while it was yet dark".

It specifically notes it as such? Thats interesting, because a non-jewish audience wouldn't really care if it was dark or not, whereas a jewish one, if they couldn't go out at that time back in those days, would recognize, almost as a matter of course, why it was specifically noted that it was still dark.
Meanwhile, a non-jew might try to apply some esoteric meaning to it.



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
I don’t mean to burst anyone’s bubble. This is the season of the central theme of Christianity. The Resurrection. Which I regret to remind, is all about the individual’s salvation. A somewhat selfish motivation. But, because it is that season, it brings to my mind lingering questions.

Some things in the Bible are surely beyond belief, at least to people in 2006. The most unlikely story, to me, is that of the possessed man, Legion.

The swine story. One day, on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, Jesus encountered a man possessed with demons. The man asked Jesus for help in ridding him of a multitude of demons, [edit on 4/15/2006 by donwhite]



I have a question for you? You are right that the resurrection of Christ is very important and Jesus' death burial and resurrection deals with an individual's salvation. My question is what does selfishness have to do with this? I need you to expand further on that as I would like to know what kind and whose selfishness you are talking about.


I also have a comment and information on the swine story. First of all I am not being picky, but it doesn't say in the story that the man asked Jesus for help in ridding himself of the demons. There are events in the Bible where people asked Jesus for help in ridding demons out of people. But in this story it does not say the man asked for help. It says the man came to Jesus and the demons controlling him recognized who Jesus was(the Son of God). They understood who Jesus is(God) and knew that He(Jesus) had authority over them. In other words they were no match for Jesus, they were powerless.

Jesus ordered them out of the man. They begged Jesus to let them embody something else, and since there were about 2000 pigs nearby, the demons suggested the pigs and Jesus permitted them to enter the swine. So we learn that Jesus is more powerful than these evil spirits and they can only do what He allows.

What else do we learn from this event. Unclean spirits long to dwell in a body, even an animal. Having researched and studied and prayed about this event, this is what I have discovered to be the probable reason for this. During the time of Noah, fallen angels had offspring with human women. The offspring were wicked, huge(giants) entities. This is one of the main reasons for the flood that destroyed mankind except Noah and his family. The flood destroyed humans and it also destroyed this race of giants. These giants which had human mothers and angelic fathers were created outside the will of God. That doesn't mean God didn't know it was going to happen, it means they are a result of humans and fallen angels deciding that they want to try to one up God and try to be like Him in creating"life". Much like the cloning that humans are attempting to do today. I firmly believe cloning is outside of the will of God and will also have "giant" wicked consequences for mankind.

So anyway these giants in Noah's day had physical bodies that were destroyed in the flood. But the "spirits/souls" of these wicked giants became disembodied when the giant's physical bodies perished in the flood and they roamed over the floodwaters. The floodwaters receeded and the earth became repopulated again and these roaming spirits saw these humans repopulating the earth and longed for a body to inhabit like they used to do. Because people long for bad more than good, these evil spirits were able to attach themselves to those people who desired this.

So now we come to the demon possessed man and we know how he got to be controlled by the legion of demons. We also know why the spirits wanted to go into the pigs, they longed for a body, any body, even an animal's.

What else do we learn. We learn that a crowd of people from the town came out to see what had been happening. When they got out there they saw the demon possessed man sitting there no longer possessed. They found out this Jesus, had removed the demons from this scary, awful disgusting, crazy man, and now this uncontollable man was sane.

Seems to me the people of the town should have been extremely grateful. Just think, they would no longer have to hear this man screaming and yelling and disrupting their existance. Their kids were now safe, there was no longer this crazy idiot that they needed to protect their kids from.

Is that what happened, did they all thank Jesus for making their community safe?

No, read further. These townspeople begged and prayed for Jesus to leave their town. Why, because about 2000 head of swine were just killed. I don't know how much you could get for a pig in those days, but 2000 pigs worth of income just disappeared. They chose money over the Son of God, something people are still doing to this day. They would rather have a lunatic living next to them putting their children and themselves in danger, if that meant that they would have financial peace.

So we also learn that men and women, choose and reject God time and time again, and this has been going on for 1000's of years. God reveals what is truly in the hearts of men and women to show us how far we have fallen from Him.


Now this is a very small part of what this event teaches, and there are lessons concerning this event that I haven't even discovered yet.

NONE of what is contained in the Bible is meaningless. It is there containing treasures for us to discover. Just like someone would dig for gold, a person has to "dig" for the treasures hidden in the Bible that God LONGS for us to know.



[edit on 20-4-2006 by dbrandt]

[edit on 20-4-2006 by dbrandt]




top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join