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: 7
1
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2006 @ 08:01 AM
link   

posted by dbrandt

You are right God will do the final judging, and . . John.3 [1] There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: [2] The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. [3] Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.


OK, D/B, you’ve chopped 3 verses out of the Scripture to make your point. Conservative Protestant theology holds this refers to the manner of baptism, to be “immersed” as opposed to being sprinkled. It is only in the last 30 odd years that a ‘Holy Ghost Experience’ has been added as a prerequisite to being “born again.” Some “born agains” associate this event with ‘speaking in tongues’ and even being ‘slain in the spirit.’ Main line Protestantism has little regard for this “born again” theology.

You know, this “miracles” thing has puzzled me. Raise the dead, restore sight, but never replace a missing limb. I find that odd. I can tell you I’d be mighty interested in anyone who could actually do something out of our normal experiences. Consider Oral Roberts as one example. He has collected over $4 billion in his lifetime. More money collected than any other tele-evangelist. This enabled him to build a large hospital. If all this work is “of God” why would it not be easier for God just to empty all the hospitals in the world? Now that would impress me. Or to feed the 27,000 children who will die today due to lack of food, Ref. Christian Children’s Fund. That would impress me. Instead of building mega-churches. Which do not impress me. In fact, despite all the energy and piety that has been consumed in building the great edifices of the world, life remains pretty much the same. The rich are fat and the poor are skinny. The homeless are shunted aside. Soup kitchens salve our consciences. Oh, we pray for them. They are not forgotten!

By the by. Starving to death is said to be one of the most painful ways to go. Your stomach rebels. PS. I have little regard for any "ministry" which descends by right of inheritance to the children of the founder. Uh oh. Watch out. There is monkey business afoot. Who gets paid and how much and for what? Transparency? I'd expect any honest man handling other people's money to keep the books open for public inspection, any time, any where.

From the Bible stories, I don’t believe Jesus ever had a church building or suggested His followers build one. They met in their homes. Just to talk or argue about things that happened long ago and far away, does not impress me. It saddens me that so many otherwise good people put so much stock in ancient theories of life and death.

People find it very difficult to understand foreigners and foreign culture. Can you imagine how inaccurate it must have been, to first record a saying spoken in Aramaic, made some 20-50 years earlier, into the Greek language? And then to wait 1500 years and translate that Greek into Old English? Not to mention we have only copies of copies of the Greek. So how can we afford to place too much reliance on an English language Bible derived from a Greek bible recording an oral tradition first spoken in Aramaic. Hmm? Now that would be a miracle!

I dunno, D/B, born agains don’t have much going for them in the real world. It seems they talk the talk, but hardly any of them walk the walk.



[edit on 5/9/2006 by donwhite]




posted on May, 9 2006 @ 08:37 AM
link   
What real world is that, don?

The corrupt one full of spiritual sell-outs taking advantage of each other?

Is that real, or manufactured by the devil for your temporary enjoyment prior to your trip into the fiery pit?

I don't claim to be born again, but Jesus did claim to be "not of this world." That is the adopted slogan of evangelicals. I can't blame them for not wanting to be part of the mess I see around me these days. Doubt and fear, the devils primary tools, are omnipresent, a fog of temptation nearly obscuring the Path of the Word.

I have been blessed with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, called to the service of Christ. I am saved by grace through faith, and I pray that my works will reflect that salvation.

I do believe, in my own way, that unless one be born again of the water and the spirit, one cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.

What do you believe in, don? The flesh?

Who are you to judge the talk and walk of others?

As ye judge, so ye yourself will be judged. By your actions shall others know you.

Its best to leave the judging of people up to He who is ordained to do it.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 08:56 AM
link   
I hate to sound blasphemous, but one answer to the topic of this thread is:

I certainly hope that Jesus was stoned and a mile high on the day he was crucified.


Lord Jesus Christ forgive me.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by dAlen

Originally posted by donwhite
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 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, which Jesus consented to do. Jesus removed the demons from Legion and put them into a nearby herd of swine, grazing in a field. Then, without further explanation, the herd of swine run themselves over a bluff - a cliff - and fall into the Sea and drown. Ipso facto, the demons are gone! Legion is a free man.

The ancient and fearful concept of demonology was laid to rest by Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) but it does die slowly. By the late 1890s, Carl Jung, Freud’s contemporary, had added breadth if not depth to Freud’s psychoanalytical theories. Many others have followed behind Freud until today modern psychology is taught in every school in the western world. No serious person entertains any longer the notion of demon possession. But I digress.


There are rabbis/kabbalist who are discussing quantum physics to help explain stuff such as the existence of angels & demons. It all is about perspective anyway and how we interpret things. (some of these kabbalist, if not all that Im aware of, use Carl Jung with the teachings also.)

Its not something I can simply summarize, as a lot are theories, though well put theories, none the less Im waiting for things to be revealed as practical. So saying that I am not offering a summary beyond what is already stated in the paragraph above and to say that if we are all connected, it would be interested to see how energy can flow and perhaps "possess" someone. (After all angels/demons are described as energy.) So science may back this up after all.

Gods peace

dalen


We should talk. I study both and have had some startling revelations between the 2 also.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 09:16 AM
link   

posted by Icarus Rising

Is that real, or manufactured by the devil . . I don't claim to be born again . . I can't blame them for not wanting to be part of the mess I see around me . . I have been called to the service of Christ. I am saved by grace . . I pray that my works will reflect that salvation. What do you believe in, Don? Who are you to judge the talk and walk of others? [Edited by Don W]


Uhh, I/R, who said “by your fruits you shall be known?” Can you fault me for looking for “fruit?” Do I have to park my brain at the door to follow this precept?


Its best to leave the judging of people up to He who is ordained to do it.


You know, I/R, based on what little I know about Buddha and Confucius, I’d say the Judeo-Christian religion is more into judging than any other. I do not recall having read of one instance where followers of Confucius burned dissenters at the stake? I don’t know about the followers of Buddha. And for gosh sakes, Hindu’s respect life to the extreme. Sati excepted, of course.

America, arguably the most Christian county in the 21st century, has barely passed 2 decades in peace, since 1775. We are almost constantly engaged in killing other people. Yet we proclaim ourselves every Sunday to be the legitimate followers of the Prince of Peace. Conflicted? You betcha! It seems to me the business of the ordained should be to expose this. Not to condone by silence. But I don’t claim a special connection.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 09:32 AM
link   


Can you fault me for looking for “fruit?” Do I have to park my brain at the door to follow this precept?


So, you will use Biblical quotes when it suits you, but you don't believe in the Bible. That's hypocrisy in action, not that you are a hypocrite, that's not for me to judge.

Rational thought will eventually fail you, imo. At that point, you will have to take something on faith. I will put my faith in Christ. Not in a church. This nation has been led astray, imo. Many of those doing the leading claim to be Christians. You are using this fact, imo, to indict faith itself.

As far as fruit goes, that's apples and oranges, my friend.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Furthermore, judging religions is judging people, and people are sinners, every single one of us. Acknowledging our sins, repenting of our sins, and seeking to avoid further sin is part of the process of being perfected in Christ. Trials and persecution are part of tempering faith.



It seems to me the business of the ordained should be to expose this. Not to condone by silence. But I don’t claim a special connection.


I agree with your judgment of the actions of most church leaders. To me, the first two statements above show you know what is what.

Imo, you don't acknowledge a special connection, but you have it. We all do. Don't deny it because you are mad at Judeo-Christianity. There are many paths to God, but only one true destination.

You can deny and decry the actions of a faith, but please don't try to deny and decry Faith itself.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 11:01 AM
link   
For sure, I/R, there is enough blame to go around for everyone. It’s hard to know what to do. I imagine you are as distressed as I to hear of the maltreatment of humans in Darfur, to name just one among other places on the planet. We choose representatives to do our business for us. All too often they fail. We cannot honestly say our style democracy is the be all answer. Say hello, Iraq!

We’ve had some form or other of democracy since 1607, as Englishmen. We invented our own in the late 1700s. But it was painfully defective. Right off the bat we had to change the electoral college system. 1800, Jefferson vs. Burr. Then in 1861, we had to fix the most glaring defect in America. The harm done by the introduction of human slavery in 1619 is with us today. We can’t get over it.

The larger half of our population wants to ignore it. The smaller half wants to try various approaches to overcome the injuries inflicted by slavery and its aftermath. There is work to be done. I don't take kindly to those who claim to have the first, last and always answer.



posted by Icarus Rising



Posted by DonWhite: “Can you fault me for looking for “fruit?” Do I have to park my brain at the door to follow this precept?


So, you will use Biblical quotes when it suits you, but you don't believe in the Bible. As far as fruit goes, that's apples and oranges, my friend. [Edited by Don W]



Yes, when it advances my argument. Believers have no patent on the Scriptures. "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them" Matthew 7:20. KJV. Skeptics often apply the Book more accurately, more poignantly than believers. Skeptics tend not to labor under preconceived notions. Or rely on well rehearsed responses.

Now I ask, how can anyone take the following verse literally? The verse is attributed to Jesus himself. Who post-Nicea trinitarians argue is equal to God. “ . . If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you . . " John 15: 7. NIV. This verse has spawned the very popular "name it and claim it" gospel.

We know this statement simply is not true. So why do we quote or rely on the passage as if it were? So what is a skeptic to do? Play act it is true just to make his fellow travelers on Earth happy? Or is it complacent?

No one has deigned to reply to my query why Christian psychiatrists do not stock pigs in their offices. You see my point. I hope.



[edit on 5/9/2006 by donwhite]



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Well, I think the Holy Writ says God will do the final judging. That’s why I say, “If God made me, I’m not worried.” Catholics will admit God is the judge but they claim to have the only tickets to get you into the judgment proceedings. I think "Born Agains" number about 15% of the US population. They are often referred to as “evangelicals.” Sometimes referred to as “pentecostals” although all those terms are more generic than specific. In any case, they seem to love mixing religion and politics. Very uncharacteristic for traditional Protestants.


You missed Fundie extremists



People find it very difficult to understand foreigners and foreign culture. Can you imagine how inaccurate it must have been, to first record a saying spoken in Aramaic, made some 20-50 years earlier, into the Greek language? And then to wait 1500 years and translate that Greek into Old English?


You missed from Greek to Latin and from Latin to German.


I certainly hope that Jesus was stoned and a mile high on the day he was crucified.


several traditions say he was at least drugged. Saying that the "gall " was soured wine mixed with venom and or belladonna.



Science tells me God must exist.
My mind tells meI will never understand God.
My heart tells me I am not meant to.
Vittoria Vetra ( Dan Brown Angles and Demons)



[edit on 9-5-2006 by stalkingwolf]



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 11:47 AM
link   

posted by stalkingwolf

You missed Fundie extremists - You missed from Greek to Latin and from Latin to German . . traditions say He was drugged. Saying the "gall " was soured wine mixed with venom and or belladonna. [Edited by Don W]



Well, that sounds good, but the Romans may not have been that dumb. The whole object of the punishment of crucifixion was to make you H U R T like you have never hurt before. It was to demonstrate to the indigenous personnel why it was better to obey Rome than not to obey Rome. If your victim was allowed to “escape” the pain and shouts that would evoke then what the hey? I’m sure a Centurion would have put some real sharp questions to the soldiers charged with the duty. Uh uh. No pain killer for Jesus.

My confession. History Channel is showing the working of marble, granite etc. about the 20th time I’ve “seen” this show. Actually I run it in the background. They showed the Lincoln Memorial. That makes my eyes water. I still recall vividly when I went there the first time. I was running late so it was dark when I got there. When I entered the huge, lighted chamber, it was so magnificent and so emotionally overwhelming for me to realize that here was a representation of the very same man who had preserved the United States of America I so dearly love, that I shed tears. Me, a 35 year old grown man. Tears. This is the only time in my life I ever felt such an overwhelming presence. Jesus on a cross does nothing for me. Sorry about that.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 12:22 PM
link   


If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you . . " John 15: 7


I believe this statement is true, and simply misinterpreted. People focus on the "ask whatever you wish" part, without the realization that the "If you remain in me..." part will tailor the asking and the wishing. Trials and persecution are truly the crucible of faith.

The instant gratification society is much too quick to proclaim the former, and start demanding the latter. Obviously, it just doesn't work that way. Again, we are being misled to believe all we have to do is ask. Belief and practice go hand in hand. Recall Christs admonitions in Revelation against the beliefs and practices of the Nicolatians.

The quote above goes back to Christ's statement:



Luke 5:20
For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.


In other words, there is no such thing as a free lunch.

The letter of the law flows from the spirit of the law.



John 6:63
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

John 7:16b-18
My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.

If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.


Just because someone is a Christian psychiatrist doesn't mean they can cast out demons into pigs.

I hope you see my point, as well.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   

posted by Icarus Rising
“. . people are sinners, every single one of us. Acknowledging our sins, repenting of our sins, and seeking to avoid further sin is part of the process of being perfected in Christ. [Edited by Don W]


I prefer to say “fail” than to say “sin.” I don’t like “sin.” I do not accept I have offended an unseen Being. Repenting of our failures means to me only that you do not repeat them, if you can possibly avoid it. The sincerest profession of “repentance” is put in question if it happens too often. I do not expect to achieve “perfection” in or out of Christ. That sounds much like reaching Nirvana. But I’m not a Buddhist. Maybe Jesus really did go to India before starting his ministry? Improbable but not impossible.


IMO, you don't acknowledge a special connection, but you have it. We all do. Don't deny it because you are mad at Judeo-Christianity. There are many paths to God, but only one true destination. You can deny and decry the actions of a faith, but please don't try to deny and decry Faith itself.


Rings of pantheism. God is everywhere. On faith, yes, I have it. I believe in the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe. If astronomers and physicists should later “prove” it was a Little Bang instead, then I’d believe that. The Greeks gave us the word “atom” but I’m not sure if they meant it as we use it today. In fact, I’m sure they did not. Their 4 elements - atoms - were earth, air, fire and water.

I’d say the Greek intution into human nature as portrayed in their plays proves both that human nature has not changed in 2,500 years, and also that the Greeks had the most insighful perception of human nature combined with an unsurpassed way of expressing and conveying it. Every child should read the Greek classics in the 7th and 8th grades. And study Latin and read the Romans in the 9th and 10th grades. As a minimum.

I’ve said that to say this. Humans must build on the knowledge gained in the past. That is the formula for progress. Newton did not invent gravity out of whole cloth. Einstein did not invent relativity on his own. Each man and all the others like them, read every book they could get on the subjects that interested them. They were more synthesizers than discoverers. Even Crick and Watson are included. Perhaps the great downside to Gutenberg’s genuine sea change was that we can’t change the Holy Writings anymore to suit our contemporary needs. As I truly believe was done. Now, we’re stuck in the 16th century, putting all our eggs in one basket. Which is not producing.



[edit on 5/9/2006 by donwhite]



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Stoning is far less entertaining that crucifixion.

During a stoning, you can't see anything if you're in the back of the crowd, and the only way you can get your own stone in is to kind of lob it over everybody and hope you hit the person. More likely than not, you'll miss or hit somebody in the crowd. Also, it's all over in a few minutes if somebody gets a pretty good stone to the head right away.

Crucifixion, on the other hand, puts the person way up high so everybody can see them. You can all gather around, make a real picnic of it. And while it's pretty painful, sometimes it can take a person a few days to actually die. In that case, a sword in your side can really a display of mercy that puts you out of your misery.

Anyway, if you're into human torture, like the people back then, you'd definitely get more of your money's worth with crucifixion over stoning. Unless you combined the two. Whip a stone at somebody who's crucified. But that's not for purists.




posted on May, 9 2006 @ 02:56 PM
link   


I prefer to say “fail” than to say “sin.” I don’t like “sin.”.... Repenting of our failures means to me only that you do not repeat them, if you can possibly avoid it. The sincerest profession of “repentance” is put in question if it happens too often. I do not expect to achieve “perfection” in or out of Christ.


Very well put. I completely agree with the sentiment. You can't sin every day and repent every Sunday. Again, I don't think it works that way. I doubt any of us will be perfected while we remain in the flesh. Have to keep trying though.

As for pantheism, you can label my statements as you see fit. What I'm trying to get at is I respect the efforts of others to find meaning in their own lives. I would only hope their efforts include tolerance and acceptance of others as well.

Imo, the Greeks in their devotion to the moon goddess Athena became corrupted by the occult practices of the Egyptians, as did the Romans. Makes for a good show and tell, but doesn't have legs for the long haul.

Of course, I blame all that on Alexander and his opiates, but that's just me.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 03:42 PM
link   

posted by Enkidu
Stoning is far less entertaining that crucifixion. Anyway, if you're into human torture, like the people back then, you'd definitely get more of your money's worth with crucifixion over stoning. Unless you combined the two. Whip a stone at somebody who's crucified. But that's not for purists. [Edited by Don W]



Well, Enkidu, try this on for size. First you hang the Guest of Honor. Neck snapping was not the intent then. Strangulation was the purpose. Before the person loses consciousness, however, you take him down.

Stretched out on the ground, face down, you tie 4 big Clydesdales, one to each arm and leg. Securely. Then you move your horses out carefully until the fellow is raised about 2 feet above ground.

Then you send in your knife-man to do his work. First, the man’s genitals are cut off. Women were not drawn and quartered. These rather personal items of manhood are put into the man's mouth.

Then the fellows gut is cut wide open. His bowels fall to the ground and the internals are put onto a fire previously prepared. A barbecue! Up to this point, the miscreant should be alive if not well. That is the signal for the 4 horsemen to whip their steeds into action. Sure, one horse ends up with the torso attached to a leg usually. A swift and well aimed axe blow will make the divisions even.

The head is severed and mounted on a pike by the Tower of London. The body parts are taken to towns where the taxes are slow coming in, to remind all of the king's justice. Being king was not a popularity contest. The leg or arm is fixed on a pike standing at the town gate. It is a capital offense to take down any body parts. (Brave and defiant Scots did that when Bruce was executed.) The remainder of this poor fellow are set aside whilst a grave is dug in the roadway where what’s left is buried. Then the dirt is thrown back in. The executions were usually done at a crossroads. This prevented his relatives from retrieving his remains for Christian burial. Thereby the king had also condemned his soul.

That was done because almost everyone back then was a true believer. Everyone thought they knew their soul could not answer Gabriel’s trumpet if they were not buried in sanctified ground. Say hello the Church to sell some blessed grave sites.


[edit on 5/9/2006 by donwhite]



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite

posted by Enkidu
Stoning is far less entertaining that crucifixion. Anyway, if you're into human torture, like the people back then, you'd definitely get more of your money's worth with crucifixion over stoning. Unless you combined the two. Whip a stone at somebody who's crucified. But that's not for purists.

Well, Enkidu, try this on for size. [...] Say hello the Church to sell some blessed grave sites.


Now, that's entertainment! Although allowing more audience participation (maybe with red-hot, buring pokers), would definitely spice up the program.

It must be God's way, or he would have made us out of something besides meat, which is definitely susceptible to torture. If he had been wise enough to make us out of rocks, we wouldn't have the problem, no?



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   

posted by Enkidu

Stoning is far less entertaining that crucifixion. Now, that's entertainment! Although allowing more audience participation with red-hot, burring pokers, would definitely spice up the program. It must be God's way, or he would have made us out of something besides meat, which is definitely susceptible to torture. If he had made us out of rocks, we wouldn't have the problem, no? [Edited by Don W]



Odd though it may sound, there is not a single Roman (or other’s) writing describing a crucifixion’s method or even what a “cross” was or looked like. It’s all made up. Which does not mean it could not be true. Because wood was a high value item in the olden days, it is speculated by those who are paid to speculate - academicians - that a single, vertically mounted pole or post was used.

There is some evidence that a short length of wood - 15 inches - the size of your forearm, was sharpened on one end and flattened on the other end. This was done in preparation for the crucifixion. The Guest of Honor’s hands were placed one on the other and a thick Roman nail was first driven through a board, then through both hands, affixing the hands to the upper part of the pole. Just watching that would by itself get me to reveal all the info I ever knew before my turn came.

Then the person is stretched out and the process repeated for the feet. One artifact recently discovered - 10-15 - years ago is thought to be from a man who suffered crucifixion, shows the man's two heels were nailed to a pole’s remnant. The same nail was driven through both feet, just in front of the Achilles tendon. Wow! Talk about h-u-r-t. This hurts me just to type it.

The final step in the crucifixion. Affix the arm-sized short stick far enough up the pole so that the sharp end sticks up your rectum. This very unpleasant sensation will compel you to raise yourself up by your feet to relieve the sharp pain in your rear-end. Then you try to hold yourself up by your hands to take the pressure off your feet and rectum. Gradually you grow weary and slide down again, only to be jerked back up, repeating this process over and over until you suffocate.

And one more thing. Believe me, no one interferes with the Romans when they are performing this duty. The procedure was not shortened to accommodate a local religious custom. In fact, the longer it took for the victim to die, the better it was. This was all very serious business for the Romans. Not a pre-Sabbath outing as the writers of the Holy Writ would have it. (This is considered as evidence the writers were not present.) And you can be very confident the Romans gave not a whit what the local’s holy days were.



[edit on 5/9/2006 by donwhite]



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
And you can be very confident the Romans gave not a whit what the local’s holy days were.
[edit on 5/9/2006 by donwhite]


I beg to differ. The Romans weren't stupid, and were possessed of a great deal of political savvy. There are many instances of the Romans capitulating to the ancient Jews' unprecedented stubbornness when it came to matters of religion. It was simply good military sense. Why stir into action a people group who could be easily satisfied by a few (relatively) meaningless concessions? Of course, there were those emperors who absolutely insisted upon being worshipped with the exclusion of all other gods in Judaea. It usually ended in tears, needless to say.



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 07:23 AM
link   

posted by Roark


posted by donwhite
“ . . you can be confident the Romans gave not a whit for the local’s holy days.
[Edited by Don W]


I beg to differ. The Romans weren't stupid, There are many instances of the Romans capitulating to the ancient Jews' unprecedented stubbornness It was simply good military sense. Why stir into action a people group who could be easily satisfied by a few relatively meaningless concessions? there were emperors who absolutely insisted upon being worshiped with the exclusion of all other gods in Judea. It usually ended in tears, needless to say. [Edited by Don W]


Now, Roark, we’re descending into a “he said, she said” debate. Neither of us was there. There are no records that are not subject to grave questions. I stand by my earlier post.

I remind you the First Jewish Revolt was put down rather smartly by the Romans. 66-70 AD. The Temple was destroyed and many Jewish persons were expelled from the Holy Land. (Today’s name, not the name then.) Masada went down in 73 AD. There is no physical evidence there to support the Flavus Josephus account of 900 Jewish defenders on top. And while on Josephus, the two mentions of “Christ” are regarded as spurious. Added in the 4th or 5th century.

This Revolt was followed by riots in 113 AD which some people call the Second Jewish Revolt. Then around 126 AD, we have the bar Kochva Revolt, usually called the Second Jewish Revolt but sometimes the Third. This revolt lasted long enough for bar Kochva to imprint Roman coins with his own image. As close as rebels could get to minting their own coinage.

Many of bar Kochva’s followers hailed him as the long promised Messiah. In all the records of the bar Kochva Revolt, there is no mention of an earlier messiah, Jesus of Nazareth. It is obvious to me the people alive then did not know about him. I have said before and I repeat here, that the founder of modern Christianity was Emperor Constantine. I stand by that, too.

Whatever Jesus taught in the First Century, I am satisfied the Romans did not crucify him for saying “Love thy neighbor” and etc. I think Jesus was a rebel. He had several thousand soldiers - today’s militia types - hiding in the desert just outside Jerusalem. He led a small band of commandos in to capture the Temple, after which he planned to open the city gates and bring in the army to capture the city of Jerusalem. The Temple Police proved too strong, and the commandos retreated to Gethsemane. Judas was a paid informant and told the Romans were Jesus was hiding. Jesus was captured and crucified along with two of his followers. End of story.


[edit on 5/10/2006 by donwhite]



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 09:21 AM
link   
well done, donwhite!

It is a mystery to me why bar Kochva was not selected as the Messiah by all those who were desparately seeking one. Perhaps he just didn't attract the same marketing genius as exhibited by the Saul/Paul or didn't have the venture capital of Joseph of Arimethea.

Really, it could have been most anybody with the right backing. Especially, once the organization had the political genius (exhibited by a host of characters) to get themselves well-placed in the courts of the various monarchs and warlords. Then, you build up your organization with hostile (in some cases, to the most extreme) takeovers of the riches of the various pagan organizations; get yourselves some writs that make it a capital crime to worship anything or in any way other than dictated by the Roman Church; kill everyone who does not convert; burn any writings that don't agree with your point of view; suppression of education and learning; and the list goes on-and-on...it reads much more like The Godfather than any actual religion (in the traditional sense).

All the peace, love, understanding, caring, etc. takes a backseat to total world domination through the usurpation of wealth and power.

Christians really should read their own history - there were things that happened between the first century and now that shaped their dogma, doctrine, teachings, and beliefs that might be pretty shocking if they bothered to try to understand it.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join