Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Jesus did not die on cross, says scholar

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 


What you describe on the account of St. Issa has all the hallmarks of a snake oil scam and revisionism. I mean this in the pattern, not the details. I hadn't ever heard of Issa till now.

What I mean by Hallmarks is you have the crusade to prove it wrong (those who do not believe do not seek additional information, they are already convinced.) this is a fairly common in what I call the Lost Sheep archetype. As he searches on his quest, he meets many wonderful and peaceful wise people who impart knowledge to him, and over time slowly change his evil ways into something 'pure' and now he is here to share his wonders with you!

You see this archetype in many different facets from faith healers to misc cults to $75 dollar plus seminars.

At least that is my impression reading the account. Have you read the Gospel of St. Thomas? Last I knew it was considered (true or not) to be first hand accounts of discussions with Jesus, has many... interesting things in it.

If you have read it, I am curious what is your opinion and how do you consider it's implications to the Issa scenario?




posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 


Again I'm feeling it all the way.

I thought I should make clear that if it comes to God from my point I view I'd be first in line.

But I think you feel the same way.

Thanks

May love shine a light in every corner of our lives.

Weird I wanted to write peace but that song just turned up.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 06:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Kapyong
 

Hi,
I was only reporting what I had seen in documentaries.

The people interviewed in Israel, and other places had apparently good credentials depicted on the screen with their names.

So I was more likely to think along the same lines as them.

Sorry I have no links for you.

One Documantary was called "Jesus the Man".. perhaps based on the excellent book of the same name (?).

Another documentary was called, "The Life and Times of Jesus".

And most recently one about his Family. For some reason, some people know about his older brother James, and other people will argue like mad about it.

I'm not bothered either way personally.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 06:07 AM
link   
Listen to the six part series by Gary Habermas on Youtube called:
"The Resurrection of Jesus."
www.youtube.com...

He proves that Jesus died on the cross.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 06:42 AM
link   
This idea is not new , the best illustration of said events is contained within the book 'the passover plot ' , by Hugh Schonfield. I am more personally inclined to believe he was a member of the essenes , and that he(still living) was resuscitated by them in the tomb after a scheme to re enact sections of the old testament in their attempt to produce an earthy messianic figure to usher in a time of the 'lord' to bring about their scheme of their armageddon and end time beliefs . Not so dissimilar to the efforts some bible -bashing perpetrators put in these days . After that he went to kashmir and died an old man many years later , where his tomb can be seen today.



[edit on 26-6-2010 by Drexl]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 07:21 AM
link   
well,yes Muslim believe that Jesus was a prophet and messiah ..and he didn't die..
here is a link to a Muslim lecturer Dr. zakir naik
www.halaltube.com...



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 07:31 AM
link   
I believe that he wasn't crucified on a cross either. He was crucified on a single stake. A torture stake.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 07:32 AM
link   
There's a show called the Naked Archeologist that has an episode on cruxifiction, and I remember one of the things that was mentioned was that 'evidence' of the nail found. It was like, the ONLY one.

One of the main things the show kept saying was 'where are all the nails?' "Where are all the bones with nails in them or evidence of having had nails in them?"



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by lordtyp0
 


What I mean by Hallmarks is you have the crusade to prove it wrong (those who do not believe do not seek additional information, they are already convinced.)

I believe Jesus did spend his 'lost time' in and around the areas reported in the book I quoted.
Do I believe the account portrayed in the book is accurate?
If I had to choose, I'd probably say yes, as nothing reported contradicts Jesus' teachings.
It may well be a hoax or in a better light a desperate attempt made by someone who wants to believe and tried to make it so. (Actually a few people not just one man).

But yes, it's also a grand cliche - that's how snake-oil salesmen make it work - they're called cliches for a reason. It would make sense the Issa/Jesus would mirror the Bibles accounts of his life, no? Or is that what you're asking/pointing out?

I brought the account of Issa to the thread for the individual that says there' no written record of Jesus though it still all boils down to faith and what you're willing to believe and not believe.


If you have read it, I am curious what is your opinion and how do you consider it's implications to the Issa scenario?

I've read it, and though parts are frustrating, I still take away from the read some very wise words and some basic truths to live by.
Sorry if I'm being a bit ignorant here, but I'm not sure what you're asking me in relation to the accounts of Issa?

peace

[edit on 26-6-2010 by silo13]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkelf
I think it is very interesting that this topic comes up here every few years. Was it a cross, or a pole; was He nailed or tied up? Did He die or was he found close to death and spirited away? Did He take a boat with Mary to France? It's always fun to speculate since none of us were there and they apparantly didn't keep acurate records back then. But it should create a decent discussion. Good luck


I wonder if those questions will ever be answered to satisfaction. The truth of the matter was covered up long ago, and no one is alive to tell the tale. And contrary to what you said about records keeping, the Romans, and Egyptians kept very accurate records. No record of Jesus, though. It seem that the story of Jesus was wholly made up, doesn't it?

The True Authorship of the New Testament

ROMAN PISO FAMILY WROTE THE NEW TESTAMENT, INVENTED "JESUS"

Jesus Never Existed – A crackpot idea?

What DID the Early Christians Believe?

This Conspiracy was perpetrated by the Jewish Underground of the times, and later by the Holy Roman Church, which invented basically everything Christianity believes in today. Sadly, some actually believe Jesus wrote the Bible, and that the Bible is the only true book in the world, all others being inspired by Satan. I know some of you have heard this also, it is not just me.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Kapyong
 



In fact, it is the view of modern NT scholars that NOT ONE of the NT books was written by anyone who met a historical Jesus.

Amongst all the early Christian writings, there is only ONE claim to have met Jesus - in the forged 2nd century 2 Peter.

You might want to broaden your scope of modern NT scholars. There most certain are plenty of NT scholars who believe that the NT books were written by people who met Jesus, save Luke and Acts.

Not everyone believes that 2 Peter was forged either nor written in the second century.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Just wondering... : genetic cloning engineering : What if, if people whent to the tomb OF 'JC' and done a science-genetic cloning engineering... Would that be like in the bibe something about, The second coming of Jesus?



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by gordonwest
Just wondering... : genetic cloning engineering : What if, if people whent to the tomb OF 'JC' and done a science-genetic cloning engineering... Would that be like in the bibe something about, The second coming of Jesus?


that's a possibility, is it a probability?



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by autowrench

 
So the choice is to believe in the Bible, arguably the greatest book ever written, the book of LIVING FAITH for BILLIONS of people...

OR

Something put together by a bunch of mewling atheists who make really bad web pages?


 

One interesting thing about this thread is the theory about the spike like pole for the crucifixion, or the actual traditionally accepted cross.

Interesting stuff that, something to research... Though that his blood was spilled in love (for a world that hated him) and was resurrected in the wine of believers is all that matters...

peace


[edit on 26-6-2010 by silo13]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   
I believe there are some Christian factions who actually study the bible in relation TO science and history who believe he died on a stake, not a cross, the Jehovah's Witnesses among them. I don't know if anyone's mentioned that yet. The thread title just caught my eye, and I thought I'd throw that in in case you didn't know.

It would be very ironic if it turned out to be true. It would probably devastate some people. The mere thought of an investigation would probably send them into a tailspin and defensive mode. Sad.

It shouldn't really make a big difference one way or another to people who proclaim to believe. Aren't they supposed to be less worried about with symbols and things and more worried about their thoughts and actions?

Just adding that this goes to show what happens when people's points of view narrow to not only their own religious belief (Christianity) but to what they've been told.

How many people wear crucifixes, particularly the ones with Jesus hanging from the cross, around their necks, display them on their cars and t-shirts, and in their yards based on tradition or someone else's word?

And how does this even makes sense when by their own definition and at the very word of their god, in both their bible and the alleged foundation commandments at the very heart of their chosen religion:



4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Exodus: 20:4




[edit on 26-6-2010 by ~Lucidity]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by autowrench

 
So the choice is to believe in the Bible, arguably the greatest book ever written, the book of LIVING FAITH for BILLIONS of people...

OR

Something put together by a bunch of whining atheists who make really bad web pages?

 

One interesting thing about this thread is the theory about the spike like pole for the crucifixion, or the actual traditionally accepted cross.

Interesting stuff that, something to research... Though that his blood was spilled in love (for a world that hated him) and was resurrected in the wine of believers is all that matters...

peace

[edit on 26-6-2010 by silo13]


Christopher Hitchens? Atheists are stupid aren't they. I mean what a bunch of silly billys for not wanting to believe or put trust in an unfalsifiable theory.

What a bunch of idiots for wanting to discuss more profound human thoughts such as discussion of scientific theory, which can help progress and improve the lives of the human race.

What an absolute bunch of useless human beings, what absolute "sinners" -yeah? Yeah right.

I don't doubt there was a man called Jesus, and i don't doubt they were barbaric enough back then to crucify a man, do i doubt his claims and other peoples claims about his link to a cosmic overload? Yes i doubt it, its unprovable, its unfalsifiable - so why should i trust something when i am in a reality that relies on absolute truth?

I'm not bound to Jesus, his claims are his own, i'm not a sinner, im a moral and ethically sound member of this civilsation and i'm free, free in the mind....and if there is no truth, no thanks. Don't even bother comparing science to religion ( A very poor theist counter argument.) science does not attempt to lie, it attempts to tell the truth.

[edit on 26/6/10 by awake_and_aware]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


Christopher Hitchens? Atheists are stupid aren't they. I mean what a bunch of silly billys for not wanting to believe or put trust in an unfalsifiable theory.


Science is legend for putting trust in theories. I wouldn't try to beat me with that stick.

Oh, and by the way, I didn't even imply atheists are one thing or another, I'm sure they are plagued with all levels of intelligence, or lack there of, just like Christians...


What a bunch of idiots for wanting to discuss more profound human thoughts such as discussion of scientific theory, which can help progress and improve the lives of the human race.


I think thou dost protest...

Anyway, as for 'more profound' - that's debatable. There is very little 'more profound' than a discussion about the Soul, death, and what happens after.

Progress? lol Look what progress has got us. Take a look in the Gulf of Mexico at what 'progress' has done for mankind.

And Improving the human race?

The human race and the improvement thereof can only happen within a person.
Not from the outside and not by anything science can afford them.

A man can have the best medical care, the hottest new scientific this and that, the absolute top of the line scientific research and scientific 'truth' at his/her disposal, BUT, if that person still hates their fellow man, or still has nothing to believe in, no love?

They ain't got doodely-squat.

peace

EDIT TO ADD: You edited your post in the time I was writing my reply, but, there really isn't anything else I'd like to comment on, other than:


so why should i trust something when i am in a reality that relies on absolute truth?


Because there are no absolute truths man can put their faith in and the reality we all are forced to live in relies on almost anything but absolute truth.

We try to live like there are absolute truths, we live like we do, but, there are none. Other than math, and music, but even that is debatable. And for another thread!


As for you stating you're not a sinner?

Interesting thought that. If you start a thread on it let me know, I'd like to read it.

peace (again)





[edit on 26-6-2010 by silo13]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 11:44 AM
link   
for me ....all topics regarding religion are case closed....religions were invented during times in which people had no idea what is out there...the only thing they knew was that there was Earth, Heaven and Hell...thats all..they couldnt imagine how ridiculous religious believes look when compared to the majestic size of the cosmos...all religions are an EPIC FAIL excluding Buddhism which is the only religion to keep standing tall once we find life elsewhere in the Universe.

Good Luck Jesus and Allah we are already closing on Titan!!!


[edit on 26-6-2010 by heineken]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


Well, I've always thought Christ's crusifixion more as a symbolic, rather than historical event. Besides of that, I would imagine that crusifixion as a death penalty began to became popular in Rome only after christianity gained some substance.

Christ symbolic crusifixion was put on practice by Roman Empire. There are lots of symbolism in crusifixion: For one, you'll become so fixed in your religion/beliefs that you are prepared "to die" for it.

Imagine it like this: There was this guy who created an religious movement. The guy was said to be crusified (symbolically). Then that specific movement gains popularity so much, that already established relgious/spiritual movements feels their influence threatened. They decide in a ironical way to began to crusify people same way they believed that their own deity was, so that supporters can really feel how their spiritual master did


Way I see it, Rome began to crusify people only after christianity became popular movement. This essay, which I was unaware of until today, kinda supports this theory.



-v

[edit on 26-6-2010 by v01i0]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 



Progress? lol Look what progress has got us. Take a look in the Gulf of Mexico at what 'progress' has done for mankind.


Says you sitting at your computer, being able to be treated by medicine and doctors, able to travel by machine to get places faster. Science is a crock isn't it? hasn't done anything for humanity. If only i could take it all away in one go and see what your life would be like.

Again, you see the religious person mining for an argument for support of his, As if because of the oil disaster that proves science to be non-progressive. No you'll find that its corruption and greed caused by the monetary system, which promotes possession, greed, competition and all the bad things we would be better without. Do not listen to this guy when he uses sentences like this to back up his argument.

www.youtube.com...



Science is progression, it is revision, it is the hope for discovering truth, most moral people will use it for good because its an asset that has helped natural selection and survilval of the fittest. Those groups who have discovered things to help them live.

Get real before you post your unintellible dribble guised with your big words and your conveluted setences.

If you think i'm a "sinner" for one minute then that is the failed logic that you are subject to due to your religion. Homosexuality is a sin in some religions, eating ham is in others, whichever god is the right god, is gonna be slightly pissed off that people got him so wrong.

Anyway, if god just only subcribe to 1 religion its set of "life rules" then we should expect damnation (hell) as a matter of chance.


I nothing further to debate with you, as i question and you accept, you have a phoney theory, i look for revised ones. good luck in life, don't bother praying for me, it won't manifest.



[edit on 26/6/10 by awake_and_aware]





new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join