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.

 

Who was Crucified?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 11:06 PM
link   
The New Testament tells us that one man “Jesus” was crucified, betrayed by one man Judas Iscariot, history tells a different story. It was the nation of Judea that was crucified, betrayed by a small band of Zealots, who engaged in all manner of rebellious murder against Roman soldiers as well as against their own people---in order to provoke war with Rome. Rome did not tolerate sedition and rooted it out wherever it was found, often with dire consequences for those living in the towns that the zealots imbedded themselves in. When Titus’ (a future Roman Emperor) failed at his many attempts for a peace treaty between Rome and the Zealots, his tolerance for compromise ended; and he unleashed hell itself on the people of Jerusalem. Josephus, a first century historian, describes the horror outside the walls of Jerusalem before the siege of the city by Titus:
“As the earthworks were progressing, his troops captured any [Jew] who ventured out to look for food. When caught, and resisted they were tortured and crucified before the walls as a terrible warning to the people within the city.” “…Outraged and with hatred [towards the Jews] the soldiers nailed their prisoners in different postures, and so great was their number that space could not be found for all the crosses.”


The following passage from the book of Acts, describes Judas Iscariot’s fate after he betrayed his master Jesus:
“[Judas] purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out. And it became known to all those dwelling in Jerusalem; so that field is called in their own language, Akel Dama, that is, Field of Blood. “For it is written in the book of Psalms: ‘Let his dwelling place be desolate, and let no one live in it, and, let another take his position.” (Acts 1:18-20)
All of Judea was a field of blood whose “entrails gushed out” during the seven years of the Jewish revolt against the Roman Empire. Josephus, a Jewish general turned Roman historian, describes the disembowelment of Judea in his writings: “So great was the slaughter that in many places the flames were put out by streams of blood.”
The birth of a “new religion” (Christianity) came out of the ash heap that the cities of Judea rendered into towards the end of the first century AD. The Jewish nation, its heritage, and its people, were on the verge of disappearing by way of suicide and the crushing blows of Roman legions (and other countries to the North and South of Judea that joined in the fury for plunder). Jewish strongholds and cities in all of Palestine were cut down and thrown into the fire. There was no place to hide for the Jews; frenzy for Jewish blood and property, swept across Egypt and Mesopotamia in a “free-for-all” fashion. It was not a good time to be a Jew.
With the “sky” literally falling down all around them, a handful of Jewish men joined forces and fashioned a plan to salvage the legacy of “Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,” in a form other than Judaism hoping to preserve it (everything Jewish was being destroyed). These Christian forefathers saw the writing on the wall, and understood that Judaism may have breathed its final gasp and gave these words to be spoke by their new symbol Jesus, who in his dieing breath said, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? That is, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46).
The Roman Empire was tenacious when it came to preserving its sovereignty; the Zealots likewise, would not relinquish their own autonomy, nor would they allow their people to coexist peacefully under any nation other than that of the house of Israel. Although a good portion of the Jews did manage to get along with and even prosper under the Romans for nearly a century, the few extremists among them (Zealots and the Sicarii [hired terrorist]) unwittingly, in league with a few tyrannical Roman rulers, made for a relationship that was damned.
Out of the frying pan and into the fire.
What the early Jewish Christians failed to foresee was the horrible crown of hatred (thorns) that they inadvertently placed upon the head of their own people (those that survived the Roman bloodbath), and that of their children and their children’s children, for countless generations, even to this day, for a hoax much of the world believed. Throughout history, Christians have persecuted Jews for crucifying Jesus, despite the fact that the crucifixion of Jesus was only a symbol of what was the “crucifying” of a people, the Jews of Judea.

For the rest of the story go to: home.earthlink.net...

[Edited on 21-8-2004 by sleeper]




posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 05:24 AM
link   
Dude it was a historical fact that a man named jesus died on the cross. Many, many historians of the time recorded, most of them were athiest and did not even believe in god.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Ok, lets be totally honest here. I am not taking sides. I think that trying to compare history to the bible in this way is meaningless. The New Testament is an account of the beginning of Christianity. It is the account of one man. It is an account of the life of Jesus. Comparing outside sources to this is not only meanigless, but foolish. It is a religious text describing a religion. If you don't believe it, thats fine. It describes exactly what is supposed to have happened to Jesus. The things you speak of describe something else. Something that has no bearing on the New Testament and its message that Jesus Christ Lived.

Now, on the other hand. It is not historical fact that a man by the name of Jesus was crucified. Even if it was, that man may not have been the same Jesus. Trying to claim this story as "historical fact" is also meaningless and foolish. The truth is that you need to have faith. You need to believe in the story. I can assure you that in your lifetime, we will not be able to say that the New testiment is historical fact.....



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 11:29 AM
link   
I used the bible and historical records to make my case. I'm not anti-Christian, my whole family is Christian and so is my country (Italy). The purpose of boards like this one is to bring into the open these types of issues, why else are we here?

All religions and belief systems are faith based---take away faith and belief and nothing remains but the hype.

Everything in this life is an allusion.

I have no doubts about life after death, and I do believe in a higher power. Not because of faith or dogma but from common sense.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 06:36 PM
link   
There have been many different theories about the Crucifixion. Early Christians known as the Gnostics believe that Jesus didn't die on the cross, but rather only created the illusion he was being crucified. Some Gnostic versions of the Passion story have Jesus magically switching places with Simon of Cyrene (who in the New Testament mercifully carries the cross a few blocks to give Jesus a break).

There are some other theories in which Jesus doesn't die on the cross (although these theories greatly differ from the Gnostics). According to these theories, Jesus was taken down from the cross still alive and nursed back to health. He then sired a child with Mary Magdalene, who took the kid to France and raised him there. The Knights Templar formed to protect this secret, codenamed "Holy Grail," and the descendants of Jesus eventually became a line of French kings known as the Merovingians.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 06:48 PM
link   
[Edited on 28-6-2004 by maynardsthirdeye]



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Interestingly, I have recently finished reading Tom Harpurs book, The Pagan Christ, and have just completed the first three chapters of Knight and Lomas' The Book of Hiram. In both these theological attempts at connecting the ancient with the contemperary, there has been much made of crucifictions.

Harpur mentions the mythical tale of the crucifiction of Horus and that it parallels much of the Passion of Christ. There are many similar instances throughout the various religious texts historically preceeding the New Testament.

Knight and Lomas mention the self imposed crucifiction of Odin in the Nordic tradition, hanging nailed to a tree for nine days, sporting a spear wound in his side and resurrecting himself after eight days.

I know this seems to deviate from the initial direction of this thread, but I thought it interesting enough to put forth. I could, if anyone wished, list more of these particular myths which seem to point to another idea altogether from the standard bit of bloodletting we are all used to hearing about... the notion that we must all die and be reborn symbolically (as in the Masonic 3rd degree) in order to become aware of our spirituality. ..



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 09:51 PM
link   
The Gnostics tried to rationalize things they didn’t understand like Jesus or anyone coming back to life once dead.

Simon of Cyrene is chronologically out of place, he is a personality from the book of 1 Maccabees, which was written about one hundred and fifty years before the time allotted to Jesus.

Jesus getting together with Mary Magdalene is one of the first “Romance Novels” and carries with it the same absurdity.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 10:17 PM
link   
In essence, who amongst us does not feel like they too carry their own cross? This life is not an easy ride for anyone. And all of us will die---and all of us will live again.

“O Death, where is your sting? 1 Corinthians 15:55



posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seapeople
Ok, lets be totally honest here. I am not taking sides. I think that trying to compare history to the bible in this way is meaningless. The New Testament is an account of the beginning of Christianity. It is the account of one man. It is an account of the life of Jesus. Comparing outside sources to this is not only meanigless, but foolish. It is a religious text describing a religion. If you don't believe it, thats fine. It describes exactly what is supposed to have happened to Jesus. The things you speak of describe something else. Something that has no bearing on the New Testament and its message that Jesus Christ Lived.

Now, on the other hand. It is not historical fact that a man by the name of Jesus was crucified. Even if it was, that man may not have been the same Jesus. Trying to claim this story as "historical fact" is also meaningless and foolish. The truth is that you need to have faith. You need to believe in the story. I can assure you that in your lifetime, we will not be able to say that the New testiment is historical fact.....


WTF ARE YOU TALKING about, lol I don't care what you believe, that is your opinion, I was not arguing about that, I was simply saying that there were many scholars and historians during that time the recorded that a man named Jesus, did many wonderful acts, he said he was the san of god, and the the Romans killed him on the cross, that is all I am saying, Look it up if you dont believe me. Oh yeah I am a christian, I do believe the Bible, that is not what I was saying, maybe we got confused, also I was not trying to say the new testiment was a fact, as that would get me flamed, and I dont have time to argue. Iw as saying through outside sources at the time, it was recorded, a lot of poeple dont know that.

[Edited on 1-7-2004 by infovacume]



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 01:06 PM
link   
You know info, you dissapoint me time and time again. Do you know what the definition of fact is? Read what I wrote.....I will tell you again. The new testament is not historical fact. You will never be able to prove that in your lifetime. That is what I said. You said it is my opinion.... That was an unintelligent statement. It is no opinion. The new testament is surely not historical fact. If it is, it will never be proven so. What I said is the truth. It is your opinion....your beliefs.....your faith, that are the opinion. You choose to believe something that may not be true (eliminating it from being fact, because it may not be true). It is you, not me,l that provided the opinion. I did not take sides. I only stated FACT. The New testament is not a history book. It is not something that will be proven factual in your lifetime, or anyones, unless Jesus himself tells you so during the second coming. Until then, I am right.



posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Santa Clause is not real---yet many of us get gifts on Christmas day.

There are thousands of religious beliefs---few can be proven historically or otherwise---yet they all give hope to those who subscribe to them.

When the allusions of this life end (at death) we will discover that all of our fears were in vain.



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 11:29 AM
link   


Who was crucified?



mmm many many people?

Not only Jesus...

Oh, off thread a little, anyone seen : the passion ?

How did you find it? It was so eerie getting out of the cinema, nobody was talking, not a noise.



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by infovacume

Originally posted by Seapeople
Ok, lets be totally honest here. I am not taking sides. I think that trying to compare history to the bible in this way is meaningless. The New Testament is an account of the beginning of Christianity. It is the account of one man. It is an account of the life of Jesus. Comparing outside sources to this is not only meanigless, but foolish. It is a religious text describing a religion. If you don't believe it, thats fine. It describes exactly what is supposed to have happened to Jesus. The things you speak of describe something else. Something that has no bearing on the New Testament and its message that Jesus Christ Lived.

Now, on the other hand. It is not historical fact that a man by the name of Jesus was crucified. Even if it was, that man may not have been the same Jesus. Trying to claim this story as "historical fact" is also meaningless and foolish. The truth is that you need to have faith. You need to believe in the story. I can assure you that in your lifetime, we will not be able to say that the New testiment is historical fact.....


WTF ARE YOU TALKING about, lol I don't care what you believe, that is your opinion, I was not arguing about that, I was simply saying that there were many scholars and historians during that time the recorded that a man named Jesus, did many wonderful acts, he said he was the san of god, and the the Romans killed him on the cross, that is all I am saying, Look it up if you dont believe me. Oh yeah I am a christian, I do believe the Bible, that is not what I was saying, maybe we got confused, also I was not trying to say the new testiment was a fact, as that would get me flamed, and I dont have time to argue. Iw as saying through outside sources at the time, it was recorded, a lot of poeple dont know that.

[Edited on 1-7-2004 by infovacume]


Whoa, whoa, whoa. Where did you get the information that led you to claim " there were many scholars and historians during that time the recorded that a man named Jesus, did many wonderful acts, he said he was the san of god, and the the Romans killed him on the cross". One of the most annoying things about Christianity is that there are no undisputed citations of Jesus outside the New Testament.

Kersey Graves wrote a book called The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors, a list of pre-Jesus people/myths who shared much in common with Jesus of Nazz. The list includes:

Krishna
Sakia
Thamuz
Wittoba
Ioa
Hesus
Quexalcote
Quirinus
Prometheus
Thulis
Indra
Alcestos
Atys
Crite
Bali
Mithra



posted on Aug, 21 2004 @ 07:28 PM
link   
God was crucified (metaphorically speaking) by the Jews---the Gentiles resurrected the God of Abraham and called him Jesus.



posted on Aug, 21 2004 @ 08:52 PM
link   

With the “sky” literally falling down all around them, a handful of Jewish men joined forces and fashioned a plan to salvage the legacy of “Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,” in a form other than Judaism hoping to preserve it (everything Jewish was being destroyed). These Christian forefathers saw the writing on the wall, and understood that Judaism may have breathed its final gasp and gave these words to be spoke by their new symbol Jesus, who in his dieing breath said, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? That is, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46).


Here I was thinking Jesus, in his darkest hour, began to pray.
Psalms 22



[Edited on 21-8-2004 by Raphael_UO]



posted on Aug, 21 2004 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Jesus represents Judaism, David, when he spoke those words was speaking about his personal trials, and he too represents Judaism---one and the same.



posted on Aug, 21 2004 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Never mind.

[Edited on 21-8-2004 by Raphael_UO]

I think I would rather try to catch the wind. Both that and this debate is pointless. But I would at least have something to show for my attempt at catching the wind.

[Edited on 21-8-2004 by Raphael_UO]



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by masqua
Interestingly, I have recently finished reading Tom Harpurs book, The Pagan Christ, and have just completed the first three chapters of Knight and Lomas' The Book of Hiram. In both these theological attempts at connecting the ancient with the contemperary, there has been much made of crucifictions.

......

Knight and Lomas mention the self imposed crucifiction of Odin in the Nordic tradition, hanging nailed to a tree for nine days, sporting a spear wound in his side and resurrecting himself after eight days.


I have always been amazed that very few people wish to see these parallels. These (and many others) have always fascinated Me, since My earliest days in college.

As someone already pointed out, there were many Deities throughout history/mythology (however you prefer to label it) who were crucified, and many of those figures were also resurrected in one form or another.

It was a theory of one of My fellow students in college that when JC "rose from the dead," he was in spirit form alone and made himself be seen. He dwelled with his men for 40 days or so and then allowed his soul to be taken on to the Guf. Nice trick. Can anyone teach it to Me?



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 02:31 AM
link   
quote from "Biggie"
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Where did you get the information that led you to claim " there were many scholars and historians during that time the recorded that a man named Jesus, did many wonderful acts, he said he was the san of god, and the the Romans killed him on the cross". One of the most annoying things about Christianity is that there are no undisputed citations of Jesus outside the New Testament.

Kersey Graves wrote a book called The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors, a list of pre-Jesus people/myths who shared much in common with Jesus of Nazz. The list includes:

Krishna
Sakia
Thamuz
Wittoba
Ioa
Hesus
Quexalcote
Quirinus
Prometheus
Thulis
Indra
Alcestos
Atys
Crite
Bali
Mithra
quote

Reply from Me, infovacume

Josephus was a Jewish historian who lived circa 37-100 AD. His Hebrew name was Joseph ben Mattathias, and he received an excellent education in Jerusalem. After leading a failed revolt of the Jewish forces against Rome, Josephus was captured and became a Roman citizen. He served as pensioner of several Flavian emperors and is most widely known by the name he then acquired, Flavius Josephus.

Around 93 AD., Josephus published Jewish Antiquities, a history of the Jews in twenty books. Though not a prominent subject of his writing, John the Baptist, Jesus of Nazareth, and Jesus' brother James are all mentioned in Jewish Antiquities

Tacitus (c. A.D. 56-117) should be among the first of several hostile witnesses called to the stand. He was a member of the Roman provincial upper class with a formal education who held several high positions under different emperors such as Nerva and Trajan (see Tacitus, 1952, p. 7). His famous work, Annals, was a history of Rome written in approximately A.D. 115. In the Annals he told of the Great Fire of Rome, which occurred in A.D. 64. Nero, the Roman emperor in office at the time, was suspected by many of having ordered the city set on fire. Tacitus wrote:

Nero fabricated scapegoats—and punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were popularly called). Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius’ reign by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilatus. But in spite of this temporary setback the deadly superstition had broken out afresh, not only in

Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 AD), "the greatest historian" of ancient Rome:

Flavius Josephus (37-97 AD), court historian for Emperor Vespasian

Pliny the Younger, Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor around 112 AD

Emporer Hadrian (117-138 AD), in a letter to Minucius Fundanus, the Asian proconsul

and many many more. Sorry it took forever to respond, I just saw this thread was brought back so I thought I would chime in from a, umm how did you say it? Oh, Oh yeah I remember now, One of the most annoying things about Christianity is that there are no undisputed citations of Jesus outside the New Testament." perspective, since it just so dam annoying.

[Edited on 22-8-2004 by infovacume]

[Edited on 22-8-2004 by infovacume]




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join