The Prophecy of Jesus in Luke 23:43

First of all, there is no such thing as a mere “coincidence” in the Gospels.

Thus, it was no mere “coincidence” that Jesus was crucified at “the place called the Skull” (between) “two criminals also, one on the right, the other on the left” (the Gospel of Luke 23:33); criminals which are later described/implied in the Gospel of Luke 23:39-42 as being a “good thief” and a “bad thief”. (See, also, the caduceus of Greek mythology and what is referred to as the ‘vision of kundalini’.)

And, as previously stated, these three crosses on Calvary represent the three dimensions of consciousness—the consciousness of the “self”, the consciousness of the ‘thinker’, and the consciousness Created ‘by and in the image of God’—as manifested in the three doctrinal positions with regards to the Revelation and Doctrine of the “resurrection”.

Given, then, that the Doctrine of “resurrection” is a Doctrine of ‘Rebirth’ (as is congruent with the consciousness Created ‘by and in the image of God’; but not the ‘fallen’ consciousness of either the “self” or the ‘thinker’)—and, thus, that there is no such thing as either a metaphysical existence of rewards called ‘heaven’ or a metaphysical existence of punishments called ‘hell’—the statement of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke 23:43 becomes somewhat ‘problematical’; being capable of being interpreted in accordance with Christo-pagan metaphysical philosophy, on the one hand; or, on the other hand, understood in the context of the Knowledge Revealed through the Vision of the “Son of man” itself.

Now, according to the Gospel of Luke 23:40-42, the statement of the “good thief” to the “bad thief” is as follows: “Have you no fear of God at all? You got the same sentence as he did, but in our case we deserved it; we are paying for what we did. But this man has done nothing wrong.” To which Jesus then replied, ‘problematically’, “Indeed I promise you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

According to the Christian theologians and those who have been seduced by pagan metaphysical philosophy—they number in the hundreds of millions (and certainly cannot be referred to as the “few”)—the statement of Jesus to the “good thief” should be interpreted as signifying, quite simply, that the “good thief” is going to a metaphysical ‘heaven’ when he dies. Nothing more than that.

But, to the ‘Gnostics’ or the Albigensians, for example, the statement of Jesus should be understood from a much more complex Doctrinal perspective with regards to the details of the relationship between Jesus and the Pharisees.

The Pharisees emphasized the ethical dimension of the Law; as, today, is represented by the anti-Zionist rabbis of the Neturei Karta and the political position taken by the “Jewish Voice for Peace” and “Young, Jewish and Proud”; whereas the Sadducees emphasized the superficial and external aspects of the Law and what, today, would be the political position taken by the Zionist Jews.

Interestingly enough, then, the statement of the “good thief” to the “bad thief” is, in fact, precisely what is implied in the Doctrine of ‘Rebirth’—that the wicked are punished in this world; but something which the Pharisees, however, rejected.

What can then be understood about the statement of Jesus to the “good thief”—“Indeed I promise you, today you will be with me in paradise”—is that it is an affirmation of the ethical position taken by the Pharisees; while, simultaneously, a repudiation of the doctrinal position taken by the Pharisees in rejecting the Doctrine of ‘Rebirth’.

In comparison to the Sadducee “bad thieves”, then, the Pharisees were the “good thieves”.

But they were still thieves.

And, today, they are still receiving money for teaching the pagan metaphysical interpretation of the Doctrine of “resurrection”; although, of course, they are still better than the Zionist rabbis.

But neither will the political position taken by the anti-Zionist rabbis of the Neturei Karta, or the “Jewish Voice for Peace”, or “Young, Jewish and Proud” be capable of bringing genuine Peace to the Middle East anymore than the position taken by the Zionists.

Mi cha el

That was deep and confusing at the same time. I can't tell if your for or against Christianity. Very well written.

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
What can then be understood about the statement of Jesus to the “good thief”—“Indeed I promise you, today you will be with me in paradise”—is that it is an affirmation of the ethical position taken by the Pharisees; while, simultaneously, a repudiation of the doctrinal position taken by the Pharisees in rejecting the Doctrine of ‘Rebirth’.

Where on Earth do you find support for this statement? Christ never said anything about "The Doctrine of Rebirth", because reincarnation is fundamentally opposed by the Judaic faith. Jesus was a Jew, his apostles were Jews, it's likely that the thieves were Jews, so claiming that Christ "really" gave a philosophical answer to a question that no one asked is ludicrous.

The scene that you are attempting to corrupt is a critical one, as it demonstrates that salvation can come, even at the last hour, to one who is truly repentant and has faith in Christ.

Aside from your ignorance of Christian Gnosticism, why do you keep trying to associate them with your reincarnation theory? The Gnostics embraced the Hellenistic belief that matter was evil and spirit was good, so they would be repulsed by your notion that they'd not escape the prison of their bodies, but be tossed back into a new shell.

East is east, west is west, Michael. You want reincarnation, stick with a faith that professes it, and that is not Judaism, Christianity, Islam or Gnosticism. Doesn't fit with your delusions of being Abraham, but not much does, does it?

Originally posted by phiktion
That was deep and confusing at the same time. I can't tell if your for or against Christianity. Very well written.

Does Christianity teach a Doctrine of 'Rebirth'?

No, it does not.

That was the reason for the separation of Pauline Christianity from the 'Gnostics', and the extermination of tens of thousands of Albigensians 1100 years later.

Christianity teaches the pagan doctrine of a metaphysical 'soul' and the pagan doctrine of a metaphysical 'heaven' and 'hell'.

All of that is contrary to the Teaching of Jesus.

Oh, by the way, the venom behind the use of the word "Pharisaical" by the original followers of Jesus had to do with the fact that the Pharisees should have believed the Teaching of Jesus.

The Sadducees were simply a lost cause; like the Zionists of today.

They are so abysmally in error that nothing really can be done about them.

It was merely a half-step away, however, for the Pharisees to understand that the Doctrinal foundation of the ethical position they were taking had to do with 'Rebirth' and what the Eastern religions refer to as "karma".

This is something that should have been very easily understood by the Pharisees.

But they became too concerned about the implications of such a Doctrine on their wealth, their power, and the esteem in which they were held by at least some of the Jews at the time.

Mi cha el

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
All of that is contrary to the Teaching of Jesus.

Because he never spoke of heaven or hell?

(Sigh.)

To the members, moderataors, Super Moderators, 'Higher-Than-God-Himselves' (you know who you are, but you don't know who you are), believers and atheists of Above Top Secret:

Pay careful attention to what has happened on this thread.

What you are witnessing here is a veritable re-enactment of 'the Fall'.

What you are witnessing here is the very origin of the 'problem of Evil'; that is, the origin of the very mechanism of consciousness which is both dragging and pushing this civilization towards self-annihilation:

I have related the Knowledge conveyed by means of the 2-dimensional 'flat' space "observing consciousness" Created 'by and in the image of God'; specifically, through the Vision of the "Son of man" and the Revelation of the "resurrection".

This Knowledge is the "narrow path" and the "path to Life"; the purpose of which is to resolve the duality and diminish, as much as possible, conflict, violence, bloodshed and genocide on this planet by striking at the foundation of the theological lies and errors which are perpetuating conflict and violence between Jews, Christians and Muslims.

Enter the 'fallen' consciousness, the 'reptilian' consciousness, the dualistic consciousness, the consciousness of (mostly) the "self"; but, also, the 'thinker'; the consciousness of rebellion against the consciousness Created 'by and in the image of God'; the consciousness of the repudiation of the Knowledge received through Revelation; the consciousness described as the 'wide path' and the path that "leads to destruction"; the path of the "beast of the sea" and the "beast of the earth"; a path upon which hundreds of millions upon hundreds of millions of people are walking catatonically towards annihilation; the purpose of which consciousness is, specifically, to bring about such annihilation.

This consciousness simply cannot tolerate that the Truth be expressed at all.

And, in place of that Truth, it advances the doctrines of Christo-pagan metaphysical philosophy; doctrines originating in the dualistic consciousness of the 'thinker'; which is merely an extension in time of the dualistic consciousness of the "self"; which originates in nothing more than a 'reptilian' desire for pleasure and fear of death; and, by means of a 'Wikipedia' definition of everything from Judaism to 'Gnosticism' (I suggest that this, in particular, be part of an introductory monologue on Saturday Night Live), has created an utterly fantastical reality which is not in any way related to either the space-time reality or the consciousness Created by God other than by denial and repudiation.

The specific issue involved here is the precise understanding of the meaning of the words of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke 23:43.

There are only two choices; choices which are fundamentally incommensurable:

1) These words are to be understood as an expression of both the consciousness Created by God and the Knowledge received through Revelation; or,

2) These words are to be interpreted in accordance with the 'fallen' consciousness and the doctrines of pagan metaphysical philosophy, originating in the consciousness of the 'thinker', originating in the desire for pleasure and the fear of death.

That is the "dragon"; that is the 'reptilian' consciousness.

Take your pick.

Mi cha el

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
(Sigh.)

To the members, moderataors, Super Moderators, 'Higher-Than-God-Himselves' (you know who you are, but you don't know who you are), believers and atheists of Above Top Secret:

Pay careful attention to what has happened on this thread.

What you are witnessing here is a veritable re-enactment of 'the Fall'.

Good grief. Do we really need to add "Drama Queen" to your list of personal qualities?

The specific issue involved here is the precise understanding of the meaning of the words of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke 23:43.

There are only two choices; choices which are fundamentally incommensurable:

1) These words are to be understood as an expression of both the consciousness Created by God and the Knowledge received through Revelation; or,

2) These words are to be interpreted in accordance with the 'fallen' consciousness and the doctrines of pagan metaphysical philosophy, originating in the consciousness of the 'thinker', originating in the desire for pleasure and the fear of death.

Given that number one makes absolutely no sense to anyone but you, and I'm not even sure how your mixed up psychological and philosophic beliefs gets you to that point, and number two bears a complete, concise and positive message that is consistent with all of the rest of Christ's teachings, only someone who had a pre-conceived notion about reincarnation would agree with you.

You have deep, heartfelt beliefs that few share, and you are desperate to find indicators that you are right, so you come up with whacky interpretations, such as this, that have no basis, whatsoever, and are directly contrary to every other part of the Bible. The only way that I can sustain my belief that you have actually read the Bible is to accept the fact that you've read it selectively with a bias towards your non-Biblical, non-Christian, non-Gnostic beliefs.

Then, when questioned as to your obviously fallacious interpretation, you retreat into a copse of psychological and philosophical nonsense that you feel covers up the fact that there is no basis for your beliefs, when it is, in fact, only your own ignorance and stubbornness that causes you to believe that Judaic and Gnostic notions are compatible, ironic, given that your own beliefs are contrary to both of them!

You've created your own religion, Michael, and you've invented one that is incompatible with Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Gnosticism. Get over it, and stop trying to find support for yourself in those religions, because all you wind up doing is annoying people like me who feel compelled to harp on your errors.

I believe in heaven and hell. If people are simply reborn into other bodies, we are all doomed. I can not see our planet continuing as it is much longer. The longer we live and the smarter we grow, the more we find out ways to destroy our world and each other.

With time, we do not become more enlightened. We have only become more scientific.
I would not want to be reborn into a dying world with people who hate each other and want to kill each other. Sooner or later it would all end. Then what was the point to creation at all, if everyone who ever lived was reborn only to destroy the world and everyone in it in the end, by war or by some scientific experiment gone wrong? I think the people of Cern may destroy the world by accident, or maybe some terrorist genius will unleash some biological weapon that kills everyone. Or maybe we all go down in a nuclear war that no one can win.

Anyway, there really isn't much hope I think if you just believe in reincarnation. If you reincarnate during the end times, life isn't going to be good for you.

Or do you believe that there is never going to be an end to the earth? Do you believe the past, present, and future exist as different time lines? Maybe you could be reincarnated into a different world altogether, with more enlightened people?

Anyway, I don't really understand your posts, so please explain how you view death and what you think the world is like for someone who reincarnates?

What happens after the world is destroyed, if this ever happens on some time line? Does creation start over on another planet?

What do you think is the ultimate point to life if you just keep being born over and over? Can you eventually become a spirit and ascend or are you forever stuck in the process of being reborn?

Originally posted by jessieg
I believe in heaven and hell.

Believe in heaven and hell if you want to. Just understand that the pagan religions also believe in heaven and hell. It originated as a pagan concept. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Teaching of Jesus. It is not any Revealed Truth.

If people are simply reborn into other bodies, we are all doomed.

Well, that is the way the monotheistic religious 'authorities' make their money. They have to continually write books and make video tapes and talk so as to support such a fantasy. And millions upon millions of people pay them billions of dollars to do that because the fantasy is so pleasurable.

I can not see our planet continuing as it is much longer. The longer we live and the smarter we grow, the more we find out ways to destroy our world and each other.

With time, we do not become more enlightened. We have only become more scientific.

You are beginning to see the dimensions of the problem.

I would not want to be reborn into a dying world with people who hate each other and want to kill each other.

It really does not make any difference what either you or I want.

Reality operates independently of our desires.

Sooner or later it would all end. Then what was the point to creation at all, if everyone who ever lived was reborn only to destroy the world and everyone in it in the end, by war or by some scientific experiment gone wrong? I think the people of Cern may destroy the world by accident, or maybe some terrorist genius will unleash some biological weapon that kills everyone. Or maybe we all go down in a nuclear war that no one can win.

The Jewish, Christian and Muslim religious 'authorities' have an answer to that question:

The only purpose of Creation was to enrich the religious 'authorities' themselves and to place them in positions of power on this planet.

"All else is commentary."

Anyway, there really isn't much hope I think if you just believe in reincarnation. If you reincarnate during the end times, life isn't going to be good for you.

This is not a question of what I believe. I received memories of previous lives when I did not believe in "reincarnation" or 'Rebirth' at all.

In any case, here we are.

We are all in the same boat.

Or do you believe that there is never going to be an end to the earth? Do you believe the past, present, and future exist as different time lines? Maybe you could be reincarnated into a different world altogether, with more enlightened people?

Well, this is what the Prophecy of Habakkuk is all about. The Prophecy that a time will come when "the Knowledge of the Lord will cover the earth like the water covers the sea". And there are similar Prophecies of Isaiah.

All of these Prophecies are of a time of destruction on this earth followed by a time of Peace and Justice on this earth....

Rather than any metaphysical doctrine of 'heaven'.

What do you think is the ultimate point to life if you just keep being born over and over? Can you eventually become a spirit and ascend or are you forever stuck in the process of being reborn?

Someone once said something to the effect that 'the Creator writes straight with crooked lines'.

A person cannot 'eventually become a spirit'--that is metaphysical philosophy and something asserted by the doctrine of "reincarnation". Man cannot eventually 'evolve into' or become God.

The Doctrine of "resurrection" asserts that the process of 'Rebirth' does not come to any end.

It is a continual process.

Jesus referred to it as "Eternal Life".

Christianity basically disinterprets EVERYTHING that Jesus said in accordance with pagan metaphysical philosophy.

Mi cha el

deep thinking for shallow mind readers, for they will not understand, "one must be born again" and "lazareth" or the one before john ch7vrs11-17, for i do believe that he is i am. think about it.

reply to post by Michael Cecil


So, Mi cha el...

In reference to the previous posts, I assume you have a certain idea on reincarnation.
From what I gathered, there is no heaven or hell, but rather eternal life?
In the form of reincarnation?
Belief in Jesus will give one eternal life, but truly doesnt say where?
I am highly intrigued!

I know that all mainstream religions are out for money...
Man has ruined everything he has touched, but that's my opinion.





My question is, what is the summary of Jesus' teachings?

Paul created his own religion.

A religion in which Jesus is 'God'.

A religion in which Jesus taught the doctrine of a pagan, metaphysical 'soul'--for which there is NO evidence whatsoever in the Torah, the Prophets, or the Book of Daniel; the doctrine of a metaphysical 'heaven' and 'hell'; and the Egyptian doctrine of the physical raising of a dead body from the grave.

For the Pharisaical denial of the Doctrine of "resurrection" as a Doctrine of 'Rebirth', Paul substituted the blood-thirsty pagan doctrine of the "vicarious atonement for the sins of all men" as the 'explanation' for the crucifixion; expropriating whatever Revelations received by Isaiah, et al., which were determined to be necessary to support such a fantasy.

And, over a period of more than 1500 years, the blood-thirsty idolatry and the pagan metaphysical doctrines of Christianity not only enriched Christianity, Inc. to the tune of at least billions if not trillions of dollars (in flagrant disregard of a specific command by Jesus, by the way); but also led quite directly to the slaughter of tens of thousands of Albigensians and millions of Jews during the Holocaust...

As a "vicarious atonement" for the sins of men, I suppose, just in case (one can never be "too careful") the 'vicarious atonement' of Jesus was deemed to be 'insufficient'.

Were it not for Paul's absolute perversion of the Teaching of Jesus, no one would have ever heard of Jesus at all; but, because of that perversion, Paul now has followers numbering in the hundreds of millions; hundreds of millions of people absolutely convinced that they are following Jesus rather than Paul; and who, today, would reject the Teaching of Jesus as "doctrines of Satan".

These pagan metaphysical doctrines of Paul have also extended their tentacles into the Revelations received by Mohammed; so that it is now widely believed that Mohammed, as well, taught the Egyptian doctrine of a physical raising of a dead body from the grave as well as a metaphysical 'heaven' and 'hell'; and it is because of all of these pagan doctrines taken together that there has been such genocide in the Middle East over the past few decades and a serious threat of an even worse genocide to come.

Mi cha el

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
Paul created his own religion.

.. snip ..

For the Pharisaical denial of the Doctrine of "resurrection" as a Doctrine of 'Rebirth', Paul substituted the blood-thirsty pagan doctrine of the "vicarious atonement for the sins of all men" as the 'explanation' for the crucifixion; expropriating whatever Revelations received by Isaiah, et al., which were determined to be necessary to support such a fantasy.

What proof do you have that "Paul created his own religion"? Where is support for this belief to be found? Given that all documentary evidence of Christ (including your beloved Nag Hammadi texts) were written following Paul's conversion, how can you claim that any of it is accurate?

Your thread here is on something that Christ is claimed to have said in the Gospel of Luke, a follower of Paul, so why do you claim accuracy in the quote, but not in the remainder of Luke's text? He got one line right?

When did the Pharisees deny the "Doctrine of Rebirth"? When did they ever hear of such a thing? Where is support to be found for reincarnation in Torah?

Questions, questions, questions, Michael. But never an answer to be found...

reply to post by havok


I believe the summary of Jesus teachings was very simple. HIs teaching was about LOVE, thats all.

For me thats enough, there doesn't have to be an afterlife as a reward for my good behaviour.

A life well lived is it's own reward. If we all practice that, I think the afterlife question becomes a moot point...

While alive...LIVE!!!

Originally posted by deadbang
reply to post by havok

 

I believe the summary of Jesus teachings was very simple. HIs teaching was about LOVE, thats all.

I realize that what I am going to say next may very well be difficult for you.

But do you 'think' it might be better to 'think' first before making such a comment?

So, Jesus taught about "LOVE, thats all."

And, for that, he was turned over by the Jewish priesthood--or "the Jews", as Christianity would prefer to have it--to be tortured to death.

Does that not make "the Jews", as Christian theology would have it, among the most EVIL critters on the face of the earth?

In other words, there is something called "the law of unintended consequences". And simplifying the Teaching of Jesus down to such a fundamentally witless assertion as this ultimately carries with it the implication of anti-Semitism.

People are not murdered for teaching that people should love one another.

Jesus was murdered because he specifically contradicted a DOCTRINE by which the Pharisees were held in high esteem by their followers.

And, similarly, tens of thousands of Albigensians were not slaughtered because they taught that people "should LOVE one another". They were slaughtered because they taught a Doctrine of 'Rebirth' that threatened the economic interests of, and the pursuit of political control by the Roman church in southern France.

The problem here is that it really make no difference HOW much lipstick you want to put on that pig (Christianity).

A pig is still a PIG.

Oh, by the way, the consciousness of the 'thinker' asks questions for only two reasons:

1) to pursue and acquire additional pleasure; and,

2) to diminish or eliminate pain or fear.

In other words, the consciousness of the 'thinker' really has no concern whatsoever for the Truth.

Thus, to the consciousness of the 'thinker', an "answer" is defined as anything which increases pleasure or diminishes pain, the fear of pain (which is also painful), or the fear of death.

If something does NOT increase pleasure, or diminish pain, fear of pain, or the fear of death; it is not perceived or recognized as an "answer" at all.

In other words, to the consciousness of the 'thinker', there is simply no such thing as an "answer" which is not also, and simultaneously, pleasurable.

The 'thinker' can be given ten thousand answers to its questions.

But, if every one of those answers is painful, it will whine for eternity that its questions have never been answered at all.

Poor widdo baby; always misunderstood; nobody wuvs him...

And mommy had to work for a living.

Mi cha el

There is, of course, something else about these passages from the Gospel of Luke which must be ignored by Christian theologians and the Christians who follow them:

Jesus does not contradict the statement of the "good thief" that the two thieves are being punished in this world for what they have done.

Now, if there were any such thing as a metaphysical existence of punishments called 'hell', it would seem to be reasonable to conclude that Jesus would have corrected the statement made by the "good thief" by saying "No. The wicked are punished not in this world but in hell, after death."

Now, of course, there is the "standard reply" to this which I have already heard so it is not really necessary for someone to reply to this.

But what that "standard reply" consists of is the assertion that God is the 'god of the dead'; which, of course, is what the Egyptian 'god' was; as was made direct reference to by Jesus in his cryptic explanation to the Sadducees of the Doctrine of "resurrection" in, interestingly enough, the Gospel of Luke 20:38.

Mi cha el

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
The 'thinker' can be given ten thousand answers to its questions.

But, if every one of those answers is painful, it will whine for eternity that its questions have never been answered at all.

Poor widdo baby; always misunderstood; nobody wuvs him...

Actually, I think a better conclusion from your evasiveness would be "Michael no like questions! Facts make Michael's brain hurt!" :-)

Guess that our "Messiah" this go-round left the humility behind and came cloaked in a field of self-righteous "full of himself" arrogance, eh? Sign of the times, I suppose.

reply to post by Michael Cecil

Wow Mi cha el you really told me didnt you?, I won't ever respond again without thinking, or at least running it by you to confirm whether I am thinking or not...thanks!

Actually you could not be farther from the mark, your lost in your own hyperbole. Jesus messge was in fact LOVE,

In fact he left us this little jewel in John chapter 13 v.34
"I give you a new commandment, love one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another."

So before trampling others beliefs, maybe you should drop the rhetoric and open your heart to Jesus message...LOVE...sorry your anger has caused you to miss this point.

reply to post by Michael Cecil


first off, the spin here:

“Have you no fear of God at all? You got the same sentence as he did,
but in our case we deserved it; we are paying for what we did.
But this man has done nothing wrong.” To which Jesus then replied, ‘problematically’,
“Indeed I promise you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

Jesus was referring to the ecstacy one expeierences at the moment of death... the brain sends out
tons of endorphins and biologically generated '___' to go-out in a blaze-of-glory...
hence the 'Paradise' allusion.


the well studied Jesus, rogue 'Rabbi', knew well of the 'reincarnation thought' from the far east,
China in fact... is known as "Sino" which translated into Greek is spoken as "Sinai"
yes just like the sacred Mount Sinai where Moses received the 'Laws'... Sinai is all throghout
the old testament & Torah... i suggest that the real identity of the Divine Words/Laws was from
the Sinai = Sino > China, or Far East./..

->>not the Sinai out there on the Arabian Peninsula


re: the three crosses= Body - Mind - Spirit... representing the totality of the created human


but, at times i do enjoy your fractal filligrees of explainations that dissolve into a mystical, metaphysical, metaphorical wilderness... enjoy

reply to post by Michael Cecil

Believe in heaven and hell if you want to. Just understand that the pagan religions also believe in heaven and hell. It originated as a pagan concept. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Teaching of Jesus. It is not any Revealed Truth.

What are you, seventeen years old? Are you educated at all? I have studied religions of the world for more years than you have been born, and "Pagan" religions did not believe in "heaven and hell." Those are Christian terms, and Christian imaginings. I am a long time pagan myself, and those terms do not fit into my system of belief, never has, never will. And furthermore, there never was a man named "Jesus." Will you have me to believe an Englishman with blond hair and beard lived in Biblical Israel? No, no such man did live there, and I wish you Christians would get over that. Not one word was written about Yeshaua bin Joseph until he had been "dead" for 70 years! How could anyone remember exact words after that many years? And, the man did not die on the cross, either:
Titanic find: 'Christ's coffin'

Discovery Channel Video of the find

And, I suppose you are getting your stuff from the New Testament?
Well, that was written by the Romans, do you think they told the truth about anything to those they hated?
The True Authorship of the New Testament

It is no wonder preachers are leaving the church as fast as parishioners, people can read, and some read the Bible they are told to believe. Once that is done, one does not wish to be a Christian anymore, it seems.
Are we clear?