Jesus....Born in an occupied land and after ?

This for me is an exercise in reflection and an abridged version of my own theories (time is of the essence) and i would be most grateful for any mature input from all parties, i may not answer any posts as it’s a rare moment i get time to chill out on the ‘puter and this is one of those rare moments

Jesus.

For me he is an interesting figure who may or may not have actually existed yet still managed to have quiet an effect on the world for a few millennium but heres my theory.

A man was born into an occupied land, he grew up in a fairly well to do family helping his father Joseph to build a nearby city and gaining skills in stone cutting, carpentry etc etc, as time went on he may of found time to study the Torah and Jewish laws and traditions and became very aware of the unjust treatment of his poor Jewish brethren in comparison to the ruling elites lifestyle i.e. those who colluded with the Romans especially while building this new city close to his home to which seemed to be designed for them.
This led him to move into a type of ministry that was roaming and led to him upsetting the powers that be, he openly challenged the Jewish leadership the Pharisees for example, scribes etc and their co-operative behaviour with the occupying Romans that allowed them to live a fairly privileged lifestyle as the rest of the peoples suffered in abject poverty (apparently there are ongoing archaeological digs in Jerusalem that can verify the living standards of the political/religious elite at that time) and this pissed the elite off as they saw that he may cause their lifestyles to end if they couldn’t shut him up.
Not having a case to bring against him these varmints decided to play a little mind game with the Romans and state that he was challenging the then Caesar’s authority by admitting or declaring himself a Son of G-d, now in Jewish terms this DID NOT mean actually G-d but was a title bestowed upon the most learned and Holy Rabbi giving him the position of what we in the west would understand as near enough to a living Saint BUT, to the Romans this directly challenged Caesar’s position politically and religiously as he considered himself a God and His Father one therefore he was THE SON OF GOD.
If Jesus/Jeshua had committed the terrible blasphemy of declaring himself G-d’s Son and therefore his equal he would of been taken by the Sanhedrin Court and the Jewish people’s and STONED to death, as it is it seems that he was crucified which is a distinctly Roman punishment at this time so ergo he was framed using clever word play.

Did he die on the cross?

personally i think not, i feel that being a fairly strong man physically he would of taken days to die on the cross which is what it was designed for, it may be that during the time he was suffering it was reported in the new Christian testament that he was given a cup of poison or a sponge dipped in the cup and quickly after this he ‘died’, me i feel that he may of entered into a state in which he appeared dead, the roman soldiers tested this by shoving a spear in his side and with no reaction allowed him to be take down just before the Sabbath began (nightfall) showing that he may of been on the cross only a matter of a few hours.
After being taken down he was moved quickly to eventually be nursed, now when i asked a Rabbi student is it possible to look after a very ill person during the Sabbath or he will die he answered not only possible but mandatory, my theory goes on then that he was nursed back to health using a wee clue the gifts of frankincense and myrrh (the baby shower gifts that were written into the testament as a clue to its use later on the story of Jesus which is written to be read allegorically with hidden absolute truth’s) both having healing qualities that close and disinfect open wounds and being quiet a fit young fella he managed to survive his hours of torture and humiliation hence the ‘resurrection’.

Who nursed him?

The only clue may lead to a sympathetic socialite/ religious elite? Named Joseph of Aramathia .
After that i feel it is within all possibility he may of gone into hiding, changed his name etc and carried on behind the scenes encouraging this new Jewish movement that may of been instructed to also reach out to none Jews as apparently was the norm at those times (review how the Temple was designed and its court of the none Jew).

Who was Jesus/Jeshua to me?

Well from what little evidence we have of him i would like to say that he was probably a man of his time, a Son of G-d (as understood in the Jewish mindset) and a Son of Man (a religiously inspired humanitarian) and one worth studying and listening to as are any other person preaching peace and fairness to all by just using a bit of common sense aptly wrapped up in one saying ..... Love the Lord your G-d with your whole heart, mind, body and soul and love your neighbour as yourself.

All the other stuff.

For me i would like to think he also settled down, got married and had a family if he had not done so already and continued on his mission, getting his hands dirty building and mending a home having a laugh and a few cups of wine and taking pleasure in the simple things in life as we all should do really.
It’s all too easy to dismiss Christianity in its present form and may be it should be, but we cannot hide the fact it has had quiet an impact on humanity, i feel that at some point the true message of Jeshua was hijacked by certain political power mongers and any absolute truth’s based on empirical evidence is now lost to us and this exercise in thought above is for me anyways a means of dealing with the rather naughty mind games of guilt Christians both modern and ancient play when one comes to doubt the orthodox ‘truths’ and searching for THE truth, at the end of the day i just have to make do with what i have at hand and hope my journey from faith to truth may one day be fulfilled.

Jesus and most great spiritual leaders would encourage your spirit of reflection. One can never really know true faith unless having first considered every alternative. I wish you the best on your path toward enlightenment.

31 Since it was the day of Preparation, in order to prevent the bodies from remaining on the cross on the sabbath (for that sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. 32 So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first, and of the other who had been crucified with him; 33 but when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34 But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water. 35 He who saw it has borne witness -- his testimony is true, and he knows that he tells the truth -- that you also may believe. 36 For these things took place that the scripture might be fulfilled, "Not a bone of him shall be broken." 37 And again another scripture says, "They shall look on him whom they have pierced."

Do dead people bleed as per John19:34 above?

No
If you cut a dead person and turn them the blood may drain out, but in order to actually bleed you need a heartbeat. You bleed because your heart is pumping blood through your body. You can actually have a good idea of how long it took someone to die by the amount of blood surrounding them, assuming they died with a bleeding injury. If there is A LOT of blood around the body it took them a while to die, but if there isn't much blood it didn't take very long, because like I said once the heart stops beating the bleeding stops.

Have you ever read 'The Passover Plot'? Your OP is pretty much along the same lines as that book.

reply to post by EssenSieMich


Nice mate, thank you for that

reply to post by christina-66


I haven't no but thanks for the heads up going to get it ordered tomorrow, just reading the bumf on it has kinda grabbed me, again many thanks

reply to post by christina-66


Do dead people bleed?
According to this individual they do:

Blood will flow out of a dead body because of gravity. A dead body does lose blood if there is an open wound simply because liquid flows to the lowest point. Even if there is no wound the blood will begin to pool inside the body on whatever side is lowest. In the embalming process the blood is forced out by pumping embalming fluid into the circulatory system and displacing the blood. I worked for many years in a funeral home and on one occasion we got a call from a hospital to come and pick up a body. When we got the body back to the funeral home the embalmer made an incision in the carotid artery so he could insert the tube that pumps in the fluid and when he made the cut blood spurted out. Dead bodies do not spurt blood so he applied pressure to the wound while I called the hospital and told them to get an ambulance over to the funeral home and to get it there five minutes ago. The woman was a cancer patient and she did die a few days later but she was very much alive that night. I guess that one could say that dead bodies don’t bleed so much as they ooze. Sources: my mortuary experience

This and more responses supporting the fact that the dead do bleed found on:

[url=http://askville.amazon.com/dead-bleed/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=4534311]http://askville.amazon.com/dead-bleed/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=4534311[/ url]

Hello. As an Orthodox Christian, I would obviously find little to agree with in your findings, and as another poster has pointed out, most of it has been proposed before. Indeed, there are multiple threads here on ATS regarding it, you might want to go check them out (one was titled something like "Did Jesus fake his death to get away from it all?")

Anyway, I will respond to your two points below, as I don't believe that I've seen seen them before.

Originally posted by weaverre
Not having a case to bring against him these varmints decided to play a little mind game with the Romans and state that he was challenging the then Caesar’s authority by admitting or declaring himself a Son of G-d, now in Jewish terms this DID NOT mean actually G-d but was a title bestowed upon the most learned and Holy Rabbi giving him the position of what we in the west would understand as near enough to a living Saint BUT, to the Romans this directly challenged Caesar’s position politically and religiously as he considered himself a God and His Father one therefore he was THE SON OF GOD.

If Jesus/Jeshua had committed the terrible blasphemy of declaring himself G-d’s Son and therefore his equal he would of been taken by the Sanhedrin Court and the Jewish people’s and STONED to death, as it is it seems that he was crucified which is a distinctly Roman punishment at this time so ergo he was framed using clever word play.

The death of Christ was, on the surface, indeed a political issue. But the issue was with the Jewish religious authorities, not the Romans. As you say, Christ would have been stoned for making the statements that he did, and it is written in the Bible that he escaped such stoning earlier. So claims that Jews "had no law to put someone to death" are untrue.

But the situation at the time must be considered. At the time of the Passover, Jerusalem was generally packed with people, who came from all over to celebrate the feast. Jesus had just made the Triumphant Entry into the city a few days before, riding on a donkey (fulfilling messianic prophecy that recalled David) and being thronged by chanting and cheering crowds, who had heard what he had been doing, and believed him the Messiah.

The Messiah was seen as one who would overthrow Israel's oppressors, restore the kingdom, and usher in a new age. Jesus seemed to have widespread support that only began to dissipate when the Romans arrested him and messianic hopes dissolved. So, for the Jewish authorities to propose stoning such a person would be to invite revolt, against them, not Rome.

The solution was obvious -- give the Romans a reason to crucify him. But referring to him as the "Son of God" was no reason -- Rome was a polytheistic society, so such claims were pointless. The only thing that would do would be to accuse him of declaring himself the Messiah, the "King of the Jews", in opposition to the Roman backed Herods. And this is what they did, though one will note the curious nature of the trials of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels. In response to questioning, he returns the question to the asker, requiring them to make a statement.

"Who do you say I am?" This is, as a literary device, the intent of the Synoptics -- they challenge you, as the reader, to make your statement of who you believe that Christ is.

Did he die on the cross?

personally i think not, i feel that being a fairly strong man physically he would of taken days to die on the cross which is what it was designed for

Once the wheels were set in motion, the entire Holy Week / Passion events are on God's time, not the Pharisees or Romans. Within an occupied Jewish city, the Romans would not have left people up the on crosses during the Sabbath (well, not Jews anyway, but probably not anyone.) Hence the "breaking the legs" bit, which would result in asphyxiation, because they could no longer support their weight on their legs and would quickly suffer lung collapse. Jesus died before they came round to break his legs because prophecy said that this would happen.

Regardless, the Romans would have ensured that all those crucified were dead before sundown, because of the Sabbath, so Christ did not "take days to die on the cross."

If you're interested, here is an article on the medical analysis of the death of Christ. It's from the Journal of the American Medical Association, so one would assume that it's pretty accurate, at least from the source material in the Bible (which, I would point out, is also the only source material that you have.)

In Islam, Jesus (Arabic: عيسى; `Īsā) is considered to be a Messenger of God who was sent to guide the Children of Israel (banī isrā'īl) with a new scripture, the Injīl or Gospel.[1]

The Qur'an, considered by Muslims to be God's final and authoritative revelation to humankind, mentions Jesus twenty-five times.[2] It states that Jesus was born to Mary (Arabic: Maryam) as the result of virginal conception, a miraculous event which occurred by the decree of God (Arabic: Allah). To aid in his ministry to the Jewish people, Jesus was given the ability to perform miracles, all by the permission of God rather than of his own power. According to the Qur'an (Koran), Jesus was neither killed nor crucified, but rather he was ascended to heaven (jannah).[3] Islamic tradition and commentaries states that he will return to earth near the day of judgment to restore justice and defeat al-Masīḥ ad-Dajjāl ("the false messiah", also known as the Antichrist).[4][5]

Like all prophets in Islam, Jesus is considered to have been a Muslim by the term's definition; i.e., one who submits to the will of God, as he preached that his followers should adopt the "straight path" as commanded by God. Islam rejects the Christian view that Jesus was God incarnate or the son of God, that he was ever crucified or resurrected, or that he ever atoned for the sins of mankind. The Qur'an says that Jesus himself never claimed any of these things, and it furthermore indicates that Jesus will deny having ever claimed divinity at the Last Judgment, and Allah will vindicate him.[6] Rather, the Qur'an emphasizes that Jesus was a mortal human being who, like all other prophets, had been divinely chosen to spread God's message. Islamic texts forbid the association of partners with God (shirk), emphasizing a strict notion of monotheism; i.e., God's divine oneness (tawhīd).

Numerous titles are given to Jesus in the Qur'an, such as al-Masīḥ ("the messiah; the anointed one" i.e. by means of blessings), although this particular term does not correspond with the meaning given to it by Christians. Arabic-speaking Christians refer to Jesus as Yasu (Arabic script يسوع). Jesus is seen in Islam as a precursor to Muhammad, and is believed by Muslims to have foretold the latter's coming.

Wikipedia