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.

 

Jesus' death... standard Roman execution or sacrifice for sins?

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Hydroman
Were the thieves also sacrificed, or were they just executed?


Seeing as they are not sinless they cannot be a sacrifice.
So they were merely executed while Jesus was sacrificed?
But didn't Jesus forgive them of their sins under the old covenant before they were killed or did their whole life have to be sinless?




posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
So, are christians risking taking someone elses word as the truth, just because its bound in the bible and ignoring the fact that Jesus never said anything that even remotely resembles anything about the doctrine of the sin sacrifice.?

edit on 12-2-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)


SInce this was your original question, and I like the angle you took on this, I for one will answer it.

Yes. They are taking someone else's word as truth. It's called faith and that's what they do. They put faith in things.

They have faith that God exists.

They have faith that if they live by the teachings in the Bible, they will go to heaven.

From what I understand, the Romans didn't like Jesus much. He was thorn in their side. Constanly tipping over the apple cart as it were. And from what I understand about the Romans, you don't do that sort of thing and get away with it. Jesus bucked the system and he paid for it. He was crucified alongside 2 criminals. From the Romans' point of view I think it's safe to say that they thought of him as a criminal as well. They certainly weren't of the frame of mind that they were helping Jesus with a sin sacrifice.

As far as the Christians are concerned, what other point of view would you expect? This is all about having faith that what they are being taught is right. There are intelligent Christians, don't get me wrong. They have Bible study groups and such and really dig into the theology of the whole thing.( Which confuses the heck out me BTW) But first and foremost, in order to believe in something such as this, you have to have faith.

If this is what helps them in life, that's fine. More power to them. Really. Personally I can take a lot of things on faith, and I have been lately, but my "eternal life" isn't one of 'em. I don't know what's going to happen when I die and I really don't have the time to think about it too much. I just try to do the right things by myself and other people everyday. WHat else can a person do really?

My take on the whole thing is very pragmatic. I believe that someone named Jesus existed some 2000 years ago. I believe that he truely thought he was the Son of God. Maybe he was. Who am I to say otherwise? I wasn't there. I believe that the word God was used for the lack of a better term to describe something, that the people of the time thought, was some all knowing entity in the sky. ( You can draw your own conclusions from that). You have to keep in mind the frame of mind, the thought pattterns if you will, of people in that era and in that geographical location of the world. I don't want to call them simple necessarily, but they weren't that intellectually evolved yet. I don't think anyone on this planet was yet. And this is something nobody ever brings up. I believe that the accounts of what they said Jesus could accomplish are true. He sounded like a very gifted individual with an advanced 6th sense. He could do things nobody else at the time could. He just didn't fit in. And for that, he was looked up to. Revered even by his own people. The Romans on the other hand saw him as a threat to their way of life. They were gunning for Jesus for a long time.

I also think sometimes that he let all that praise that people were pouring on him go to his head. He got too big for his britches in other words. And what gives THAT threory some validity is the fact that he was bucking up against the Roman culture. the most powerful one at the time. Who in their right mind would do that? If there is any lesson to be learned in all of this IMO, is that iff you want to instigate any type of positive change, keep it low key. Stay behind the scenes and do it to where the only ones who know what you're really doing are the ones on your side. History has proven to us that if you go all out with guns a blazin', like Jesus did, TPTB will squash you like a bug.

Why? Because they can. They're bigger than me and you and there's a reason why they're at the top of social mountain. "Sin Sacrifices".They keep using things like religion to keep us in check so we don't question authority too much. There are way more of the common man then the men who lead them. It wouldn't take a lot to take over. The leaders know this so they use peoples' gullible nature against them.

They may be crazy but they aint stupid.


youtu.be...

Given the subject matter, it puts a whole new spin on this song.




posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


From my understanding on the matter. Jesus was born without sin and he is essentially a Mangod (Human and God). In regards to his Crucifixion, he didn't have to die, but chose to humiliate himself (in death) for the sins of man (sons of Adam and Eve). God gave humanity free well to choice whether we want to be with him or not (sin distances yourself from God). Even the angels have free-will (Lucifer choice not to care for Humanity and did not want to follow God's plan for him, but God's love is so great he even permits him to live! Wow). So Jesus dying on the cross for the sins of man (not for himself) was what was prescribed to allow humans the chance to be with God in heaven (before Jesus died, the faithful would go to Limbo not Heaven). Now it doesn't mean that you will get there for just believing. You have to live for Christ. But God knows your heart and what you are capable of doing. So that's between you and him on how you get there.

To re-cap my point. Jesus is without sin. He choose to die on the cross (or die period on that matter), but he didn't have too. It was his choice.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Battling Muslims on the net.
Yes we know you are a Muslim and dont believe in Jesus.
Jesus and his particular death and the atonement for humanity was prophecied through out the Old Testament, a book even Muslims believe
"He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all" (Isaiah 53:5-6, NIV). and countless more prophecies about Jesus can be found.

The real question should be what did Muhamad do to atone for sin. allah called for death to all who wont accept him. Jesus called that everybody be blessed in his name.
Mahamed murdered many and Jesus was murdered by his own people. NOT THE ROMANS.
The Jews demanded his death.
Funny how you pose a question based on ignorance.

“Propitiation” means “mercy seat” in Hebrews 9:5, and we must go back to the Old Testament to see what the mercy seat was typically to the Israelite. The mercy seat was the golden lid or the Ark of the Covenant in the Holy of Holies. Once a year, on the Day of Atonement, the high priest sprinkled the sacrificial blood of an innocent victim to atone for the broken Law. The tables of stone on which were written the holy Law were kept in the Ark. The sprinkled blood covered the broken Law and made possible a meeting place between God and the sinner (Exodus 25:21-22; Leviticus 16:2, 13-14). The mercy seat was made of pure gold (Exodus 25:17), and covered the whole Ark.

Jesus Christ, the pure Son of God, is the sinner’s Mercy Seat, and His Blood covers all our sin. According to Scripture, therefore, the mercy seat in the Tabernacle was a type of our Lord Jesus Christ. Our Lord fulfilled the type and symbol perfectly. After His death and burial He arose from the grave, ascended into Heaven, and on the ground of His shed Blood made possible a meeting place where the sinner could come to God.

Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own Blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us (Hebrews 9:12).


Why did Jesus death take place on the Jewish feast of the passover. Because it was an atoning sacrifice.
Why did Jesus call himself the "I Am" because he was God
Why did the Jews kill Jesus, to herald in the time of the Gentiles.

Even Jesus with his own words said what he was doing would be for all mankind
The Son of man came . . . to give His life a ransom for many (Matthew 20:28).

. . . I lay down my life for the sheep (John 10:15).

. . . The bread that I will give is My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world (John 6:51).

This is my body which is given for you . . . This cup is the new testament in my Blood, which is shed for you (Luke 22:19-20).



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Hydroman
Were the thieves also sacrificed, or were they just executed?


Seeing as they are not sinless they cannot be a sacrifice.
So they were merely executed while Jesus was sacrificed?


All 3 men were executed if you look at it from Rome's perspective, only Christ's death was considered a " sacrifice" from the perspective of God.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


It wasn't some sort of ritualistic ceremony.

He was killed as someone who breaks Roman law, but he was also not actually convicted of anything.

Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of the region, washed his hands in public and said "in this man I find no wrong". It was a ceremonial way of saying not guilty.

But the region was in political turmoil and he was forced to execute Jesus or the Roman power, the Pax Romanis, might be proven to be easily shaken off.

Jesus said, from the start of His ministry, that He would be killed, "lifted up" and "hung on a tree".

He went into His ministry with full knowledge of its consequences. That is the sacrifice that Christians talk about, self-sacrifice.


edit on 12/2/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Pt1 Ive spent 30yrs looking at religion and the bible and this is what I have found

"THE BIBLE IS A COMPLETE LIE" We have been deceived and lied to from the very beginning.

Heres why.

The idea of the "virgin birth,miracles performed, death and ressurection" are not even original .
Here are some examples of this.

3000 BC Egypt...Horus (the light) Born 25th Dec, born of the virgin Isis(Mary),accompanied by a star in the east,was adored by three kings,at age 12 was a prodigal child teacher,At 30 baptized by Anup and began his ministry,Had 12 Disciples and traveled performing miracles,healing the sick and walking on water,was known as the truth,the light, the lamb of god,gods anointed son,the good shepherd and many others,after being
betrayed by Typhon was crucified,dead for three days and resurrected.
1200 BC,Greece...Attis,Born Dec 25, born of the virgin Nonon,crucified,dead for 3 days,resurrected.
1200 BC Persia...Mithra,Born of a virgin Dec 25,had 12 disciples,performed miracles,upon his death was
buried for 3 days and was resurrected,known as the truth,the light and many others.His worship day was
sunday.
900 BC,India...Krisnha,born of the virgin Devaki,star in the east,performed miracles with his disciples,
upon his death was resurrected.
500 BC,Greece...Dionysus,born virgin on Dec 25,performed miracles including turning water into wine,
was known as the king of kings,Gods only begotten son,the Alpha and Omega and many others and upon his death was resurrected.
There are numerous examples of this including,Chrishna of Hindostan, Budka Sakia of India,Salvahana of Bermuda,Zulis or Zhule,Osiris and Orus of Egypt,Odin of the Scandinavians,Crite of Chaldea,Zoroaster and Mithra of Persia,Baal and Taut of Phoenecia,Indra of Tibet,Bali of Afganistan, Jao of Nepal, Wittoba of the
Balingonese and many more.

Why the similarites?

Lets start with the birth sequence which is completely astrological.

The star in the east is Sirius(the brightest star in the east).On Dec 24 it aligns with the 3 brightest stars in the Orions belt known as "The Three Kings" which all point to the sunrise that will happen on Dec 25.Thus the "Three Kings" follow the star in the East in order to find the sunrise or the "Birth of the Son(Sun)".
The "Virgin Mary" comes from the constellation Virgo (virgin in latin).Virgo in latin is also refered to as the "House of Bread",represented as a virgin holding a sheaf of wheat.This represents the time of harvest around August/September.Bethlehem's Literal translation is "House of Bread" which is a reference to the
constellation Virgo a place in the sky,not on earth.
This time is also the winter solstice (The shortest day),which symbolised death to the ancients or the "Death of the Sun(Son)".On Dec 22 the sun reaches its lowest point in the sky and stops moving south at least
perceivably to the naked eye for 3 days (22,23,24 Dec).At this point the sun is in the vicinity of the southern cross (Crux Constellation).On the 25 Dec the sun(Son) moves perceivably north.
So "The Sun(Son) died on the Cross, was dead for three days, only to be resurrected or born again"

Pt 2 next



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Taupin Desciple
 

I hope you don't mind my jumping in on your post, but I saw a little something that confused me.

My understanding was that Jesus was a thorn in the Jewish side, they want to get Him for blasphemy. Up until then the Romans didn't care a bit, they were used to having fake Messiahs and strange religions pop up all over the place. They were, after all, the crossroads of civilization.

But then the Jewish leaders claimed He wanted to be King and threatened to go to Rome to complain. Pilate had already had a brush with Rome and didn't want to deal with them again, so he basically said, do what you want.

Rome's trouble with Christianity didn't start until years after Christ has died.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Pt 2

This is why the many religions share the same concept of "Sun(Son) Gods Birth, Death and Resurrection"

The Resurrection Of the sun (son) was not celebrated until the spring equinox or Easter.When the sun(son) "officially" overpowers the "Evil Darkness"as days become longer than night bringing the onset of spring and "Salvation from death" and the revitalizing spring bring new "Life"

The 12 Disciples are simply the 12 Constellations of the Zodiac.

The 12 Disciples (Constellations) and Jesus "being the Son(Sun)" travels about with.
The number 12 is mentioned many times in the bible.Examples are...
12 Tribes of Israel,12 Sons of Jacob,12 judges of Israel,12 Great Patriarchs,12 Kings of Israel,12 Princes of Israel etc

"The Cross"(Crux) is a pagan spiritual symbol of the Zodiac or Sun often pictured behind the head of Jesus the Son(Sun) The Son of God, The Light of the World,The Risen Saviour,who will "Come Again" as it does every
morning,The glory of God who defends against the works of "Darkness'(Night) as he is "Born Again"(Daylight"
who will be seen "Coming in the clouds" "The Son which is in Heaven","With his Crown of Thorns"(Sunrays).

The "Age"(Aeon) lasts approximately 2150 years of which we are now in the age of "Pisces" symbolized by the fish.The fish symbol is often used in Christianity.
Moses was angered by his followers for worshiping "A Golden Bull Calf" which is the astrological symbol of Taurus the Bull. Moses represents the new "Age" of Aries the Ram and "Upon A new Age we must shed the old Age".Jews even today blow the Rams Horn. The pre-Christian Deity Mithra kills the "Bull"in similar symbology.
The Symbology of the Fish is used extensively in the Bible.It is a Pagan astrological symbol for the Suns(Sons) Kingdom during the age of pisces.Jesus' assumed birth date is the start of this age.The Age of Pisces
the fish.
When the 12 disciples ask Jesus when the last passover shall be Jesus replies "Behold,when ye are entered into the city,there shall a man meet you bearing a pitcher of water.Follow him into the house where he entereth in".The man bearing the pitcher of water is Aquarius the water bearer,who represents the age after
pisces.So when the Sun(Son) leaves the age of pisces he will go into the age of aquarius (A man bearing a pitcher of water).Jesus said "I will be with you even to the end of the (World) age".
All that was meant is that after the age of Pisces is the age of Aquarius.
Jesus is the personification of the age of Pisces the Fish or the literary astrological symbol for the age of pisces.
The concept of "End Times" and the end of the world is a misinterpreted astrological alagory.

Inscribed 3500 years ago on the walls of the temple of Luxor of Egypt are images of the announciation,the mirical conception,the birth and adulation of Horus the Sun(Son) God.
The similarities of the Egyptian religion and the Bible are staggering.

The story of Noah and the great flood is mirrored in the "Epic of Gilgamesh" written in 2600 BC right down to
the release and return of a dove.

Moses was said to be placed in a reed basket and set adriftin a river to avoid infanticide was rescued and saved by a daughter of royalty raised as a prince.This is mirrored exactly in the story of Sargon of Akar around 2250 BC.Moses is known as the "Law Giver"who climbed a mountain and was given commandments.He is one of a long line of law givers in mythology as was Manou of India, Minos of Greece, Mises of Egypt.

The Ten Commandments were taken directly out of Spell 125 of the Egyptian book of the dead.

The Egyptian Religion is the primary foundational basis of Judeo-Christian Theology.Baptism,afterlife,
judgement,virgin birth,death and resurrection,crucifiction,ark of the covenant,circumcision,saviours,
communion,great flood,easter,christmas etc are all atributes of Egyption ideas.Long Before the Bible.

Even in the Old Testament,Joseph was of a miracle birth, had 12 brothers,was sold for 20 pieces of silver,
judah suggests sale etc etc.Same as Jesus.

Is there any non-biblical evidence of the existence of Jesus? The one who was of a virgin birth,who went around doing miracles,while travelling aroud with 12 followers,turning water into wine,walking on water, healing the sick,rising from the dead with the name Jesus.There were at least 20 historians living in and
around the time and area of Jesus.Not one of them even slightly mentions him.If he had done what was written
he would have been the most famous personality in his time and area.

Claims of his existence primarily come from 4 biblical scholars.Three of them, Pliny the younger,Certonius and Tasitus mention briefly of a Christ,Chrestus or Christus which is not a name but a title meaning "The Anointed One" The 4th is Josephus which has been proven to be a forgery for hundreds of years.

There is no record because he did not exist. There was no Jesus of Bethlehem, Period.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Pt 3

In the words of Thomas Paine 1737-1809...

"The Christian religion is a parody
on the worship of the sun, in which
they put a man called Christ in the
place of the sun,and pay him the
adoration originally payed to the sun"

I no longer Worship the sun.

Religion is a tool for TPTB to "Divide and Conquer"

Look at the debates that constantly flow here and everywhere. Its working beautifully.

I must add that it does not mean that a God ,Creator,Afterlife, does not exist.I am open minded on this point
Remove the middle men and go right to the source if you so wish..

edit on 12-2-2012 by Lexx790 because: add lines

edit on 12-2-2012 by Lexx790 because: add line



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lexx790
Pt 3

In the words of Thomas Paine 1737-1809...

"The Christian religion is a parody
on the worship of the sun, in which
they put a man called Christ in the
place of the sun,and pay him the
adoration originally payed to the sun"

I no longer Worship the sun.

Religion is a tool for TPTB to "Divide and Conquer"

Look at the debates that constantly flow here and everywhere. Its working beautifully.

I must add that it does not mean that a God ,Creator,Afterlife, does not exist.I am open minded on this point
Remove the middle men and go right to the source if you so wish..

edit on 12-2-2012 by Lexx790 because: add lines

edit on 12-2-2012 by Lexx790 because: add line



I cant believe how many times ALL those points have been refuted, yet some know it all clown who believes all the nonsense cuts and pastes the same tired old crap.
Go study your nonsense and come back and justify what you believe is true.

History will always record Noah and Adam and Eve no matter what religion, because they are HISTORICAL FACT
edit on 12-2-2012 by borntowatch because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Lexx790
 

Non-biblical evidence of Jesus. Well, apparently there is Biblical evidence of Jesus, four biographies in fact, but you don't care to use them. I suppose that soldiers in an Army couldn't write a biography of their leader for the same reason, or Arthur Schlesinger, who worked for Kennedy couldn't write his biography, but never mind. Let's look at what you've got;

Pliny mentions Christ briefly? Here's Pliny's letter to the Emperor Trajan


It is customary for me, sir, to refer to you in all matters wherein I have a doubt. Who truly is better able to rule my hesitancy, or to instruct my ignorance? I was never present at examinations of Christians, therefore I do not know what is customarily punished, nor to what extent, nor how far to take the investigation. I was quite undecided; should there be any consideration given to age; are those who are however delicate no different from the stronger? Should penitence obtain pardon; or, as has been the case particularly with Christians, to desist makes no difference? Should the name itself be punished (even if crimes are absent), or the crimes that go with the name?

Meanwhile, this is the method I have followed with those who were brought before me as Christians. I asked them directly if they were Christians. The ones who answered affirmatively I questioned again with a warning, and yet a third time: those who persisted I ordered led [away]. For I have no doubt, whatever else they confessed to, certainly [this] pertinacity and inflexible obstinacy ought to be punished. There were others alike of madness, whom I noted down to be sent to the City, because they were Roman citizens. Soon in consequence of this policy itself, as it was made standard, many kinds of criminal charges occurred and spread themselves abroad. A pamphlet was published anonymously, containing the names of many.

Those who denied that they were or ever had been Christians, when they swore before me, called on the gods and offered incense and wine to your image (which I had ordered brought in for this [purpose], along with images of the gods), and also cursed Christ (which, it is said, it is impossible to force those who are real Christians to do) I thought worthy to be acquitted. Others named by an informer, said they had been Christians, but now denied [it]; certainly they had been, but had lapsed, some three years ago, some more; and more than one [lit. not nobody] over twenty years ago. These all worshiped both your image and the images of the gods and cursed Christ.

They stated that the sum of their guilt or error amounted to this, that they used to gather on a stated day before dawn and sing to Christ as if he were a god, and that they took an oath not to involve themselves in villainy, but rather to commit no theft, no fraud, no adultery; not to break faith, nor to deny money placed with them in trust. Once these things were done, it was their custom to part and return later to eat a meal together, innocently, although they stopped this after my edict, in which I, following your mandate, forbade all secret societies.

All the more I believed it necessary to find out what was the truth from two servant maids, which were called deaconesses, by means of torture. Nothing more did I find than a disgusting, fanatical superstition.

Therefore I stopped the examination, and hastened to consult you. For it appears to me a proper matter for counsel, most greatly on account of the number of people endangered. For many of all ages, all classes, and both sexes already are brought into danger, and shall be [in future]. And not only the cities; the contagion of this superstition is spread throughout the villages and the countryside; but it appears to me possible to stop it and put it right. Certainly the temples which were once deserted are beginning to be crowded, and the long interrupted sacred rites are being revived, while food from the sacrifices is selling, for which up to now a buyer was hardly to be found. From which it may easily be supposed, that what disturbs men can be mended, if a place is allowed for repentance.


There is no evidence of this letter being a forgery. It is the consesus of historians that Pliny indeed wrote this letter in the early 2nd century.
www.tyrannus.com...
edit on 12-2-2012 by charles1952 because: typo



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Lexx790
 

How about Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus from his "Lives of the Twelve Caesars:"
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (c. 69–140) wrote the following in his "Lives of the Twelve Caesars":


"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he (Claudius) expelled them from Rome"

A common objection to this passage is that "Chrestus" was a common name, not a title. They say that if Suetonius was referring to Jesus, he would have called Him "Christus". This is somewhat true, but we have very good reason to suppose that Suetonius merely misspelled "Christus" here (perhaps mistaking the title for a name) and was referring to Jesus.

One reason is that the "Chrestus" he is referring to seems to be someone he expects his audience to be somewhat familiar with. He doesn't say "a man named Chrestus" or anything along those lines, just "Chrestus". There is no record of someone by this name who was so well-known that Suetonius' audience would have recognized him by the name alone. This makes Jesus, at the very least, the most likely candidate for being the one Suetonius was talking about.

He certainly may have been talking about someone else, but it's more likely than not that he was referring to Jesus here. Even the Jewish Encyclopedia considers this a reference to Jesus (see its page on "Christian").


www.kingdavid8.com...



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Lexx790
 



There's a good case to be made that Phlegon, a historian, wrote about Him:.

The text in question is a historical text called "Chronicles", which the Greek historian Phlegon wrote around 140 A.D., but, over time, has become completely lost, as have most of his writings. Origen (185-254 A.D.) was a Christian scholar, who, in his written response to the pagan Celsus in 248 A.D., made reference to"Chronicles". Origen says, "Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events (although falling into confusion about some things which refer to Peter, as if they referred to Jesus), but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions." (Origen, XIV) He later quotes a passage from Chronicles, saying, “Jesus, while alive was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails.” (Origen, LIX).
Is there any reason to believe that Origen was fabricating these bits, putting words into Phlegon's texts that weren't really there? It's unlikely. Though "Chronicles" is lost now, it wasn't at the time, having been only about a century old. Had Origen been lying about what Phlegon wrote, it would have quite easy for his audience to have found out. Also, Origen was a very respected teacher and philosopher, and has not shown any signs of such dishonesty in his writings. There are also things in those two references which would have been very odd for Origen to have made up, noting that Phlegon had confused Peter and Jesus at times, and saying that Jesus was "of no assistance to himself" while alive.

www.kingdavid8.com...



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Lexx790
 

Now Tacitus:


Tacitus was a Roman historian who wrote about many of the events of the 1st century. Sadly, his writings covering the years of Jesus' ministry have been lost to time, so we do not know if he covered those events. However, regarding the trouble between Nero and the Christians around 65 A.D., Tacitus wrote this:


But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.



While some critics desperately try to write this off as a Christian forgery, the evidence is strongly against it. This passage appears in all versions of Tacitus' writings, even the earliest existing ones. Also, the tone of this is quite anti-Christian, making it incredibly unlikely to be the work of Christians. There is no evidence of it being a forgery, and one never simply assumes that something is a forgery unless there is evidence to support it. All evidence says that Tacitus wrote this in the early 2nd century.


www.kingdavid8.com...



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Lexx790
 

And, finally, Josephus.
Now, before all you non-believers start shouting "but those were proven to be Christian forgeries!", let me just say that while, yes, some of what Josephus wrote about Jesus WAS tampered with, that was his Antiquities 18.3.3

Let's look at the other passage:


Antiquities 20.9.1 But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.



It's obvious that whoever wrote this passage was not a Christian. No Christian would refer to Jesus as 'the so-called Christ', nor would they add a chapter about Jesus and only give Him a brief mention. Jesus is only in this passage because it's about His brother, James. It makes no claim of Jesus' divinity, nor does it really attach any importance to Him. This is clearly part of the original text, not a Christian addition.

I've seen some skeptics who argue that the "Jesus" mentioned here is actually Jesus ben Damneus (Jesus, son of Damneus), a high priest mentioned later in this chapter. They either argue that the "Christ" mention was an interpolation, or that Josephus would consider any high priest to be a "Christ". There are several problems with this idea. The first is that there is no evidence that "Christ" was an interpolation (and no scholars simply assumes an interpolation to make the passage fit with their theory), nor did Josephus ever call any high priest a "Christ" elsewhere in his writings (or anyone, for that matter). Also, Jesus ben Damneus was not a high priest at the time of James' trial, but became one at the time of his later mention, so even if Josephus considered any high priest a "Christ", he wouldn't have called ben Damneus one at that point. And perhaps most telling, whenever Josephus told us of a character's parentage, he always did so the first time the character was mentioned, never in a subsequent reference. What this means is that when Josephus later mentioned "Jesus ben Damneus", this is clearly the first time this character is mentioned. If "Jesus the so-called Christ" was Jesus ben Damneus, Josephus would have referred to him as "Jesus ben Damneus, the so-called Christ" and then later simply called him Jesus. Therefore, Jesus ben Damneus is not the same person as "Jesus the so-called Christ", who was mentioned earlier.

Another response I've seen is that the fact that the Antiquities 18 reference was interpolated automatically calls the Antiquities 20 reference into question. If a Christian interpolated one passage, why wouldn't he interpolate the other? There are two problems with this. One is that most scholars agree that while the Antiquities 18 reference was altered, Josephus was probably writing something about Jesus. All the interpolater did was make the wording speak more positively of Jesus. If the same interpolator altered the Antiquities 20 passage, why wouldn't he have done the same? Wouldn't he have at least called Jesus "the Christ" instead of "the so-called Christ"? The other problem is that we know that the Antiquities 20 passage was part of Josephus' text before the Antiquities 18 interpolation happened. The Antiquities 18 interpolation is believed to have occurred around the beginning of the 4th century, probably by Eusebius (who lived from 263-339 AD). But the Antiquities 20 passage is referenced twice by Origen, who lived from 185 to 254 A.D. We know this was prior to the interpolation, since Origen acknowledged that Josephus wasn't a Christian, and Origen only referenced the latter passage.


www.kingdavid8.com...


edit on 12-2-2012 by charles1952 because: Add source



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


That's quite alright. I don't know as much about this part of history as some people do. I knew the Jews had a problem with Jesus, I just didn't know where it all fit in with this.






posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Taupin Desciple
 

Dear Taupin Disciple,

Boy, did you ever nail it! We have gotten a long way from execution versus sin sacrifice.

I've run across a book or two written by Medical Doctors describing what that Roman crucifixion was probably like, but I've got a weak stomach. You may be interested though.

As for the sin sacrifice side of it, I don't know, there are at least a couple of ways to go. But you have gifts and skills, see which ones fit for finding the answer. History can show you how the thought was developed and polished over the millennia, or maybe you lean toward mysticism, there are some good guide books out there.

Whatever your leaning, remember the question of who God is, is the biggest one a man can face. Take the challenge.

With respect,
Charles1952

P.s. C. S. Lewis was an atheist until his twenties, you might want to look at some of his stuff.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 



Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of the region, washed his hands in public and said "in this man I find no wrong". It was a ceremonial way of saying not guilty.


And that was actually the 7th time Pilate declared Him innocent.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Lexx790
 



There is no record because he did not exist. There was no Jesus of Bethlehem, Period.


Wow, huge balls bro. Not even Atheist or Agnostic historians deny Christ existed or was crucified and died. An Atheist, Gerd Ludemann, NT critic and Agnostic Bart D. Ehrman both call the crucifixion an "indisputable fact."

The only people who deny Christ came in the flesh, and was crucified and died are fringe groups who are agenda driven. People deny He said what He said, they deny who He was, and they deny what He did for us, but no legitimate historian doubts He existed. That's ridiculous.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join