the author of Babylon Mystery changed his mind....

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I can't find it. Can you please show where the Bible says 39 lashes with a cat of nine tails?

Nope, I can't do that. Why? It's an invention, very good. It's a common misconception about the scourging of Christ.

Among the stories that are accepted as true within Christianity is the story of Christ Jesus’ 39 stripes during His scourging at the hands of Roman soldiers.

I do not have the foggiest idea where the tale began. But it comes from the fact that Jews could only beat other Jews 39 times with a whip or lash. However, Christ was not scourged by other Jews. Is scourging took place at the hands of sadistic Roman soldiers.

The Romans offered no such considerations, that was a Jewish rule on beatings. 40 was considered "harsh" to the Jews.

39 Stripes.

Again, from 39 stripes:

Isaiah 52:14 Just as many were astonished at you, so His visage was marred more than any man, and His form more than the sons of men; (NKJ)

The fact is that Jesus was beaten beyond all reason. He was beaten beyond recognition.

Christ's 39 Stripes.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Heres an interesting question... IF he was beaten to the point of being "unrecognizable"... How did he show up three days later... recognizable to his people... unscared, aside from the marks from the nails and the spear?

Would he have not shown up mutilated as he died considering the scars from those wounds remained visible?

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Heres an interesting question... IF he was beaten to the point of being "unrecognizable"... How did he show up three days later... recognizable to his people... unscared, aside from the marks from the nails and the spear?

He had a resurrected body. We're all waiting for that upgrade.

Would he have not shown up mutilated as he died considering the scars from those wounds remained visible?

No, the only scars He kept were the nail holes and the spear hole in His side. Probably as an eternal badge of honor.

This is something I always thought was strong evidence:

“Even before he died—and this is important too—the hypovolemic shock would have caused a sustained rapid heart rate that would have contributed to heart failure, resulting in the collection of fluid in the membrane around the heart, called a pericardial effusion, as well as around the lungs, which is called a pleural effusion.”

“Why is that significant?”

“Because of what happened when the Roman soldier came around and, being fairly certain that Jesus was dead, confirmed it by thrusting a spear into his right side. It was probably his right side; that’s not certain, but from the description it was probably the right side, between the ribs.

The spear apparently went through the right lung and into the heart, so when the spear was pulled out, some fluid—the pericardial effusion and the pleural effusion—came out. This would have the appearance of a clear fluid, like water, followed by a large volume of blood, as the eyewitness John described in his gospel.”

Medical Evidence for Jesus's Death.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


The doctor has a vivid imagination and certainly a fixation on torture, but, the truth is, we don't know for sure, the extent of his injuries. What we DO know is that he was up and walking around, and not in his grave.

I would have been convinced if he had left his earthly body in the tomb, and also, in his resurrected was seen walking and talking. Shoulda coulda woulda...............

reply to post by windword


The ONLY real convincing evidence that he survived is that his body was not in the tomb... Christians assume that means his actual body was resurected and went to.... Heaven? Or hell, whatever the traditional view is...

I personally have issues with this idea as well... The body is only meat... It does not go to the afterlife... only the spirit does.

Unfortunatly i have no answers as to why his body "disapeared"

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by windword

 

The ONLY real convincing evidence that he survived is that his body was not in the tomb... Christians assume that means his actual body was resurected and went to.... Heaven? Or hell, whatever the traditional view is...

I personally have issues with this idea as well... The body is only meat... It does not go to the afterlife... only the spirit does.

Unfortunatly i have no answers as to why his body "disapeared"

The absence of his body from the tomb could be explained by grave robbers. Especially since Jesus was considered a holy man, people would want a relic, posibly to use as a amulet or something, but the fact that he was up and about, walking and talking and such, that's the real evidence that he didn't die on the cross.

I don't think this theory takes away anything from the ministry of Jesus, just from the he "died for our sins" part. That theory is full of holes. But, IF it's the truth, then we are all saved, so why worry.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

You don't know the gospel. It's in plain English, in 1 Corinthians chapter 15.

The word here translated as Gospel is adapted by Paul to mean the content of his preaching in the carrying out of the Gospel commission to go out and convert the gentiles, so it is a perspective of a look at the historical nature of the Christ event, rather than the sense as understood and used by Jesus, which was of the now, the announcement of the present situation of the kingdom of God coming to earth as witnessed by his own works. In Paul's preaching to the Corinthians, the usage had been modified by the commandment to preach the Gospel, so it came to be understood in a specialized sort of way. Jesus preached the Gospel of the kingdom of God. Paul talked about it from a historical point of view in regards to the life, death and resurrection, of Jesus, and the concept of repentance from a life of sin in preparation for judgment in the hopes of gaining eternal life, in other words, being "saved".
In your quote, the emphases is being placed on the resurrection aspect of the Gospel to where without that one part, the entire Gospel falls apart.
Your argument is on the key element to the Gospel being the sins as the reason why Jesus had to go through the more unpleasant part of his earthly ministry. The sinful activity of the inhabitants of the world in general, and the evil nature of those who rejected and killed him, specifically, was the cause of Jesus' dying, as in the Suffering Servant portion of the Isaiah prophecy which Paul is obviously referring to in this passage.

reply to post by jmdewey60


No Paul says twice that this was the gospel he gave them (chapt 15, v:1,2) And verse 17 is tell-tale if his intentions:

"And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. "

Point being, Christ died according to the OT scriptures, was buried, and rose the 3rd day according to the scriptures.

For our sins. He even died for the sins of people who would deny Him. Sad.

reply to post by windword

The absence of his body from the tomb could be explained by grave robbers.

Grave robbers don't have a chance against a Roman guard and a temple guard, then a roman seal on a 10 ton stone door.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


An earthquake supposedly moved the stone.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

An earthquake supposedly moved the stone.

The big earthquake happened when He was dead still hanging on the cross.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Matthew 28:2 And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it.

Off topic. I'm curious as to how the Romans "sealed" the rock in the first place, wax?

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Matthew 28:2 And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it.

Off topic. I'm curious as to how the Romans "sealed" the rock in the first place, wax?

It's with the "seal" of Rome. It carried with it the penalty of death for violating it.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by 547000

 

. . . the early church believed in the same thing Catholics now do . . .

For the simple reason that they burned all the writings they did not like.

Well, they were 1 generation removed from the apostolic fathers, who were disciples of the apostles themselves. That's extremely close to the sources themselves.

Have you ever heard of Apostolic Succession? "Close?"....tee hee.
You best explain your statement.

The Apostolic Fathers were Roman Catholic. Ignatius knew John, Ignatius
believes in the Holy Eucharist. Ignatius, third Bishop of Antioch first
used the term "Catholic."

reply to post by windword

We just don't know how much force was used against Jesus. We don't know if the Roman soldiers showed him some mercy, or not.

What we do know, is that he was up and walking around. A living, breathing man talking to his friends He was not in the grave. Occam's razor.

Thanks, windword.
There is a letter that was found as part of the Dead Sea Scrolls that describes the crucifixion, written by an Essene to a friend in Alexandria. www.harisingh.com...

There was, in fact, a friendly Centurion who felt Jesus had been innocent, and who told his colleague not to break the bones. (There was also, in fact, a fanny-rest, and a foot-rest on the cross). The author of the letter describes the entire scene, and even he says Jesus had "passed away."

The letter is lengthy, and describes the entire ordeal (even Jesus' earlier life). It gets to the crucifixion and describes the earthquake, fog, and so on and so forth. It includes how Pilate agreed to let Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus take the body, and how the Essenes (particularly Nicodemus), even though Jesus seemed very much "dead" or "comatose", treated him anyway with their Order's herbal knowledge. When they came back later (after having wrapped him in the shroud, covered with balms, and ointments, still bleeding all over the shroud, but presumed dead by Joseph, although Nicodemus said no, it wasn't too late).....even they were surprised to discover that he'd survived!

But he did.
So they helped him, like an underground railroad, get the hell out of there.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


You didn't answer my questions:

It's starting to feel like a little kid insisting there is too such a thing as Santa and the Easter Bunny!!
What gives, friend?
What would it take for you to accept it?
Don't you come to ATS to learn?
Don't you want to deny ignorance?
If it is put to you clearly and reasonably that Jesus Christ did perform those miracles, was a direct messenger from God, AND survived the crucifixion, and that new information made all the stories fit into place, would you STILL say "no"?


and: Fringe loonies?
Not a legitimate historian?
Good heavens you are that prejudiced and closed-minded, NuT?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

The big earthquake happened when He was dead still hanging on the cross.

When he seemed dead on the cross.

The earthquake was what the Centurion took as a sign that Jesus was innocent.....
a messenger came saying Pilate wanted to know if Christ was dead...
the Centurion said "yes" (even the Essenes thought he was), so the order to take him down was carried out. BUT, Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus had already gotten permission for his body.....
and they administered medicine and first aid to him, and wrapped him in the shroud, just hoping it would work (Nic thought it would, Joe wasn't so sure).....

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Oh, and these, also:

There are very, very credible historians who believe he did survive.

Why are you so stubborn about this?

Wouldn't you be happy to hear he survived, with the help of his friends who were healers and who made a secret bargain with Pilate to get him down and away?

Actually, if you're going to answer any of them, the last one ^^^^^^ repeated here is the one I'd most like for you to answer.