The Historical Passion of Christ - What Really Happened

In the real historical passion, the Christ was let down from the cross after 6 hours. In the bible, they made mention of the Christ being let down from the cross, but they lied and said that he died and a miracle happened along with it. Mind you, does any of the 4 passion gospels we have agree with one another? No, none of them agree with anything.
The Christ was indeed let down from the cross after 6 hours. And men do not die on the cross in that amount of time. For a king to be let down from the cross based on a bargain with the Sanhedrin was not a rare case. The truth of the passion, the historical narrative, which almost nobody cares about, was that Jacob, known as "James the brother of the Lord", James the Just, along with a more important figure, king Joseph, the father of both the Christ and his brother, made a deal with the Sanhedrin that the Christ would be exiled to England, and his wife Mary was to be exiled to France, they were to be separated and sent off to far places. This is why Christ lived. I have the Aramaic gospel to back it up, and you can also trace the church's real history by going to the same town that Christ and Mary were exiled to, and the generations have kept the truth and they will show you the actual cave that Mary lived out her days, so believe them and me, not just me.

a reply to: AlienVessel

whats the name of this Aramaic gospel pray tell? can ya upload a pic since you have it in your possesion?

How do you know? Were you there? So you have a gospel that "backs it up." I've got a gospel that says differently. Why is yours correct and everyone else's wrong?

originally posted by: AlienVessel
the Christ would be exiled to England, and his wife Mary was to be exiled to France

England and France did not exist. I take it you mean the Roman province of Gaul and the independent Celtic-speaking island of Britannia. Rather odd choices. Why?

What Really Happened

they tried to charge God with adultery and failed because of a loophole
case closed

Didn't they prove that the Bible parts on that subject were written 100 years after the fact? and there is no historic record.... also the Romans were good record keepers.

a reply to: manuelram16

nope

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: AlienVessel
the Christ would be exiled to England, and his wife Mary was to be exiled to France

England and France did not exist. I take it you mean the Roman province of Gaul and the independent Celtic-speaking island of Britannia. Rather odd choices. Why?

I dunno. Ask the French. It's quite the tradition there. (Yes, yes, we know England and France did not yet exist. Don't be pedantic about it.)

originally posted by: AlienVessel
The Christ was indeed let down from the cross after 6 hours. And men do not die on the cross in that amount of time.

Except maybe for men who were beaten half to death and then had a lance jammed into their side once they were up there. I mean, why pick and choose the details just to prove your point? If you're going to believe the thing even happened, you kind of have to buy it all.

a reply to: schuyler
I'm not at all sure that the OP knows it.

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: AlienVessel
the Christ would be exiled to England, and his wife Mary was to be exiled to France

England and France did not exist. I take it you mean the Roman province of Gaul and the independent Celtic-speaking island of Britannia. Rather odd choices. Why?

Butting in, so that the Rulers there could claim they were christs descendants. The real blood line of God. Almost as good as claiming godhood, innit.

What tangled webs we weave. Modern DNA testing shot that to pieces.

a reply to: intrptr
You haven't explained why the Sanhedrin or the family, according to the OP, should want that to happen in those particular areas.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: intrptr
You haven't explained why the Sanhedrin, according to the OP, should want that to happen in those particular areas.

The hell, I understand power politics and the merger of god and king in Europe, all to weil.

Anyway, to answer the question in OP, what really happened. They killed Jesus because he told the truth about the King and God in his day.

If jesus were alive today they would label him a terrorist and execute him too.

They may already have.

Having read through the accounts of the crucifixion, and what the op stated the following can be stated:

The Op has put forth that the Christ was let down from the cross and let go, that the gospels lied, that the men on the cross do not die from being crucified. That a deal was made with the Sanhedrin, and Jesus was exiled to France (Gaul) and then moved to England (Britannia). That the Op has either the Aramaic gospel, or a copy of one, that would state such.

The first thing to consider is the actual events before the actual crucifixion and what the medical effects of being crucified would be.

According to most, before Jesus was nailed to the cross, he was scourged. Now that would mean that the person was whipped, and bloody, that his back was flayed open by a leather whip that would have had bits of stone and bone in it, ripping the skin open. There would have been the blood loss from such, something that a person could survive, but would not be in any shape to travel. Combined with the temperature, and the loss of fluids from normal sweat and the activities of the area.

Now they have a man, who is losing blood, dehydrated and probably close to sun stroke, in a heavy cloth, carrying his own cross up the hill to be put on it. It was apparent that it was taking a toll on him, as many would say he collapsed and someone from the crowd was picked to carry the cross up, and forced Jesus to continue to walk on up to where the final deed would be given.

Now the act of the crucifixion, was not one where the person would survive, but was a death sentence. Think about it, the person is scourged, and then forced to march in the hot sun, with no reprieve or compassion to the jeering crowds, then stripped, nailed to a stake or a cross, and left there as a message to all those, not to do those crimes that the person was being punished for. Even Cicero stated that it was a most cruel and disgusting punishment.

Now once there, the legs were often broken or shattered, thus hastening the death of the person. Now after all of that then end result was more often death, due to cardiac rupture, heart failure, hypovolemic shock, acidosis, asphyxia, arrhythimia, pulmonary emboilsym. Not including sepsis, dehydration or animal predation. The weight of the body would put pressure on the lungs and heart, often causing death by asphyxiation.

But if the person did not die, could survive, but they would need immediate medical attention, however it was very rare, even Josephus stated he had 3 of this friends removed, 2 died, and the other managed to recover.

Now the other error here, that the Op mentioned, is that the Sanhedrin had no control over the crimes and punishment, it was the romans who were there and in charge. The Sanhedrin, could not simply execute a man, the roman authority would not accept. So once punishment was given, it would take either the Roman governor or higher authority to stop or even let the man down.

But then again why would the Sanhedrin have gone to bat for a man, who in their eyes was a rival and a heretic? They could not have the man free, nor could they allow for him to be let go, for it would be a threat to them. So why would they? And as it was the start of the Sabbath, if anything the Sanhedrin would not want to violate any religious laws. So that Friday afternoon, the man is put on the Cross, and all work had to be done before sundown, at the start of the Sabbath. What time would they have had to do such, if they were getting ready for the Sabbath?

originally posted by: AlienVessel
In the bible, they made mention of the Christ being let down from the cross, but they lied and said that he died...

The 'swoon' theory has been disregarded by almost all scholars...

Even Christianity's own enemies have admitted that the theory is ridiculous.

This theory was first proposed by the European scholars Bahrdt and Venturini just two hundred years ago, almost eighteen hundred years after Jesus' time. This view has not been widely held by non-Christian scholars since the 19th century rationalist theologian David Strauss dealt it a death blow. He wrote:

"It is impossible that a being who had stolen half dead out of the sepulchre, who crept about weak and ill and wanting medical treatment... could have given the disciples the impression that he was a conqueror over death and the grave, the Prince of life: an impression that lay at the bottom of their future ministry."

Strauss himself was an opponent of Christianity, but he admitted that this theory was particularly ridiculous and weak. Nowadays almost no Western scholar holds to this theory.

www.unchangingword.com...

The Swoon theory has been thoroughly refuted by many people, and very few continue to bring it up as a possibility. The Swoon theory falls apart quickly when you consider that Jesus had undergone six trials, was beaten, then scourged with 39 lashes that left His back raw, exposed, and bloody. He had a crown of thorns forced upon His head, ripping His scalp.

He had been crucified with nails in the hands and feet, and He hung there for six hours bleeding and dehydrating. His spear-pierced side emitted blood and water. He was left in a tomb for three days and was tightly wrapped up. Was anyone in this condition able to revive, get himself out of the tight wrappings, and then walk on pierced feet?

Could He single-handedly move a large stone with hands that were unusable due to the wrist piercings which severed the median nerve and paralyzed them? Could He then somehow get by the armed guards given the charge of watching the grave-side? Are we to believe further that Jesus managed to walk a long distance on feet which had been pierced and then appear to the disciples as a victorious conqueror of death? It makes no sense. In fact, it would take more to believe this ridiculous conjecture than it would to believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

carm.org...

Such strange "twists" to the swoon theory have been virtually ignored by scholars with good reason, for serious problems invalidate each of these theses.

It is no wonder that such a variant hypothesis has had very little following even among critics. The late dates of the sources and the lack of recognition by both Jesus' loved ones and his enemies alike, even at extremely close range, together with his glorified but scarred post crucifixion appearances, combine to make this assertion quite unpalatable to scholars.

www.garyhabermas.com...

The swoon theory is one of Satan's oldest lies concerning the Resurrection. This theory proposes that Jesus did not rise from the dead, because He never really died. Instead, Jesus went into a deep coma or "swoon" from the severe pain and trauma of the Crucifixion. Then, in the cool atmosphere of the tomb, Christ revived, somehow escaped the strips of cloths that were wrapped tightly upon Him, and then appeared to His disciples.

The swoon theory flies in the face of the facts. You see, the Roman guards were experts at execution and would be put to death if they allowed a condemned man, like Christ, to escape death. The guards were certain Jesus was dead, because when they thrust a spear into His side, it brought forth blood and water. This was their final proof of His death because this occurs when the heart stops beating.

Amazingly enough, people still subscribe to this theory. Not because it's plausible. Not because it's logical, but because it's something to hang their doubt on. The truth of the matter is that Jesus Christ has risen!

www.jesus.org...

This theory completely ignores the evidences of His death and would require a greater miracle than the resurrection.

...preceding the crucifixion, Jesus was exposed to a brutal flogging by the Roman soldiers. Some people would die from this kind of beating even before they could be crucified. On other occasions the victim would go into a state called Hypovolemic shock. It is a condition in which the person suffers the effects of losing a large amount of blood. In this state, the heart tries to pump blood which isn't there.

Once a person is hanging in the vertical position, crucifixion is essentially an agonizingly slow death by asphyxiation. This would go on and on until complete exhaustion would take over, and the person would'nt be able to push and breathe anymore. To say that anyone could survive such a punishment and survive is lunacy.

binnyva.tripod.com...

a reply to: AlienVessel

My brother!!!

I’ve been knee deep in this stuff lately..

I advise researching Bart Ehrman and “jews for judaism” youtube channel for Jewish dogma for comparisons sake..



According to the most credible critical New Testament scholar. All the dan brown “Christ carted off to England stuff is ridiculous..



The historical viewpoint is that jesus was a poor apocalyptic, rural preacher who was executed by the Romans for insurrection...


It wasnt until the crucifixion that early Christians believed god intervened and made him a divine being..


God basically thought jesus was such a great guy he stopped what he was doing and adopted jesus, remaking him in his image..


Mark is the only gospel with a realistic chance of being a first person account.. well a copy of a first person account..

Matthew and Luke both likely used mark as their source and elaborated the rest.

John is a total fabrication that used mark and Luke..


The Bible narrative started as written by Jews to villianize the Romans. After the Jewish rebellions and Roman purgers. Christianity became a religion of Romans, and then Bible was more and more anti Jewish..

a reply to: DISRAELI

Because those people became ground zero for Christianity centuries later and wanted to connect themselves with the story???

As far as I know they bring down Jesus from the cross because next day was Saturday (they cannot do any work on Saturday)and like you said a crucified person do not die in one day, but they prove he was dead when the soldier cut his side. Otherwise they would have broken his legs to accelerate the dead.

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: AlienVessel

whats the name of this Aramaic gospel pray tell? can ya upload a pic since you have it in your possesion?

I invite you to disagree with me because of what I am going to say right now -

This world has been controlled by Satanists since the beginning of history. Since before Christ. The objective of a Satanist, especially one of the Elect, is to trick and fool the civilization of the world by lying to them. I have discovered the lies. But there is not much material things that I can show you all that are the smoking gun, because the truth of these things, such as the Aramaic gospel, has been manipulated and purposely hidden from the world so that they do not know where to go to find the truth.

The Aramaic gospel that I am referring to has two stories behind it's origin - one by the Elect Satanists, and one by the people telling the truth. I already know that you are not going to believe the people telling the truth because you personally do not want to agree with me based on your ego and selfishness. However, I know for sure that the people who wrote the gospels in the bible were referring to this original gospel when they were writing their gospels, so I know that my gospel was written before the book of Acts and the other gospels. It is called the Gospel of the Holy 12.

originally posted by: schuyler
How do you know? Were you there? So you have a gospel that "backs it up." I've got a gospel that says differently. Why is yours correct and everyone else's wrong?

I know because when I compared the book of Acts to this gospel, and the other gospels to this gospel, you can see that the writers of the NT took what they wrote from this original document. You can see how they took a paragraph from there, and a sentence from there, and so on.

Also, when you get to know Paul for who he is, a liar that the Hebrews never accepted into the church, you can understand Galatians and what Paul said to the Hebrews. Then, if you read the Jewish Christian literature, the scripture coming from the Jews and not the Greeks, you can read for yourself what James said, and what Peter said, and you compare that to what Paul said, and you start to understand the versions coming from both individuals. Then you match that information with other parts of the Aramaic gospel to make the ties that our NT was all forged by hypocrites and liars (satanists).

Yeah I was there, really?

I didn't say you are wrong. I am open to hearing your research, and I am not so prideful that I would say I have Everything right, so go ahead you can state your points and I am all ears.