Jesus Papers

Originally posted by Grailkeeper
Thats one of the counter points the interviewer made ( can't remember the name). Whether or not he was drugged, a stab to the side would not help the ordeal.

One interesting point he did mention, and I haven't investigated the validity of it yet, is that most of the people that were crucified on the cross would last for days (2-3) before succumbing to death. Whereas Jesus only lasted hours.

Hmm I had a little investiagte into this and apparently it all depends n what kind of build you had and your stamina. I'm sure you know how crucifiction works but just for those who don't I'll explain the details.

When you are crucified you are positioned in such a way that breathing is extremely difficult. When the victimfeeels such a strain on their lungs they force themselves upwards using their legs (which are nailed to the cross, OUCH).Eventually the pain of this is too excruciating and the allow themselves to droop back to step 1. Different people could survive this for varying amounts of time. You could quite feasibly die after half an hour of doing this. Its only very rare cases where people live 2-3 days.The mans, evidentally twisting the facts to support his ideas. I find it interesting that some peope still debate whethere Jesus exusted and yet this man thinks he has evidence that he didn't really die? I find it laughable, but I'll buy his book before I jump to conclusions.

Naturally, it's all speculation, since there has yet to be discovered a single shred of good, archeological evidence to suggest that any demi-god such as the "Jesus" written about in the Gospels even existed.

Archaeology requires patience. For example, until a short while ago there was no modern proof that a governer called "Pontius Pilate" existed. However, the excavations at Caeserea (if memory serves, that was the place) turned up a stone carved with an announcement about the governer Pontius Pilate. So at least that bit of it makes sense. You have to be patient in finding sources though. Incidentally, many seperate pieces of writing all claiming to be historical, and all certainly part of a number of traditions that predate them to within an eyewitness period, would - if they were not much later collated into this big compendium called the "Bible" - actually be considered pretty good historical evidence.

Not that I want to get embroiled into a "Jesus did/didn't exist" thing, but from my point of view, all these events were set in real places at a real time. If they were fiction it seems very strange that a lot of people died over them. Furthermore it seems utterly bizarre that at least the members of the Church in Jerusalem shortly after the resurrection didn't call foul on the whole business (we're talking months here, not even decades). They lived there and would have had first-hand knowledge of the events. They would *know* if they were untrue. It would also have been pretty easy for the Romans (never the greatest fans of these Christians, and in their very much best interesets to do so) to debunk the thing if they had never executed such a person.

Cheers.

Rob.

Originally posted by Grailkeeper
I would have to say this is one of many play by plays available regarding the death of Christ.

When I first noticed this post, the word "play" jumped out at me. I thought you were going to bring up another interesting theory that has come potential. I'm away from my library at the moment but I have a couple of books that explain the logic behind the theory that the whole "Passion of the Christ" thing actually was a play - in the literal sense. In other words, plays (as in theater, acting, performance art, etc.) were such a popular form of entertainment (and some would argue indoctrination - I guess it was the precursor to Fox News ) that it was not uncommon for plays to be rewritten by multiple authors with slight variations. According to this theory, it would not have been unusual, nor considered unethical or dishonest in the day, for a play to have been included in writings such as the Gospels.

Again, I'm not supporting this theory - just bringing it to your attention.

------
While I've got "the floor", there was something I meant to include in my previous post. One of the most bizarre bits of the whole Passion story is the tomb. According to Gospel accounts, there was this brand new family burial tomb that Joseph of Aramathea has just built and he offered it up for use as a place to put the body of Jesus. OK, that was not so strange on the surface but, here's the kicker: why on earth would Joseph of A. have built a family tomb in a city in which neither he nor any member of his family had ever lived? Curious and suspicious. In those days (as in these days) you don't plan to bury yourself or your family in places where you have no real connections.
For instance, I've been to Charleston a few times but I've never lived there and I have no family that has ever lived there - what would you think if I bought a burial plot in Charleston? Odd, no?

Originally posted by Al Davison

While I've got "the floor", there was something I meant to include in my previous post. One of the most bizarre bits of the whole Passion story is the tomb. According to Gospel accounts, there was this brand new family burial tomb that Joseph of Aramathea has just built and he offered it up for use as a place to put the body of Jesus. OK, that was not so strange on the surface but, here's the kicker: why on earth would Joseph of A. have built a family tomb in a city in which neither he nor any member of his family had ever lived? Curious and suspicious. In those days (as in these days) you don't plan to bury yourself or your family in places where you have no real connections.
For instance, I've been to Charleston a few times but I've never lived there and I have no family that has ever lived there - what would you think if I bought a burial plot in Charleston? Odd, no?

Good point... I never really thought of that.


*things that make ya go ... Hmmmm*

-Was it a common practice in those days ( as is today ) to set aside burial plots?

-Were there plans for the rest of the family to be buried in the same tomb as Jesus apon their demise? And, is there any evidence that such events did occur after the resurrection?

I'm not an expert but I believe it was common to have family tombs - especially for rich guys like JoA.

Your other questions, I can't answer - never seen anything about it.

Well I keep my mind open when it comes to religious icons like Jesus, taking in consideration that the bible talking about him took hundreds of years to be compiled I mean the new testament, I guess Jesus could have been anybody and any person that could fit the role after the facts.

So what is he didn't die in the cross? after all the accounts of the Crucifixions were just vocal accounts pass over by generations before put in writing.

So stories seems to change and appear mythical and meaningful after a while if the story is to fill an agenda.

In this time and age we can learn more about the truths even when the findings will stay as just mere conspiracy theories.

But nerveless is good to be able to see other stories than the bible ones, at least you will not get persecuted for no believing in the bible alone.

Well, Marg (of the most wonderful avatars), the other thing to bear in mind is all the previous dieties that were executed in similar fashion and a few of them came back to life and walked around and then ascended into heaven, too. So, there exists a bit of skepticism as to why we should believe the Christian version of the story about this but not all the others that were in circulation for hundreds or thousands of years before. Or, maybe we should believe all of them equally.

Not for me to say. Everybody should believe what they want to believe. I just want to examine the possibility of whether the story makes any sense in an historical context.

Originally posted by Al Davison
Well, Marg (of the most wonderful avatars),

Thanks

I just want to examine the possibility of whether the story makes any sense in an historical context.

I will love to find also other possibilities, but taking into account that the bible stories still rules as the only accounts of the main man accredited with the birth of Christianity Jesus, you know that anything else that will seem to discredit the bible will be taken as nothing more than anti Christians trying to discredit the only and truth religion Christianity.

Even if the truth of the real facts about Jesus will come out Christianity will never die.

hehehe...what anyone thinks of Christianity and what they choose to believe and practice as a religion is of no concern to me. But, what people know about history does.

Religion is personal and based on faith.
History belongs to everyone and is based on facts. It's just that facts aren't easy to retrieve from 2,000 years ago. ;-)

Not that I want to get embroiled into a "Jesus did/didn't exist" thing,

That's probably a good idea, since you don't have any good evidence of his existence, other than stories. You might as well believe Sherlock Holmes really existed.

Anyway, the story I like the best is the one where Simon Peter is actually crucified instead of Jesus. Simon Peter takes one for the team, Jesus pops up a few days later, claiming resurrection. Pretty swift.

Oh, and I also like the Jesus "twin" stories. There are actually quite a few Jesus stories floating around that claim various people were his twin, including Judas Thomas (Iscariot), John, and even John the Baptist.

Then that gets into the whole discussion of the purposeful (?) and rampant confusion of names in the New Testament. Judas Thomas, Judas Iscariot, Thomas, Simon Peter, Peter, John, John the Baptist, and somewhere like 5 different Marys. Can't tell the disciples without a program - or a geneology chart!

Does his "theory" state who drugged Jesus? The only ones who woudl really have ahd access to him would be the Romans who were actually crucifying him, and I doubt they'd be in on the whole "Let's fulfill prophecy" conspiracy.

Howeve,r assume Christ was drugged. As story goes, he appeared 3 days later. Yet his legs weren't broken, his side wasn't pierced, and his hands and feet were whole. Even if Christ survived the crucifixion, he would be in no condition to do anything except wallow on a bed. So nobody would have seen him walking about healthy, which means that even if this theory was true and Jesus was only drugged, nobody would ever know.

Esoterica - with all due respect, to participate meaningfully in such a discussion, you should, at the very least, know the NT version of the story. Much of what you just posted demonstrates that you may be a little rusty on even the Christian version. Please feel free to join in once you've completed your review.

[edit on 4-4-2006 by Al Davison]

What the heck are you talking about? Jesus died, rose 3 days later, and appeared to his various followers, sans any wounds of any sort.

Esoterica, in the gospels, when he shows up, Thomas doesn't beleive it. So jesus shows him the hand and stab wounds.

Originally posted by Esoterica
What the heck are you talking about? Jesus died, rose 3 days later, and appeared to his various followers, sans any wounds of any sort.

Yes we all know the bible version of it, but remember is the bible true and accurate or just the myth of a man that was a god, after all if he was a god then he could have done anything. Right?

That is the whole point of a myth, but as a man did he really was the man in the bible and not just a make up story to start the beginning of a new religion away from the Jewish.

Seems that the person or person that created the myth of the son of a god new exactly what he or they were looking for it, but they never dreamed what the end result was to be 3000 thousand years later.

The first church took a bet and gamble with the peoples faiths at the right time in history, but it was beyond their wildest dreams the outcome.

They never believe that Jesus was not going to be a no show 3000 years later actually many believe that he was to be back within their life time.

But what is the real truth for 3000 thousand years the same people that created the new religion and their descendants has done everything in their power to keep it hidden.

People is not as naive now that they were 3000 years ago.

So can the faith of Christians survived the real facts? what ever they may be?

I will love to know the truth.

[edit on 4-4-2006 by marg6043]

Originally posted by Nygdan
Esoterica, in the gospels, when he shows up, Thomas doesn't beleive it. So jesus shows him the hand and stab wounds.

Of course, that's only one of the parts he/she got wrong. I think I'll just let him/her keep working on it. Hint: somewhere in this thread, someone posted most of the story and other posts contain other references to one of the other parts he/she got wrong - all strictly according to the NT.

It seems sad that people are so quik to scoff and dismiss other theories when these theories are not just random thoughts off the top of someone's head - they represent decades of true scholarship begining with learning to read the oldest known copies in their original ancient languages and frequently traveling to many foreign countries to track down even the faintest of clues. *sigh* I guess true scholarship isn't really respected that much any more. If I wanted to start a thread titled "Conspiracy Against Scholarship", where would I put it?

I don't know about other folks but, my Baptist Sunday School teachers were really fine people but they were, by profession, carpenters, shoe store owners, bankers, etc. Nothing wrong with that but, they were not formally trained to do anything more than just recite the lessons as they were given to them. I loved them and respected them for what they were doing but even they would not have argued history with any of the authors to which I have referred. And, they taught me not to scoff or make light of the sincere efforts of others. I value the life-lessons that they taught me even if I have come to doubt the accuracy of the content of the bible lessons.

[edit on 4-4-2006 by Al Davison]

Jesus wasn't an uncommon name back then, so the use of duplicate persons as a consolidation of one entity shouldnt be ruled out.

Josephus gives the bloke scant mention, it is debatable as to the authenticity of that work or its context, though.

Face it, there is a good chance that a geezer called jesus, was a Rabbi..hence married...etc...etc but that dont make him the son of god, or that god exists or ever existed.

The OT, NT and any abrahamic texts are all heresay written years after events that may have never happened, I draw parallels with urban myths and chinese whispers.

The jesus gig was written with a then contemporary theme, akin to todays novels being set in a modern setting. That doesn't make it any more true than any other fairy story.

Harry Potter is better written and more believeable. Does that make JK Rowling a better author than this alleged god or his agents?

If the any of the abrahamic gig was true, to set the story, in one little bit of the planet and single out a chosen people strikes me as racist.

Christianity. Ho Ho. A religion that followed on the abrahamic stuff by going on about not worshipping deities / icons etc...then profanes itself by worshipping saints bones, roman spears, bits of cross and worse a human being who is meant to their lords representative on earth. (I dont trust any reps be it sales or otherwise).

Think about this. If it were not for Judas they would have no religion. If it were not for the Romans they would have no religion.

I am always amused that the evil roman empire that slaughtered their lord (and gave forth their religion) lived on as the holy roman empire and thence to the roman catholic church.

There aint no god. Prove it to me with science not faith.

If someone today said a burning bush spoke to them we would lock them up as deluded and keep sharp objects away from them. I think this says more about blind faith than owt else.

This blind faith that led thousands to become martyrs in their lords name. I sure the zealots will say they gave their all greatfully. You stick to your god, but I will choose life...Thanks

...you don't have any good evidence of his existence, other than stories. You might as well believe Sherlock Holmes really existed.

Or Charmlemagne, or Marlowe, or King George V, or indeed anyone I have not personally met. All history is story-telling (whether communicated in words, signs, traditions, or whatever medium). It is a narrative, a nexus. There is no other way to communicate it. In order to think you can establish anything at all about what we are pleased to call the "real" past, you have to at some point take it on faith that a story can reflect some degree of fact situation as it once existed.

There's a wealth of writing on the suibject of the historical narrative. (anyone who has read AJP Taylor's accounts of the Great War will have experienced a particularly idiosyncratic style of storytelling).

The study of all this is called historiography. Plenty googlagble, but the meat tends to come in journals and books, not free websites. Wikipedia could amuse you for hours by link-tracing...

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

One of the most perplexing things to me is that many people only want to accept something if it is "written down at the time". A curious criterion for the ultimate assessment of truth when you think about it. Maybe it's a Zeitgeist thing.

Cheers.

Rob.

[edit on 4-4-2006 by d60944]

OK, that was a major brain fart on my part. I was thinking about the broken legs, and the other wounds got lumped in there... somehow . However, if he had been pierced and had his legs broken, he wouldn't have been in any condition to be visiting anybody. That was my point, and that I got that one part wrong doesn't detract from it. The broken legs and piercing of the heart, even if he survived, would have barred him from doing much of anything.

Nygdan, the movie was based on a real book by a botanist who studied the zombie beliefs of Haiti. The toxin in pufferfish, tetrodotoxin, will cause shortness of breath and dizziness to death, depending on how much you consume. Given in the right dose, it can paralyze someone into a near-death state. And recovery is on the course of only a few days IIRC. So the actual idea of using it or a similiar drug to zombify or fake a death isn't without merit.

However, using it to fake a death of someone who suffered real wounds and presumably didn't undergo a miraculous recovery wouldn't result in someone walking around. It'd result it someone in really bad shape who'd probably die anyway.

The explanation goes that his resurrected body was not *like* ours after the resurrection. He didn't just "come back to life" as such, and waltz around in his everydays. Hence managing to appear in a room with locked doors, and why people didn't immediately recognise him. There is no doubt a lot of writing about the (speculative) nature of the resurrected body, but I can't be bothered to search now