Why Was Jesus Crucified? But Not Stoned?

What you fail to understand in your mindset against Christianity is the things you refer to that were done in the name of Christianity were done by men for their own benefit according to the letter of the law of their own construct.

These unscrupulous men saw an opportunity, much like you are seizing on here, to turn the Word of God to their own devices, their own jealous pursuits, much to the contrary of the Word itself.

What did it get them? Nothing but death and destruction, ultimately their own.

Originally posted by Al Davison
All the peace, love, understanding, caring, etc. takes a backseat to total world domination through the usurpation of wealth and power.

bar Kochba, though, dies, and doesn't succeed as the "messiak", he doesn't restore israel. Jesus claims to be a different, allegorical, messiah, in a sense.

Also, the 'peace love' stuff succeeds in europe for the same reason buddhism succeeds in india and china, because, if you've spent your life plundering and pillaging, such a system is a nice thing to adopt. After the plundering and pillaging anyway. Augustine pegged it, so to speak!

Well, that sounds good, but the Romans may not have been that dumb. The whole object of the punishment of crucifixion was to make you H U R T like you have never hurt before. It was to demonstrate to the indigenous personnel why it was better to obey Rome than not to obey Rome. If your victim was allowed to “escape” the pain and shouts that would evoke then what the hey? I’m sure a Centurion would have put some real sharp questions to the soldiers charged with the duty. Uh uh. No pain killer for Jesus.

No not dumb . But Govenors and procouncils etc were not adverse to bribes,payoffs,
and gifts. ( some things never change)

Originally posted by stalkingwolf
No not dumb . But Govenors and procouncils etc were not adverse to bribes,payoffs,
and gifts. ( some things never change)

Which is where the alternate history of Simon taking the punishment in Jesus's place (symbolized in one of the Stations of the Cross) comes in. Jesus, if he actually existed, has been seen by many as not the poor, wandering preacher, but rather coming from a fairly wealthy family and, say some, a possibly legitimate claim to kingship. I don't know what the laws were at the time, but I would imagine that if you had enough gold and influence, it wouldn't be that difficult for you to arrange that somebody else "take the fall" for you, maybe even a disciple who would volunteer. Of course, then, Jesus's tomb would be empty (another symbol), since he was never in it in the first place.

The whole crucifixion story has a lot of odd discrepancies and gaps in it. Enough to make you think there might be some kind of conspiracy afoot.

posted by stalkingwolf

The whole object of crucifixion was to make you HURT . . If your victim was allowed to “escape” the pain then what the hey? Uh uh. No pain killer for Jesus.

No not dumb . But Governors and pro-consuls etc were not adverse to bribes, payoffs, and gifts. Some things never change. [Edited by Don W]

But did not Jesus say he had no place to lay his head? Was it not suggested he only owned his robe, a loin cloth and his sandals? And did not Judas - the treasurer - run off? And or return the 30 pieces of silver to the High Priest? So where’s the bribe money? I think you overlook Jesus was into fulfilling Old Testament prophecies. This sounds like having it both ways.

posted by Icarus Rising

What you fail to understand against Christianity is the things done in the name of Christianity were done by men for their own benefit . . “ [Edited by Don W]

That very thin slicing of history takes a very sharp knife and very keen insight where to cut, does it not? In other words, the philosophy is blameless, it is the adherents who are doing it wrong? What happened to the old adage, “where there’s smoke, there’s fire.” If almost everyone does wrong, and very few do right, why is that a positive recommendation for a given set of rules to play by?

The unscrupulous are turning the Word of God to their own devices, contrary to the Word itself. What did it get them? Nothing but death and destruction, ultimately their own.

Have you ever seen Jimmy Swaggerts clothes? His diamond ring? Or the Bakker’s one of several Mercedes cars? Of the extravagant mansion of Oral Roberts? Billy James Hargis, in a book, claimed Oral had 3 houses. Did you see the Pope at his coronation? Wearing silk, diamonds and gold. If his outfit cost $200,000, how many people in Darfur would that have fed? Why does a servant of Christ need a million times more than Christ had? Hmm? It looks to me as if the Spokesmen for Christ are doing quite well. A lot better than the "hearers."

Have you seen pics from Darfur? Those people are Christians being persecuted by Muslims, and exploited by their Christian overlords. For them, it's a lose-lose situation. Is it not time to admit something is amiss here? It is hard for me to take them seriously, I/R, when I drop into a mega church. 10,000 cushioned theater seats and ultra quiet air conditioners. Some are equipped with 10,000 watts sound systems, 200 lights all controlled from a $100,000 audio visual system control panel. The 20th century’s equal to Rheims. Uh uh, I/R, the talk is too far from the walk.

posted by Nygdan
bar Kochba dies and doesn't succeed as the "messiah" . . he doesn't restore Israel. Jesus claims to be a different, allegorical, messiah, in a sense. [Edited by Don W]

Are you claiming modern Israel was brought about by Jesus? I doubt you’d get many of the old 1948-49 crowd to agree with that. If any remain alive

Also, the 'peace love' - - stuff - - succeeds in Europe for the same reason Buddhism succeeds in India and china,

Well, if the “peace stuff” works in Europe, why does it not work in America? Jacksonville is in the center of the Bible Belt. I can’t shop all day on Sunday. Stores close at 9 PM. There are several places in Jax where 4 or 5 churches are contiguous. Yet, we just had our 46th homicide for this year, with barely 750,000 population. 104 homicides last year. And other crimes commensurate to the rate of homicides. Homeless people are a “problem” and have been since I first lived here in 1965. 10% of homicide victims are "homeless." 65% are black. Maybe that's why the white power elite see no problem? Only 10 dead white people. About "right" for a city this size.

Jax has a visible excess of religiosity but not any visible signs of a good religion. I can’t help that. Don’t shoot the messenger. The emperor is still not wearing any clothes.



[edit on 5/10/2006 by donwhite]

well, like donwhite and others have said, I'm not shooting the message but I don't mind sniping at the messengers. I don't think even I/R has a problem with that.

The rise of Christianity for the last 2,000 years has been a lot more attributable to the very powerful and ofen violent messengers and has very little to do with the message.

As I've said about 100 times, I have no problems with (and actually, no interest in) the message. My interest is in the history and that's been all down to the messengers. I have no hint of evidence that Jesus murdered or tortured or anything like that. (I do think there is some reasonable evidence that he may have led an armed insurgency but, I'm not an expert on that.) However, no one disputes that the Roman Church has sponsored, sanctioned, and even ordered the torture and murder of those who did not agree with it. Now, note that I said those who did not agree - that was intentional. I don't refer only to those who may have actively opposed it - though many did and they are mostly just as dead as those who merely declined to recognize the authority of the Church organization. Like I said - The Godfather looks like Mr. Rogers in the Neighborhood in comparison.

It's a simple formula, really. If you kill everybody who says they don't agree with you, then, at the end of the killing, you can honestly say that everyone agrees with you.

[edit on 10-5-2006 by Al Davison]

Originally posted by donwhite
Now, Roark, we’re descending into a “he said, she said” debate...

Yup, sorry. I didn't offer any actual examples. I'm being kinda naughty and posting from work.

Originally posted by donwhite
I think Jesus was a rebel. He had several thousand soldiers - today’s militia types - hiding in the desert just outside Jerusalem. He led a small band of commandos in to capture the Temple, after which he planned to open the city gates and bring in the army to capture the city of Jerusalem. The Temple Police proved too strong, and the commandos retreated to Gethsemane. Judas was a paid informant and told the Romans were Jesus was hiding. Jesus was captured and crucified along with two of his followers. End of story.
[edit on 5/10/2006 by donwhite]

It's certainly a more interesting story (worthy of Tom Clancy ), but hardly "End of story" mate. Several thousand soldiers might well have featured in the historical documents we have from that era but, alas, they do not.

Back to the original question of the post......


QUOTE///Why Was Jesus Crucified? But Not Stoned?

Before i answer this question , here is some facts that prove that Jesus Christ is the promised Messiah......

when the Jews asked Him "who art Thou?", Jesus replied "Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning" (John 8:25).
Shortly after this He added: "Verily, verily I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM" (John 8:58).
Here it must be noted that Jesus had not said "I was," as would have been grammatically correct in the context, but rather used the present tense "I am," or more exactly, "I am He who is."
The deep meaning of these words becomes clear when one considers the Hebrew original meaning.
When Moses asked God's name at the burning bush, the Lord answered: "I am He who is" (YHWH). The very name "He who is" (YHWH) indicates the distinguishing characteristic of God.
He is the One who always exists; He is the Eternal One.
In referring to Himself as "He who is" (YHWH), Jesus Christ used the Hebrew name for God.
It should be remembered that the name YHWH was held in such esteem by the Jews that they used it only on the most important and solemn occasions, while in ordinary speech they used the names Lord, Creator, Most High, the Blessed One, and so forth.

More here....

“For these things were done,” i.e. not only the piercing of the side, but also that the Lord’s legs were not broken, “that the Scripture should be fulfilled.”
This was foretold in the Book of Exodus 12:46: the Paschal lamb, transfiguration of the Lord Jesus Christ, had to be eaten without any bones being broken and what remained, had to be burned.
There is another section of the Bible that prophesies: “they shall look unto me whom they have pierced” (Zach. 12:10).
In this segment, Jehovah is depicted as the Messiah that had been pierced by His people, and having looked upon the wounded Messiah, the same people are presented as bringing penitence with weeping and sobbing before Him.
These words are slowly being fulfilled with the Jews that condemned Christ to death — and will continue to be fulfilled to the end of the world, when there will be a universal conversion of Jews to Christ, as foretold by Saint Apostle Paul in his Epistle to the Romans 11:25-26.

here


Read also the '' The Parable of the Wicked Tenants.'' number 40///
Explains why the Jewish High priests seek to crucify Jesus Christ............

Speaking in the Temple, the Lord Jesus Christ turning to the high priests, scribes, and elders of the people told them this parable.

There was a Landowner, Who planted a vineyard, set a hedge around it, and dug a wine press in it, built a tower, and let it out to tenants, and went into another country.

www.fatheralexander.org...

They crucified two robbers with Jesus Christ: one on His right and one on His left. Thus, the scripture of the Prophet Isaiah was fulfilled: "He bared the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors" (Is. 53:12).

helen

This may have been stated already, but since I did nor am I about to read all 8 pages here goes. Roman law was what he was punished under, in a Roman "state" so to say. They crucified people, and the Jews didn't. The Romans didn't stone people, the people of the book did.

If Jesus was tried by the people instead of the State, he probably would have been buried under a pile of rocks. That is how I understand it, makes sence to me any way.

But did not Jesus say he had no place to lay his head? Was it not suggested he only owned his robe, a loin cloth and his sandals? And did not Judas - the treasurer - run off? And or return the 30 pieces of silver to the High Priest? So where’s the bribe money?

Have you forgotten Joseph of Arimathea ( some say the Uncle of Jeshua), Nicodemus(sp?), The Several Women who "kept" Jeshua and his followers, one of
which was the wife of one of Pilates advisors , and Pilates Wife as I recall.

posted by helen670
Back to the original question of the post, Why Was Jesus Crucified? But Not Stoned?
Before I answer this question , here are some facts that prove Jesus Christ is the promised Messiah

“ . . The Jews asked Him "who art Thou?" Jesus replied "Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning" (John 8:25). He added: "Verily, verily I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." (John 8:58).

The deep meaning of these words becomes clear when one considers the Hebrew original meaning. [Edited by Don W]

I’m sorry, Helen670, but I have two issues here. I do not accept those verses in John were written before the late 2nd or early 3rd century. The verses are inconsistent with what else I have read that is known about First and Second Century Christianity. This heavy theology is not included. Jesus was about living a better life, not about the esoteric interpretations of the Pharisees. He wanted to open Judaism not close it.

I do not read or speak “original” Hebrew nor any other version. In fact, I have never met a Christian who either spoke or could read original Hebrew. They could read about it, but they could not read it. I have however, heard that declaration before. Many times.

When Moses asked God's name, the Lord answered: "I am He who is" (YHWH). The very name "He who is" (YHWH) indicates the distinguishing characteristic of God. He is the One who always exists; He is the Eternal One.

I disagree that the oft attributed meaning recited here is necessary or required from the words themselves. The statement is simple. It is a reach to get to that conclusion.

In referring to Himself as "He who is" (YHWH), Jesus used the Hebrew name for God. It should be remembered that the name YHWH was held in such esteem by the Jews that they used it only on the most important and solemn occasions, while in ordinary speech they used the names Lord, Creator, Most High, the Blessed One, and so forth.

I believe God is referred to in Scripture as Elahim (or Elohim) and YHWH (Jehovah). Devout Jewish persons never speak the name of God. Rather, ‘YHWH’ is the Hebrew word - sans vowels - translated into our word Jehovah. It is a word that stands for the name of God. Not God's name. Elahim is a predecessor God (name) of the Israelites and God was also called El-Shadday. Let’s face it, we, in the 21st century, don’t really know what the name of God was or is.

They crucified two robbers with Jesus Christ: one on His right and one on His left. Thus, the scripture of the Prophet Isaiah was fulfilled: "He bare the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors" (Is. 53:12). helen

I just finished re-reading Isaiah 53, 1 to 12. There is nothing about crucifixion nor about 2 thieves. Verse 10 is particularly interesting.

v. 10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

v. 11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

v. 12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

“He shall see his seed.” This is Dan Brown made over. Except we have no record of Jesus seeing his seed, which I take it is his offspring. “He shall prolong his days.” Well, that is not what happened. “And the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.” This may or may not refer to material prosperity. I expect it is known by the Jewish people who wrote this what it meant to them, when it was written. But it is a mystery to me.

I’m sorry, Helen, but this stuff is too much out of my culture to make any sense to me. And I have no desire to return to the semi-arid Palestine of the first Millennia BC. But I see no cross and no thieves here.



[edit on 5/26/2006 by donwhite]

Actually
You are mistaken!
Hebrew was read and translated by early church fathers....

quote:
“ . . The Jews asked Him "who art Thou?" Jesus replied "Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning" (John 8:25). He added: "Verily, verily I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." (John 8:58).


The deep meaning of these words becomes clear when one considers the Hebrew original meaning. [Edited by Don W]

True !
and it was done....

Septuagint (sometimes abbreviated LXX) is the name given to the Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures. The Septuagint has its origin in Alexandria, Egypt and was translated between 300-200 BC.
Widely used among Hellenistic Jews, this Greek translation was produced because many Jews spread throughout the empire were beginning to lose their Hebrew language. The process of translating the Hebrew to Greek also gave many non-Jews a glimpse into Judaism. According to an ancient document called the Letter of Aristeas, it is believed that 70 to 72 Jewish scholars were commissioned during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus to carry out the task of translation. The term “Septuagint” means seventy in Latin, and the text is so named to the credit of these 70 scholars.

To read more on the translation and authenticity///
www.septuagint.net...

Jesus Christ said.... "Verily, verily I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." (John 8:58).

I’m sorry, Helen670, but I have two issues here. I do not accept those verses in John were written before the late 2nd or early 3rd century. The verses are inconsistent with what else I have read that is known about First and Second Century Christianity. This heavy theology is not included. Jesus was about living a better life, not about the esoteric interpretations of the Pharisees. He wanted to open Judaism not close it.

Accepting is another thing altogether!
I can say to you.........
Do You read or understand Greek?
we can do this both ways.......and arguments start.
Jesus Christ came so the world through Him, the Old Testament prophecies can be fullfilled...
He actually came to FULLFILL the Old Testament, and did just that,by the WORD(LOGOS)becoming flesh, and dwelt among us.

I do not read or speak “original” Hebrew nor any other version. In fact, I have never met a Christian who either spoke or could read original Hebrew. They could read about it, but they could not read it. I have however, heard that declaration before. Many times.

Well there were and there are....Hebrew speaking Christians....

*If you want i can get the info*...give me time.

quote: When Moses asked God's name, the Lord answered: "I am He who is" (YHWH). The very name "He who is" (YHWH) indicates the distinguishing characteristic of God. He is the One who always exists; He is the Eternal One.

quote: When Moses asked God's name, the Lord answered: "I am He who is" (YHWH). The very name "He who is" (YHWH) indicates the distinguishing characteristic of God. He is the One who always exists; He is the Eternal One.


I disagree that the oft attributed meaning recited here is necessary or required from the words themselves. The statement is simple. It is a reach to get to that conclusion.

Again,you really haven't answered according to what is the real interpretation of the words....''"I am He, who is"
Christ Himself said those same words.....I am He
....

In referring to Himself as "He who is" (YHWH), Jesus used the Hebrew name for God. It should be remembered that the name YHWH was held in such esteem by the Jews that they used it only on the most important and solemn occasions, while in ordinary speech they used the names Lord, Creator, Most High, the Blessed One, and so forth

///I believe God is referred to in Scripture as Elahim (or Elohim) and YHWH (Jehovah). Devout Jewish persons never speak the name of God. Rather, ‘YHWH’ is the Hebrew word - sans vowels - translated into our word Jehovah. It is a word that stands for the name of God. Not God's name. Elahim is a predecessor God (name) of the Israelites and God was also called El-Shadday. Let’s face it, we, in the 21st century, don’t really know what the name of God was or is.
.

God was Refered to as was said in the above ... yes ''held sacred'' His name.
But we in the 21st century , as a Christian(myself)am being nice ,no sarcasm ,do know His name......
Jesus Christ did fulfill the Old Testament Prophets...

the prediction of Isaiah about the Spirit of the Lord, Which was to descend on the Messiah (Is. 61:1; Luke 4:18). He alluded to Isaiah’s prediction about the healing of the infirm by the Messiah (Is. 35:5-7; Mt. 11:5). Jesus praised Apostle Peter for calling Him Christ, the Son of the Living God, and promised to build His Church on faith in Him (Mt. 16:16).

Prophecy foretold

as St. John the Evangelist tells us, "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14).
"And this is eternal life, that they may know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent" (Jn 17:3).
"the fullness of Him who fills all in all" (Eph 1:23; 2:22).

Not three Gods......but one.
eg///
quote///One illustration employed by the early Fathers was to look at the sun, the sun's rays, and the sun's warmth. Another is the flame from three burning sticks, held so that their ends are together; each stick is a flame, but the difference between the flames of one stick and another cannot be seen.

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

Another explanation is....i forget!
can get back to you...

////In the Old Testament we find Yahweh, the one Lord and God, acting toward the world through His Word and His Spirit.
In the New Testament the "Word becomes flesh" (Jn 1:14).
As Jesus of Nazareth, the only-begotten Son of God becomes man.
And the Holy Spirit, who is in Jesus making him the Christ, is poured forth from God upon all flesh (Acts 2:17).

IX
helen
take care

I guess in the end, it is up to the individual to accept or not to accept....
Im not judging.....as we all fall short to the Glory of God...

EDit maybe for spellinbg...


[edit on 5/28/2006 by helen670]

Consider this, Helen670. The common spoken language in Palestine in the First Century AD was Aramaic. Let’s be generous and say it had a 10,000 word vocabulary. The sayings of Jesus were not recorded until 20-40 years after his death. From memory. And then, in Greek.

Let’s be generous and say classical Greek had a vocabulary of 20,000 words. Julius Caesar’s Latin may have had 30,000 words. By the time of the KJV, Elizabethan English may have had 50,000 words. In the early 20th century when several popular translations were make, English may have had 150,000 worlds. Today we say English has 650,000 words. Or more.

What’s my point? I’m merely suggesting that when you go from a small vocabulary to a large vocabulary, it is up to the translator to decide what words to use and how to use them. In each language, customs of usage prevail, nuances are employed and inflections of speech carry meanings not easily put to paper. Greek evolved outside Palestine. Latin evolved outside Greece. English evolved outside Italy.

We know from the difficulty we are having at this very moment finding people who can translate Arabic into English, that translating is more an art than it is a science. That people of good will differ on the meanings attached to words. We even have troubles agreeing on what other people meant when we all speak the same language.

I suppose there is some comfort to be found in holding up a contemporary translation of writings some 1,500-2,500 years old and saying “this is the true words of God.” Even if we do not have any of those old writings. We have only copies of copies. Frankly, it looks to me as if modern Christian tenants are founded in quicksand.

We do not have any of the original texts, in any language. The Vatican Library probably has more old documents than any other place, but frankly, I would not trust any of those to be accurate. Disagreeable thoughts were written out and new points of view were written in. Anything the follower’s-on of Emperor Constantine did not like and could not destroy, they declared to be heretical. Or altered to suit their own ideas of what was right.

You may know from my other posts that I assert that Emperor Constantine was the founder of modern Christianity. That he was aided by St. Paul and St. Augustine who was refining the teachings of Aristotle. Jesus was a peripheral character in this grand play of the ages! Jesus’ greatest contribution was the lending of his name. I venture no one can name one notable figure in 2006 who follows what everyone says are the teachings of Jesus. Today’s notables are all too busy making money.

I again call your attention to Albert Schweitzer. Although he seriously doubted the divinity of Jesus, he lived the life Jesus taught as we understand it.


[edit on 5/28/2006 by donwhite]

amazing...the thread that does not die...
is there any definite conclusion as to why he was not stoned?
Lets settle for he was crucified & stoned at the same time and get on with life...or lets give him a call.

peace

dalen

Originally posted by dAlen
Lets settle for he was crucified & stoned at the same time and get on with life...or lets give him a call.

No, lets settle for he was stoned, and then crucified. I already called him, he said I was right. Come on, he's my booky and I was just checking the spread before posting this to refute you, well and all of them too of course.

posted by Helen670

"For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? (St. Matthew 16:26). A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him, saying, "You are mad; you are not like us." - St. Anthony the Great. He shall seduce with flattery those who violate the covenant; but the people who know their God shall stand firm....”

And just who should I ask? About gain. Ken Lay? Jack Abramoff? Tom DeLay? Life in Century21 is just not simple. We can’t get by on a quick quote from a time long since past. That’s life by slogan. Sorry about that.

Septuagint (sometimes abbreviated LXX) is the name given to the Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures. The Septuagint has its origin in Alexandria, Egypt and was translated between 300-200 BC. Widely used among Hellenistic Jews, this Greek translation was produced because many Jews spread throughout the empire were beginning to lose their Hebrew language.

The process of translating the Hebrew to Greek also gave many non-Jews a glimpse into Judaism. According to an ancient document called the Letter of Ariettas, it is believed that 70 to 72 Jewish scholars were commissioned during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus to carry out the task of translation. The term “Septuagint” means seventy in Latin, and the text is so named to the credit of these 70 scholars.

Helen670, I have great regard for the scholarship of the Jewish people. It is remarkable that despite constant harassment and even worse by Christians from 1491 onward - if not before - Jewish people are still strong in their traditions, surviving and are leaders in scholarship. In my old city of Louisville, Jewish people number about 5% of the population but account for 20% of doctors and lawyers. Hmm?

OTOH, I think it is a mockery on our brains for one person born into one culture and a different tradition to then read the works of another culture - especially from 2,000 years ago - and really transliterated (not translated) and claim to know and understand the significance of those old writings. To add insult to injury, to go further and claim to know what it means in terms of this culture and in this time. It’s an insult to intelligence. There are so many things we just cannot know no matter how conscientious we are. We know very little and we make up the rest.

The Maccabees Revolt, 165 BC, established the Hasrmonean dynasty which lasted until 63 BC. The first recorded act of Judas Maccabus was to “cleanse” the temple of defilers who were worshiping Greek gods under the rule of the Seleucid kings who had succeeded Alexander the Great. By this time, Rome had established its hegemony over the region but was not in actual occupation. It ruled through client kings.

The Jewish people under Judas Maccabus defeated King Antiochus IV (the first one of two by the same name and number) had been a hostage in Rome until 168 BC. Phillip II was the last of the Seleucids. He died under dubious circumstances in 63 BC, rumored to have been killed on order of the Roman governor in Damascus.

Although unrelated to Palestine, it is of some interest to set the stage to recall that Spartacus revolted in 73 BC and was finally defeated in 71 BC, after which 6,000 rebels were crucified on the Appian Way leading to Rome, one man every 100 feet for what would today be about 120 miles. Many historians believe the men were nailed hands and feet, to a single, vertical pole, using a short piece of wood to make the nailing secure. It is also believed a short stick with a sharp point was nailed to the pole so that it poked into their rectum which caused them to raise their body for relief, but then to fall back on the point as their hands and feet began to hurt all the more. And so on, until they died. Strong men might live 2 or 3 days. Anyone interfering in a crucifixion was himself crucified.

Jesus is said to have been crucified in 30 AD. He was said to have been born in 4 BC or 8 BC, the former number being the more likely. In 39 AD, Emperor Caligula declared himself to be a god. He ordered his worship around the empire, including Israel. In 66 AD, the last Procurator, Florus, stole the silver out of the Temple. After an initial victory over a small Roman garrison in Jerusalem, the Romans returned with 6 legions - 60,000 men - who soundly defeated the Jewish rebels and killed many of them. By 70 AD the war was over, except for Masada, and the Temple destroyed. Many - but not all by any means - of the Jewish inhabitants of Judea were dispersed - the Diaspora - around the Mediterranean basin. In 73, Masada fell.

Then came the last Jewish Revolt. There had been a series of riots in 112-113 AD, which brought strong responses by the Roman occupiers, but it was the Simon bar Kochba Revolt of 132-135 AD that was the high point in Jewish resistance to Rome. Initially successful to the point the rebels over stamped Roman coins with an image believed to be that of bar Kochba. He was initially hailed in Jerusalem as the often promised and for so long, desperately looked for, Messiah. As in Moses and the flight from Egypt. Well, we know the end of this episode, too. Rome prevailed.

I’m illustrating the very interesting history of Jewish resistance in Judea in the 300-400 years spanning the before and after of 1 AD. Or CE as is more commonly used today by people who want to be nice to Jewish people. It is my contention that Jesus was also a rebel. That he also wanted to “purify” the Temple of foreign influence. But alas, as in the case of the others, Jesus too, failed. Paul, who wrote in the late 50s or early 60s - almost certainly before 66 AD - also advocated a purified form of Judaism that Emperor Constantine later made into Christianity for his own purposes.

quote: Originally posted by dAlen
Lets settle for he was crucified & stoned at the same time and get on with life...or lets give him a call.

quote:posted by ADVISOR...
No, lets settle for he was stoned, and then crucified. I already called him, he said I was right. Come on, he's my booky and I was just checking the spread before posting this to refute you, well and all of them too of course.

I'm going to second that second quote!

Except for that ''booky'' bit!


Donwhite/

a purified form of Judaism that Emperor Constantine later made into Christianity for his own purposes.

St Constantine did not take a form of' purified Judaism' and use it for his own purpose!
I guess it depends what you read and by who it was written!
yes?
Which I dont think i'm going to go into this on this thread....as i have done this on another post.

The crucifiction is the belief of the New Testament and it makes sense to me.

HERE
And also..
many more here...on the Crucifiction

IX
helen

[Edit to correct spelling]

[edit on 5/28/2006 by helen670]

[edit on 5/28/2006 by helen670]

I feel comfortable with my view of the first third of the first century, AD or CE. If the Sermon on the Mount represents what Jesus was advocating during his wandering about in the dry and dusty roads of old Palestine, then it is absolutely impossible for me to accept or understand that Rome executed him.

The popular theory is that the Jewish High Priest - who was appointed by Rome - a lackey - connived to trick the Romans to do it. You can believe anything you want, but this story does not “ring” true to me. You can believe Christian psychiatrists keep pigs in their offices for demon disposal, if you chose, but I don’t.

By the bye, that was an really interesting story, albeit uncomplimentary to one of my favorite foods - pork sausage, spicy and hot - and I’m sure it meant something to the people to whom it was addressed. Unfortunately, like 99% of what went on then (and there) it is lost to us. It is as curious a thing for me to comprehend - the pig story - as the need to assert the current doctrine of transubstantiation is both literal and true. After the misadventure at the Donner Pass, who needs that in 2006?