Jesus Didn't Fake It

This thread is a reply and companion thread, of sorts, to the current thread on ATS entitled "Did Jesjuah stage his own death..blah, blah, blah"

I've never seen Jesus referred to as "Jesjuah," but whatev, I'm fairly certain that's who you're talking about.

Being the compulsive smart-a$$ I am, I will do my best to refrain from making witty, condescending comments at your expense. I got in big trouble for that on the CGI ufo thread..... (I officially offer you the olive branch, "elevatedone"--- it was my first reprimand and even though little johnny's thread is now officially ostracized into the "hoax" forum, you were right in your super-moderation and I was wrong in my butt-holey-ish comments. What can I say? I'm a flawed work in progress. Besides, true fans of TAFKAP---whether called Joey Coco, Paisley Park or Alexander Nevermind--- have gotta stick together, ya dig? )

Okay, whew, I don't now about y'all but I feel much better now that that's outta the way.

So, what were we talking about? Oh, yeah, Jesus fakin' His own death and all that silliness.

I will start and finish my rebuttle by addressing postulation #1 in your, ahh.....ahem...., "ridonkulous" thesis. I feel quite confident that I can succinctly stomp a mudhole in the additional numbers 2 through 5 of your OP in one felled swoop, simply by pointing out their folly at the get-go.
Having said that, let's get down to business, shall we?

In your thread you state:

#1 According to tradition Jesjuah was long haired and heavily bearded and used to walk in a rather extravagant linen or hemp robe woven in one single piece, so it would be relatively easy to change his initial appearance, through cutting his hair and beard and dressing him up in new clothes, perhaps even the robe of the gardener who worked around the given tomb, resulting in how Mary Magdalene believed he was the gardener, and how his disciples later didn't recognise him straight away but needed time to understand it was in fact Jesjuah, their lord who appeared in front of them after the tomb was found empty.

In an attempt to keep the additional "clever" thoughts of my initial reply in ATS etiquette shackles, the only thing left to say is that there is no robe, or beard, or haircut that could camouflage the physical effects of a Roman crucifixion. Let me enlighten you as to this gruesome procedure that was the vainglory of Roman capital punishment. The details of which, are actually not even known by the larger percentage of most professing Christians.

Crucifixion was a death that was literally ‘excruciating’ (from the Latin word ‘ex cruces’)

The practice of impaling or nailing someone to a post, or something similar to it, was practiced among many early cultures, however the Carthaginians are commonly thought to have passed the knowledge to the Romans. The Romans were experts at torture, and the perfecters of crucifixion.

The goal of Roman crucifixion was not just to kill the criminal, but also to mutilate and dishonor the body of the condemned. As a legal preliminary to every execution, two Roman soldiers known as “lictors” stood on either side of the condemned and took turns flogging (or “scourging”) them. They used whips called “flagrum,” which were used primarily as torture instruments to extract information. The lictors would alternate lashes, directing each lash to specific parts of the back, buttocks or thigh.




The first century historian, Flavious Josephus noted that some of the condemned were torn to pieces by scourging before they were ever crucified, and sometimes the victim died before the scourging was even completed.

Historians described a scourged victim’s skin as being so lacerated that their rib bones were visible through the rips in their skin. Veins were laid bare, and the inner muscles, sinews and, on some occasions the entrails, were exposed. In other words, if the Roman lictors weren’t careful they could cut major veins or disembowel the victim, causing premature death.

Any Roman solider who had some lead, some cow hide, and a stick could easily make a killer whip in a matter of hours.




A Roman flagrum was made from thick cow hide and had from as few as 3, to as many as 12 leather straps, each of variegated length and held in place by a horizontal strap. No matter the strap variation, the one thing they all had in common were their lead tips embedded with nails, jagged sheep bone or glass, or some combination of the three.




The twelve-strap could rip up to 90 – 100 small holes per lash; the nine-strap 20-25 holes per lash; and the three- strap 10-12 holes per lash. Once again, no matter the strap variation because the three strap could do just as much damage as either the nine or twelve, because the lighter the whip, the faster the swing making the cuts much deeper and longer.

Deep, stripe-like* lacerations were usually associated with considerable blood loss. Therefore, although the distance from Pilate’s judgment hall to where they believe Jesus was crucified is only about 1/3 of a mile, Jesus could not carry his own cross, likely due in large part to the considerable amount of blood loss effected from His scourging.

I feel that I can comfortably state in absolute certainty that it would be impossible to fake or camouflage that type of flesh-mutilating injury, and I haven't even addressed the effects the actual crucifixion itself would have had on the body of Christ. Although I don't think additional rebuttal is necessary, here is a link to the medical aspects of death by crucifixion:
Medical Analysis of Crucifixion

And folks, please keep in mind that this thread is not to dispute the validity of Jesus, but to dispute the liklihood of faking your own death by crucifixion.


*But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His *stripes we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.
Isaiah 53:5 & 6


(i have no idea why my pictures are gigantic, sasquatch-sized, nor why the first half of my post previews in white font and the last half of my post is previewing as black colored font.......)

What about Jesus in Islam? The other OP in the thread could be foreign. Still we can never prover Jesus lived; let alone was killed if did live.

References:

cat of nine tails

(The Jewish War 1-111 Cambridge Mass, Harvard Press, 1927 and Jewish Antiquities books IX-XI Cambridge Mass.: Harvard Press, 1937).

(Readers Digest - Jesus and His Times 1973 pg. 256-257)

(Livy x.9 from the Westminster Dictionary of the Bible pg. 538)

(Harper’s Bible Dictionary, pg. 914)

(Westminster Dictionary of the Bible page 538)

(Dakes Annotated Reference Bible 1963 Matt. 27:26)

(Dr. Edwards 1986 JAMA, Vol. 225, pg. 1457.)

(Mikuliez -Radecki FV: The chest wound in the crucified Christ. Med News 1966).

(Davis CT: The crucifixion of Jesus: The passion of Christ from a medical point of view. Ariz. Med 1965).

Hmmmm... you make an interesting case.


Maybe he had a twin brother?

Or perhaps Jesus was an ET? www.dark-stories.com...

reply to post by v1rtu0s0


I don't understand the logic being used by the OP.
That's like me saying a man was killed by a gun and then I will show images of guns to make sure he existed.

There are so many personal testimonies from credible witnesses that are recorded as credible accounts that Jesus was and still is the Son of God. And that he never faked anything...

Back in those days, people lying was not something that happened , it was very rare.. Why? Because to lie at all back then was pretty much going to be the end of your success if you had any, and if you didnt have any, then lying to someone would guarantee that you never succeeded ever. The saints and the disciples were people of good character even though they were prone to human error.. But Christ was not prone to and never commited any errors, unlike you, and me, and all the rest of the human race..

Today we see the many, the proud, and the arrogant, all loudly shouting in defiance to these true written words..
And so wrecklessly too I might add....

What is fake are the stories that some elites made up the bible as a way to control populations.. That is a huge lie.. Believe whatever you want to believe though...

reply to post by alienreality


Do you proof? People can and will make stuff at the time. Do you people believed they saw other Gods and what not. Does that make them real? No!
Divine

The fact remains. Nowhere even in the New Testament is it taught that Jesus is part of a triune godhead. Nowhere does he make the claim that he was G-d. Nowhere in the New Testament is there the reason to believe that he is G-d.

You need to offer proof to your source. Since you don't I just see that you have more faith then knowledge they claims exist.

reply to post by ImAnAlienOnMyOwnPlanet


No I don't have to offer any proof...

What I am talking about is a preponderance of evidence in the written records...

Although written records don't constitute proof, they do constitute evidence to be studied, and believed, or not believed..

I never said you must believe..

No one is forcing you to take anything as "proof" Humans have no proof of many things, but you believe many things anyway..

Intuition and common sense are often employed to "believe" something... you do it all time like everyone else, and you do it without real proof.

This is why I believe.. Based on what credible people swore to in their written testimonies...Just like what judges rely on before they give the order to fry someone in old sparky... many times without any solid proof, but they believed all the testimonies based on all the varied background information. Even though it may be circumstantial.

reply to post by alienreality


Well it's faith then. But it would never hold in court as evidence. That is what I wanted as an answer and that is what I got. Thank you for explaining.

The fact remains. Nowhere even in the New Testament is it taught that Jesus is part of a triune godhead. Nowhere does he make the claim that he was G-d. Nowhere in the New Testament is there the reason to believe that he is G-d.

John 10:30-33: “‘I and the Father are one.’ Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, ‘I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?’ ‘We are not stoning you for any of these,’ replied the Jews, ‘but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.’”

John 8:58-59: "‘I tell you the truth,’ Jesus answered, ‘before Abraham was born, I am!’ At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.”

John 20:27-29: “Then He said to Thomas, ‘Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.’ Thomas said to him, ‘My Lord and my God!’ Then Jesus told him, ‘Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.’"

reply to post by ImAnAlienOnMyOwnPlanet


Yep,

But faith is indeed used sometimes in courts... In cases where just circumstantial evidence is used without real proof... And they do get convictions based on that all the time...

reply to post by dnaobs


The Jews claim themselves as children of God all the time.
Review the link I offered.

God in Judaism

One of the primary expressions of Jewish faith, recited twice daily in prayer, is the Shema, which begins "Hear, Israel: The L-rd is our G-d, The L-rd is one." This simple statement encompasses several different ideas: 1. There is only one G-d. No other being participated in the work of creation. 2. G-d is a unity. He is a single, whole, complete indivisible entity. He cannot be divided into parts or described by attributes. Any attempt to ascribe attributes to G-d is merely man's imperfect attempt to understand the infinite. 3. G-d is the only being to whom we should offer praise. The Shema can also be translated as "The L-rd is our G-d, The L-rd alone," meaning that no other is our G-d, and we should not pray to any other.

Although many places in scripture and Talmud speak of various parts of G-d's body (the Hand of G-d, G-d's wings, etc.) or speak of G-d in anthropomorphic terms (G-d walking in the garden of Eden, G-d laying tefillin, etc.), Judaism firmly maintains that G-d has no body. Any reference to G-d's body is simply a figure of speech, a means of making G-d's actions more comprehensible to beings living in a material world. Much of Rambam's Guide for the Perplexed is devoted to explaining each of these anthropomorphic references and proving that they should be understood figuratively. We are forbidden to represent G-d in a physical form. That is considered idolatry. The sin of the Golden Calf incident was not that the people chose another deity, but that they tried to represent G-d in a physical form.

Jesus was speaking as a follower of God. Not God himself. But Christians believe he is God. But Judaism concept of God is different.

The issue is with the Book itself, not with its message.

The Bible is a metaphor for spiritual guidance, and a starting point for personal development.

Everyone treats the Bible like the destination, it is only one starting point, and corrupted start to begin with. The stories in the Bible come from Phoenician, Sumerian, Akkadian, and so many cultures that came before the Hebrew people and Christians that come later. In truth the Old testament and New are not compatible in philosophy or intent.

The holy trinity goes back thousands of years before the events in the Bible, long before the Bible was ever written or assembled; it is a throwback to polytheism and incorporated into religions as they borrowed from previous, or the religion they just overthrew;

The first recorded religious virgin birth was Semiramis, wife of Nimrod. She claimed her son was the result of holy intervention, and goes on to become the template for all mother/son worship. She was raised by Doves, the olive branch was also a representation of her son Tammuz, etc, etc. All these themes were incorporated into the Bible to represent Jesus, but were utilized thousands of years before by the queen of Assyria, Semiramis and her sons. It is also the Origin of Easter, the celebration of Tammuz rising up after being killed by a wild boar.


This was thousands of years before Jesus walked the earth, the stories in the Bible and its themes are borrowed from religions that came and went thousands of years before them, they can be traced in any comparative religion study. And we are not discussing astro-theology, which is an entirely separate level of Biblical study and interaction.


So we are left with a Book that organizes thousands of years of religious and astro theologic studies into a single presentation.

Taken as is, it is a marvelous compilation of humanity's struggle to define itself, and our place in the Universe.

reply to post by alienreality


Check out my latest thread.
I wrote about faith and evidence.

reply to post by dnaobs


John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come [again] unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. (KJV)

You also have this verse. So Jesus contradicts him self or we just use verses which can hold a candle to anything.

"... but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not!"
- Quran, 4:157

Originally posted by ImAnAlienOnMyOwnPlanet
Jesus was speaking as a follower of God. Not God himself. But Christians believe he is God. But Judaism concept of God is different.

Yes, the Judaic concept of God is different, but it is also the same.

Christ forgave sins. Only God can forgive sins. Christ was accused of claiming to be God. Christ did not deny any of it. Christ was called God by Thomas. Christ did not correct him.

These are all Jewish beliefs, and they are all very strict. For Christ to do any of them was a sin beyond anything else that you could do. It was a grievous sin to even HEAR it, much less say it. The only way that Christ did not deserve the punishment and death that he got was if he truly was God.

Do you believe that a "good teacher" would say such blasphemous lies? Do you believe that he got the punishment that he deserved?

Our Christian view of the Triune God results not from specific revelation, but theological exploration of how this can be. There is only one God. Christ clearly was God, yet he is distinct from the Father, distinct from the Holy Spirit. One God, Three Persons. The view is an attempt to reconcile this incomprehensibility. It may be wrong, it may be right, but it doesn't matter, because the core fact that Christ was God remains.

So, same concept -- one God, different concept -- three aspects.

reply to post by skajkingdom


The Bible says He did, the Koran says He didn't.
The Gospel accounts in the Bible are based on credible, eye-witness testimony. The Jewish historian Josephus Flavius mentions Jesus Christ in the "Antiquities Of The Jews," passages 18.3.3 and 20.9
The Koran is based entirely on one single individual's claim of divine revelation.

IMO, even though the Bible account seems more credible, those that believe and those that don't will most likely argue into oblivion with each other.

Having said all that, the point of the whole matter is summed up in faith. My faith in the Bible is not based on its "credibility," nor, I assume, is your faith in Muhammad based on his credibility.

Thus the infinite loop of disagreement between the faiths ensues....

Originally posted by skajkingdom


"... but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not!"
- Quran, 4:157

Ever read Hamlet by Shakespeare? "Me thinks thou doth protest too much"
(quoted in the second person from "The lady doth protest too much, methinks.")

At the time the play was written, the generally understood meaning of "protest" was "vow" or "declare solemnly."
When the line is spoken in the play, it is meant to imply that the person objects so much, that they begin to lose credibility. When somone's vows seem too elaborate, too artful and too insistent, they tend to seem suspect.

Originally posted by ImAnAlienOnMyOwnPlanet
reply to post by alienreality

 

Check out my latest thread.
I wrote about faith and evidence.

The definition of FAITH is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Your thread appears contradictory, unless that is your intention.