Shop now Shop now Shop now  Up to 50% Off Fashion  Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Listen in Prime Shop now
Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

Was a person called Jesus, ever really crucified?

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Posted on 27 Nov 2012 01:58:09 GMT
Lela says:
Today, 27 November 2012, if a person walks around saying:

- Seek not the law in your scriptures, for the law is life, whereas the scripture is dead.

- God wrote not the laws in the pages of books, but in your heart and in your spirit. They are in your breath, your blood, your bone; in your flesh, your bowels, your eyes, your ears, and in every little part of your body. They are present in the air, in the water, in the earth, in the plants, in th e sunbeams, in the depths and in the heights. They all speak to you that you may understand the tongue and the will of the living God. But you shut your eyes that you may not see, and you shut your ears that you may not hear.

- I tell you truly, that the scripture is the work of man, but life and all its hosts are the work of our God. Wherefore do you not listen to the words of God which are written in His works? And wherefore do you study the dead scriptures which are the work of the hands of men?"

This man would have been killed in some countries...

Therefore, even 2,000 years ago, a man saying these same things would have been killed, in this case crucified.

Posted on 10 Sep 2012 22:46:54 BDT
Since someone decided to resurrect this thread last week, you may be interested to know that Jesus (Joshua/Yeshua) was the sixth most common name in 1st Century Palastine (from Jesus and the Eyewitnesses by Richard Bauckham)

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Sep 2012 19:29:06 BDT

Posted on 2 Sep 2012 19:14:57 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jun 2012 01:23:49 BDT
Shakepen says:
Spin: your advice is great: research th issue. The problem is that I don't have a grounding in the field. All I can do is follow what people who are noted as experts say! If this issue were in my field of expertise, we wouldn't be having this discussion because I would be able to attack the argument, making cogent comments of my own.

Actually, when you and others are debating about physics, I wonder how much your opponents really know. Are they just regurgitating facts they've read, or do they really have a point of view, based on their own reasoning? Of course, I expect a post from Sam or others asking, "Why don't you apply the same to Spin?" For this question, I have no answer.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Jun 2012 23:49:33 BDT
Spin says:
Shakespen: Don't believe all you read.The science presented to the public in no way reflects the actual science occuring at the basic level. For instance, every time you hear or read of new technology aimed at the distant planets, you will ALWAYS hear "This may help us to find life on other planets". All this is nonsense. Its simply propoganda to boost interest and funding. The same is true in the study of quantum physics and astrophysics... The claims science makes about the value of its research is entirely unjustified, morally and, more importantly, scientifically. Believe what you wish from popular science, but believe me, the science community has just as must turmoil going on regarding theories as those within politics and religion. If you do not believe me, research the issue; Science is not as unified as the finance-hungry scientific community likes you to think...

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Jun 2012 22:43:33 BDT
Last edited by the author on 17 Jun 2012 22:46:26 BDT
Shakepen says:
Spin: astrophysics is well outside my area of competence. I can only repeat what I've read. That the universe is expanding is based, according to Krauss Hubble, on Hubble's measurements. He was able to measure the distance among galaxies by comparing his measurements with another American astronomer, Vesto Slipher, who had also measured the spectra of light coming from these galaxies. Hubble discovered that there was a shift from blue to red (Doppler effect). Another fellow by the name of Lemaitre had predicted this effect, which seemed to confirm Hubble's idea that the universe was expanding.

I have no way of knowing whether Krauss is right or wrong. His argument seems sound, but who am I to judge?

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Jun 2012 22:25:20 BDT
Pipkin says:
Hi Pen,
I should have said Blackcurrant ''JAM.'' I am a fool.......
Don't knock it till you've tried it.....

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Jun 2012 21:40:36 BDT
Last edited by the author on 17 Jun 2012 23:40:50 BDT
Spin says:
Shakespen: The universe is not expanding. kashlinsky and his collegues, at the Space Flight centre in Maryland, were studying how galaxies move against the backdrop of "space". They observed galaxies moving at approx.1000 Km per second. Faster than the laws of cosmology and astrophysics allows. But stranger still, every cluster was rushing towards a small patch of sky between the constellations of Centaurus and Vela. In short, there are are areas of the universe moving against the "expansion". If this occurs in the observable universe, then what science calls "expansion of the universe" may be no more than particular parts of spacetime moving in a certain direction. Not "expansion" but simply "motion". On a philosophical level, Science has the problem of explaining both how the universe is expanding (since it is getting faster as it expands, contradicting physical law which states it should be slowing down) and what, exactly it is expnding "into". Lstly, the concepts of "Dark matter" and "Dark Energy" are unproven hypotheses, and to do not even have the status of "theory".

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Jun 2012 21:13:58 BDT
Shakepen says:
Sam: A) on another thread, I contradicted you. I said that leprosy was a fungus. I was wrong. Incidentally, the details of the BB are important to me because of the emotions it excites. I never claimed that my feelings invalidate the BB--although I wish they did.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Jun 2012 19:46:10 BDT
Why would he put any doubts and reservations at the beginning? They would be meaningless without the rest of the information.

The details of the Big Bang are an intellectual matter. Your emotions are irrelevant to it.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Jun 2012 18:45:47 BDT
Shakepen says:
Sam: I hardly think the theory is worthless. I'm convinced that it appears to be the only explanation for an expanding universe. I also accept Krauss' three proofs. I guess my complaint is that I was disappointed in his lexical tactics. Any doubts or reservations Krauss had should have been given at the beginning of his discussion, not toward the end because it undermines confidence.

Incidentally, I might as well conclude my observations in this post. What triggered this whole discussion was my reservations about the BB theory. I could not understand how time, space, matter, and energy could be created from nothing. I could not understand how there could be--at this point it is hard to put in words--a situation where all "reality" did not exist. I cannot say space because it didn't exist or anything else exist, for that matter. Then suddenly it appeared. I was willing to emotionally accept that the BB occurred as the result of a Black Hole, but surprise! Here is what Krauss says about Black Holes: "Eventually the black hole may radiate away entirely. As this point we do not know because the final stages of black hole evaporation involve physics on such small distance scales that general relativity alone cannot tell us the final answer." (pp. 155-6) So much for black holes creating the BB. (Unless there is more to the story than Krauss is telling us.)

So, the problem of dark energy is solved, but the cause of the BB still remains both an intellectual (and for me, especially) an emotional one as well.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Jun 2012 12:46:06 BDT
Sounds like a waste of jelly to me, Margaret. Jelly should go with ice cream. It's a classic for a reason.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Jun 2012 23:19:11 BDT
Pendragon says:
Oh Margaret, really? Sounds yuck.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Jun 2012 22:40:43 BDT
Pipkin says:
Hi Pen,
Especially with blackcurrant jelly on it too... mmmmm,

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Jun 2012 22:03:33 BDT
Last edited by the author on 16 Jun 2012 22:04:47 BDT
In Assyrian times if the diviners told the king the outlook was bad he'd appoint someone else to be king who would then be sacrificed to the gods. one time a gardener was appointed and then the king died, the gardener ended up reigning for years!

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Jun 2012 10:41:24 BDT
C. A. Small says:
MLJ- man's, since god doesn't exist. I fthere was a god and he was omnipotent, he could have stopped it.

So he either does not care or does not exist.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Jun 2012 02:07:44 BDT
Sam H. - "For perpetuating it. "

God's work, or man's?

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jun 2012 23:55:27 BDT
For perpetuating it.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jun 2012 22:31:00 BDT
Ryan W. - "It's the entity you pray to, dear. Send down his only begotten son, according to myth, to be a human sacrifice. That guy."

In the ancient cult of the Mother Goddess, and perhaps perpetuated in Druidism, the tribal King was sacrificed on the Beltane bonfire (origin of bonfire night) to save the tribe by placating the Goddess in times of trouble. As this was rather "inconvenient" for the King, the later custom was introduced of choosing a substitute "stag-king" for a year, possibly giving rise to the court fool or jester.
Since the sword and the cross are both fire symbols, the crucifixion is a symbolic re-enactment of this ancient custom.
So why blame the Judeo-Christian Jehovah for such cruelty that was already traditional?

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jun 2012 22:30:31 BDT
Pendragon says:
Peanut butter. Yum. I love it. Provided it is the crunchy variety.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jun 2012 19:20:14 BDT
So, because in your view it wasn't all wrapped up in a nice, complete package, you think it's worthless?

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jun 2012 18:02:30 BDT
Shakepen says:
Sam: If electrons and positrons appear and disappear in space and if space is really "not space" (the absence of everything, then how does the quote contain the answer when Krauss says that inflation is caused by space endowed with energy and creates everything. Up to this point, I'm with him. But then he says that it would be disengenuous to maintain that space is just space. Since we've just agreed that space isn't just space, what's the point?

The sentence I left out was : "In this picture one must assume tht space exists and can store energy, and one uses the laws of physics like general relativity to calculate the consequences. So if we stoped here, one might be justified in claiming that modern science is a long way from really addressing how to get something from nothing. This is just the first step, however." p. 152.

What annoys me is tht he spends a whole book setting out his case, insisting that all measurements confirm this viewpoint. He then concludes "that if one stopped here" the thesis would be in danger...or at least a long way from an explanation. After reading 151 pages where he is never tentative in his assertions, he suddenly suggests that we can't stop here because it might jeopardize the thesis, and science has only made a first step. Is it any wonder that I wonder what is going on? I thought the issue was settled.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jun 2012 16:48:51 BDT
"If he did, I'd phone up the celestial equivalent of Trading Standards and get the sod sacked for gross incompetence, negligence, idleness and dereliction of duty."

...and peanut butter. Disgusting stuff.

Posted on 15 Jun 2012 16:30:38 BDT
Last edited by the author on 16 Jun 2012 06:45:14 BDT
"My post if you read it was to C.A. who in order to get a reaction, likes to call me names."

He gave descriptions, if that's what you mean. They're always cruelly accurate, too.

"I don't recognise your 'psycopathic' [sic] God as anything to do with me"

It's the entity you pray to, dear. Sent down his only begotten son, according to myth, to be a human sacrifice. That guy.

"so I wouldn't expect forgiveness, or ask it for myself or anyone else, from this caricature you are so fond of."

I wouldn't expect forgiveness from that monstrous god of yours even if he actually existed. If he did, I'd phone up the celestial equivalent of Trading Standards and get the sod sacked for gross incompetence, negligence, idleness and dereliction of duty.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 130 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the religion discussion forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Important Announcement from Amazon
154 12 Aug 2015
If an all knowledgeable God created life, why is there cancer? 1078 17 seconds ago
Remain or Leave? 430 16 minutes ago
What will happen first. The London BBC stop moaning that it's not fair, our side lost, wegot less votes but we supported remain and want the result changing. Or Jesus revisits the earth. 24 54 minutes ago
Time to ignore the religion forums trolls.? 158 1 hour ago
2nd referendum, for those that don't believe in democracy. 19 1 hour ago
The Power of Prayer. 1856 2 hours ago
Christopher Hicthens 3972 2 hours ago
The Bible is not the "Word of God" 1541 3 hours ago
The EU is dead, it has been nailed to the cross. Three days later and the London BBC are still praying for resurrection. Give us our miricle they claim. We have a petition with over 2 million Londoners on it, all you had was over 17 million voters . 0 4 hours ago
Are atheists in Europe still living a Christian lifestyle? 128 5 hours ago
guilty until proven innocent. 486 21 hours ago

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  85
Total posts:  3232
Initial post:  8 Mar 2012
Latest post:  27 Nov 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions