Shop now Shop now Shop now  Up to 70% Off Fashion  Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Shop now Shop now Shop now
Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

Was a person called Jesus, ever really crucified?

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 751-775 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 22 May 2012 16:43:43 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Jojo- Jesus is a myth- no matter what your ancestry.

Posted on 22 May 2012 16:42:04 BDT
Jojo says:
Jesus is true. I'm a Filipino but i know that there are artifacts that proves that there is once a

In reply to an earlier post on 22 May 2012 16:39:59 BDT
C. A. Small says:

In reply to an earlier post on 22 May 2012 15:59:47 BDT

Wouldn't it be a whole lot easier to accept the NT account?

Reminds me of G.K.Chesterton's famous quote: "When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing - they believe in anything." Jesus said (John 14:9): "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father."

Divine revelation over human speculation every time!

In reply to an earlier post on 22 May 2012 15:39:24 BDT
Pendragon says:

Maybe so, but if you are reading gibberish it makes so much more sense if you can count properly, don't you agree?

In reply to an earlier post on 22 May 2012 14:41:15 BDT
Pipkin says:
Hi Pen,
Thanks for that information..

In reply to an earlier post on 22 May 2012 14:37:35 BDT
Pipkin says:
Hy CA,
Who knows?

In reply to an earlier post on 22 May 2012 14:29:45 BDT
Pipkin says:
Good Post Spin,
Stuff there I didn't even know :) I wasn't aware that Isis 'took' seed from the dead Osiris.
You say it is written that Mary Magdeline, Mary Mother of Jesus and Salome who were the first to enter the sepulchre? Would that be Herod's daughter Salome who asked for the head of John the Baprist on a plate?

I am enclosing a lengthy piece which I know many will find very interesting. Please bare with me.....

Zacharias, Jesus' dad?
Actually, I arrived at this subject by accident. Clues which suggest that Zacharias was the father of both John the Baptist and Jesus. I thought it interesting, so I started to do some reading up on the subject. And then I discovered confirmation after confirmation that at least people in the past actually thought this, people like Poussin, Da Vinci, Michelangelo, and... the abbé Saunière of Rennes-le-Chateau. I decided to do some proper research, to see what I would come up with.
Zacharias was a Zadokpriest in the Temple, with Zadok hat and A'aron's breastplate and all. However, he was also the uncrowned Hasmonean king of Israel. Under Roman command he was only allowed to fulfil his Temple duties. He was married to Elizabeth, who was having such trouble in giving him an heir. Elizabeth was heir of the bloodline of A'aron the Zadok. Together with Zacharias, Elizabeth would make it possible for an heir, to become both king of Israel as well as Zadok priest. The more the pity that she could not give Zacharias his heir. That was a big problem! No Zadok and no king of Israel when Zacharias would pass away.
Solution: Elizabeth had a family member (a cousin) called Mary. Also Mary was heir to the bloodline of A'aron. So Elizabeth agreed to give Mary to Zacharias, similar to what Sara did at first, when she could not give Abraham his heir. I recently stumbled upon a beautiful fresco which seems to suggest that this idea is not so far fetched:
Lorenzo and Jacopo Salimbeni painted a fresco. Where we see Elizabeth giving Mary to Zacharias.
So when the deed was done, and Mary was pregnant, it appeared that Elizabeth was also pregnant! The Bible is convinced that John was born first. Both pregnancies were not so far apart if this story is true. John and Jesus would be of the same age, save perhaps a month or two. According to the New Testament, Mary and Elizabeth were in the house of Zacharias together during their pregnancies.
It seems very cruel, that Mary, immediately after Elizabeth gave birth to a healthy baby boy called John, was quickly married off to a man called Joseph, and sent away, probably to Egypt (the Essene community near Alexandria). Were they in danger and was their trip to Egypt merely a safety plan to escape Herodes? We may never know. But when Mary gave birth to a healthy baby boy as well, they named him Immanuel. Not Jesus. Also this can be found in the New Testament.
His name would then have been Immanuel ben Zahari, or something close to that.
About John's childhood we know very little. They will have cherished the boy. And after Zacharias was killed (he was murdered in the Temple when he did not want to betray the whereabouts of his wife and son), John and his mother Elizabeth would have continued to lay low. Most probably also in Egypt with the Essenes (the Essene scrolls speak of Lake Mareotis near Alexandria). It would also explain why some people believe that John was an Essene. John would reappear in the stories when he was about 30 years old, in Israel, giving his people comfort, support and faith, and he introduced baptism, a ritual he will have picked up in Egypt. Baptism, you see, was quite popular around Lake Mareotis at the time.
So John was not an old hairy wild man, but a king's son, who did nothing but try to give people hope, comfort and wisdom during the harsh years of the Roman repression, which was heavy for the people of Israel. Every riot was squashed violently. The royal family was watched very carefully and the Romans feared plots. So, one would have to be very very careful. Especially when you were the rightful ruler of the usurped land.
When John was becoming popular, Jesus arrived at the scene. He called himself Oshu (in Aramaic), which would become Jesus in Greek. Like his half brother John he tried to give his people wisdom, comfort as well as healing (something he had perhaps picked up in his years in India or Egypt, while he was away). The people of Israel were a bit confused having two uncrowned kings who each wanted to become the hope of the people. So, Jesus had a group of followers, and John had his group.
When John was beheaded, Jesus was the only one left to inherit the position of uncrowned king as well as Zadok priest. According to the New Testament, he was anointed by Mary Magdalene, who had to be his wife to be allowed to do this. And thus, Jesus became the Messiah, the anointed but still uncrowned king of Israel. Dutifully he also did the Zadok rituals. We know this from the Last Supper. For many millennia, bread and wine were the sacred tools in this ritual. Changing these into the body and the blood of the Mother Goddess was already done at the time of Abraham by Melchizedek (Michel Zadok).
This ritual passed on through the ages to A'aron, being the Zadok high priest next to Moses.
When a Zadok priest was also a Nazarene (which has nothing to do with Nazareth but with Essene ranks), he was called 'Son of God'. This does suggest that Jesus was also a Nazarene. So, this is how Jesus became the king of the Jews (mocked by the Romans for his impure parent relations), the 'Son of God' according to Nazarene rule, and the Messiah which means 'the anointed one'. He became the anointed king of Israel.....
That is quite something! He was obviously no poor carpenter's son. That is something that the Roman catholic church invented to make him beloved by the masses, who were poor. Nobility wasn't popular in the early Christian period and the early Middle Ages, so the true nobility of Jesus was kept silent.
Also during his crucifixion, something that tells us that the Romans did not accept him as the king that he was, they mocked him with the title INRI. Iesu Nazareni Rex Iudorum. Jesus Nazarene, king of the Jews. Perhaps this knowledge can be seen as proof, that Jesus tried to be what he was born to be. A king trying to guide his people like a shepherd guides his flock. The kings of Israel, weren't they called the 'shepherd kings'? The Lord is my shepherd?
Now the Romans dealt with both king's sons. (After the crucifixion, Essene scrolls tell us, Oshu lived in Carmel like a Greek philosopher with a small class until his late seventies or early eighties. In any event, Jesus disappeared from the scene.) However, what about the royal family, and his possible heirs? Was this the reason why the royal family fled to the south of France, to the Essene communities in Occitania? Quite possible! Large groups of people had fled to these regions, especially in the first century, and there were several large Essene communities in the Languedoc-Roussillon at the time. And, nobility married nobility. A bloodline going back to Jesus would not be historically unthinkable. On the contrary, it is quite logical!
So: Perhaps there were people (Templars perhaps?) who stumbled upon the real bloodline of Jesus and thus discovered that his dad was Zacharias? The infamous parchment of Jesus' genealogy? And how do we find this in the church of Rennes-le-Château?
Now we must look through the ages, in search for symbolism in e.g. paintings and churches, who could support or confirm the above.
If we see a painting of the Holy Family, we see, many times, only Zacharias, Elizabeth, Mary and the two boys. No Joseph. Interesting!
We go to Leonardo Da Vinci. Now we may understand exactly what this great man meant, when he painted his famous John the Baptist!
Did the abbé Saunière of Rennes-le-Château not put the Alpha underneath John at first? In stead of underneath Jesus, on the statues of John and Jesus in the church?
And what else can we see, when we look at these statues?
We clearly see, that John is wearing underneath his camel skin, a beautiful king's robe. Not so strange, because historically he was, after Zacharias' death, the legitimate king of Israel. A hint, clearly given by Saunière.
Both were royal princes until their dad Zacharias was murdered. John was the oldest, so he was king first, before Jesus took over after John was beheaded.
What does this mean for the church?
The Christian church in any form today cannot be blamed for the dogma's and doctrines which were created and used in the early Middle Ages for marketing and power strategy, so that the ancient Roman Empire could continue to exist in religious form. On the contrary. Now, their chickens have come home to roost! What are they to do with the truth of the first century and their own version of it, which was formed in the last 1800 years. Their story, which has taken root, cannot be changed, nor can their doctrines or dogma's be reversed, without losing face, and without risking the fall of Christianity itself. Jesus' divination, the resurrection, the virgin birth, all of these things have grown into the Christian faith so deeply, that many people consider this as the absolute truth. But, is this so wrong? As long as there is freedom for others to find their own truth?
Jesus' resurrection could, however, be replaced by the ancient concept of reincarnation. This was suppressed by the church to make room for the unique case of Jesus' resurrection. Whether Jesus died on the cross or not, would then no longer be an issue, because reincarnation explains that there is a cycle of rebirth and Karma cleansing.
A brave catholic priest has (in 2007 and in my presence), given Mass at Easter in public, where he preached not the material but the immaterial resurrection of Christ. So yes it can, slowly but surely, be replaced by a concept which would fit much better the evolution of human consciousness today.
Also, Jesus dying on the cross for our redemption, can also be replaced by another concept. Jesus clearly taught the Hermetica to his followers. The Hermetica is The Way to cleanse your Karma and Soul, and living according to its laws is always beneficial to us.
Son of God? Well of course this man was divinely inspired. People like Jesus and Buddha were very special. They preached peace in a violent world. Forgiveness when there was hate. Wisdom when there was ignorance. Understanding and comfort when there was confusion. Acceptation when there was irritation. And most of all, love when there was anger.
The church in the 21st century could handle the transformation towards the truth. It just needs time and courage, but it is absolutely possible.
Throughout the centuries, people like the Cathars have chosen the old Gnostic Christianity above Rome's power plans. To walk in the footsteps of Jesus, independent of Rome, thousands of followers died horrible deaths protecting what they believed in. They are the true martyrs of Christendom. Perhaps this is the reason why mystical catholic priests in the Languedoc-Roussillon have left so many hints and clues in their churches, so that the truth that lies underneath, will never be forgotten. They hid their clues cleverly, visual only to those who could understand the symbolism.
*La Madeleine and Mysticism
*The Secrets of Occitania
*The Female Principle
Knights Templar
The Secrets of Occitania
Mary Magdalene
Artistique! -

In reply to an earlier post on 22 May 2012 14:13:15 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Pendragon- both stories are in fact gibberish, however you manipulate counting to three.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 May 2012 14:09:20 BDT
Pendragon says:

I'd like to suggest a solution to this apparent conundrum on counting to three.

Difficulties of interpretation can arise when 21st century Western Europeans read ancient texts as if they were written by 21st century Western Europeans - which of course they weren't. The bible was written by or about Jewish people living in or around Palestine in the 1st century.

First century Jews counted inclusively and on the basis that part of a day is counted as a whole day. Thus, on that basis, the period from the crucifixion on Friday afternoon to the resurrection on Sunday morning is "three days" (part Friday, Saturday, part Sunday).

But apparently not only was part of a day counted as a whole day, but according to Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah (who lived at the end of the first century AD), "A day and a night are an Onah [a portion of time] and the portion of an Onah is the whole of it". Thus a part of a day counts as a whole day and a whole night. On that basis, Friday afternoon to Sunday morning is "3 days and 3 nights" as referenced in Matt 12:40*.

So in terms of counting, both stories (the crucifixion/resurrection accounts and Jonah as quoted in Matt 12:40*) are intelligible, provided you read them as if you were the readership their authors were addressing - 1st century Jews, not modern Westerners.

* "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

In reply to an earlier post on 22 May 2012 14:07:44 BDT
Pendragon says:

"Blue apples at mid-day"

I suppose that would be your suggested translation of the (part) phrase "à midi pommes bleues".

I have an explanation as well. But you go first with your very simple explanation, and let's see how we get on!

In reply to an earlier post on 22 May 2012 13:19:29 BDT
C. A. Small says:
So two atheists in a pub discussing the lack of evidence for god are in church?

In reply to an earlier post on 22 May 2012 13:08:58 BDT
Pipkin says:
Hy Micheal,
''Where two people be gathered together in my name, there be my church''
So a 'church' is actually just anywhere people meet to chat about God and the meaning of life?

In reply to an earlier post on 22 May 2012 13:03:56 BDT
H W says:
Is he being racist again but disguising it as "religious views"?

I've put him on ignore anyway... perhaps everyone should.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 May 2012 12:51:18 BDT
Pipkin says:
Hi Michal,
Thanks for the tip about the Robert Graves book, I will enjoy reading that.
I don't think I ever denied that Jesus was tried and hung.....
I have actually written extensively on these threads about what I gleened from reading the History of the time; and that was that Jesus certainly was the hereditary King from the line of David through his Mother Mary, and as such was a threat to the Roman rulers.... However - he was not born of a Virgin, but was John the Baptist's half brother. Mary was supposed to have been living with Zacharius and his wife, until her marriage to Joseph. But Zacharius was 'high priest' and was 'given' Mary by his wife becasue she supposedly couldn't concieve. This was very common practice in those days and even to this day.....
History says that Joseph of Aramathea was a wealthy tin merchant who travelled the world, including England.... He was so influencial becasue he wsw the Minister of Mines for the Roman Empire and had the ear of all the dignitaries, especially Pilot. Joseph was Mary's Uncle, and when he heard of the intention to get rid of Jesus.. I believe that he negotiated with Pilot to remove Jesus and Mary for good. They had to be seen to be following normal procedures, but Jesus was helped to carry his stake by Simon, and was given Myrrh to numb and assist with the pain of the flogging. There was a lot of tooing and froing that morning which delayed the time of the hanging.
Once up there, ''tied'' to the stake with the one nail through his hands and through his feet, standing on a plinth, he was continually offered myrrh. Normally those who were crucified took ''days'' to die... Jesus hung there 3 hours.... He was watched very carefully, and when it was seen that he had 'died' or gone into a coma, Pilot authorised Joseph to remove him and take him to the sepulchre, where he and Nichodemus, Mary's Father, cleaned him up and salved his wounds. He was then left there through the Sabbath (Saturday) to rest and then Mary went to meet him on the Sunday morning then they went to have lunch with his friends before being secretted away with Joseph, his Mother Mary and his Brothers and their families, to Europe.
There was no talk about this until many years later.
It was then realised that an easy living could be made; and people were more than willing to be controlled and manipulated by myths and fables, especially if they were linked with Pagan rites, and so it grew and grew. And it never mattered that everybody told a different story.
Even more so during the years before we were educated and could read. However, since being educated people have begun to read History, and watch Natural History programmes on TV which show just how bizarre myths and rituals become an integral part of the daily lives of ignorant 'peasants.' The lies and exagerations are all revealed.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 May 2012 10:47:55 BDT
this isnt about them, silly billy - it's about me. how quickly the subject changes. come on, let me boast of my Englishness a while. spoilsport.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 May 2012 10:45:31 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Gtl; if your knowledge of the population of England is that limited you are even more dense than I thought.

Posted on 22 May 2012 10:39:36 BDT
let us note the differing skin tones of Her Majesty's army - before you get confused, Sam.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 May 2012 10:37:37 BDT
Last edited by the author on 22 May 2012 10:42:57 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 22 May 2012 10:35:45 BDT
"It's all in the attitude"

you're a fan of the Simpsons, are you?
"Simpsonian Christian Church of Jesus. High Priest: Ned Flanders.".

In reply to an earlier post on 22 May 2012 10:34:29 BDT
A non-english, non-British person living in England.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 May 2012 10:24:59 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 22 May 2012 10:23:49 BDT
gtL - "And I can't read you as Christian at all. So how would you know?"

It's all in the attitude, rather than the beliefs.
And besides, I'm a self-declared heretic!

In reply to an earlier post on 22 May 2012 10:20:31 BDT
gtL - "I should bloody well hope I appear British"

Oh yeah, bloody British.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 May 2012 10:10:23 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]
[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
Is President Trump right. Should we ban all Muslims and start deporting them in large amounts until they can prove they can accept civillisation and modern practices. I'm sure we all like history but the dark ages were the dark ages. 257 2 minutes ago
Remain or Leave? 556 24 minutes ago
you should all..... 3 6 hours ago
Morality and ethics. 381 6 hours ago
goblueresurrection is an atheist, slumming it. 22 8 hours ago
The Power of Prayer. 2005 11 hours ago
I thank all the imaginary gods for Jihadists. 157 20 hours ago
Book (Snapping of the American Mind) shows Harvard tests showing parental neglect causes homosexuality 883 22 hours ago
What lies beyond the grave ? 295 22 hours ago
Thread for alien fantasies etc 6 23 hours ago
New Evidence That Christianity is Fake and Jesus Never Existed 1206 1 day 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