There never was crucifixion!

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01382/penitents2_1382345e.jpg
A penitent is nailed to a wooden cross to mark the death of Jesus Christ on Good Friday in the town of Pampanga , Philippines
Picture: EPA

11:47AM BST 23 Jun 2010

[SIZE=5]Jesus may not have died nailed to the cross because there is no evidence that the Romans crucified prisoners two thousand years ago, a scholar has claimed.[/SIZE]

The legend of his execution is based on the traditions of the Christian church and artistic illustrations rather than antique texts, according to theologian Gunnar Samuelsson.

He claims the Bible has been misinterpreted as there are no explicit references the use of nails or to crucifixion - only that Jesus bore a “staurus” towards Calvary which is not necessarily a cross but can also mean a “pole”.

Mr Samuelsson, who has written a 400-page thesis after studying the original texts, said: "The problem is descriptions of crucifixions are remarkably absent in the antique literature.

“The sources where you would expect to find support for the established understanding of the event really don’t say anything.”

The ancient Greek, Latin and Hebrew literature from Homer to the first century AD describe an arsenal of suspension punishments but none mention “crosses” or “crucifixion.”

Mr Samuelsson, of Gothenburg University, said: "Consequently, the contemporary understanding of crucifixion as a punishment is severely challenged.

“And what’s even more challenging is the same can be concluded about the accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus. The New Testament doesn’t say as much as we’d like to believe.”

Any evidence that Jesus was left to die after being nailed to a cross is strikingly sparse - both in the ancient pre-Christian and extra-Biblical literature as well as The Bible.

Mr Samuelsson, a committed Christian himself, admitted his claims are so close to the heart of his faith that it is easy to react emotionally instead of logically.

Mr Samuelsson said the actual execution texts do not describe how Christ was attached to the execution device.

He said: “This is the heart of the problem. The text of the passion narratives is not that exact and information loaded, as we Christians sometimes want it to be.”

Mr Samuelsson said: “If you are looking for texts that depict the act of nailing persons to a cross you will not find any beside the Gospels.”

A lot of contemporary literature all use the same vague terminology - including the Latin accounts.

Nor does the Latin word crux automatically refer to a cross while patibulum refer to the cross-beam. Both words are used in a wider sense that that.

Mr Samuelsson said: "That a man named Jesus existed in that part of the world and in that time is well-documented. He left a rather good foot-print in the literature of the time.

"I do believe that the mentioned man is the son of God. My suggestion is not that Christians should reject or doubt the biblical text.

"My suggestion is that we should read the text as it is, not as we think it is. We should read on the lines, not between the lines. The text of the Bible is sufficient. We do not need to add anything

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7849852/Jesus-did-not-die-on-cross-says-scholar.html

2 Likes

The Crucifixion Was A Fraud

from Humanists Website

recovered through WayBackMachine Website

Billions of Christians believe Christ was crucified, buried, and then rose again.
This is the basis for Christian faith. What if Jesus survived the crucifixion? Would this be pure blasphemy or is there reason behind this assumption? There is evidence in the gospels themselves that say Christ may have survived the crucifixion and that the crucifixion to put it bluntly was a “fraud.”

Writer and researcher Michael Baigent, author of Holy Blood-Holy Grail, and other scholars believe that the gospels are suspect to the theory of the survival of Christ. He says his theories are not intended to offend, but one must keep a clear
[RIGHT]http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_biblianazar/biblianazar20_02.jpg[/RIGHT]
distinction between the Jesus of history and theJesus of theology even though the Jesus of theology is based on the historical Jesus.
One can only find the figure of the Jesus of history by teasing out of various historical documents, some which are the New Testament.

In the theory of the survival of Jesus, there are a number of clues which help support it, but there are two major clues that are the strongest.

[ul]
[li]The first is in the crucifixion itself. When a person was crucified they did not die quickly, but rather a slow painful, morbid death which would have taken two to three days, possibly even a week. Jesus supposedly died within two to three hours.[/li]
Joseph of Arimethea went to Pilot and asked to have the body of Jesus, which was contrary to Roman law anyway, and when Pilot heard that Jesus was already dead, he was so surprised to hear that Jesus had died so quickly that he sent a centurion to check.
The second oddity is that the crucifixion took place in what seemed to be a private garden and tomb owned by Joseph of Arimethea. The importance of this observation is that if there was any fraudulence associated with the crucifixion, then the public could be kept away in a private garden andJesus could be privately taken away, revived, tendered and ministered to.
[li] http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biblianazar/esp_biblianazar_20.htm [/li][/ul]

The Romans invented crucifixion as a former of punishment for dissenters especially in the small Kingdom of Judea that took them two years to conquer after a protracted siege that saw the recalling of Gen. Tiberius from retirement to take charge of the siege and break into Jerusalem. A kingdom that had nothing going for it apart from a strong belief in one God, Rome had nothing to gain from Judea but the pride the Judea exuded as a chosen people hurt the Romans pride and drew the attention of pax Romana forces. Even after the conquest of Judea the proud Judea continued subversive acts to overthrow the Romans empire (well captured in the gospel as the zealots who thought Jesus had come to lead a revolt). To punish the guerrillas and to warn like-minded Judea, the Romans crucified any that they captured. Crucifixion occurred on a hill outside Jerusalem called Golgotha or the hill of skulls so named because of the skulls that literred the hill a reminder of the Crucifixion victims. Golgotha was visible to anyone entering Jerusalem to warn them of the might of Rome. Judaism prohibits close contact the with cadavers so this was also to mock Judaism. One was crucified and left to die then bride of prey would perch on the cross and eat somebody slowly. The gory scene and the stench at Golgotha was warning and mockery to the Judaism who refused to supplicate to pax Romana. Read Constantia’s Sword a well-researched book that runs into thousands of pages

also after the last servile war lead by Spartacus, Marcus Crusus crucified the captured slaves along roads to act as reminder to any slave who would defy Roam

1 Like

Haha! This is so whacked up boss. Crucifixion happened in Golgotha but burial in Joseph of Arimathea’s personal tomb. Rich landlords had personal tombs in their farms.
Ati with Crucifixion it took three days to die? Hio ni uwongo especially given what Jesus went through prior. You are tortur d and detained most likely without food or enough of it then you are hanged with your sinews and tendons all stretched out and bleeding then a guy stabs you with a spear, I mean, if the bleeding doesn’t kill you the exhaustion and poor breathing due to the stretching will get you in an hour or three

That’s what the Islam religion has been saying for the past 1400+ years, Jesus Christ was not crucified.

3 Likes

The events of that tumultuous evening were so fuzzy and confusing that nobody can prove conclusively that Jesus really died! That liquid he was given when he asked for water was the same given to Shakespeare’s Juliet!

1 Like

Christianity and Islam both agree there was a Crucifixion the question is of whom? Judah or Jesus but the articles above premise that there was never crucifixion

Why not the one given to Socrates?

Muslims have it that Jesus changed places with someone else, the one who helped him carry the stake!

Now that’s what makes it all the more suspicious! The rich landlord and the private(sema secret) burial place! Can you explain once again why they had to post watchmen outside the tomb? Because everything about this guy and his followers was suspicious, including his death!

@kawambui, ukiingia kijijini upitie hapa, tafadhali!

1 Like

Jesus had broken no Romance law and was crucified to please the Judaism parishes who never believed in resurrection as opposed to the saducees for example. The pharisees had entered into a pact with Romans to be allowed to practice their religion and collect tithe and they would support the Empire and snitch on the revolters Rome on its part would assist them to hold on to power by punishing those opposed to the pharisees. Since Jesus had talked of resurrection the pharisees had stated that his followers wanted to still the body and claim resurrection which would threaten the pharisees’ hegemonic theology so guards were placed at the tomb to prevent theft of the body

And Jesus’ body disappeared all the same, guards or no guards! And there was some happenings to distract the guards before the body was taken away! The first credible eye witnesses of the resurrection should have been the guards! Not the prostitute, not the disciples, no one else, but the guards!

just passing by…

This is a lie by Matthew, the gospel writer, and you won’t find it anywhere else in the Bible! - -

[SIZE=6]Matthew 28:11–15[/SIZE]
11As the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and told the leading priests what had happened. 12A meeting with the elders was called, and they decided to give the soldiers a large bribe. 13They told the soldiers, “You must say, ‘Jesus’ disciples came during the night while we were sleeping, and they stole his body.’ 14If the governor hears about it, we’ll stand up for you so you won’t get in trouble.” 15So the guards accepted the bribe and said what they were told to say. Their story spread widely among the Jews, and they still tell to this day!
[SIZE=5]Read Matthew 28[/SIZE]

Holy Bible, New Living Translation copyright 1996, 2004, 2007 by Tyndale House Foundation. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Carol Stream, Illinois, 60188. All rights reserved

That’s a lacuna that can be explained in any way from either side of the debate: trust the silence of the guards as proof there was no resurrection and dismiss the prostitute’s claim (heck! Who trusts a prostitute?) or trust the prostitute and claim the guards’ silence as an attempt to hide the “truth” and the embarrasment that comes with it. Sasa hapo I cannot comment

1 Like

Tuko pamoja sasa :D:D:D:D

1 Like

when Rome took up Christianity they moved the narrative of guilt and Crucifixion to Jews. The Romans Catholic are the main owners of the present antisemitism. The shared guilt of crucifying the messiah. All the antisemitic laws that cropped up in Europe and informed Nazism were mostly established by the Pope. The ghetto for example was a reserve the Pope set up to restrict the Jews from participating in the Romans economy and owning property

Starving Africans scratching their anuses while riding smoky contraptions to their virus-ridden hoes discussing a 2,000 Jewish myth? What’s there not to laugh deliriously about?