Korsfæstelsen Utopisk? læs videre..................

.....Dem der ikke gider læse "Biblen et Falsum", kan læse en udrrag om en dag for 1973 år siden.

Ang.: KORSFÆSTELSE/PÅSKE!
Tvivlsomt er det imidlertid, om en sådan korsfæstelse fandt sted i påskedagene for totusind år siden, da ikke engang romerne uden videre kunne foretage henrettelser i jødernes allerhelligste højtid.
Søger man bekræftelse på sagnet er der ingen hjælp at hente i Det Ny Testamente. Oplysningerne herom er utænkelige for den tid, der refereres til, f. eks. at jomfru Maria sammen med flere disciple og kvinder skulle have været til stede på Golgatha. Alle romerske henrettelser var strengt lukket for offentligheden, og Golgatha eksisterede slet ikke. Stedet blev først udpeget, da kejser Konstantin - efter at kristendommen var blevet ophøjet til statsreligion i romerriget - rejste til Jerusalem for personligt at give ordre til nedrivningen af romerske templer, så der kunne blive plads til et Golgatha, samt den hellige grav (men hvad der lå i den er højst usikkert). Afgørende for beretningens hele usandsynlighed er, at der ikke findes nogen som helst historiske kilder til bekræftelse af, at påskeberetningens hovedperson eksisterende.

Du kan fortsætte læsningen her:
http://www.connery.dk/?artikelid=460

Med venlig hilsen

jalmar

vil du gøre grin med os kristne, der faktisk tror på at Jesus blev korsfæstet? Hvordan vil du forklare at mange er blevet stigmatiseret, eller tror du heller ikke på det?
Fejrer du slet ikke påske?
anonym

.....og ikke brokke míg over din anonymitet.
Hvorfor mener du jeg gør grin med de Kristne?

Helt alvorligt, Hvorfor?

Med venlig hilsen
jalmar
Ps. Når du har svaret mig, skal jeg svare dig.

Hvad er forholdet mellem at tro,og det at vide.
Nogen mennesker vil først tro,hvis de feks. Får en muglighed for at se sandheden,men så er det ikke tro,så er det viden. Jeg tror,ja jeg vil sige jeg tror,det jeg nu tror så meget at jeg ved det. Tror jeg så meget,eller har jeg en stor tro,når nu jeg ved. Og når jeg ikke er fuldkommen,har jeg så ikke behov for tro? Jo det håber jeg da jeg har,ellers vil min udvikling i livet jo ende her. Og for de som kunne finde på at spørge, hvad min lille kommentar har med at gøre,så kan man sige at Jesus(tror jeg) Blev korsfæstet i Jødernes påske,og jeg tror nu også at det er på denne tid,hvores påske holdes.
Det er blot mit indlæg,min ydmyge tro... og den behøver ikke yderligere debattering,eller at provokeres. Dette er et åbent forum,og jeg lever også under ytringsfriheden . Og for min skyld kan man tro på hvad,eller hvem man vil,men jeg mener ikke at det absolut er af det bedre(Jalmar du forgiver at være så skriftklog,men har du også tro??) Ja eller Nej er nok,som man skrev i skolen...lol

.....var anonym?
...."At forstå er at vide, Men at vide er Ikke at forstå!"

Der er bred enighed i forskerkredse (i de bøger jeg har læst) om, at Korsfæstlsen som den er beskrevet i Biblen, ikke er foregået på den måde, hvilket jo er det eneste jeg gengiver.
Hvorfor dette skulle anfægte din Tro på Jesus Kristus, har jeg svært ved at forstå og dog.
Dette er selvfølgelig tilfældet, hvis din Tro på Din Bibel er absolut.
Men er dette ikke tilfældet, så ved du jo også at Biblen er en god Historie med mere end 100 forfattere/tolke/fortolkere/etc.
Derudover søger jeg ikke at ramme den troende, men dem der er i Besiddelse af det jeg vil kalde OVER - TRO.
Og videre, min tro er Ateistens manglende Tro på en Gud, hvorfor må jeg ikke forkynde den på lige fod med andre her i Debatten der forkynder om Gud??
Så længe jeg gør det uden at latterliggøre det almindelige Debatmedlem!

Med venlig hilsen

jalmar

Tak for det fine svar,det var mit første indlæg på solen,og jeg læste da også først din profil bagefter,og så da at du underskriver med ateist,det kan jeg godt forholde mig til,og jeg respektere det,meget. Jeg læste så dit svar som jeg syntes er pænt,og føler mig faktisk lidt flov...Lol Så mange tak Jalmar,for det pæne svar.
Jeg tog nok også fejl af dig,da jeg tit har læst på siden,indlæg som er mere fortællende og formanende,måske lige frem dømmende. Men det er ikke dig så,og det er jeg glad for. Hvorfor jeg ikke skriver her på siden,er nok at jeg sjældent har tid,og at jeg da absolut helst ikke vil diskutere. Min mening er da også at der er for meget religiøst bævl(måske fra nogen få debattøre) men det er svært at skrive lige precis det man mener uden at skrive en hel roman,og som menneske har jeg bare ikke tiden,endnu ihvertfald.
Så held og lykke frem over,til de af jer som jeg godt vil læse. Og Hjalmar,jeg kunne aldrig finde på at være anonym Mvh. Morten.

Den gode forfatter Martin Elmer blander tingene sammen.
Hans konklusioner er ikke rigtige.

Jeg citere ham for dette:
” De mest pålidelige ikke-bibelske kilder spænder over tidsrummet fra 1095 til 586 f.v.t. og er de assyriske annaler, der overvejende baserer sig på de syriske kongers officielle rapporter.
Fra disse kan nævnes 3 begivenheder, der omtales i Bibelen:
1) Assyrernes erobring af Israels hovedstad Samaria i 722 f.v.t.
* Svar: Hvordan kunne de erobre Israels hovedstad, dersom den ikke var Israels hovedstad?
2) Assyrernes belejring af den judæiske by Jerusalem år 701 f.v.t. Det Gamle Testamente såvel som de syriske annaler er enige om, at assyreren Sankerib ikke erobrede byen, men her hører enigheden også op.
* Svar: Jfr. punkt 2 med punkt 4 og 5. Interessante årstal, som du sikkert kan få ftg til at fortælle dig om.
Det korte og det lange er. Hvordan kan man erobre en hovedstad i et rige, dersom dette rige ikke er eller har været og ???
3) Ifølge Sankerib betalte Jerusalems konge ham en fyrstelig sum for ikke at indtage byen, Det Gamle Testamente hævder derimod, at Gud straffede assyrerne med sygdom og død, og at de derfor måtte vende hjem med uforrettet sag.
*Svar: Ingen kommentarer.
4) Jerusalems erobring i 597 f.v.t. og ødelæggelse elleve år senere. Begge begivenheder fandt sted under den nybabylonske konge Nebukadnezar II, og efter erobringen blev Jerusalems kong Jojakin fjernet.
5) Ti år efter (607 f.v.t.) foranstaltede de undertvungne judæere et oprør, og efter at have nedkæmpet det ødelagde Nebukadnezar II byen fuldstændig. Bibelen beretter, at stort set hele den judæiske befolkning blev tvunget i eksil i Babylon, men det var kun ganske få personer, det drejede sig om, og alle tilhørte magteliten. Det bekræftes af forrådslister fra 592 f.v.t. med angivelse af fødevarer bestemt for bl.a. den eksilerede, israelske kong Jojakin.
6) Herefter findes der ikke flere oplysninger i ikke-bibelske kilder frem til år 350 f.v.t., udover at området blev overtaget af perserne i 538 f.v.t., og at Kyros II tillod eksiljøderne at vende tilbage til Palæstina, men at relativt få benyttede sig af tilbudet.
* Svar: Ikke korrekt. Imidlertid interessant årstal. Det er ikke korrekt, at de vender tilbage til Palæstina, da landet ikke blev benævnt dette navn før romerne.
7) De, der gjorde det, blev anført af profeterne Haggai og Zakarias, men hverken de eller deres reformjødedom blev modtaget med nogen begejstring af de hjemmeværende. Sarubabel af Davids slægt var udnævnt til guvernør i Jerusalem og fulgtes med de hjemadgående.
8) I 516 f.v.t. ser det ud til at være lykkedes for de to profeter, Haggai og Zakarias, at realisere reformjødernes drøm om en genopførelse af Jahwetemplet i Jerusalem. I begejstring herover profeterede Zakarias en ny guldalder med Serubabel som konge, men guldalder og kongedømmets genindførelse udeblev, og folket sank hen i apati, opgav reformjødernes planer og krav og blandede sig med de fremmede.
 Svar: Interessant er det dog, at man anerkender Israels Tempel i Jerusalem og judaismen. Derfor deres retmæssige juridiske krav på landet og tempelbjerget o.s.v.
9) Historien dementerer således, at jøderne skulle have retsmæssigt krav på noget landområde i Mellemøsten under påberåbelse af at være en guddoms specielt udvalgt folk, men ved at grundlægge en religion i området på gamle sagn har de med det internationale samfunds billigelse haft held med at få deres territoriale krav opfyldt på bekostning af de egentlige palæstinenseres historiske ejendomsret til de omstridte landområder.
* Svar: Nej, det ”dementere” historien ikke. Tvært imod.
10) Gevinsten er imidlertid ikke misundelsesværdig: en splittet og i dobbelt forstand besat nation - to, tre eller flere forskellige verdener inden for landets uklare og foreløbig tilfældigt afmærkede grænser.
Citat slut.
Nej Jalmar, det er ikke korrekt Martin Elmer`s konklusioner. Overhovedet ikke.
Meget venlig hilsen
Enoch

......kan se af Titlen:
"Korsfæstelsen Utopisk? læs vider."
Så det eneste jeg notere mig, og som jeg før har læst om, er:
"Persongalleriet ved Korsafæstelsen"
Hvor jeg før har læst andet steds, at:
"Det er ikke kvinder forundt at betræde henrettelsespladsen"!
Altså som der også er indeholdt i det jeg har lagt ind af den gode forfatter.
Så om der er andre ting der ikke er historisk korrekte, det er der jo også i andre Bøger.
Om alt det andet du skriver, så er jeg ikke selv nået så langt.
Jeg har jo ikke lagt det ind som en sandhed, men som et ?

mvh.
jalmar

Hej Jalmar,
Ja, det forstår jeg godt og det er et godt sprøgsmål. Det er ikke kun dig der går ind i dette og nogle mener endog, at Jesus overlevede korsfæstelsen.
Det er der visse ting der kunne ”tyde” på i forbindelse med da Vinci mysteriet.
Her er imidlertid visse facts, som muligvis kan bekræfte, at det med kvinderne havde en anden årsag end den den gode Martin Elmer forsøger sig med.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Urantia Book


p2005:4 187:1.6 As the death procession passed along the narrow streets of Jerusalem, many of the tenderhearted ”Jewish women” who had heard Jesus' words of good cheer and compassion, and who knew of his life of loving ministry, could not refrain from weeping when they saw him being led forth to such an ignoble death.
As he passed by, ”many of these women” bewailed and lamented. And when some of them even dared to follow along by his side, the Master turned his head toward them and said: "Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but rather weep for yourselves and for your children. My work is about done—soon I go to my Father—but the times of terrible trouble for Jerusalem are just beginning. Behold, the days are coming in which you shall say: Blessed are the barren and those whose breasts have never suckled their young. In those days will you pray the rocks of the hills to fall on you in order that you may be delivered from the terrors of your troubles."

p2005:5 187:1.7 ”These women of Jerusalem” were indeed courageous to manifest sympathy for Jesus, for it was strictly against the law to show friendly feelings for one who was being led forth to crucifixion.
”It was permitted the rabble to jeer, mock, and ridicule the condemned, but it was not allowed that any sympathy should be expressed”.
Though Jesus appreciated the manifestation of sympathy in this dark hour when his friends were in hiding, he did not want these kindhearted women to incur the displeasure of the authorities by daring to show compassion in his behalf. Even at such a time as this Jesus thought little about himself, only of the terrible days of tragedy ahead for Jerusalem and the whole Jewish nation.
p2006:1 187:1.8 As the Master trudged along on the way to the crucifixion, he was very weary; he was nearly exhausted. He had had neither food nor water since the Last Supper at the home of Elijah Mark; neither had he been permitted to enjoy one moment of sleep. In addition, there had been one hearing right after another up to the hour of his condemnation, not to mention the abusive scourgings with their accompanying physical suffering and loss of blood. Superimposed upon all this was his extreme mental anguish, his acute spiritual tension, and a terrible feeling of human loneliness.
p2006:2 187:1.9 Shortly after passing through the gate on the way out of the city, as Jesus staggered on bearing the crossbeam, his physical strength momentarily gave way, and he fell beneath the weight of his heavy burden. The soldiers shouted at him and kicked him, but he could not arise. When the captain saw this, knowing what Jesus had already endured, he commanded the soldiers to desist. Then he ordered a passerby, one Simon from Cyrene, to take the crossbeam from Jesus' shoulders and compelled him to carry it the rest of the way to Golgotha.
p2006:3 187:1.10 This man Simon had come all the way from Cyrene, in northern Africa, to attend the Passover. He was stopping with other Cyrenians just outside the city walls and was on his way to the temple services in the city when the Roman captain commanded him to carry Jesus' crossbeam. Simon lingered all through the hours of the Master's death on the cross, talking with many of his friends and with his enemies. After the resurrection and before leaving Jerusalem, he became a valiant believer in the gospel of the kingdom, and when he returned home, he led his family into the heavenly kingdom. His two sons, Alexander and Rufus, became very effective teachers of the new gospel in Africa. But Simon never knew that Jesus, whose burden he bore, and the Jewish tutor who once befriended his injured son, were the same person.
p2006:4 187:1.11 It was shortly after nine o'clock when this procession of death arrived at Golgotha, and the Roman soldiers set themselves about the task of nailing the two brigands and the Son of Man to their respective crosses.
2. THE CRUCIFIXION
p2006:5 187:2.1 The soldiers first bound the Master's arms with cords to the crossbeam, and then they nailed his hands to the wood. When they had hoisted this crossbeam up on the post, and after they had nailed it securely to the upright timber of the cross, they bound a nd nailed his feet to the wood, using one long nail to penetrate both feet. The upright timber had a large peg, inserted at the proper height, which served as a sort of saddle for supporting the body weight. The cross was not high, the Master's feet being only about three feet from the ground. He was therefore able to hear all that was said of him in derision and could plainly see the expression on the faces of all those who so thoughtlessly mocked him. And also could those present easily hear all that Jesus said during these hours of lingering torture and slow death.
p2007:1 187:2.2 It was the custom to remove all clothes from those who were to be crucified, but since the Jews greatly objected to the public exposure of the naked human form, the Romans always provided a suitable loin cloth for ”all persons crucified at Jerusalem”. ( det var altså en almindelig ting at korsfæste) Accordingly, after Jesus' clothes had been removed, he was thus garbed before he was put upon the cross.
p2007:2 187:2.3 Crucifixion was resorted to in order to provide a cruel and lingering punishment, the victim sometimes not dying for several days. There was considerable sentiment against crucifixion in Jerusalem, and there existed a society of Jewish women who always sent a representative to crucifixions for the purpose of offering drugged wine to the victim in order to lessen his suffering. But when Jesus tasted this narcotized wine, as thirsty as he was, he refused to drink it. The Master chose to retain his human consciousness until the very end. He desired to meet death, even in this cruel and inhuman form, and conquer it by voluntary submission to the full human experience.
p2007:3 187:2.4 Before Jesus was put on his cross, the two brigands had already been placed on their crosses, all the while cursing and spitting upon their executioners. Jesus' only words, as they nailed him to the crossbeam, were, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." He could not have so mercifully and lovingly interceded for his executioners if such thoughts of affectionate devotion had not been the mainspring of all his life of unselfish service. The ideas, motives, and longings of a lifetime are openly revealed in a crisis.
p2007:4 187:2.5 After the Master was hoisted on the cross, the captain nailed the title up above his head, and it read in three languages, "Jesus of Nazareth—the King of the Jews." The Jews were infuriated by this believed insult. But Pilate was chafed by their disrespectful manner; he felt he had been intimidated and humiliated, and he took this method of obtaining petty revenge. He could have written "Jesus, a rebel." But he well knew how these Jerusalem Jews detested the very name of Nazareth, and he was determined thus to humiliate them. He knew that they would also be cut to the very quick by seeing this executed Galilean called "The King of the Jews."
p2007:5 187:2.6 Many of the Jewish leaders, when they learned how Pilate had sought to deride them by placing this inscription on the cross of Jesus, hastened out to Golgotha, but they dared not attempt to remove it since the Roman soldiers were standing on guard. Not being able to remove the title, these leaders mingled with the crowd and did their utmost to incite derision and ridicule, lest any give serious regard to the inscription.
p2007:6 187:2.7 The Apostle John, with Mary the mother of Jesus, Ruth, and Jude, arrived on the scene just after Jesus had been hoisted to his position on the cross, and just as the captain was nailing the title above the Master's head. John was the only one of the eleven apostles to witness the crucifixion, and even he was not present all of the time since he ran into Jerusalem to bring back his mother and her friends soon after he had brought Jesus' mother to the scene.
p2007:7 187:2.8 As Jesus saw his mother, with John and his brother and sister, he smiled but said nothing. Meanwhile the four soldiers assigned to the Master's crucifixion, as was the custom, had divided his clothes among them, one taking the sandals, one the turban, one the girdle, and the fourth the cloak. This left the tunic, or seamless vestment reaching down to near the knees, to be cut up into four pieces, but when the soldiers saw what an unusual garment it was, they decided to cast lots for it. Jesus looked down on them while they divided his garments, and the thoughtless crowd jeered at him.
p2008:1 187:2.9 It was well that the Roman soldiers took possession of the Master's clothing. Otherwise, if his followers had gained possession of these garments, they would have been tempted to resort to superstitious relic worship. The Master desired that his followers should have nothing material to associate with his life on earth. He wanted to leave mankind only the memory of a human life dedicated to the high spiritual ideal of being consecrated to doing the Father's will.
3. THOSE WHO SAW THE CRUCIFIXION
p2008:2 187:3.1 At about half past nine o'clock this Friday morning, Jesus was hung upon the cross. Before eleven o'clock, upward of ”one thousand persons” had assembled to witness this spectacle of the crucifixion of the Son of Man. Throughout these dreadful hours the unseen hosts of a universe stood in silence while they gazed upon this extraordinary phenomenon of the Creator as he was dying the death of the creature, even the most ignoble death of a condemned criminal.
p2008:3 187:3.2 Standing near the cross at one time or another during the crucifixion were Mary, Ruth, Jude, John, Salome (John's mother), and a group of earnest women believers including Mary the wife of Clopas and sister of Jesus' mother, Mary Magdalene, and Rebecca, onetime of Sepphoris. These and other friends of Jesus held their peace while they witnessed his great patience and fortitude and gazed upon his intense sufferings.
p2008:4 187:3.3 ”Many who passed by” wagged their heads and, railing at him, said: "You who would destroy the temple and build it again in three days, save yourself. If you are the Son of God, why do you not come down from your cross?" In like manner some of the rulers of the Jews mocked him, saying, "He saved others, but himself he cannot save." Others said, "If you are the king of the Jews, come down from the cross, and we will believe in you." And later on they mocked him the more, saying: "He trusted in God to deliver him. He even claimed to be the Son of God—look at him now—crucified between two thieves." Even the two thieves also railed at him and cast reproach upon him.
p2008:5 187:3.4 Inasmuch as Jesus would make no reply to their taunts, and since it was nearing noontime of this special preparation day, by half past eleven o'clock most of the jesting and jeering crowd had gone its way; less than fifty persons remained on the scene. The soldiers now prepared to eat lunch and drink their cheap, sour wine as they settled down for the long deathwatch. As they partook of their wine, they derisively offered a toast to Jesus, saying, "Hail and good fortune! to the king of the Jews." And they were astonished at the Master's tolerant regard of their ridicule and mocking.
p2008:6 187:3.5 When Jesus saw them eat and drink, he looked down upon them and said, "I thirst." When the captain of the guard heard Jesus say, "I thirst," he took some of the wine from his bottle and, putting the saturated sponge stopper upon the end of a javelin, raised it to Jesus so that he could moisten his parched lips.
p2008:7 187:3.6 Jesus had purposed to live without resort to his supernatural power, and he likewise elected to die as an ordinary mortal upon the cross. He had lived as a man, and he would die as a man—doing the Father's will.
Citat slut.
http://www.urantiabook.org/newbook/papers/p057.htm
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Måske kunne man fristes til at sige, at Martin Elmer har forsøgt sin egen version af ”hvad der var tilladt af Romerne eller ej” i forbindelse med den tids skik og følelser overfor ” en kvinde”.
+++
Many have pointed out that ”women” were regarded as "bad witnesses" in the ancient world. We need to emphasize that this was not a peculiarity as it would be seen today, but an ingrained stereotype. As Malina and Neyrey note,
” gender in antiquity came laden with "elaborate stereotypes of what was appropriate male or female behavior." [72]
Quintilian said that where murder was concerned, males are more likely to commit robbery, while ”females were prone to poisoning”.
We find such sentiments absurd and politically incorrect today -- but whether they are or not, this was ingrained indelibly in the ancient mind.
"In general Greek and Roman courts excluded as ”witnesses” women, slaves, and children...
According to Josephus... [women] are unacceptable because of the 'levity and temerity of their sex'." [82]
”Women were so untrustworthy” that they were not even allowed to be witnesses to the rising of the moon as a sign of the beginning of festivals! DeSilva also notes [33] that a ”woman and her words were not regarded as "public property" but should rather be guarded from strangers -- women were expected to speak to and through their husbands”.
A woman's place was in the home, not the witness stand, and any woman who took an independent witness was violating the honor code.
It would have been much easier to put the finding of the tomb on the male disciples (as seems to have been emphasized, based on the 1 Cor. 15 creed, though that serves a different purpose of establishing that the church's leadership was a witness to the Risen Christ, not so much an avoidance of the female witnesses), or someone like Cleophas or even Nicodemus, find the tomb first, or to mediate the witness through Peter or John. But they were apparently stuck with this -- and also apparently overcame yet another stigma.

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html
Venlig hilsen
Enoch

du henviser til. Romerne var fuldstøndig ligeglade med jøder og andre. Netop i påsken i år 70 angreb romerne Jerusalem og ifølge samtidshistorikeren Flavius Josefus døde én million jøder...
så hvorfor skulle Pilatus ikke korsfæste Jesus udenfor byen i påsken?

........da jeg af muligvis samme grunde som mine indlæg her blev "kylet" ud af 4 mellem (som 10kl hed dengang .) trods rimelige karakterer, nemlig en indædt protesteren mod den gamle skoles dogmer:
"Hold kæft og hør efter!"
Så selvom jeg efterhånden er blevet næsten perfekt til at snakke Engelsk, kniber det gevaldigt med at tale det.

Mvh.
jalmar

Hej Jalmar,
Du skriver: " Så selvom jeg efterhånden er blevet næsten perfekt til at snakke Engelsk, kniber det gevaldigt med at tale det".
citat slut.
Jeg giver dig fuldstændig ret.
Enoch

......indholdet i tråden, havde du også læst, at jeg lagde mere vægt på:
"kvindernes tilstedeværelse. under og efter Henrettelsen, hvilket efter Romersk skik, ikke var tilladt!"
Og a pro pos vrøvl, og med fare for at få en del af de ærede debattører på nakken, synes JEG bestemt ikke, Den Gode Bog Biblen holder sig tilbage.

Mvh.
jalmar