flate earth believers. was jesus crucified in the "great city?"

  • 23 Replies
  • 6333 Views
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1463097.html#msg1463097

hi sandokhan

i can't participate in "flat earth believers," but i have a question about your last post there:

Quote
The author of Revelation 11:8 tells us that Christ was not crucified in Jerusalem.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)

And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)

And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication. (Rev. 14:8 )


Here is the mind which has wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits (Rev. 17:9 )

The woman whom you saw is the great city, which reigns over the kings of the earth. (Rev. 17:18 )



Great city on seven hills - either Rome or Constantinopole (also built in seven hills - http://www.istanbulguide.net/insolite/english/seven_hills.htm )

"Furthermore, the crucifixion did not even take place in Jerusalem! According to the book of Revelations, Jesus was crucified in Rome:

And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. (Revelations 11:8, KJV)

The Christians would probably argue that the “great city” refers to Jerusalem, yet the renowned Bible scholar John Gill disagrees
:

And their dead bodies [shall lie] in the street of the great city,.... Not Jerusalem, which was destroyed when John had this vision, and which will not be rebuilt at the time it refers to; nor is it ever called the great city, though the city of the great King; however, not in this book, though the new Jerusalem is so called, Revelation 21:10; but that can never be designed here; but the city of Rome, or the Roman jurisdiction, the whole empire of the Romish antichrist, which is often called the great city in this book; see Revelation 16:19."


in jeremiah 22:1-8, the location of the house of the king of judah is referred to as a "great city," and its destruction is prophesied:

Jer 22:1  Thus saith the LORD; Go down to the house of the king of Judah, and speak there this word,
Jer 22:2  And say, Hear the word of the LORD, O king of Judah, that sittest upon the throne of David, thou, and thy servants, and thy people that enter in by these gates:
Jer 22:3  Thus saith the LORD; Execute ye judgment and righteousness, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor: and do no wrong, do no violence to the stranger, the fatherless, nor the widow, neither shed innocent blood in this place.
Jer 22:4  For if ye do this thing indeed, then shall there enter in by the gates of this house kings sitting upon the throne of David, riding in chariots and on horses, he, and his servants, and his people.
Jer 22:5  But if ye will not hear these words, I swear by myself, saith the LORD, that this house shall become a desolation.
Jer 22:6  For thus saith the LORD unto the king's house of Judah; Thou art Gilead unto me, and the head of Lebanon: yet surely I will make thee a wilderness, and cities which are not inhabited.
Jer 22:7  And I will prepare destroyers against thee, every one with his weapons: and they shall cut down thy choice cedars, and cast them into the fire.
Jer 22:8  And many nations shall pass by this city, and they shall say every man to his neighbour, Wherefore hath the LORD done thus unto this great city?

jerusalem is not named, but i can't see how anything other than the physical capital of judah is meant, which was jerusalem, where the house of the king of judah lived. the argument that jesus was crucified elsewhere seems to hinge on the idea that jerusalem was never referred to as a "great city," yet jeremiah seems to do so.

how does this affect the argument that jesus was not crucified there?
true wisdom is always concise

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6765
Re: flate earth believers. was jesus crucified in the "great city?"
« Reply #1 on: March 14, 2013, 07:27:25 AM »
It is strange that you should mention the book of Jeremiah...

Jeremiah 7:22 For in the day that I brought your ancestors out of Egypt, I did not speak to them or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices...

This quote contradicts directly the laws/regulations of the Leviticus.


How could you miss something like this?

http://www.awitness.org/essays/levjer.html


Here are more problems:


http://web.archive.org/web/20120302054147/http://www.awitness.org/lostmess/fprophet.html


The great city quote from Jeremiah 22 has nothing to do with the meaning of the phrase "the great city" within the context of the book of Revelation.


The author of the book of Revelation states quite clearly WHICH great city is mentioned in the text:

And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication. (Rev. 14:8 )


Here is the mind which has wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits (Rev. 17:9 )

The woman whom you saw is the great city, which reigns over the kings of the earth. (Rev. 17:18 )


Everything is very clear.


And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. (Rev. 11:8 )


Christ was crucified in the GREAT CITY, built on SEVEN HILLS, which reigns over the kings of the earth (not Jerusalem in any case).

And their dead bodies [shall lie] in the street of the great city,.... Not Jerusalem, which was destroyed when John had this vision, and which will not be rebuilt at the time it refers to; nor is it ever called the great city, though the city of the great King; however, not in this book, though the new Jerusalem is so called, Revelation 21:10; but that can never be designed here; but the city of Rome, or the Roman jurisdiction, the whole empire of the Romish antichrist, which is often called the great city in this book; see Revelation 16:19.



By the way...WHEN do you think the book of Revelation was written?

http://books.google.ro/books?id=YcjFAV4WZ9MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=history+science+or+fiction&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kN1BUb_RN86EtQbU9YCwDg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=history%20science%20or%20fiction&f=false

CHAPTER 3, DATING OF THE BOOK OF APOCALYPSE, pg. 134 - 167

Re: flate earth believers. was jesus crucified in the "great city?"
« Reply #2 on: March 17, 2013, 06:20:09 PM »
hi sandokhan

thank you for the links. i've looked through the ones concerning jeremiah, and the sense i get is that the author believes that jeremiah is a mixture of true and false prophecy. but the specific passages of jeremiah 22:1-8 are never mentioned, so the argument neither confirms nor denies the genuiness of jeremiah's words with respect to the city of david being referred to as "a great city." without more information, i don't think there's any way to tell whether jeremiah 22 is part of the false or the genuine portion of jeremiah, even if one agrees that the book is only partly original. and elsewhere in the hebrew OT, resen, gibeon, ninevah, and ephron are also called by terms which are translated as "great city." so the term can't be limited to just rome, unless these similar hebrew useages are ignored.

but that's a side issue. i agree that babylon is referred to as "the great city" in the greek revelation, as a euphemism for rome.

specifically, what seems dubious to me is john gill's assertion that all references to a "great city" must refer to rome:

Quote
And their dead bodies [shall lie] in the street of the great city,.... Not Jerusalem, which was destroyed when John had this vision, and which will not be rebuilt at the time it refers to; nor is it ever called the great city, though the city of the great King; however, not in this book, though the new Jerusalem is so called, Revelation 21:10; but that can never be designed here; but the city of Rome, or the Roman jurisdiction, the whole empire of the Romish antichrist, which is often called the great city in this book; see Revelation 16:19.

gill's argument that the crucifixion occurred in rome hinges upon two assertions:

first, that jerusalem is never referred to a "great city" in the revelation.

second, that jerusalem will not be rebuilt by the time referred to in rev 11:8:

for the first, i'm not convinced that john was as specific about "great city" as gill would like him to be. as gill admits, john also used "great city" to refer to the new jerusalem in rev 21:10. so that seems inconclusive to me.

for the second, gill requires that the endtimes be precisely dated, and that the time when "the beast shall ascend out of the bottomless pit . . . and their dead bodies shall lie in the streets" occurs before the rebuilding of the city, and thereby cannot refer to jerusalem, which was destryed when john the revelation.

yet the endtimes are not complete, jerusalem has been rebuilt, and the beast has not yet ascended from the pit, i think. so it seems to me that the times when the bodies lie in the streets is still in the future, and so the second part of gill's argument falls down.

what is your opinion of these two points?
true wisdom is always concise

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6765
Re: flate earth believers. was jesus crucified in the "great city?"
« Reply #3 on: March 19, 2013, 01:29:33 AM »
Please read History: Fiction or Science? vol. 1 (you have the link to this work in my previous message).

It will solve all problems re: the book of Revelation, especially the correct date of its elaboration.

All the "prophecies" of book of the Apocalypse are fake, this is what you must realize first of all (including the mark of the beast, 666 and so on...).

There will be a so-called Antichrist, but we know well ahead of time who this person is based on other facts; furthermore, we know exactly what his plan of action will be, and for what period of time.

666 is generated by 36.

36 is generated by 8 (eighth letter).

36 = 15 + 21 (15 is generated by 5, 21 by 6)

5 + 6 = 11.

Without using the book of the Apocalypse we can find the number of the letters in the Antichrist's name, and furthermore each and every letter (consonants and vowels), based on the properties of triangular numbers.


Both the Old and the New Testament were created AT THE SAME TIME, by several groups of scribes: that is why the "prophecies" in the Old Testament match so well the corresponding passages in the New Testament (books of Daniel, Isaiah and so on...).

Research the true dating of the Council of Nicaea and you will discover that it could not have taken place before the year 876-877 AD, and this is based on the most precise proofs from astronomy: read the last several messages from the alternative FET.

« Last Edit: March 19, 2013, 11:30:43 AM by sandokhan »

Re: flate earth believers. was jesus crucified in the "great city?"
« Reply #4 on: March 20, 2013, 05:43:58 PM »
sandokhan, i had a reply for your latest post and the nimrods of evil deleted it before i could press enter.

i can't face again, and will recreate it tomorrow.

 :(
true wisdom is always concise

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6765
Re: flate earth believers. was jesus crucified in the "great city?"
« Reply #5 on: March 21, 2013, 06:41:12 AM »
The book of Revelation seems to have been originally a Jewish Messianic Apocalypse which was later Christianized to some degree, but still retains is "Dead Sea Scroll" flavouring, albeit in very bad Greek.

What is added into the margins ("marginalia") later gets copied into the body of the text so that the end result is that the book becomes longer and longer over time.

This is why there is a distinct warning at the end of the book:

WHOEVER ADDS ANYTHING TO THIS SCROLL SHALL BE ADDED TO HIM THE HORRORS AND PLAGUES MENTIONED IN THIS SCROLL....

But all these charms did not stop people from trying their hand at a little interpretation along the way as to the identity of some of the characters such as the "BEAST" etc...(a process which is still going on today in certain LAST DAYS Christian churches..)

Since the Apocalypse of Yohanon the Elder ("Book of Revelation") has TWO competing Gemmatrial Systems for the "name of the Beast", and was written during the 1st Jewish War against Rome (AD 66-72) the correct individual would have to fit both 616 and 666 manuscript families:

But don't forget: THE WHOLE PASSAGE OF Rev 13:13 is an INSERTED MARGINALIUM INTO THE TEXT AT THIS POINT.

(i.e. someone wrote it into the margin of the text, to try and point to what he believed was the identity of the BEAST and gradually, it got copied into the main body of the text)

Thus several ancient versions of the "Book of Revelation" (singular, by the way) show two numbering systems:

Codex Alexandrinus (A) and Codex Ephraemi (C) and the newly discovered Papyrus "P115/POxy4499" all of which have: "616" in the place of the more familiar 666 of Codex Sinaiticus or Codex Bezae or Codex Vaticanus etc.

Notice how the Marginalium is introduced : HERE IS WISDOM: that is a flag to a scholar that ["what we have here is an INSERTION" into the text !]

The Greek word SOPHIA "Widsom" (Heb: Chochmah) generally signified Kabbalistic Gemmatria (numerology) is being signalled, and it is the FLAG which introduces the Marginalium about the number of the "Beast"

QUOTE: from CODEX SINAIATICUS

Here is WISDOM:

Let he who hath Wisdom "calculate the number of the beast" for it is the number of a [son of] man, and his number is 666"

UNQUOTE


Here is the alternative version of the Greek found in Papyrus 115 and in the CODEX ALEXANDRINUS and CODEX EPHRAIMI

"Let he who hath Wisdom calculate the number of the beast for it is the number of a man, and his number is 616."

SO WHICH ONE IS THE REAL ONE?

DON'T FORGET THAT IN THE BOOK OF REVELATION WE ARE DEALING WITH A BAD TRANSLATION HERE INTO GREEK FROM ARAMAIC AND HEBREW...

The Apocalypse of Yohananon the Elder (whoever he was, but clearly someone who had first hand experience serving in the 2nd Herodian Temple Liturgy) aka the Book of Revelation, is written in the worst Greek in the New Testament, full of what are known as "Grammatical Howlers"--clearly this is a translation INTO Greek from Hebrew and Aramaic source material like the similar Apocalypic book of Daniel especially chapters 7 to 12 (both languages are found there).

The words "here is Wisdom" is the beginning of the footnote (or "marginalium" of Rev 13:13 if you want the technical term)

You can see at a glance that the whole paragraph about the Number of the Beast actually interrupts the flow of what is written in the Greek immediately before and after the verse, and can be removed with no real loss of meaning.

Why do you say the reference to the beast is clear, when you can see it is coded? Also why would you assume that the Apocalypse of Yohanon the Elder (whoever he was---apparently the aged Jerusalemite Presbuteros who apparently had met "Iesous" in the flesh (possibly one of the 70--certainly not Yohanon bar Zavdai--or John the son of Zebedee, who was killed by Herod in the 40s with his brother) who preached as a very old man to Polycarp when Polycarp was still a teenager some time in 95 AD).

Certainly Yohanon the Elder was a Levite in the 2nd temple to judge from his intimate knowledge of 2nd Temple litury (and the city of Ephesus actually has TWO different statues of saints named "John" standing next to each other, both calling themselves "dedicated to John", but both different John's)

The "mark on the right hand or the forehead" is a clear reference to the Mysteries of Mithras, whose inititates were branded generally on the wrists and sometimes on the forehead.





Rev. 13:5

and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.


42 months = 1260 days

The number 666, therefore, IS TO BE BOUNDED BY 1260.


1260 actually has 36 divisors.


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

A B C D E F G H I
J K L M N O P Q R
S T U V W X Y Z


CHI XI STIGMA


36 42 48 54 60 66 72 78 84

(36, 66 and 78 are triangular numbers).


The number 37 can be said to represent the ‘key to wisdom’. Why the ‘key to wisdom’? Well, if it is a key it means it can be turned or used to open something. When 37 is ‘turned’ it becomes 73, which is the exact numerical value of the Hebrew word chokmah, which means wisdom.





The perimeter (boundary) of a triangular number.

P36 = 21 (3 x 7) 36 is generated by 8

P666 = 105 (3 x 35) 666 is generated by 36

P2701 = 216 (3 x 72) 2701 is generated by 73


666 = 6 x 111

111 = 45 + 66 = 74 + 37 = 73 + 38

« Last Edit: March 21, 2013, 06:51:33 AM by sandokhan »

*

mathsman

  • 487
  • one of the lads
Re: flate earth believers. was jesus crucified in the "great city?"
« Reply #6 on: March 21, 2013, 08:06:11 AM »
666=21x32x371.

1+2+1=4 which is a perfect square. Therefore we are all safe.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16851
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: flate earth believers. was jesus crucified in the "great city?"
« Reply #7 on: March 21, 2013, 01:07:44 PM »
sandokan speaks a lot more truth than people give him credit for.


That said, the crucifixion has happened many times over history, again and again.  Its a fixed point in the human experience.  And its not fun.  As far as Jesus in particular, I think the details perhaps are a little less important than the message, warning, story, etc.  The details can be found anywhere.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2013, 01:11:41 PM by John Davis »
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: flate earth believers. was jesus crucified in the "great city?"
« Reply #8 on: March 22, 2013, 10:53:57 AM »
hi sandokhan

i've reassembled my thoughts, andi'd like to return to the original subject of this thread.

Please read History: Fiction or Science? vol. 1 (you have the link to this work in my previous message).

i can't read this book, as there is no online version. but as it concerns the revelation, it's perhaps not as directly relevant to the evidence as to where jesus christ was crucified as other information, especially as you've pointed out that you believe the revelation to be inauthentic for various reasons.

regarding the jerusalem crucifixion, three of the christian gospels were written either by eye witnesses to it (john and matthew) or by a historian recording the words of an eyewitness (mark quoting peter). all three agree in broad details that jesus was crucified in jerusalem by pontius pilate. but if the gospels themselves are suspect, it's worth noting that pontius pilate has his own historical record:

--philo of alexandria places pilate in palestine under tiberias:

http://www.acu.edu/sponsored/restoration_quarterly/documents/thatcher-37-4.pdf

--tacitus explains that jesus was crucified by pilate in judea:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_Rome#Rumors_of_arson_and_the_persecution_of_Christians

the pilate stone identifies pilate as the prefect of judea:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilate_Stone

and josephus specifically mentions pilate in reference to the execution of jesus, as well as jesus himself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

all of these extrascriptural references are consistent with scripture, but even if scripture is discounted, they provide  independent secular evidence of a crucifixion of jesus at jerusalem, by pontius pilate.

second, the antenice fathers comprise the most extensive record of the early christian church, and their writings specifically discuss a jerusalem crucifixion, and not a roman one. origen, for instance, refers to the crucifixion over 69 times in gospel commentaries, and as a resident of caesarea and a hebrew speaker, he was in a position to have recorded any ambiguities in the  gospel record, should any have come to his attention. yet none did, and rome is not mentioned.

similarly, many of the antenicene fathers discussed their practice of the eucharist as emulating that which jesus performed in the upper room in jerusalem, and none questioned the customary belief that this even occurred in judea. again, rome is never mentioned.

in contrast, douglas gill's conclusion that the crucifixion occurred in rome is based solely on his assertion that the term "great city" is not used there to describe jerusalem, but instead applies to rome. i agree with that. but i have also pointed out already that the term "great city" is not limited to rome, but has been a common descriptor for large, influential cities in various places in the hebrew and greek testaments.
and you yourself have explained that the assertions in the revelation are not to be trusted on other grounds, which undercuts doug gill's argument completely, and returns us to the conventional expolanation as the most likely.

so with all this together, i see no reason yet to doubt the history that describes a crucifixion event taking place in jerusalem, and not in rome. the evidence for it is compelling, being ordinary history, and evidence against it is novel, and is suspect for other reasons, as you have pointed out.

what is your opinion of these points?

true wisdom is always concise

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6765
Re: flate earth believers. was jesus crucified in the "great city?"
« Reply #9 on: March 24, 2013, 01:57:50 AM »
http://books.google.com/

Type Fomenko History Fiction or Science - full view for both volumes 1 and 2 - complete online reading.

No Josephus, Tacitus, Philo...for the proofs (eruption which destroyed Pompeii dated at least after 1700 AD, the correct dating of the Council of Nicaea in the year 877 AD) see my messages at the alternative flat earth theory.


No antenice fathers, not even one:

http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm

To the point:

But the Post-Apostolic Men Do Not Know Their Alleged Apostolic Masters, Which Is Absurd!

It is, however, part of the mistaken view of the subject, arising from the acceptance of the false chronology, to suppose that the alleged "Apostolic Fathers" quote from and build upon the Apostles. The discovery of this it was which led me first to see the enormous fictions that had been at work in the Christian literature, for it is absurd to suppose that Paul, after making a vast reputation as a literary man in the first century, was afterwards almost lost in oblivion in the second century. And the like applies to the deeds and sufferings of Christ himself, and to the whole fable of the origins. After all, these mythologists have made some great blunders in their system.

The alleged "Apostolic Fathers" are made to repeat some of the same Lections or little Epistles that we find placed under Paul's name, with variations. Thus Clement repeats the episode on charity (1 Corinthians 13), and several other things which remind of the same Epistle, and of some others, the details of which will be found in the handbooks, and which I have not space to adduce fully here. Nor is it necessary.

It is very probable that Clement and the First Epistle to the Corinthians may have been composed by one scribe from brief phrases and hints supplied by the direction. The evidence is dead against the ordinary theory of copying and imitation.


They Do Not Know the Epistle to the Romans

Take the richest theological Epistle ascribed to Paul: that to the Romans. Positively these so-called post-Apostolic men do not know it. They have merely some faint echoes of its contents; which is a very different thing. And it is the merest sophistry to confound them, or to talk of "Reminiscences," where there is no proof of anything of the kind. I must distinctly warn my readers against this fallacy of the handbooks and introductions to the New Testament, the only thorough cure for which is to read these "post-Apostolic" men for themselves. They will then discover that these writers, assumed to be following in the steps of their forerunners, and to be diligently perusing their writings as we have them, are doing nothing of the kind. They are dreaming, rambling, and raving; but they do not know that romantic figure of Paul that is known to us, nor yet his alleged writings as we have them. `

In the interests of devout belief, it would be well that none should ever read this so-called "second-century literature." But, in the interest of literary science, it should be denounced as a discreditable falsehood on the part of any scholar, who has studied that literature, to assert that the writers know anything of the tremendous events which are described in the Canonical Gospels and Acts and Epistles as having taken place in the preceding age. No student who follows the path of science can possibly, when this matter is understood, adhere any longer to the ecclesiastically "orthodox" opinion of Christianity.


The Blunder Explained

The reader may inquire, How came the fabricators so to blunder in their construction of the "Apostolic" and "post-Apostolic"literature? The answer may be found in the study of the two key-books of the Eusebii, and in a number of catalogues following them, all parts of the same scheme. A host of imaginary writers was created to stretch through the long ages; and those who are alleged to cover the period of, say, the year 80 to the year 392 have all had writings attributed to them, which had been produced during a very short period, and by one set of scribes. It was evidently necessary to bestow the greatest pains upon the first or Apostolic age in this scheme, because that was the imaginary age of Origins. Hence the earlier names on the List, the names of the evangelists and apostles, have had writings ascribed to them beyond all the pretended later in importance; and these have been elaborated with a care denied to the "post-Apostolic" men. It was found necessary, and it was determined, to write not only the little Gospels and the little Epistles for the Service Book, but to provide what should appear as a new Law, or a New Covenant or Testament independently, in ampler bulk.  (On this part of the subject see my special investigation in "Antiqua Mater," 1887.) But in executing this work, which was the secondary stage in their labours, they forgot they were thus making the scheme top-heavy, as it were. The head is highly developed, but it has a most ghostly kind of body to support it!

Had they calculated upon intelligent readers, they would have felt the necessity of enlarging the "post-Apostolic" men pari passu with the "Apostolic" men. Barnabas and Hermas and Clement and the rest ought not to be left so deeply in the dark, after the brilliancy that has been made to flash upon Paul! It is beyond expression ludicrous, when you inquire of an Ignatius, or a Polycarp, "what interesting traits have you to narrate of those great Apostles and their writings, and those Epistles which you are so fond of alluding to?" to listen in reply to their maunderings and mutterings, as if they were in a dream, or moving about and groping in a world half realised. You demand a fact or two, and you are offered a theory, a creed expressed in language the most flatulent and vague that can be devised. The truth is, that the outlines of this creed and theory are at the bases of both the alleged "Apostolic" and "post-Apostolic" writing, and can be clearly detected; but the Apostolic writings, as we have them in the New Testament, are later than the "post-Apostolic" writings as we have them. Consequently, the notion that our New Testament is the earliest source for Christian origins is absurd; and equally so the notion that our Pauline Epistles are earlier than those of Clement, Ignatius, and the rest. The converse is nearer the truth.

The student will perceive that, if the wretched stuff' which is labelled "post-Apostolic" had been put together and called a "New Testament," it could hardly have escaped contempt and derision, because it is so feeble and wandering, so uncertain in thought, and so detestable in style, especially in the Greek version. But, though the Pauline Epistles and other parts of the New Testament are not written in very good Latin, and have been turned into very bad Greek, there can be no doubt that, as a whole, the New Testament, crowded as it is with story, with incident, with teeming hints of a grand movement in the world going on, has made a profound impression on the imagination of mankind.



The original quote from the epistle to the Galatians:






Great city in the book of Revelation:

The author of the book of Revelation states quite clearly WHICH great city is mentioned in the text:

And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication. (Rev. 14:8 )


Here is the mind which has wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits (Rev. 17:9 )

The woman whom you saw is the great city, which reigns over the kings of the earth. (Rev. 17:18 )


Everything is very clear.


And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. (Rev. 11:8 )


Christ was crucified in the GREAT CITY, built on SEVEN HILLS, which reigns over the kings of the earth (not Jerusalem in any case).


*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: flate earth believers. was jesus crucified in the "great city?"
« Reply #10 on: March 24, 2013, 02:01:36 AM »
OMG

Re: flate earth believers. was jesus crucified in the "great city?"
« Reply #11 on: March 24, 2013, 01:33:31 PM »
sandokan speaks a lot more truth than people give him credit for.
Agreed, read him.

Christ was crucified in the GREAT CITY, built on SEVEN HILLS, which reigns over the kings of the earth (not Jerusalem in any case).
But here I disagree.

That said, the crucifixion has happened many times over history, again and again.  Its a fixed point in the human experience.  And its not fun.  As far as Jesus in particular, I think the details perhaps are a little less important than the message, warning, story, etc.  The details can be found anywhere.

Christ did not die and was not crucified.

He was royalty - supreme cleric, was not attacked and the crucifixion is US, WE ARE CRUCIFIED, as a fact, and as their will/desire, so we accept a life of suffering, sacrifice, pain...

The Seven refers to those who keep the spiritual bondage to humanity, seven "fallen angels" or traitors take turns, in Babylon they were attacked and killed by "a whore", of course, the Church insults that great woman/goddess (Freya/Kali) who fought for us all there, achieving an incredible victory.

"Hi-story" is given for two reasons only, to hide something they can't fully erase, or to force/invoke a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Many times, yes, but in two sides, the real crucifixion is us, as we (our ancestors) eat the apple, the cursed fruit, we became hypnotized, amnesic, unconscious, and we fall into a dream, this "world" you call real.
We haven't moved in centuries, we are "dreaming", we forgot what and where we are, and so, outsiders, of our kin, had to enter the dream to help, awake us, find an escape for us.

Wotan, Odin, whose name can be found in rivers from Portugal to Poland and Russia, crucified himself in the tree, and won, giving us the runes.

That rescue operation, giving out the benefits of the crucifixion (runes, secrets of the world, more powerful than their kabbalah ) of wotan/odin was attacked by the keepers, the Pharaoh/Church/Druids, they imitate and hide it with a fake one, the Jew Iesus.

"Great" City, see from minute 25:02,
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
The only "Great" country, allowed to have that word recognized by all others, is Great Britain.

Keep in mind we are using English, you need to delve into the meaning of words;
http://blacks.worldfreemansociety.org/

*

babsinva

  • 2222
  • aka Mr. Fahrenheit
Re: flate earth believers. was jesus crucified in the "great city?"
« Reply #12 on: March 27, 2013, 09:23:56 AM »
It is strange that you should mention the book of Jeremiah...



The great city quote from Jeremiah 22 has nothing to do with the meaning of the phrase "the great city" within the context of the book of Revelation.


The author of the book of Revelation states quite clearly WHICH great city is mentioned in the text:

And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication. (Rev. 14:8 )


BABYLON CONFUSION CLEARED UP
The city of Babylon is often referred to as Babylon the Great when paralleling the disgusting things of the earth.  Yes there was indeed a real Babylon city and history tells us that, but when the Bible talks about a woman (a harlot) arrayed in purple and scarlet, richly adorned, sitting upon a scarlet colored wild beast having 7 heads and 10 horns - then it is that depiction that represents the vile things of the earth.  It is a metaphor.

CRUCIFIXTION - NOT CRUCIFIED
A)  Actually old Bibles from 200 years ago do not contain crucifixtion or crucifix or crucified.  The scriptures use the words impaled or "nailed to the stake" or "nailed to a tree" NOT nailed to a cross.  Sometimes you don't have to go back 200 years on every Bible translation for every Christian religion and need only go back about 125 years.  Man has changed this with making revisions and over time the original words were replaced by the now "crucified".
B)  The verbage or lettering in Bibles is not the only proof of this.  The cross was connected with nature worship for some, by other peoples it was considered a phallus or coition, by others it was a symbol of the sun-god (for Babylonians), and some used the symbol in the "Solar Wheel', and in some instances was a symbol for the authorities of other gods like the Greek Bacchus, The Tyrian Tammuz and the Chaldean Bel.  It wasn't until the 3rd cenury A.D. that crosses were accepted by Christian faiths, which is way after the death of Christ. 
Quote from Big Giant Head:  "Considered fictitious or phantom does not quantify its non-existence."

Quote from Soze:  "We cannot escape perception, but we can't assume reality doesn't exist outside of perception."

Re: flate earth believers. was jesus crucified in the "great city?"
« Reply #13 on: March 29, 2013, 03:00:09 PM »
hi sandokhan

To the point:

But the Post-Apostolic Men Do Not Know Their Alleged Apostolic Masters, Which Is Absurd!

i'm not sure of the relevance of the 1894 publication of edwin johnson (or of the discussion of the post-apostolic writers) to the question of where christ was crucified. it doesn't seem to be addressed in the documents in your link. so i can't speak to that.

regarding your quote from paul's letter to the galatians, you've already said that you reject the new testament epistles as being valid. so given that, nothing written in galatians would be pertinent to the crucifixion of jesus, and so the secular evidence i've already provided stands uncontested.

Great city in the book of Revelation:

The author of the book of Revelation states quite clearly WHICH great city is mentioned in the text:

And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication. (Rev. 14:8 )

Here is the mind which has wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits (Rev. 17:9 )

The woman whom you saw is the great city, which reigns over the kings of the earth. (Rev. 17:18 )


Everything is very clear.


And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. (Rev. 11:8 )


Christ was crucified in the GREAT CITY, built on SEVEN HILLS, which reigns over the kings of the earth (not Jerusalem in any case).

i've already address this^^^part. so far, the evidence against a jerusalem crucifixion is not compelling, to me.
true wisdom is always concise

Re: flate earth believers. was jesus crucified in the "great city?"
« Reply #14 on: March 29, 2013, 03:19:02 PM »
CRUCIFIXTION - NOT CRUCIFIED
A)  Actually old Bibles from 200 years ago do not contain crucifixtion or crucifix or crucified.  The scriptures use the words impaled or "nailed to the stake" or "nailed to a tree" NOT nailed to a cross.  Sometimes you don't have to go back 200 years on every Bible translation for every Christian religion and need only go back about 125 years.  Man has changed this with making revisions and over time the original words were replaced by the now "crucified".

here's a few passages from matthew, mark, luke, and john, from the english-language 1611 version, later called the "authorized king james bible"(after 1769). they refer to a "crosse."

Mat_27:32  And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name: him they compelled to beare his Crosse.
Mar_15:21  And they compell one Simon a Cyrenian, who passed by, comming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to beare his Crosse.
Luk_23:26  And as they led him away, they laid hold vpon one Simon a Cyrenian, comming out of the countrey, and on him they laid the crosse, that hee might beare it after Iesus.
Joh_19:17  And he bearing his crosse, went foorth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrewe, Golgotha:


and of "crucified":

Mat_27:35  And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Prophet, They parted my garments among them, and vpon my vesture did they cast lots.
Mar_15:24  And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments, casting lots vpon them, what euery man should take.
Luk_23:33  And when they were come to the place which is called Caluarie, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left.
Joh_19:18  Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Iesus in the middest.


so i think the term "crucifixion" is at least as old as 1611.

B)  The verbage or lettering in Bibles is not the only proof of this.  The cross was connected with nature worship for some, by other peoples it was considered a phallus or coition, by others it was a symbol of the sun-god (for Babylonians), and some used the symbol in the "Solar Wheel', and in some instances was a symbol for the authorities of other gods like the Greek Bacchus, The Tyrian Tammuz and the Chaldean Bel.  It wasn't until the 3rd cenury A.D. that crosses were accepted by Christian faiths, which is way after the death of Christ.

that's an interesting point. the antenicene fathers refer to the christian cross earlier than the third century, but that doesn't contradict your point about it being way after the death of christ. the earliest mention of veneration i can find off hand is from about 200, in tertullian, which supports your argument.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2013, 03:24:49 PM by kevinagain »
true wisdom is always concise

*

babsinva

  • 2222
  • aka Mr. Fahrenheit
Re: flate earth believers. was jesus crucified in the "great city?"
« Reply #15 on: March 29, 2013, 08:48:09 PM »
B)  The verbage or lettering in Bibles is not the only proof of this.  The cross was connected with nature worship for some, by other peoples it was considered a phallus or coition, by others it was a symbol of the sun-god (for Babylonians), and some used the symbol in the "Solar Wheel', and in some instances was a symbol for the authorities of other gods like the Greek Bacchus, The Tyrian Tammuz and the Chaldean Bel.  It wasn't until the 3rd cenury A.D. that crosses were accepted by Christian faiths, which is way after the death of Christ.

that's an interesting point. the antenicene fathers refer to the christian cross earlier than the third century, but that doesn't contradict your point about it being way after the death of christ. the earliest mention of veneration i can find off hand is from about 200, in tertullian, which supports your argument.

Glad you see my 2nd point but back to my first with 3 points ....

First you would have to be a linguist and know the history of languages because that would help alot with original ancient texts.  For example:  The Greek word rendered cross is stauros' meaning an upright stake or pale, and only LATER did it also become known as an execution stake having a cross piece.  Same thing is similar with the earliest Romans the "crux" (from which our cross is derived) appears to have originally been an upright pole.  The word "xylon" (meaning beam, post, cudgel or club) has also been used.  You see it would be quite easy for someone without the study of languages and when translating to confuse terms IF THEY DO NOT KNOW how they were used in that language or where they were derived.

Second, the ancient peoples of the day did not use execution crosses but execution stakes, which means the translator really did not do their homework.  Crosses came later.  Knowing the history of ancient times and ancient peoples with ancient executions would be helpful.

Third, I did not say ALL bibles over 200 years old, but you mentioned 1, and there are about 30.  You mentioned the KJV and there is the Douay-Rhiems verision, the Jerusalem Bible version, the American Standard version, the New American Standard version, New International version, New Living version,  Revised Standard version, New Revised Standard, the Holman and Lexham and Darby and Geneva and Guttenberg etc etc.  I personally use 4 different Bibles and one that I have that is only 125 years old does not contain cross or crucified.  If I did not have to go back that far to find one in my family, you shouldn't have to go back too far or try too hard to find one yourself.  I have seen multiple old bibles besides the one that I own and yes they do not use "cross"  or crucified either.
   
Quote from Big Giant Head:  "Considered fictitious or phantom does not quantify its non-existence."

Quote from Soze:  "We cannot escape perception, but we can't assume reality doesn't exist outside of perception."

?

Homesick Martian

  • 419
  • Hardcore Zetetic Terrorist
Re: flate earth believers. was jesus crucified in the "great city?"
« Reply #16 on: March 30, 2013, 08:11:59 AM »
Wow 666 is a triangular number? I didn't know that! What does that tell about triangles?

Re: flate earth believers. was jesus crucified in the "great city?"
« Reply #17 on: March 30, 2013, 02:22:34 PM »
First you would have to be a linguist and know the history of languages because that would help alot with original ancient texts.  For example:  The Greek word rendered cross is stauros' meaning an upright stake or pale, and only LATER did it also become known as an execution stake having a cross piece.  Same thing is similar with the earliest Romans the "crux" (from which our cross is derived) appears to have originally been an upright pole.  The word "xylon" (meaning beam, post, cudgel or club) has also been used.  You see it would be quite easy for someone without the study of languages and when translating to confuse terms IF THEY DO NOT KNOW how they were used in that language or where they were derived.

you are quite correct about the greek. my references are to 'stauros:"

Quote
G4716
σταυρός
stauros
stow-ros'
From the base of G2476; a stake or post (as set upright), that is, (specifically) a pole or cross (as an instrument of capital punishment); figuratively exposure to death, that is, self denial; by implication the atonement of Christ: - cross.

i am not a linguist, so i simply don't know how the term was originally used. the jehovah's witnesses also reject the idea of a cross, preferring "stake" instead.

but how is this distinction important?



Third, I did not say ALL bibles over 200 years old, but you mentioned 1, and there are about 30.  You mentioned the KJV and there is the Douay-Rhiems verision, the Jerusalem Bible version, the American Standard version, the New American Standard version, New International version, New Living version,  Revised Standard version, New Revised Standard, the Holman and Lexham and Darby and Geneva and Guttenberg etc etc.  I personally use 4 different Bibles and one that I have that is only 125 years old does not contain cross or crucified.  If I did not have to go back that far to find one in my family, you shouldn't have to go back too far or try too hard to find one yourself.  I have seen multiple old bibles besides the one that I own and yes they do not use "cross"  or crucified either.
   

of the ones you mentioned, only the douay-rheims, KJV, the geneva, and the guttenberg are older than 200 years.

i use a kjv/textus receptus interlinear for the NT, and the textus receptus uses "stauros" as well. i can't ever find the witnesses's westcott and hort interlinear, but the W&h original uses "stauros."

http://www.archive.org/stream/newtestamentinor00westrich#page/132/mode/2up

again, i'm curious. is this important? if it is, why?
true wisdom is always concise

*

babsinva

  • 2222
  • aka Mr. Fahrenheit
Re: flate earth believers. was jesus crucified in the "great city?"
« Reply #18 on: March 30, 2013, 06:24:04 PM »
but how is this distinction important?
@kevin
because it got you thinking and corrected a misconception at the same time.  Truth is always important particularly to highlight man's error.  Even if just one person gets it and stops saying crucified - I feel it was worth it.

@all
B-T-W To further explain a previous post on use of crosses ...
the Babylonian sun-god's symbol was a cross within a circle and in Egyptian tombs the "crux ansata" was a cross with handle on top.  The later was carried by Egyptain priests and Pontiff kings.

NOW TO ADDRESS JERUSALEM AND HILL ...

1)  Technically Jesus was impaled at Golgotha aka Skull Place and "Calvary".  Golgotha is a place outside, although near the city of Jerusalem.  Although located within the PRESENT walls of Jerusalem, the site is believed to have been outside the city walls in Jesus' day.

2)  Jesus' actual tomb is unknown (as to where) and there are 2 basic schools of thought on that location.  One being 230m (755 ft) NE of the Damascus Gate, now known as Gordon's Calvary with the other place being the location of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.  The latter has better evidence and is more widely accepted, however the exact place remains conjectural.

3)  Someone here in this thread mentioned a hill ...
The Bible does NOT say the place of impalement was on a hill or surrounded by 7 hills although it does mention that some observed the impalement from a distance.  Be careful what you believe or who you listen to Kevin for you can be easily mislead and someone will carry you off as prey.


« Last Edit: March 30, 2013, 06:30:43 PM by babsinva »
Quote from Big Giant Head:  "Considered fictitious or phantom does not quantify its non-existence."

Quote from Soze:  "We cannot escape perception, but we can't assume reality doesn't exist outside of perception."

Re: flate earth believers. was jesus crucified in the "great city?"
« Reply #19 on: March 30, 2013, 06:35:02 PM »
interesting point. i was unaware of any controversy aside from that of the witnesses, who make a point of referring to "stauros" as a "torture stake."

Quote
"Stauros" interpreted as a cross

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, dealing specifically with the crucifixion of Jesus, says it is most likely that the stauros had a transverse in the form of a crossbeam. "Secular sources do not permit any conclusion to be drawn as to the precise form of the cross, as to whether it was the crux immissa (+) or crux commissa (T). As it was not very common to affix a titlos (superscription, loanword from the Lat. titulus), it does not necessarily follow that the cross had the form of a crux immissa."
true wisdom is always concise

*

babsinva

  • 2222
  • aka Mr. Fahrenheit
Re: flate earth believers. was jesus crucified in the "great city?"
« Reply #20 on: March 30, 2013, 07:00:40 PM »
interesting point. i was unaware of any controversy aside from that of the witnesses, who make a point of referring to "stauros" as a "torture stake."

Quote
"Stauros" interpreted as a cross

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, dealing specifically with the crucifixion of Jesus, says it is most likely that the stauros had a transverse in the form of a crossbeam. "Secular sources do not permit any conclusion to be drawn as to the precise form of the cross, as to whether it was the crux immissa (+) or crux commissa (T). As it was not very common to affix a titlos (superscription, loanword from the Lat. titulus), it does not necessarily follow that the cross had the form of a crux immissa."

Other Sources on cross vs stake (providing a good understanding through history) ...
*  "The Imperial Bible-Dictionary", edited by P. Fairbairn London 1874 Vol I. p 376
*  "The Non-Christian Cross" by J.D. Parsons London 1896
*  "The Companion Bible" London 1885, Appendix No, 162

and for additional reading on historical origins of the cross ...
*  "Encyclopedia Britannica" 1946 Vol 6 p 753
*  "The Cross in Ritual, Architecture and Art" London 1900 G. S. Tyack p1
*  "The Worship of the Dead" London 1904 Colonel J. Garnier p 226
*  "A Short History of Sex-Worship" London 1940 H. Cutner pp 16,17

PS.  I cleared up the Jerusalem question in previous post.
Quote from Big Giant Head:  "Considered fictitious or phantom does not quantify its non-existence."

Quote from Soze:  "We cannot escape perception, but we can't assume reality doesn't exist outside of perception."

?

OMEGA MAN

  • 491
  • I AM A NUMBER NOT A MAN!
Re: flate earth believers. was jesus crucified in the "great city?"
« Reply #21 on: April 01, 2013, 03:31:43 PM »
Christ was not crucified in the great city (Jerusalem) he was crucified outside the city walls.
BOLLOX.

*

babsinva

  • 2222
  • aka Mr. Fahrenheit
Re: flate earth believers. was jesus crucified in the "great city?"
« Reply #22 on: April 02, 2013, 01:10:12 PM »
interesting point. i was unaware of any controversy aside from that of the witnesses, who make a point of referring to "stauros" as a "torture stake."

Quote
"Stauros" interpreted as a cross

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, dealing specifically with the crucifixion of Jesus, says it is most likely that the stauros had a transverse in the form of a crossbeam. "Secular sources do not permit any conclusion to be drawn as to the precise form of the cross, as to whether it was the crux immissa (+) or crux commissa (T). As it was not very common to affix a titlos (superscription, loanword from the Lat. titulus), it does not necessarily follow that the cross had the form of a crux immissa."

Although it is true that the cross in the shape of Uppercase "T" instead of lowercase "t" was used in ancient times, it was not used by Romans who impaled Christ. The 2 beamed cross had its origins in ancient Chaldea, and was used as the symbol of the god Tammuz, (being in the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial of his name). It also was used by adjacent lands, including Egypt.
 
The cross was also a sacred symbol for The Greek Bacchus, Chaldean Bel, and the Norse Odin. Notice I said "sacred" symbol. CHrist would not have been impaled on a cross that was a sacred symbol for other gods and their votaries.

Quote from Big Giant Head:  "Considered fictitious or phantom does not quantify its non-existence."

Quote from Soze:  "We cannot escape perception, but we can't assume reality doesn't exist outside of perception."

Re: flate earth believers. was jesus crucified in the "great city?"
« Reply #23 on: April 06, 2013, 06:02:50 PM »

The cross was also a sacred symbol for The Greek Bacchus, Chaldean Bel, and the Norse Odin. Notice I said "sacred" symbol. CHrist would not have been impaled on a cross that was a sacred symbol for other gods and their votaries.

why?
true wisdom is always concise