Ancient Confession Found: ‘We Invented Jesus Christ’

64

Biblical scholars will be appearing at the 'Covert Messiah' Conference at Conway Hall in London on the 19th of October to present this controversial discovery to the British public.

American Biblical scholar Joseph Atwill will be appearing before the British public for the first time in London on the 19th of October to present a controversial new discovery: ancient confessions recently uncovered now prove, according to Atwill, that the New Testament was written by first-century Roman aristocrats and that they fabricated the entire story of Jesus Christ. His presentation will be part of a one-day symposium entitled "Covert Messiah" at Conway Hall in Holborn (full details can be found athttp://www.covertmessiah.com).

Although to many scholars his theory seems outlandish, and is sure to upset some believers, Atwill regards his evidence as conclusive and is confident its acceptance is only a matter of time. "I present my work with some ambivalence, as I do not want to directly cause Christians any harm," he acknowledges, "but this is important for our culture. Alert citizens need to know the truth about our past so we can understand how and why governments create false histories and false gods. They often do it to obtain a social order that is against the best interests of the common people."

Atwill asserts that Christianity did not really begin as a religion, but a sophisticated government project, a kind of propaganda exercise used to pacify the subjects of the Roman Empire.

Written By: PRWeb UK
continue to source article at uk.prweb.com

64 COMMENTS

    • In reply to #1 by KimCox:

      Four people submitted similar articles, so I approved it as an item of interest, but personally, I am skeptical.

      I’m skeptical as well, but regardless we will at least get a laugh at it if nothing else.

    • In reply to #1 by KimCox:

      Four people submitted similar articles, so I approved it as an item of interest, but personally, I am skeptical.

      At first I thought this was something picked up from “The Onion”. I found this mildly interesting, but when someone has such controversial ideas and has an upcoming book, well I tend to have a jaded view of that.

    • In reply to #2 by faithless1:

      Is today April Fool’s day?

      Too much skepticism, perhaps? Even if the event fails to produce the killer blow suggested, publicity and exposure must help the cause?

  1. KimCox,

    I am with you. I am very skeptical. The thing about this type of discovery (for me) is, “why now?”…. This “evidence has been around since the first century? It surfaces now? and this person can interpret it????

    I just read that the oldest copy of the Bible that is known is from a thousand years after the first century… I think that their story is sufficiently insulated by time and purposeful elimination of contrary documentation.

  2. This has been suspected for some time by numerous others and also the subject of a number of heresies. Even if they have proof irrevocable, it won’t shake the 100% blood and bone xtians much. Those that do enquire have already rejected the evidence stacked against them and they don’t take in enough from diverse information sources to challenge their cosy baby jeebus loves yo’ ass theories.

    I’d love to see D’Souza’s reaction to this when he gets wind of it. I bet he’ll be purple an spluttering with outrage

    • In reply to #4 by Vorlund:

      This has been suspected for some time by numerous others and also the subject of a number of heresies. Even if they have proof irrevocable, it won’t shake the 100% blood and bone xtians much.

      I guess thinking is the new evidence was counterfeited by god to test the faith.

      • In reply to #7 by Roedy:

        In reply to #4 by Vorlund:

        This has been suspected for some time by numerous others and also the subject of a number of heresies. Even if they have proof irrevocable, it won’t shake the 100% blood and bone xtians much.

        I guess thinking is the new evidence was counterfeited by god to test the fait…

        Or Satan.

  3. The British in their colonisation were quite open about the role of Christianity to “soften up” the natives to make them submissive. Christianity is a religion that is ideal for an imperial power to introduce to colonies to neutralise resistance. It also sucks wealth from the populace for the church even when the people are impoverished. It seems plausible it was designed for that from day one.

    • In reply to #5 by Roedy:

      The British in their colonisation were quite open about the role of Christianity to “soften up” the natives to make them submissive. Christianity is a religion that is ideal for an imperial power to introduce to colonies to neutralise resistance. It also sucks wealth from the populace for the church…

      The problem though is that the Romans didn’t think like this, this is too much of a modern idea for that time.

      • In reply to #29 by Perfect Tommy:

        this is too much of a modern idea for that time.

        I think you overestimate the difference between people now and then. They were just as intelligent, just as venal, conniving, greedy whatever you care to mention.

  4. Had the New Testament been deliberately constructed, I think there would have been fewer inconsistencies and would have presented a more cohesive whole. I hope Joseph Atwill can mount a very good case, as I can’t be the only person thinking this.

    The entire bible gives the impression of a collection of myths that has been imperfectly recordedby numerous sources, then edited and redacted.

    If this new account is able to be verified, imagine the uproar! People will cling onto their old certainties with great tenacity. I forsee death threats. Those with the most to lose will not take this lying down.

  5. ah, according to Atwill’s website it’s a screening of the documentary based on his book published in 2005. Not a new discovery – just the same stuff he’s been pushing for years.
    The headline makes it sound like he recently uncovered an ancient document that reads “We really pulled one over on those peasants with that Jesus character that we totally made up.”

    I’m leaving room for that possibility but I really, really doubt it; just another case of a headline making claims that article cannot live up to. yawn.

    • In reply to #10 by Scepticon:

      ah, according to Atwill’s website it’s a screening of the documentary based on his book published in 2005. Not a new discovery – just the same stuff he’s been pushing for years.
      The headline makes it sound like he recently uncovered an ancient document that reads “We really pulled one over on those…

      He’s not the only person saying it though…

      There is absolutely NO evidence that Jesus existed anywhere in the historical record.

      The only vague references (outside of the Bible) are either too vague (relating to Christians rather than Christ himself) or known fabrications by pathological liars (such as Eusebius).

      Saying that Jesus must have existed because the Bible says so is like saying Darth Vader and Voldemort are also real because they too are mentioned in works of fiction…

      Whether these guys are correct in everything they say or not, their basic message is undeniable – Jesus didn’t exist and Christianity is the biggest con played on the human race in recorded history.

      • In reply to #12 by Dr Bob:

        In reply to #10 by Scepticon:

        ah, according to Atwill’s website it’s a screening of the documentary based on his book published in 2005. Not a new discovery – just the same stuff he’s been pushing for years.
        The headline makes it sound like he recently uncovered an ancient document that reads “We r…

        “Christianity is the biggest con played on the human race in recorded history” SECOND biggest….

        • In reply to #16 by Billy Joe:

          In reply to #12 by Dr Bob:

          In reply to #10 by Scepticon:

          ah, according to Atwill’s website it’s a screening of the documentary based on his book published in 2005. Not a new discovery – just the same stuff he’s been pushing for years.
          The headline makes it sound like he recently uncovered an ancie…

          What’s the biggest then?

          A stable, usable 3G connection more than three miles from a town or city centre?

          ;-)

          • In reply to #19 by Dr Bob:

            In reply to #16 by Billy Joe:

            In reply to #12 by Dr Bob:

            In reply to #10 by Scepticon:

            ah, according to Atwill’s website it’s a screening of the documentary based on his book published in 2005. Not a new discovery – just the same stuff he’s been pushing for years.
            The headline makes it sound like…

            Haha! Very good!

        • “Christianity is the biggest con played on the human race in recorded history” SECOND biggest….

          Is it? Or is the idea of an afterlife the biggest con played on the human race and organized religion second?

          • In reply to #32 by QuestioningKat:

            “Christianity is the biggest con played on the human race in recorded history” SECOND biggest….

            Is it? Or is the idea of an afterlife the biggest con played on the human race and organized religion second?

            I’m getting confused now…

            Can we have a vote?

            Which of the following is the biggest con played on the human race?

            1. Christianity
            2. Islam
            3. 3G Access Claims
            4. The Afterlife

            Or, is it actually one of these:

            1. The pictures of the burgers on the walls in fast food restaurants that NEVER look anything like the slop that finally (fast food? really? are you sure?) reaches you…
            2. Father Christmas, The Tooth Fairy and The Easter Bunny (the original Unholy Trinity)…
            3. Your mother buying you clothes much too big for you as a child with the promise that “you’ll grow into them, don’t worry”…
            4. Your parents telling you to “eat your greens, they’ll put hairs on your chest”…
            5. Milli Vanilli

            Apologies to the mods for drifting off topic

      • In reply to #12 by Dr Bob:

        In reply to #10 by Scepticon:

        Whether these guys are correct in everything they say or not, their basic message is undeniable – Jesus didn’t exist and Christianity is the biggest con played on the human race in recorded history.

        Agreed, and so is their god, God/Yahweh as have all gods been invented in the history of humans. If there is a god (!), it’s certainly not one that anyone has ever heard of or heard from.

        • In reply to #24 by ArloNo:

          In reply to #12 by Dr Bob:

          In reply to #10 by Scepticon:

          Whether these guys are correct in everything they say or not, their basic message is undeniable – Jesus didn’t exist and Christianity is the biggest con played on the human race in recorded history.

          Agreed, and so is their god, God/Yahweh a…

          Agreed – if any of the gods invented by humans were the real thing, I reckon we’d all know about it by now…

          Hang on, back in a sec – got some Jehovah’s Witnesses at the door… they’ve got some ‘Good News’ for me apparently… whatever that is…

      • In reply to #12 by Dr Bob:

        Where did I say Jesus MUST have existed. I’m just pointing out that there is no single “smoking gun” documented admission as EXPLICITLY STATED in the article headline.

        There is no new information here, if you want to argue that Atwill’s interpretation of the texts we already have is correct – go ahead I would find that very interesting. But it seems to me this headline is 99% hype 1% regular scholarship.

        Now for the record I’m pretty convinced that the evidence for an historical person who corresponds to the character of Jesus is very thin – enough to say that there probably wasn’t such a person.
        ie. I’m fine with the mythicist position as espoused by people such as Dr. Robert Price.

        …but that is a very different proposition from simply accepting everything that agrees with my views simply because they agree with my view. Especially when they come wrapped in hyperbole like this one.

        • In reply to #28 by Scepticon:

          In reply to #12 by Dr Bob:

          Where did I say Jesus MUST have existed. I’m just pointing out that there is no single “smoking gun” documented admission as EXPLICITLY STATED in the article headline.

          There is no new information here, if you want to argue that Atwill’s interpretation of the texts we alr…

          Completely agree with everything you just said (in particular regarding the sensationalist hyperbole of these ‘revelations’).

          Apologies for my words sounding like a rebuttal of what you had written; they were meant more as a continuation.

      • In reply to #12 by Dr Bob:
        Looks like your apology has not been posted, but in light of it I must too apologise for flying off the handle – I just get very aggravated when my position is mischaracterised.

        back the the article, the implication that there is an actual admission of fraud documented does not shine a favourable light on Atwill and if I were he I’d be busy down playing this so that people don’t focus on it and conclude I was a delusional hack.
        [edit - nope found your comment.]

    • In reply to #10 by Scepticon:

      The headline makes it sound like he recently uncovered an ancient document that reads “We really pulled one over on those peasants with that Jesus character that we totally made up.”

      Or finding Slarty Blardfast’s signature on a glacier?

      • In reply to #39 by OHooligan:

        In reply to #10 by Scepticon:

        The headline makes it sound like he recently uncovered an ancient document that reads “We really pulled one over on those peasants with that Jesus character that we totally made up.”

        Or finding Slarty Blardfast’s signature on a glacier?

        Heh :)

  6. Hard for me to see how this fits with well supported history. The leaders of Rome used brute force to rule throughout the world in the first two centuries, CE, and did not take significant notice of Christianity until the fourth century. Early Christianity was mostly practiced in the Hellenic community outside Jerusalem, as Jerusalem itself was destroyed by the Romans in the latter first century. The basis of Christianity may very well be fiction, but I doubt it was the Romans who wrote it. I am willing to look at it, but the pieces don’t seem to go together from the little that was presented in the article.

    • In reply to #11 by Quine:

      Hard for me to see how this fits with well supported history. The leaders of Rome used brute force to rule throughout the world in the first two centuries, CE, and did not take significant notice of Christianity until the fourth century. Early Christianity was mostly practiced in the Hellenic commun…

      I agree that the Romans didn’t invent Christianity (it already existed in a raw Gnostic form), but they did make it into what it is today (beginning with the Council of Nicaea, in which Constantine successfully silenced all critics, particularly in the East of the Empire and created a single version of the faith).

      He then proceeded to order the death of everyone who disagreed with the New World Order.

  7. Skepticism rules and yet… many will be hoping for some new and radical evidence. Who will take issue with the following statements?

    “This symposium not only presents an exposé on Christianity whose time has come, but it is a significant case study which provides an important glimpse into how the ruling classes have kept their power for millennia. Time and again the common people are deceived into war, poverty, and obedience because their ability to reason has been crippled by false ideas, false histories, and false gods circulated by the power elite.
    The Internet Age makes events like this possible and presents us with an opportunity for a different future. Now that the average person has an unprecedented ability to access and share information instantly with like-minded people around the globe it’s time for us to create a new open-source intelligence, help each other get educated, and break the spell of dogma and propaganda together.”

    I like it! But, more importantly, next (even more) bogus cab off the rank— ISLAM.

    • In reply to #13 by Billy Joe:

      Skepticism rules and yet… many will be hoping for some new and radical evidence. Who will take issue with the following statements?

      “This symposium not only presents an exposé on Christianity whose time has come, but it is a significant case study which provides an important glimpse into how the…

      Agreed – although at least the fabricator of Islam (unlike Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism or Buddhism) is pretty certain to have actually existed… Even if most of what his fan club claim he did (flying to heaven on winged horses and cleaving the moon in two with his index finger spring immediately to mind) is utter masturbatory fantasy…

      • In reply to #18 by Dr Bob:

        In reply to #13 by Billy Joe:

        Skepticism rules and yet… many will be hoping for some new and radical evidence. Who will take issue with the following statements?

        “This symposium not only presents an exposé on Christianity whose time has come, but it is a significant case study which provides an…

        7 heavens AND the Far Mosque- in a single night. That Buraq could motor! By the way, I’ve yet to meet a Muslim who’s heard of Buraq- ain’t that strange?

        • In reply to #21 by Billy Joe:

          In reply to #18 by Dr Bob:

          7 heavens AND the Far Mosque- in a single night. That Buraq could motor! By the way, I’ve yet to meet a Muslim who’s heard of Buraq- ain’t that strange?

          Maybe Mo’s half-mule, half-donkey was related to Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer…

          After all, Allah moves in mysterious ways… (Especially after eating too many dates and figs)…

    • In reply to #26 by HenMie:

      Bible – the greatest work of fiction ever.

      It’s prequel (the Torah) and sequel (the Koran) aren’t quite as good though…

      But then, Empire Strikes Back was the better of the original Star Wars trilogy too…

      • Ha Ha, spot on !

        In reply to #27 by Dr Bob:

        In reply to #26 by HenMie:

        Bible – the greatest work of fiction ever.

        It’s prequel (the Torah) and sequel (the Koran) aren’t quite as good though…

        But then, Empire Strikes Back was the better of the original Star Wars trilogy too…

  8. Oh dear, not another historical conspiracy theory.

    “I started to notice a sequence of parallels between the two texts,”

    This reminds me very much of the way that some have read, into the works of Shakespeare, parallels with events in the life of Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, thus ‘proving’ that Oxford wrote Shakespeare’s work and put them out under Shakespeare’s name. Such an approach is highly subjective, and if you look for such parallels you are almost certain to find them. It’s a kind of literary pareidolia.

    The trailer asks “why were the gospels written in greek?”, “why are they so pro-roman?”. There already are good answers to these questions, and if this is the level of evidence they are presenting then I have to say I’m not very impressed. Still…I’ll be interested in hearing more. But it had better be good.

  9. Jesus story embellished? OK

    Jesus story co-opted? Absolutely.

    Jesus story (including those that didn’t make it into the canon) invented from whole cloth by a propagandist in the palace basement? I seriously doubt that.

    However, this idea, which seems to keep popping up, is intriguing enough that I’ll probably give this guy’s take a (very skeptical) hearing.

    • In reply to #37 by zonotrichia:

      Jesus story embellished? OK

      Agreed
      >

      Jesus story co-opted? Absolutely.

      Agreed
      >

      Jesus story (including those that didn’t make it into the canon) invented from whole cloth by a propagandist in the palace basement? I seriously doubt that.

      Yeah, why not. Early psyops black-budget affair. Though the Constantine story seems better documented (that would be listed as “co-opted”, above)

      However, this idea, which seems to keep popping up, is intriguing ..

      Intriguing, maybe. Just a bit too much like Dan Browne for my taste.

      • In reply to #43 by OHooligan:

        In reply to #37 by zonotrichia:

        Jesus story embellished? OK

        Agreed

        Jesus story co-opted? Absolutely.

        Agreed

        Jesus story (including those that didn’t make it into the canon) invented from whole cloth by a propagandist in the palace basement? I seriously doubt that.

        Yeah, why not. Early psyo…

        I think the original story of Jesus the itinerant preacher (minus the theological add-ons re substitutional atonement) is just too messy to be psy-ops. Too many differing gospels with differing agendas. I find it really easy to believe there was an itinerant preacher called Jesus who drew a following and wound up being executed by the local authorities. I think it’s also well within the Occam’s Razor approach to believe that, after his death, he was mythologized and his following grew, with some disciples eventually attributing supernatural meaning to him. I don’t see any reason to believe an obscure itinerant preacher would appear in Roman historical records, so I don’t give much weight to the fact that he doesn’t show up there. I also find it unsurprising that the Romans would later co-opt a small, grassroots religion to propagate their own new national religion.

        Now the Constantine cross-at-the-bridge thing – I’d definitely put that in the psy-ops category as well as it just being an example of a politician wrapping himself in the symbolism of whatever religion he thought would help him accomplish his goals.

        • In reply to #54 by zonotrichia:

          In reply to #43 by OHooligan:

          In reply to #37 by zonotrichia:

          Jesus story embellished? OK

          Agreed

          Jesus story co-opted? Absolutely.

          Agreed

          Now the Constantine cross-at-the-bridge thing – I’d definitely put that in the psy-ops category as well as it just being an example of a politician wrapping himself in the symbolism of whatever religion he thought would help him accomplish his goals.

          Putin anyone?

        • In reply to #54 by zonotrichia:

          Jesus story… embellished? co-opted? invented?

          While the OP story is suspiciously Dan Browne-ish (stir a Controversy to Boost Sales), and I can’t fault your analysis, there is one more viewpoint I (vaguely) recall: that the jesus story is similar to the horus story, and that the significant events in the story are mnemonics for astronomical/astrological lore: that the sun/sun-god/sun-of-god/son-of-god is born of a virgin (virgo?) , dies on “a cross”, remains dead for 3 days, and then gets on the move again, the apostles number 12 as do the signs of the zodiac, and some other things I don’t recall. I think the 3-wise-men and the star-in-the-east also figure somewhere. All of which suggests the story of jesus was lifted in big chunks, if not in its entirety, from earlier lore.

          Anyone able to fill in the jesus/horus/calendar lore story better than this? I saw it in a documentary once-upon-a-time, but don’t recall the title, or any more details.

          • In reply to #61 by OHooligan:

            Anyone able to fill in the jesus/horus/calendar lore story better than this? I saw it in a documentary once-upon-a-time, but don’t recall the title, or any more details.

            I don’t think there is much to it. I think the explanation of Bart Erhman is much more credible, both that it makes more sense and has better support from actual scholars. His theory is that the Gospel authors (who he describes as forgers since they pretended to be the apostles of Jesus although the historical evidence makes that virtually impossible) were essentially trying to convert people to their new religion of Christianity. So they tailored their various gospels according to which audiences they were trying to reach. The authors who were trying to recruit heathens to the new religion wrote things that made Jesus sound like a Roman or Greek demigod. The authors who were trying to convert Jews described Jesus in ways that fulfilled old testament prophesies about the messiah.

          • In reply to #62 by Red Dog:

            In reply to #61 by OHooligan:

            Anyone able to fill in the jesus/horus/calendar lore story better than this? I saw it in a documentary once-upon-a-time, but don’t recall the title, or any more details.

            I don’t think there is much to it. I think the explanation of Bart Erhman is much more credible

            Thanks for the viewpoint. So it wasn’t really like this? (With the classic line from John Wayne: Surely this must be the son of gawd!!!!)

  10. How could this go unnoticed in the most scrutinised books of all time? “Many of the parallels are conceptual or poetic, so they aren’t all immediately obvious. After all, the authors did not want the average believer to see what they were doing, but they did want the alert reader to see it. An educated Roman in the ruling class would probably have recognised the literary game being played.” Atwill maintains he can demonstrate that “the Roman Caesars left us a kind of puzzle literature that was meant to be solved by future generations, and the solution to that puzzle is ‘We invented Jesus Christ, and we’re proud of it.’”

    Now we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face.

  11. Hmmm. So, “I read Josephus, and I alone out of the thousands of people to do that saw the One and Only Truth”

    This sounds a bit like Joseph Smith being the only person who could understand the magic dinner plates.

    A new religion cannot be far behind. (Send donations to….)

  12. Well,if it happened,it was the works of others that they used and altered,because,how many of them were there and how much writing down shit do you think these kind of people wanted to do.Now,4 gospels…? dead sea scrolls? St.Paul-ish…(also invented?) marco,matho,luko,and johnno.
    I’d still like to hear the argument.

  13. I’m not certain how well this ‘evidence’ works with the likes of Bart Ehrman and his books that detail the logic of how the version of the NT we know now comes from inaccurate translations and a populations of mostly illiterate citizens, all of which affect every version we know of the bible. If the Romans made it up in the fashion specified here, would that not mean that there is an original version that the bad translations came from?

    I’m more than willing to grant that the likelihood of Jesus as written being historically true is highly unlikely and of course none of the miracles or predictions have any whiff of truth about them. But I really fail to see how all other scholars managed to miss something that to this author seems so patently obvious. Don’t get me wrong, the idea of spreading propaganda to change the thinking of the masses is not such an unusual notion (the current US political culture should demonstrate that) but I’m not entirely convinced that the answers are as simple as the article is making them out to be. This would raise more questions than it answers.

  14. This is just plain balls. Atwill’s been pushing this cr*p for years, and his argument doesn’t hold any water.

    It makes no historical sense: the Romans’ solution to all Imperial problems was military force and executions – not Heath-Robinson-esque theological ruses; the rebellious Jews to whom it was addressed would’ve found it deeply heretical and wouldn’t have gone for it; the texts of the New Testament are far too contradictory, etc to be the product of a single author, etc.

    I have few doubts that the Jesus story is a myth. Even if there was an apocalyptic chap wandering around 1CE Palestine beefing about the coming of the kingdom of Yaweh, and who no-one took much notice of (as is the view of most NT scholars – even though we have no more evidence for this than we have for the god-man of the Gospels!) this is categorically NOT the Jesus of the NT. It’s not the dead-raising, water-walking, miracle-performing, divine superman from outer-space who’ll come back and destroy the earth at judgement day. So, really, the “is Jesus a mythical figure?” argument is a pointless one.

    However, Atwill – along with Freke & Gandy – represents the worst of the mythicists, and gives the reasonable ones with good arguments a very bad press.

    Richard Carrier has disposed of this over at his blog: http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4664

  15. How could such a “propaganda exercise” end up devouring the Roman empire itself? If it was written in such a way that educated Romans could understand the attempts at psychological manipulation, why weren’t they speaking out about it once Christianity started to take hold in Rome itself?

    This whole thing sounds incredibly far fetched.

  16. I thought there were evidences for an historical prophet named Jesus of Nazareth. I got that from a historian in an interview with Richard Dawkins I saw a couple of months ago.

    But everybody knows Christian religion is also a useful piece of propaganda.

    Could be something like :

    • Jesus existed, was a kind of prophet, maybe pretended to be the messiah (he would not have been the only one at that time) and got crucified by the Romans.
    • Roman propagandists used that story to spread a submissive turn-the-other-cheek philosophy in occupied territories.
    • That worked well, got out of hands and later got mixed up with older myths and edited so many times by anonymous hands that it became incoherent as we now know it.
    • In reply to #57 by paulmcuk:

      “All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.”

      It would also appear that the form of the cross is also fictitious according to the scholars at the Israel Museum.

      http://www.timesofisrael.com/in-a-stone-box-a-rare-trace-of-crucifixion/

      An ossuary at the Israel Museum contains the sole physical evidence ever found for the Roman practice of execution on the cross.

      It is therefore an odd fact that archaeological evidence of this punishment — crosses, for example, or perforated skeletons — has never been found anywhere in the world, with one exception: the stone box containing Yehohanan’s remains.

      The position of the stake was evidence of a crucifixion technique that had not previously been known, according to museum curator David Mevorah. In the image of crucifixion made famous by Christian iconography, Jesus is pictured with both feet nailed to the front of the vertical beam of the cross. But this man’s feet had been affixed to the sides of the beam with nails hammered separately through each heel.

      His hands showed no sign of wounds, indicating that they had been tied, rather than nailed, to the horizontal bar.

  17. I have always thought that the entire bible was a collection of not very well written stories, from numerous sources. But this is the first Evidence of this. Lets hope the evidence goes someway to supporting that theory.

Leave a Reply