Do we know where Jesus was crucified?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 лют 2025
- Do we know where Jesus was crucified?
Join our email list and watch a full episode: www.drivethruh...
Like this clip?: drivethruhistor...
Want to buy this DVD? drivethruhistor...
Want curriculum for all our shows? drivethruhistor...
Follow us on Facebook: / drivethruhistory
Follow us on Instagram: / drivethruhistory
Praise be to our lord Jesus Christ our saviour
Amen 🙏 Jesus IS KING 👑 🤴
The red heifer, the 2000 cubit distance (please research guys), the return of Jesus, the red heifer bridge and it's corresponding gate, the observance of the veil torn and tombs opening, the replacement of the red heifer with jesus, all point to where he was crucified (and buried, twice!), to the mount of olives.
It is impossible for CHS to be the location of golgotha. St. John 19 tells us where the location was and had to be outside the Damascus gate not far from the busiest Road in Israel, the road to Damascus or Shechem was north from fortress Antonia through the Damascus gate. This locates the tomb and golgotha at the garden tomb along the way or path from gabbatha or Pilate's judgement seat. Moreover, Gospels of Mark and John also state the loculus was on the right as one entered the tomb. The garden tomb exactly aligns with the scriptures the CHS has no biblical features. The CHS was not on the north road nor a southwest road to Joppa (Yaffo). Ancient walls exhibit the location of CHS at a inside corner of Nehemiahs and Herod's wall which had no nearby gate. I have much research on this subject and the garden tomb is the location.
Exactly, it's called & marked to this day The Place of the Skull, 200 yards away from the Garden Toumb
what verse is that Damascus gate talked about?
Nope. The mount of olives. I suggest you start by reading the definitive archeological study by Norma Robertson, which tells you exactly where the temple was.
Incorrect. The mount of olives.
@@AlanMolstad There is no text describing how Yeshua walked to golgotha, obviously we speculate using deductive logic. The Damascus gate stood out because it was on the derecho Damascus which was a major northern arterial of travel to Galilee and northern Israel. Other fulfillments of the sacrificial lambs from Leviticus state the sacrifice must be taken north from the temple. The judgment seat of Pilate could have been west of Herod's palace. This is just a portion of evidence. The stone covering the tomb was extremely large and had been sealed with steel anchors. The stone has been found at a monastery on Mt. Nebo why did they move the stone so far away? The dimensions and analysis of mineral composition match the garden tomb. There are 4 crucifixion holes cut into the stone underneath the wooden deck built over this archaeological find. The scripture text says, the angel was on the right when the women came into tomb. Evidence.
Thanks for posting these. Dave and Cold Water are a true blessing in every way. Thanks guys. :-)
The mount of olives, directly east of the temple, which was toward the southern part of the temple mount, not in the middle, where most illustrations put it.
It's really a very good thing that Queen Helena missed the spot not just of the real Mt Sinai, but also Christ's crucifixion and tomb site. Imagine if a cult religion or cult faith laid claim to the correct spots and raised edifices where they shouldn't? God is wise. God is good. Praise God that the biblically correct sites are preserved to this day minus those edifices and human activities.
It is sad that so many are deceived by that “mystic’s” choice of Holy Sites. The people of Jerusalem, hundreds of years after it’s destruction, had no idea where anything happened. The city was leveled more than once. Every time anyone tired to honor a site as “holy” the Romans would rip it down. Helena’s money bought her a graveyard. Christ was laid in an unused tomb of a rich man in a garden.
The mount of olives was where he was crucified and buried.
Actually I believe it's the garden tomb where you can actually see the scull.
Nope. The key is knowing where the temple was, where the red heifer bridge was, and scripture. He was crucified on the mount of olives, buried in Joseph of A tomb on Thursday evening, removed from that and reburied before Friday sundown, he spent three days buried, but not in the same tomb.
@@javiersilva5409 nope, the garden tomb. It aligned with the scripture perfectly.
Nope. Mount of olives.
So like these series. Bless you. I feel the Holy Spirit when I watch. Truly a anointed ministry. May the Lord watch over and continue to use everyone involved for His glory.
This show is 100% Catholic Franciscan
GOD bless you
The prevailing wind from the mediterranean sea blows west to east, so if this was the site of crucifixion, the stench of decomposing bodies would have blown right across temple mount and the temple complex.....this is one piece of evidence against this site being the true site. The other site (near the garden tomb) has many convincing pieces of evidence that it is also an excellent contender for the site of Jesus' crucifixion
He was crucified on the Mount called Golgotha, the
" CRANE ," the reason is :.All the prophets were killed at Jerusalem !
At one ( 1 ) km outside of the city :
I mean at the city Jesus took our burden and showed it to every body of the surrounding area :
To be exposed to all that Satan has lost the battle !
No my friend. He was crucified and buried (twice) on golgotha, THE MOUNT OF OLIVES.
I love it!
There is no hill where the traditional site stands. There were tombs there but not a “garden” as the scripture points out. The place where the body of Jesus was laid was a “rich man’s tomb” in a garden. That does not describe the area where the Church of the Holy Sepulcher stands.
The area that many non Catholics claim to be the tomb of Christ is near a skull like hill and there is a rich man’s garden near by. The tomb was found empty many years ago. It had been buried in garbage, which would have been an expected practice of the Romans who had found Christians honoring a special site. It also had Christian symbols carved at the site.
The Church of the Holy Sepulcher is nothing like the place described by the gospel accounts. The ancient graves had to be emptied out in order to build the original church. Christ was placed in a rich man’s tomb in a garden. He was not placed in a public cemetery where many other tombs had already been occupied as is the place where the original church of the Holy Sepulcher stood.
The mother of Constantine was considered to be a “mystic” by Roman standards. By the time that she showed up in Israel hundreds of years after the destruction of Jerusalem or “Palestine, ” as they called it back then, no one knew where those sites were. Every time that anyone had tried to honor a site as holy the Romans would destroy it. Helena had a ton of money at her disposal. I am sure that the locals were happy to show her the sites that she was seeking….for a price.
Mr Stotts is a professed historian so he goes with the historical account but that does not make it so. Helena did miss where the Children of Israel crossed the Red Sea as well as most of the other historical sites. Jerusalem after it’s destruction is nothing like the Jerusalem of the day of the Lord Jesus.
Too bad you cannot get an entire Drive Thru History program on UA-cam.
Jesus was not crucified. A lookalike was. Which is why he is coming back. Because he did not die. And he will be back shortly. Daniel says the beast will change the times and law and abolish the sacrifice. And as we speak the heathen are trying very hard to make daylight savings permanent and the laws are being changed. And that is change the times and laws. Also they are trying to abolish animal sacrifice. Which is abolish the sacrifice. So the antichrist will be coming shortly and he will do it. And Jesus will come shortly after to slay the antichrist.
I think Ron Wyatt was more likely correct - he did all for the love of God not tourism or mass control of people
You are incorrect my friend. The crucifixion and burial were on the mount of olives.
@@javiersilva5409 the church of the Holy Sepulcher is located over an area of multiple carved out tombs….a graveyard. There are such tombs in many different areas around Jerusalem. Where that church stands was an ancient burial place for the poorer folk. The less wealthy Jewish people used caves as burial sites. They would carve out the stone to lay their dead in.
People who tour the area beneath the church of the Holy Sepulcher can see some of the carved out individual tombs. There is video of them if you look for it. Look it up. The mother of Constantine went to the holy land searching for the places where the stories took place. Constantine’s mother was a Roman “mystic.” Doubtfully a Christian believer. Most of the holy land traditional sites were picked out by her hundreds of years after Christ. Some of the sites that she picked out she found through her “mystic” abilities and some she paid locals for. It was hundreds of years after the time of Christ when she arrived. The locals had no idea where anything had been. The Romans had built pagan shrines in and around Jerusalem over the centuries in order to keep the Jews and Christians from establishing their religions again. The Romans had flattened Jerusalem and the surrounding areas several times by time Helena arrived. Every time that the Jews would try to rebuild the Romans would flatten the area again. The Romans wanted Judaism and Christianity wiped out forever. After Constantine made Christianity the state religion the believers had new problems to deal with.
The people living in Israel at the time Constantine’s mother arrived had no idea where anything had been located but were happy to take her money. Today we forget what happened last year! They had many generations pass by since the time of Christ.
Do some study of the history of the area and of the Bible before you decide what story is true and what is not.
The Old Testament scripture says that the Messiah would be laid in the tomb of a rich man. The gospel says that the tomb was in a garden near the crucifixion site and had a large stone covering the doorway of that tomb that could not easily be moved. If you look at the carved out stone tombs under the church of the Holy Sepulcher you would see that the tombs there are very small individual tombs that barely fit one body. Those tombs would have had a very small stone covering. There is no trace of a garden where the Church of the Holy Sepulcher is, just old individual carved tombs…a stone graveyard, not a garden.
So called experts say that the traditional site is correct but they are not following the scripture. Jesus was not laid in a little carved out area amongst other dead bodies. He was laid in a newly carved and large rich man’s tomb that probably had room for the rest of the family to also be laid to rest. It was in a beautiful garden and had a large stone that was rolled over the door to seal it up. The women going to anoint the body of the Lord Jesus were concerned about who they would get to help them roll away the stone.
Yes, there are tombs outside the city walls but there are more ancient tombs throughout the area. That area has been inhabited for thousands of years. Lots of tombs.
It's highly unlikely that Jesus was given any kind of proper burial. If he actually would have, his tomb would have been venerated by his followers as that was the tradition of Judaism.
The Gospel records reveal otherwise: he was buried in a rich man's tomb, one which had never been used. This fulfilled Isaiah's ancient prophecy: "He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth" ( Isaiah 53:9). About 700 years after Isaiah recorded this prophecy, Jesus was put to death along with two criminals and was buried in a tomb owned by a wealthy man, Joseph of Arimathea, as detailed in Matthew 27:57-61, Mark 15:42-47, Luke 23:50:56 and John 19:38-42. Then on the third day he resurrected.
@@davidmusicmaker The canonical gospels are not historically reliable. They are not eyewitness accounts and are anonymous literary works.
@@nonprogrediestregredi1711 , they are irrefutably eyewitness accounts, and they are most certainly not anonymous. You are completely misguided. But it makes no difference, see, because until you humble yourself and meet God on his terms, you will not know the truth.
@@davidmusicmaker The canonical gospels are not eyewitness accounts. They are literary works written in highly educated Koine Greek decades after the events described within. Per the synoptic problem, "Matthew" and "Luke" do verbatim copying of "Mark", the earliest gospel, for as long as twenty eight words straight in many, many places. Independent eyewitness accounts do not have those parallels. Beyond that, they use literary devices such as irony, foreshadowing, staircase parallelism, and inclusio structure. Each gospel is written with its own theologically driven agenda. They were written post Jewish war and progressively try to absolve the Roman empire of blame for the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth. They portray Pilate as weak and submissive, contrary to what extra biblical sources say about him.
Scholars acknowledge that the author of "Luke" used the works of Josephus as part of his literature. The author of "Mark" almost certainly modeled from the works of Homer, as there are many parallels.
The names attached to these stories were given to make them more authoritative to early Christians. In fact, as Ian Mills of Duke University has stated, the later titles of "The Gospel According To (insert name here)" is not how Greek authors of antiquity titled their works. And btw, Ian Mills is a Christian, yet understands that these are anonymous literary works.
Then you have the problems of contradictions and how the authors were knowledgeable of events that they did not witness, per the text. The birth narratives are contradictory, the day of the crucifixion is contradictory, and even the number of donkeys that Jesus rides is contradictory, just to name a few.
I'm sorry David, but it is you who are misguided. Perhaps reading the scholarship done on these works would help enlighten you. I would be happy to recommend some serious modern scholars if you like.
@@nonprogrediestregredi1711 , I read , write and speak Koine Greek, as well as a good deal of contemporary Greek; it actually comes in handy when you want to do word studies and cross-referencing; I highly recommend it. The Gospels need not be independent accounts in order to be reliable. There is absolutely no need to discount interdependence; why would interdependence render the accounts unreliable? Why should we denigrate consensus in regard to that which was handed down apostolically? On the contrary, some interdependence serves as reinforcement. And why would you not consider the value, the weight, of the earliest sources-the oral accounts that eventally found their way to papyrus? ... And I ask you: in what way does an individualistic, theologically driven agenda necessitate boldfaced fabrication of the events in the life of Jesus? ... And where do you see absolution of blame in the Gospels' portrayal of Rome's role in the crucifixion of Jesus? It was co-conspiratorial, according to the Gospels: Jewish leaders AND Roman authorities. Cite an example in the Gospels where you see this absolution of blame. And where in the Gospels do we see that Pilate was a perpetually weak figure? If he yielded to populist outctry in one particular case-the trial and verdict of Jesus of Nazareth-are we supposed to automatically assume that by nature Pilate behaved this way, in case after case after case? ... Cite for me, which scholar has claimed that Luke relied on Josephus? I have yet to see any tangible evidence of such a claim. But even if the writer of Luke HAD drawn some historical data from Josephus (a dubious claim), a contemporary of Luke, how would that invalidate the Gospel of Luke? ... Luke was probably aware of Mark's earlier account, but rather than rely on Mark, a more probable source for Luke would have been the Q Source of the sayings of Jesus. Moreover, Luke would have also relied on what we know as the L Source for the remainder of his writings. In summary, there is no evidence to support Luke's reliance on Mark's earlier account. ... I have read Homer's writings extensively, and I am very familiar with the Gospel of Mark's style and substance, and I fail to see an obvious parallel or anything that would even remotely suggest plagiarism. ... As for titles for the individual Gospels, the oral tradition could easily have served as a corroborative influence, a perpetuation of authorship. Why should we dismiss its role? ... As for "contradictions," we encounter VERY few questionable/problematic passages when conducting a harmony of the Gospels. Many of the so-called problems arise as we move forward, away from the earliest manuscripts. Subsequent retellings occasionally embellished or omitted that which had already been recorded, that which was more reliable. We do NOT place our trust in the later manuscripts when we are conducting textual criticism. Many scholars have debated and offerred reasonable explanations for the seemingly contradictory passages. Volumes have been written throughout church history, addressing these portions of the Gospels which seem unharmonizable. We would have to sit down and analyze these, one by one, to arrive at a reasonably unified conclusion. As for recommendations of scholars who have devoted their livelihoods to textual criticism, don't assume that the modern ones are the only ones whose perspectives we ought to consider. But even if you do, for every modern scholar that denies the authenticity of the Gospel accounts, you will find many who see enough evidence to recognize authenticity.
Grace and Peace to you; may the light of the Gospel and the love of Christ fill your heart with that peace that surpasses understanding.
🙏
Perth Amboy NJ
I enjoy the short videos and really love the drive-by history. I’ve done a lot of study about this particular claim between this site and Gordon’s Calvary. The problem with the traditional site is there has never been a Roman document uncovered that has claimed to use that particular site for crucifixion. the Romans always used the same spot which was discovered to be where two roads came in to the north gate at the foot of Gordon’s Calvary. Some very good work has been done and several Roman documents have concurred that this is probably the site of Christ crucifixion.
Incorrect. Norma Robertson. Red heifer bridge. Scripture. Torn veil. Return site. Crucifixion and burial (twice!) were on the mount of olives.
@@javiersilva5409 ?????
hmmm
Ron Wyatt Has Got You Beat For Truth And Accuracy.
Absolutely not. Jesus could only have crucified and buried in one place. It ties in with the location of the temple, the red heifer bridge, and golgatha, and the return of the substitute for the red heifer and jesus return..golgatha was on the mount of olives. And BTW, he was buried twice..once on Thursday, then moved before Friday night to another tomb.
Nope.
Nobody knows for sure where Christ was crucified or where He was entombed until his Resurrection, but I’m pretty sure the crucifixion did not take place here.
you have to listen to the Holy Spirit
Ron Wyatt found it
The biggest liar on the planet. Here are the clues. Norma Robertson. True temple location. Solomons gates. Red heifer bridge. Jesus replaces red heifer. Jesus return site. Torn veil observed. Crucifixion and burial of Jesus was on the mount of olives.
Read the scriptures ! It was Skull Hill, The Place of the Skull.which is 200 yards away from the real Garden Toumb where there is a cistern for feeding the garden
Nope. Norma Robertson figured it all out. Her archeological work established where the temple was, where Solomons gate was, which led to the red heifer(the sacrifice) bridge, which led to the mount of olives. where golgotha was. And that's where jesus was crucified, buried (twice), and where the Roman soldier saw the veil torn, and where jesus returns. ALL ON THE MOUNT OF OLIVES. IT TIES IN WITH ALL THE SCRIPTURES.
Absolutely not. It was on the mount of olives.
Norma Robertsons work clearly established where the 2nd temple was...not under the dome of the rock, but south of that, under the mosque. Solomons gate was east of the temple, and opened to the red heifer bridge, the sacrifice to cleanse the temple. The bridge crossed the kudron valley to the mount of olives, where the red heifer was sacrificed, and where people would cross the bridge to get into the temple. There, before they crossed, they were asked what their lineage was, to ensure they were Israelite. This was Golgotha, the head counting place. This was where jesus was crucified, to replace the red heifer, he was also buried on the mount of olives, first, in Joseph's tomb, on Thursday, then he was moved to another tomb to ensure he was buried before Friday night. Symbolically, Jesus will return to the mount of olives, where he was crucified and buried. Please do your research.
I have read that Golgatha, or the place of the skull is where Adam's skull was buried with three seeds from the tree of life, and when Jesus's blood ran down onto the skull it sanctified even Adam's sin. Anyone else read this?
The dolorous passion of Christ
its been said only 2 crucifixions of that time n jesus wasnt 1 of them. thoughts?? xxx
Then our faith would be in vain
@@Pikkon-17 aww sweetie ..u do know that religion is just a platform to leap off from to ascension, dont u. maybe I'm presuming but do u know there are millions of other races out there? ..the creed n the colour n the name wont matter ..source/god is always there. outside of this universe n everything in it. we hold the god spark n this makes us gods too, when u acknowledge this n truly stand in ur soveriegnty.
been 2yrs since i wrote this. can u imagine the journey of been on to know my truth n be worthy of spreading the word
we came here to raise gaias/mother earths' vibration to 5D ..the ripple effect into the rest of the universe will be dramatic. n fancy this ..we are the glory. we make this happen ..this is our sovereignty, right there
been good to chat but must get back to 5D
3D is too dense for those who have been to heaven n truly dont wanna return to these dense vibrations any time soon again. love light n life dear 1. know u are truly loved🤗💕💖 xxx
@@intenselyrich3517uk never was about religion but a relationship
@@Pikkon-17 correct! it's us going within to find our higher self n not outside ourselves to try n be happy ..as were taught on earth school. it on ur way to graduation. congrats! it's a hella Brady path but so many rewards for remebering what we have to forget to all be equal (as is everything that gaia has birthed. earth stone plants ..all the things.. to human beings n whales. n everything is connected 🤗💕💖 love light n life💖💖💖 xxx
Arnt you guys supposed to be investigators?
Golgotha was on the mount of olives. Doesn't anyone read the Bible and do research anymore.