What if Jesus survivied the cross or was not crucified?

You know I have seen and heard a lot of things in my life, some of which make the issue of resurrection some what tame, this of course beyond the fact that animals such as starfish and worms, grow back body parts spontaneously after they have been severed for the body, ribs when broken heal and return into place and that there is no such thing as cancer of the heart.

Having worked within the social service agency I have heard of incidences in which a child�s DNA matches perfectly with her mothers in every way, in other words, there was no father, this is of course no common but it does happen. Within the context of these events by far the most common occurrence, is that a girl is born, but as I was told, boys being born in this way is considered rare.

The issue of spontaneous remission from disorders and or afflictions that causes death, is a statistical reality and the ability to heal another from what is often described as faith healing, has been a part of mankind�s history long before writing was ever even considered.

Continuing, the issues of resurrection from the dead are another event, which has it basis in cultures other than Christianity, the event in of itself is rare, but it is something that happens. (Nonetheless, as Jagd has so poignantly suggested, in those days they did not have ICUs and of course as a result neither did they have EEGs).

Beyond this is other very strange phenomenon, in respect to what does seem possible, with regard to the spectrum of potentials of what we are. These to one extent or another can often be defined within the context of oddities, but some can even be related to survival. Within the framework of what was known as the Experiments of Anubis, is one such potential, which established that Mitosis (division) could occur upon the multicultural level, produce two distinct younger versions of a person, who was near death.

Of all the potential and already suggested conclusions in respect to what makes such phenomena possible, one which has not been explored, even in respect to society as a whole, is the very simple idea that what we define as prophets, are events related to favorable mutations and or with respect to the issue of punctuated Equilibria.

From the context of explaining why prophets are predicted to come, well.... simply stated, experience had taught man long before the birth of Jesus, that people are periodically born with abilities, in respect to what is observed in prophets. It also seems apparent that environment is a factor, in respect to the development of the ego, of the individuals in question.


In the sense they were better than the common man for interacting with the interconnectedness inherent in reality, one could conclude they were much closer to God, and so unique in that sense. But essentially they were human beings, whose inherent capacity to perceive and interact with reality, could be defined in the context of the next step, in regards to human evolution.

Any thoughts?

Originally posted by Leveller

Originally posted by herm
Yep, G, and the "Saang Graal," or Holy Grail refers to this surviving blood line of JC&MM. The Pillory Du Sion/Grail conspiracy/mega hoax/secret cosmic game is one of the more puzzling aspects of our culture...It seems to connect to everything

It seems a couple of comments here are based on "Holy Grail and The Holy Blood".
The confusion of "Holy Grail" le saint graal as Sang r�al' or "royal blood" originated with Sir Thomas Malory's misspelling in his Le Morte D'Arthur (15th C). There is no valid etymological basis for Baigent, Leigh & Lincoln's contention that "holy grail" means "holy blood".
The authors of "Holy Grail and the Holy Blood" took the wrong ball and ran with it. A simple cock up but one that invalidates a huge part of their argument.
I don't follow the Merovingian line that comes from the same book either. Too many authors make huge leaps of imagination, intersperse it with a bit of fact to cover up those leaps and expect you to believe that they have found the secret.

As for wether Jesus died? Some have taken his death to mean a spiritual death and resuurection rather than a physical one and this doesn't seem to contradict anything that was written in the Bible.
There are a myriad of theories that it could have been Simon on the cross, or Barabbas or Jesus was crucified but let down before he died. The whole Orthodox Christian faith is based on the physical death though and it would be a huge blow to find out that they could be wrong.

But the answer is that nobody knows. There are lots of little bits and peices that you can put together and draw your own conclusions from. But it will all merely be speculation.

I guess it all comes down to a question of belief.

And so you will find with every book/theory written around this issue...they take a "ball" and run with it denying logic and contradictions and alternative translations. I have probably every book written on these theories...they all end up being dogmatic and senseless before you can get halfway through them.

Someday I'll write my own book on this stuff, at least I have found something that is unique.

These are not religions Sapphire, though the proselytizers of them often sound like preachers, they are merely hypotheses - and usually obsessions.

Consider that this is one of those conspiracies theories, you find very little on the internet about......

Also consider, that what is being suggested, applies to the future as well as the past.

Any thoughts?

Originally posted by Leveller

Originally posted by herm
Yep, G, and the "Saang Graal," or Holy Grail refers to this surviving blood line of JC&MM. The Pillory Du Sion/Grail conspiracy/mega hoax/secret cosmic game is one of the more puzzling aspects of our culture...It seems to connect to everything

It seems a couple of comments here are based on "Holy Grail and The Holy Blood".
The confusion of "Holy Grail" le saint graal as Sang r�al' or "royal blood" originated with Sir Thomas Malory's misspelling in his Le Morte D'Arthur (15th C). There is no valid etymological basis for Baigent, Leigh & Lincoln's contention that "holy grail" means "holy blood".
The authors of "Holy Grail and the Holy Blood" took the wrong ball and ran with it. A simple cock up but one that invalidates a huge part of their argument.
I don't follow the Merovingian line that comes from the same book either. Too many authors make huge leaps of imagination, intersperse it with a bit of fact to cover up those leaps and expect you to believe that they have found the secret.

As for wether Jesus died? Some have taken his death to mean a spiritual death and resuurection rather than a physical one and this doesn't seem to contradict anything that was written in the Bible.
There are a myriad of theories that it could have been Simon on the cross, or Barabbas or Jesus was crucified but let down before he died. The whole Orthodox Christian faith is based on the physical death though and it would be a huge blow to find out that they could be wrong.

But the answer is that nobody knows. There are lots of little bits and peices that you can put together and draw your own conclusions from. But it will all merely be speculation.

I guess it all comes down to a question of belief.

Good arguments i must say. However, what makes you think the Bible is any more real or valid than other books like the holy grail and the holy blood or even the book of Enoch for that matter which many have rejected in the church as heresay, other than, the apostles were ultra holy and they knew what the hell they were talking about because God said so don't question anything because thats just the way it is?

[Edited on 13-11-2003 by Sapphire]

Originally posted by outsidethemilkglass
for more read up everyone, The Davinci Code, which everyone is reading right now......but oh well.....it the perspective of the gnostic gospels in it which do require some research. I truly enjoyed this book.

Yes i've heard much about this book in particular, and i'm looking forward to reading it as well. I happen to like the gnostics because they're raw and un-censored. Down With Censorship!!!

Originally posted by Valhall

These are not religions Sapphire, though the proselytizers of them often sound like preachers, they are merely hypotheses - and usually obsessions.

Valhall, all books that are unverifiable should be considered as such yes. To blindly agree on anything without verification is ignorant. And yes, this would include the Bible as not all of it can be verified. Having been 'altered by the church' doesnt make me feel very good about blindly accepting something a man wrote and then told me to believe 'just because'. It would be like a scientist telling people to believe we came from the planet krypton without any evidence backing it up, just because he has a degree in science and went to harvard univ. People would obviously laff at him correct?
Did God himself not tell us to question all things? I'm sure All didn't mean Some 6k yrs ago

[Edited on 13-11-2003 by Sapphire]

From Sapphire
Valhall, all books that are unverifiable should be considered as such yes. To blindly agree on anything without verification is ignorant. And yes, this would include the Bible as not all of it can be verified. Having been 'altered by the church' doesnt make me feel very good about blindly accepting something a man wrote and then told me to believe 'just because'.

Yet you believe that Jesus was not crucified or did not die on much flimsier evidence which cannot be verified.

Jagd what about the verses in Acts we discussed in the past, which clearly present that Jesus did not die on cross?

From Toltec
Jagd what about the verses in Acts we discussed in the past, which clearly present that Jesus did not die on cross?

Would you please post those passages from the Book of Acts, because I cannot find them.

Originally posted by jagdflieger

From Sapphire
Valhall, all books that are unverifiable should be considered as such yes. To blindly agree on anything without verification is ignorant. And yes, this would include the Bible as not all of it can be verified. Having been 'altered by the church' doesnt make me feel very good about blindly accepting something a man wrote and then told me to believe 'just because'.

Yet you believe that Jesus was not crucified or did not die on much flimsier evidence which cannot be verified.

Precisely, if i did not grow i would not learn and my ideas would never change, and growth is a good thing wouldn't you agree? However, i don't remember stating i believed he wasn't crucified on a cross, i merely stated an opinion or theory as to what 'could' have occured based on other books such as the gnostics.

[Edited on 13-11-2003 by Sapphire]

Originally posted by jagdflieger

From Sapphire
Valhall, all books that are unverifiable should be considered as such yes. To blindly agree on anything without verification is ignorant. And yes, this would include the Bible as not all of it can be verified. Having been 'altered by the church' doesnt make me feel very good about blindly accepting something a man wrote and then told me to believe 'just because'.

Yet you believe that Jesus was not crucified or did not die on much flimsier evidence which cannot be verified.

flimsier evidence? i believe i mentioned 2 maybe 3 books i've read besides the Bible. How do you figgure they are any less valid than the Good Book is?

That would be a repost Jagd, one we discussed in detail, if you are having problems with your memory, my advise is you take the time to do your own search.


For all other members take a look at this.....

Acts 5:30: The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree [emphasis added].

Acts 10:39: And we were witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree [emphasis added]

As well as attached link.....

www.bobkwebsite.com...



[Edited on 14-11-2003 by Toltec]

From Toltec
Jagd what about the verses in Acts we discussed in the past, which clearly present that Jesus did not die on cross?

From Toltec
That would be a repost Jagd, one we discussed in detail, if you are having problems with your memory, my advise is you take the time to do your own search.

Then repost Toltec, we never discussed the Book of Acts.

Personally Totlec, I think you are just "blowing smoke". In this thread the only passage from the Bible which was discussed was 1 Corinthians 15:14 - 15:20

1 Corinthians 15:14
14. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.
15. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised.
16. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either.
17. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.
18. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost.
19. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.
20. But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.
21. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man.

These passages make it plain that Jesus died on the cross for it He did not die then He could not be "..raised ... from the dead" as stated in this passage. And again we see "Christ has indeed been raised from the dead". This says that He died. Now you speak of the Book of Acts. I did a search on "acts" on this forum and found no references from the book of Acts on any portion of this forum for the last week.

Again I think you are "blowing smoke". Now please qoute your passages from the Book of Acts.

The site I just posted then must be an illusion huh as well as the biblical quotes (edited the post prior to this)???

Sematics Jagd and keep in mind (for the future) I save everything we did discuss this matter at this site, several months ago, that is the truth.

You are lying Jagd

[Edited on 14-11-2003 by Toltec]

The site I just posted then must be an illusion huh as well as the biblical quotes???

Sematics Jagd and keep in mind (for the future) I save everything we did discuss this matter at this site, several months ago, that is the truth.

You are lying Jagd

[Edited on 14-11-2003 by Toltec]

Indeed you posted after the fact and these quotes from Acts use the "slew" which means that He died. Also you edited the link in after the fact of my post. You talk about me lying. What a "creep tactic" you have just pulled. Indeed make a post and then edit it to add links and information after a reply in an attempt to discredit some one. That is a low down tactic unfitting for any one who claims to be a moderator. Futhermore you point is still unproven for these passages clearly state that Jesus died and was crucified.

Acts 5:30: The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree [emphasis added].
Acts 10:39: And we were witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree [emphasis added]

The term "slew" means killed.

See link.....


www.abovetopsecret.com...

I did not post after the fact I simply edited the post rather than make a new one.The link in question was included in my favorites and with respect to an ATS search, by using the link as a pirameter.

It is apparent, you have lied or are in some way disabled.

As far as your accusations let me be clear it is to date the behavior you seem best at.


Cleary we discussed this in the past

Beyond any shadow of doubt the passages in question refutes what you claim.

It is also apparent you are not prepared to acknowledge the time involved in conducting a proper search.

Any thoughts?

[Edited on 14-11-2003 by Toltec]

Originally posted by Toltec

However, I now want to share with you something, which is perhaps, one of the most disturbing schools of thought, both for the Catholic and Protestant Church. But what is supremely important, is that the real message of Jesus and the truth of what he both says and represents, is just as valid even if he did not die on the cross.

His death and resurrection can be seen both on a spiritual level and a literal one and to the believer it matters not which view is taken so long as the truth of what is represented is accepted. The truth is that the passion of Christ is the physical embodiment of the love of God.

Any thoughts?

This is a very interesting theory. As a matter of theological debate and pondering, it is at least worth thinking about. If one is truly seeking the truth, they must consider their understanding of that truth from every possible angle. To determine the strength of one's argument, one must first try to refute it.

I personally agree with the point the author is trying to make. The teachings and truth of Christ are the physical embodiment of the love of God The symbolism involved in the crucifixion, regardless of if it happened or not, was to demonstrate the enveloping love of God that flowed out from Him to cover all of mankind. The blood of Jesus washing away the sins of man is not a literal description. Nobody took the blood that spilled from Jesus and washed all of mankind. It is figurative and was meant to serve as an example for us. We were supposed to learn that, just as Jesus/God loved mankind so much that He gave his life for them, we too, should love our fellow man enough to be willing to die in order to save each other.

The resurrection, as well as all of the other miracles Jesus performed, were done for the benefit of those who lived during that time. They were done so that those who saw His works would believe he was the Christ, since they didn't believe His words.

The people that are spoken about as being "condemned" are those who think they know God, because they read the Bible or other scriptures, but who have completely ignored the message that was being given. Those who misconstrue His teachings, for their own purposes. The greatest and only unforgivable sin, is to believe in the "Cosmic Truth" or God, and intentionally act against it. Hypocrites are the ones who will not be granted Peace after death. Hell is the inability to rejoin with the Infinite Spirit, not a place of pain and torment in a physical sense. The ability to experience physical pain is a reaction of the nerves in our bodies sending signals to our brains when they encounter unpleasant stimuli. How could fire and brimstone burn or torture a spirit that has left it's body?


Just before the crucifixion, He told his disciples that after He left the earth God would send a Comforter, the Spirit of Truth, to replace Him and teach the rest of mankind about the existence and love of God. People who are of other faiths or religions, who have never heard of Jesus or learned His teachings, are not going to Hell. They are judged by the way they lived their lives and how they treated their fellow man. If they believe in the "Spirit of Truth" or the existence of God (not just the Christian version) then they are believing in the same things that Jesus taught. I have read several of the beliefs of other religions, Buddhism, Hinduism, the Ancient Egyptians, etc. and they all have the same story in different versions. The biggest difference is the names and settings in which the stories take place. The message they teach is almost exactly the same.


What makes those people who believe in the infallibility of the Bible, so sure that nothing has been misinterpreted thru all it's various translations? The statement in the Bible that says God won't allow anything to be changed? Isn't that a little convenient? It's believed that the Bible is infallible because it says it is.

I happen to believe in the teachings and truth of Jesus that were recorded by John (since he was an actual witness). As for the rest of it, what makes the claim that the Bible was the inspired Word of God, as dictated thru man, any more credible than similar claims of other religions.

I realize that this will not be a popular theory, but I hope that people will view it with an open-mind. In the spirit of the pursuit of Truth.

Hey Jezebel, my impression is the most important thing we can do at present, is look at everything we have been taught with an open mind. Beyond that we need to de-emphasize the value of semantics (ie..red tape)

Any thoughts?

Originally posted by Toltec
Hey Jezebel, my impression is the most important thing we can do at present, is look at everything we have been taught with an open mind. Beyond that we need to de-emphasize the value of semantics (ie..red tape)

Any thoughts?

I completely agree. Unfortunately, that is not the view of the majority, when it comes to their beliefs. Rather than seeking the truth, most people I've talked to lately think that they already understand everything there is to know. The truth is that we will NEVER know everything, and thinking we do only inhibits us. The "I am all-knowing" complex is what caused all of the red-tape to begin with.

Actually the majority is those who are secular in respect to religious belief, despite the apparent vocal effort of fundamentalist to say they are the majority is a lie.

Any thoughts?