Did Jesus really die?

WarminIndy

Then that kind of makes it a miracle.

Nope. Apply Occam's Razor. The simplest answer with the least assumptions is usually the correct answer. Miracle? No. We can explain it naturally; he didn't die.

windword
reply to post by adjensen

 

"Christ" means anointed,

That's extremely simplistic, but I wouldn't expect any less from you.

Have you really become this petty? That's what it means, in Greek. Look it up, if you don't believe me.

which he was, by Mary in the Pharisee's house

What a stretch! Why wasn't he annointed at birth? At his Bar Mitzvah? When he was baptized? By a priest in the temple where he read aloud?

Jesus WAS a Nazarene. Nazarenes didn't DO annionting.

What the heck was a Nazarene? In Jesus' time, I mean, not the bunch that cropped up long after the fact (your linked website, for example.)

Are you confusing that with a Nazarite?

BULL! The followers of Jesus were not called Christians during the lifetime of Tacticus. However, the cults of Chrestus among the slave population of Rome were high in number. These slaves posed a lot of problems that were easily mended by Nero's blame.

Let's wake up here, shall we?

From the accounts of Acts, Josephus, Pliny and Tacticus, they were, indeed, called Christians in that time. That's multiple sources, all of which say the same thing. This is contrasted with your claim, which is put forth, on the tiniest fragment of evidence, by a modern day Christ mythicist with books to sell.

Unless you have hard evidence that "cults of Crestus" originated in Judea, had their leader killed by Pontius Pilate and magically disappeared one day, only to be replaced the same day with a group who had those same attributes, but were correctly proclaimed Christians in four other sources, you're laughably wrong.

There is NO evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ outside the Bible.

Perhaps if you put aside your irrational hatred for Christianity, you'd realize that there is sufficient evidence of the existence of Jesus to result in almost 100% consensus among historians who study that era that he did, indeed, exist -- historians don't take things on blind faith, as you seem to be doing with this "Chrestian" nonsense.

AlienBuddha
reply to post by adjensen

 

This explains why, after Jesus died and a Roman soldier thrust a spear through Jesus’ side (probably His right side, piercing both the lungs and the heart), blood and water came from His side just as John recorded in his Gospel.

A) "Probably," not "definitely."

"Probably his right side", is what the source says.

B) Your full "source" says fluid, not blood and water which is what the Bible says. Big difference.

For the love of Pete. Are you really that obstinate? THERE WERE NO MEDICAL EXAMINERS IN THE TIME OF CHRIST. It is to be expected that whatever non-blood fluid built up in there would be described as water, not as "viscus thoracic fluid."

Again, we are taking the word of an anonymous Roman soldier in an anonymously written story from 2000 years ago.

No, you are taking the word of the author of The Gospel of John, whom the text states was an eyewitness of the events, and who is the only Apostle that the Bible says was present at the crucifixion.

reply to post by adjensen


I can totally imagine the proceedings of that event to have allowed as clear and thorough an examination as would have satisfied authorities in this day and age. Now that I've gotten the sarcastic reply out of the way, it's still a pointless argument. Even if a well-founded case is made for the invalidity of the examination of Jesus' corpse, there is no way to determine what story should replace it - given there is no other story. Whether or not it was engineered, once you scrap the official story, you've got nothing, because there is no other story, is there?

adjensen

"Probably his right side", is what the source says.

I'm well aware; I quoted it. It says, "probably His right side, piercing both the lungs and the heart." Why probably? Because that's what they need it to be in order to fit their "He died and resurrected" narrative. It's confirmation bias.

For the love of Pete. Are you really that obstinate?

No, I'm being thorough.

THERE WERE NO MEDICAL EXAMINERS IN THE TIME OF CHRIST.

So? Still doesn't mean that this anonymous Roman soldier written about by an anonymous Gospel writer in a book 2000 years ago was right.

No, you are taking the word of the author of The Gospel of John,

Whom is anonymous. We have no idea who wrote it or how many people actually wrote all of these Gospels. None of them attached their names... unless you believe that the disciples Matthew and John and Paul's companions John Mark and Luke actually wrote these, which is laughable and false. If you believe that then you probably also believe that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible himself including writing about his own death in the past tense.

And even if John Mark and Luke wrote their respective Gospels it would be nothing but hearsay and hardly first-hand eyewitness accounts

whom the text states was an eyewitness of the events,

Can you say, "Circular reasoning"?

and who is the only Apostle that the Bible says was present at the crucifixion.

Circular reasoning. And if this were true then he also wrote about himself in the third person.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Actually, there are other stories.

reply to post by adjensen

Perhaps if you put aside your irrational hatred for Christianity, you'd realize that there is sufficient evidence of the existence of Jesus to result in almost 100% consensus among historians who study that era that he did, indeed, exist -- historians don't take things on blind faith, as you seem to be doing with this "Chrestian" nonsense.

Not any more. History isn't so hidden any more. The RCC and their doctrine is being exposed to reasonable people everyday who are questioning and rejecting it.

Christianity doesn't need a virgin, water turned into wine, a innocent man's blood sacrifice for sin, a resurrection, the Eucharist, penances, indulgences, etc.

I don't hate Christianity. True Christianity only needs the words and teachings of Jesus. Too bad the New Testament is so stingy with them.

Righi also cited Pliny the Younger, who, in the early second century (112), reported that "Christians were singing a hymn to Christ as to a god." Notice how late this reference is; and notice the absence of the name "Jesus." The passage, if accurate, could have referred to any of the other self-proclaimed "Christs" (messiahs) followed by Jews who thought they had found their anointed one. Pliny's account is not history, since he is only relaying what other people believed. No one doubts that Christianity was in existence by this time. Offering this as proof would be the equivalent of quoting modern Mormons about their beliefs in the historical existence of the Angel Moroni or the miracles of Joseph Smith--doubtless useful for documenting the religious beliefs, but not the actual facts.

Tacitus, another second-century Roman writer who alleged that Christ had been executed by sentence of Pontius Pilate, is likewise cited by Righi. Written some time after 117 C.E., Tacitus' claim is more of the same late, second-hand "history." There is no mention of "Jesus," only "the sect known as Christians" living in Rome being persecuted, and "their founder, one Christus." Tacitus claims no first-hand knowledge of Christianity. No historical evidence exists that Nero persecuted Christians--Nero did persecute Jews, so perhaps Tacitus was confused. There was certainly not a "great crowd" of Christians in Rome around 60 C.E., as Tacitus put it, and, most damning, the term "Christian" was not even in use in the first century. No one in the second century ever quoted this passage of Tacitus. In fact, it appears almost word-for-word in the fourth-century writings of Sulpicius Severus, where it is mixed with other obvious myths. Citing Tacitus, therefore, is highly suspect and adds virtually nothing to the evidence for a historical Jesus.
ffrf.org...

What the heck was a Nazarene? In Jesus' time, I mean, not the bunch that cropped up long after the fact (your linked website, for example.)

We know from ancient documents that both Essenes and Pythagoreans shared many things in common. Both were vegetarian, both wore white, and both were deeply immersed in Qabbalistic studies. Pythagoras was nicknamed "the long haired one" which further links him with the northern Nazarean Essenes who were all Nazarites (long hairs). History has preserved for us a link between Pythagoras and the Mt. Carmel Essenes:

"In Phoenicia he (Pythagoras) conversed with the prophets who were the descendants of Moses the physiologist, and with many others, as well as the local heirophants . . . . After gaining all he could from the Phoenician Mysteries, he found that they had originated from the sacred rites of Egypt, forming as it were an Egyptian colony. . . . On the Phoenician coast under Mt. Carmel, where, in the Temple on the peak, Pythagoras for the most part had dwelt in solitude . . . Mount Carmel, which they knew to be more sacred than other mountains, and quite inaccessible to the vulgar..."
www.essene.com...

The Mount Carmel, where Elijah's Cave is found, housed a set of Essenes called Nazoreans. A tiny farm village just miles away from Mount Carmel, was found the "Nazareth" settlement.

Interesting to note that Jesus is always depicted in long hair and a white robe, yet Paul says long hair is shameful for men......

AlienBuddha

WarminIndy

Then that kind of makes it a miracle.

Nope. Apply Occam's Razor. The simplest answer with the least assumptions is usually the correct answer. Miracle? No. We can explain it naturally; he didn't die.

We can also say He resurrected.

If "everyone" is "connected" then could Jesus have been connected to the source of life? And is there no room for miracles in a universe of connectedness? Why do people have faith in reincarnation? Much of that is passed off also as imagination. But people accept reincarnation before resurrection.

Hmmm, interesting that people will grasp the concept of reincarnation from Eastern Mysticism with all its rites, rituals and symbolism but then dismiss the Christians for believing in the resurrection, when we weren't even the first ones to believe in it.

But why dismiss God because of Christianity, but accept The Supreme Being of Hinduism? When people follow the mysteries of Hinduism, which is the basis for all Eastern Mysticism, why don't they acknowledge The Supreme Being?

The Supreme Being

Isn't this exactly what we say about God? That He is One and that the universe was created by His word?

he concept of monotheism is not new to Hinduism. It is as old as the Vedas themselves. References to One indivisible and mysterious God are found in the Rigveda itself. The concept is the central theme of all the Upanishads in which He is variously referred as Brahman, Iswara, Hiranyagarbha, Asat etc.

Could this be why people assume Jesus went to India, because the Rig Vedas and the Baghavad Gita are saying the exact same thing about monotheism, to the point they acknowledge God as a male?

Truly the Brahman of Hinduism represents the Highest principle which the human mind can ever conceive of. He is not God of just one world or a few worlds, but represents the entire known and unknown Universe as well as the past, the present and the future that is yet to come.

We say the same thing, that the WORLDS were created by Him. I think that early Hinduism, before the Buddha, was the same as early Judaism. Jesus, He who WAS and IS and IS TO COME.

I believe that God has revealed Himself throughout time and to all different people. Abraham came from the Vedic Age when monotheism was understood by them, but since then, tantric cults have defined God with new meanings.

While the students of Upanishads tried to understand Him through the path of knowledge and there by made it the exclusive domain of a few enlightened persons, the bhakti marg or the path of devotion brought Him closer to the masses. The One Imperishable and Ancient Being was no more a God of remote heights, but down to the earth, ready to help His needy devotees and willing to perform miracles if necessary.

They believed in miracles, and they are the basis for Hinduism.

reply to post by windword


The issue about the long hair, first of all, what we see of Jesus in art is from the artist's own perception. But there were Nazarites as far back as Samson, his parents were Nazarites and it was custom for the Nazarites to not cut their hair except for making vows.

Nazarite Vow

Psst, I'm not RCC. I do think a little differently than them.

reply to post by WarminIndy


Yep. And Josephus and Paul both took the vow and spent the required time (3 years) initiating with the Nazorites/Nazoreans/Nazarenes.

Afterwards, Paul shaved his head. So, why did he say long hair is shameful? Maybe because he was covering up the truth about Jesus. He also calls vegetarians "weak." Did Paul hate the Nazoreans? Their writings, refer to a "traitor" that studied with them, then betrayed them.

reply to post by WarminIndy

We can also say He resurrected.

If "everyone" is "connected" then could Jesus have been connected to the source of life? And is there no room for miracles in a universe of connectedness? Why do people have faith in reincarnation? Much of that is passed off also as imagination. But people accept reincarnation before resurrection.

Resurrection is the idea of a dead body being re-animated. YUCK!

In my opinion, the symbol of the resurrected body is a corrupted allegory for reincarnation. I believe that Jesus, if he existed, taught reincarnation. If Jesus is, in fact, a compilation of spiritual teachers, his teachings mirror Buddha's, and Buddha taught reincarnation.

Reincarnation is nothing miraculous.

windword
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

We can also say He resurrected.

If "everyone" is "connected" then could Jesus have been connected to the source of life? And is there no room for miracles in a universe of connectedness? Why do people have faith in reincarnation? Much of that is passed off also as imagination. But people accept reincarnation before resurrection.

Resurrection is the idea of a dead body being re-animated. YUCK!

In my opinion, the symbol of the resurrected body is a corrupted allegory for reincarnation. I believe that Jesus, if he existed, taught reincarnation. If Jesus is, in fact, a compilation of spiritual teachers, his teachings mirror Buddha's, and Buddha taught reincarnation.

Reincarnation is nothing miraculous.

I would say its the natural way of things... but nothing short of miraculous...

life itself is a miracle, so how could reincarnation be anything less?

reply to post by AlienBuddha

unless you believe that the disciples Matthew and John and Paul's companions John Mark and Luke actually wrote these, which is laughable and false.

Fine, kindly present the evidence that this is "laughable and false". I have seen sufficient evidence that I am convinced that Mark is based on Peter's teachings, that Luke really wrote his two books and John wrote his, but go ahead and present your apparently earthshaking evidence that proves, to the point of the contrary being "laughable and false", that they did not.

reply to post by windword


I'm not going to bother telling you for about the millionth time that there is zero evidence that Jesus was an Essene, and plenty of evidence that he was not, since you've never bothered doing even a superfluous examination of who the Essenes were and what they believed, you just trot them out frequently to retort some point of Christian belief.

The Mount Carmel, where Elijah's Cave is found, housed a set of Essenes called Nazoreans.

Nazoreans are not the same thing as Nazarenes. The latter refers to someone from Nazareth, not a religious view (until centuries after Christ died.)

reply to post by AlienBuddha


Stories as fully corroborated by the historical evidence as the claim that Jesus died and rose again? Please share some links, if you would.

reply to post by Akragon

I would say its the natural way of things... but nothing short of miraculous...

life itself is a miracle, so how could reincarnation be anything less?

Granted. But life and reincarnation happen to everyone, whereas, only Jesus was resurrected.

windword
reply to post by Akragon

 

I would say its the natural way of things... but nothing short of miraculous...

life itself is a miracle, so how could reincarnation be anything less?

Granted. But life and reincarnation happen to everyone, whereas, only Jesus was resurrected.

So the "story" goes...

Im personally more in favor of him surviving... but his death wasn't important anyways

His life was...

reply to post by adjensen


You can say it a billion times, and you're still going to be WRONG!

There is more evidence that Jesus was a Nazorean than there is of the existence of "Jesus Christ."

The Essene origins of Christianity is well known, widely accespted and well documented.

And, since you've had this conversation with me a "million times", you should know that my studies of the Essene are far from superfluous. Your constant insults of the Essene origins of Christianity and your denial of the Essene influence on Christianity tells me that you are afraid of the truth, and invested in the false pretense of Pauline Catholicism.

reply to post by windword


Actually the Buddha didn't teach reincarnation. It was a Hindu teaching that he was familiar with but he taught that there is no individual soul/self.

I'm not really sure why WarminIndy is bringing up Hindu belief or positing the fallacious statement that reincarnation is more accepted than resurrection. Someone needs to point out to him that 76% of Americans and 31.5% of the world population identifies as Christian. Now on face value that 31.5% doesn't seem impressive, but it is the highest percentage of religious beliefs worldwide. The next to it in size is Islam with 23.2%. Both Christians and Muslims believe in bodily resurrection. So that's a total of 54.7%. Seems to me like a belief in resurrection completely dwarfs those who believe in reincarnation.

reply to post by adjensen


Honestly, I can't tell if your lying to us or to yourself. I don't know how you can say that the Nazorites, Nazoreans and the Nazarenes aren't of the same sect, and yet you can't see the difference from early Christians, known as Nazarenes, and the crazy Chrestus cults. (Shakes head)