Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Was Jesus Resurrection an actual event?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 09:40 PM
link   
I wrote a book that explored the existence of Mighty God. I argued God created this Universe over thirteen billion years ago.

I also argued; if Jesus resurrection was a true story then the HOLINESS of Mother Mary should have become crystal clear to all the apostles; Since the apostles experienced Jesus divinity first hand. And then Jesus was gone to heaven, then Mother Mary, in flesh, was the Holiest person amongst them. Acually after Jesus Mother Mary was the Holiest person that ever lived on this Earth. And all the apostles had full knowledge of this fact. Then it is reasonable to assume that Mother Mary should have become the center of all the attentions for all the apostles and the other followers of Jesus. Then there should have been tons of documents about Holy Mother Mary.

Since the Apostles and others did NOT pay any attention to Mother Mary, and there is no documentation about the life and fate of Mother Mary. Even her tomb is obscure. This lack of interest in Mother Mary made me to conclude that Jesus resurrection story must be a fairytale that was invented later on by the Gospel writers.

I created a web site to introduce my ideas: www.TheTruthShall.com

May God bless us all,




posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 10:17 PM
link   
I can hardly wait to see the posts from the scholars on this!

I guess you can't believe the resurrection story unless you believe the crucifixion story. I'm not convinced, either way, that either of these stories is true. If one could prove the crucifixion was faked, the price of gold crosses would drop dramatically.

Still studying, searching for the HISTORICAL truth - emphasis to ward off those who would urg me to accept the "spiritual truth".

Just the facts, ma'am.

Thanks for starting this thread.



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unes
I wrote a book that explored the existence of Mighty God. I argued God created this Universe over thirteen billion years ago.

I also argued; if Jesus resurrection was a true story then the HOLINESS of Mother Mary should have become crystal clear to all the apostles; Since the apostles experienced Jesus divinity first hand. And then Jesus was gone to heaven, then Mother Mary, in flesh, was the Holiest person amongst them. Acually after Jesus Mother Mary was the Holiest person that ever lived on this Earth. And all the apostles had full knowledge of this fact. Then it is reasonable to assume that Mother Mary should have become the center of all the attentions for all the apostles and the other followers of Jesus. Then there should have been tons of documents about Holy Mother Mary.

Since the Apostles and others did NOT pay any attention to Mother Mary, and there is no documentation about the life and fate of Mother Mary. Even her tomb is obscure. This lack of interest in Mother Mary made me to conclude that Jesus resurrection story must be a fairytale that was invented later on by the Gospel writers.

I created a web site to introduce my ideas: www.TheTruthShall.com

May God bless us all,


well werent all women, no matter how noble, concidered more as property back then? Also, Jesus humbled himself among the apostles ( remember 100% god 100% man ) and the apostles might ahve treated mary the same b/c of that.



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 11:32 PM
link   
Yes Jesus was a real man, a true believer in God, a pure believer and devoted to Judaism, and he was crucified innocently.

Based on the historical evidence one could make an EDUCATED GUESS regarding the life story of Jesus and his crucifixion:

Jesus lost his life for his Jewish cause; accusing the Jewish High Priest for corruption, and challenging the Jewish High Priest for mishandling the affairs of the Jewish Temple. Jesus condemned the High Priest for violating of Jehovah's Commandment, and desecrating the sanctity of the Jewish Temple by allowing vendors to operate inside the Jewish Temple Ground. Jesus passionately was warning Jews from straying from God's Laws. Jesus was prophesizing that God would punish Jews for failing their religious practices. Similar to the preachings of John the Baptist.

The Jewish High Priest could not harm Jesus since according to Jewish laws Jesus' mischief in temple ground and his challenge of High Priest for running the affairs of the Jewish Temple was not punishable by death. That is why the Jewish High Priest sent Jesus to the Romans labeled him as "a dangerous man" needed to be crucified. The Romans did not have anything against Jesus. Jesus had not done anything to aggravate the Romans. His beef was against the Temple High Priest. The Romans crucified Jesus under the recommendation of the High Priest.

Jesus was a real man with very high integrity and he was devoted to his Jewish Faith and he fearlessly fought for that cause. Because of Jesus pure faith in God; his followers kept remembering his absolute devotion to God. After the destruction of the 2nd Jewish Temple at 70 AD by Romans, his followers claimed that Jesus prophesied of the destruction of the 2nd Jewish Temple. Jesus had warned people that God would punish Jews for violating Jehovah strict laws. And then his prophesies had come true. All of sudden Jesus was recognized as a true man of God who prophesied the Jewish Temple destruction about thirty seven years earlier.

May God bless us all,



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 12:00 AM
link   
a related topic that was started by me:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think that whole private tomb conveniently located near the point of the alleged crucifixion site, the people kept afar, the granting of the "body" to Joseph of Arimethia (sp?), the short amount of time noted for Jesus to "die", and a few other bits makes the whole thing pretty suspicious.

Some of the texts that I've read by people who claim that they are more accurate because they were written earlier and that, according to those claims, were left out of the NT say that Jesus thought he had pulled a fast one and that it may not have even been Jesus on that cross (or torture stake) - Jesus mocking the Romans because they thought they had killed him....well, I just don't know.

There are just too many things that don't add up in this story. And, this story is pretty much central to Christianity - especially as it exists today.



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 12:39 AM
link   
Dear ivanglam;

The Gospel of Mary Magdalene was discovered in 1896. The manuscript of the Gospel of Mary Magdalene was also recovered in Nag Hammadi. If Mary Magdalene could have a gospel and probably she had some followers, then Holy Mother Mary should have been revered much more.

I understand the founders of the Christian Church at 325 BC, were totally biased against women. But we are talking about Jesus time; when Jesus admired Mary Magdalene above all the other disciples.

You also wrote: "Jesus humbled himself among the apostles ( remember 100% god 100% man ) and the apostles might have treated Mary the same b/c of that."

I am sorry I could not understand your point.

May God bless us all,



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 12:53 AM
link   
I do not believe that there is any way that this can ever be historically proven. The crucifixion and subsequent ressurection are essentially at the root of the Christian religion though, so to many, this had to take place to validate their faith. Interesting question.



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 01:15 AM
link   
I personally believe that Jesus may have been a clone of YHVH, the supreme Elohim that came "from the stars" as the ancient Sumerians describe them.

Having come from the stars, this means UFOs, so to speak. So the great blinding light that Mary is said to described could have been her abduction experience in which she became impregnated with Yashua. This happened when she was still a virgin, hence, a virgin concieves was fullfilled.

As for nothing being written about Mary...have you ever read The Gospel of the Book of Mary that is in the book the Forgotten Books of the Bible? It is a beautiful story and tells that even Mary's conception was as interesting as Isaac's and John the Baptists was. She was pre-chosen before whe was ever concieved.

CHAPTER 2
1. An angel appears to Joachim 9. and informs him that Anna shall conceive and bring forth a daughter, who shall be called Mary, 11. be brought up in the temple, 12. and while yet a virgin, in a way unparalleled, bring forth the Son of God: 13. gives him a sign, 14. and departs.
Mary's mother was elderly and barren when she concieved Mary and had been forwarned in a dream not to leave her husband because she was going to conceive an important child that she would have to let be nurtured by the priests and rabbi's in the temple, or something like that.

Back to the crucifixtion. Some groups of people claim that they know the day, or at least the time of year in which Christ was crucified because it was during the Jewish passover. And the resurection...there is a tomb that is beieved to be Yashua's uncle, Joesph of Arimethea, who was a rich man. It issaid to be "the tomb". And then there is the Shroud of Turin.
The belief is that this shroud has had the image of a man sorta burned into it by a very strong xray like or possibly radioactive energy or something....could it have been UFO related? Or maybe that is what happens to every human after they die and revert back to a light body.

What ever the truth is, it has affected the entire globe, for sure. Pretty powerful individual.



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 02:59 AM
link   
Hi SkyChief,
Yes you are right:"crucifixion and subsequent resurrection are essentially at the root of the Christian religion."

But in reality the "crucifixion" has nothing to do with the "resurrection". Jesus was crucified and his body was destroyed on the Cross; since that was the Roman way of terrorizing the people.

Then, later on Jesus became popular and he did not have any tomb, then inventing the Resurrection story was a powerful story; which boosted Jesus image tremendously. We all enjoy Santa Claus story, and we all know what is that all about. But Jesus resurrection has totally confused the people. We need to set the record straight; the resurrection story is a fairytale.

May God bless us all,



[edit on 19-3-2005 by Unes]

[edit on 19-3-2005 by Unes]



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 07:42 AM
link   
After Christ had risen from the dead, He was seen by over five hundered people, many of whom were still alive when the apostle Paul was writing his letters to the churches. (1 Corinthians 15:4-6) Had Christ not risen, I believe Paul would have been refuted and there is no way the church could have spread. It is because there were so many witnesses still alive that the resurrection of Christ was easily accepted as fact.



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Actually we do NOT have the testimony of those five hundred people. Apostle Paul made that claim and that was self serving for his own self interest. It is like Nixon said: "I am not a crook".

The falsehood of the resurrection story is self evidenced from the discrepancies of the resurrection stories among the four Gospels of Mark, Mathew, Luke, and John. And you can forget about the other evidences that are in the Gospels that Christian Church condemned them as heresy and heretic.

May God bless us all,



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 11:45 AM
link   

as posted by Unes
The falsehood of the resurrection story is self evidenced from the discrepancies of the resurrection stories among the four Gospels of Mark, Mathew, Luke, and John.


Amazing that despite what you are saying, that despite those academic skeptics, that despite the still ongoing debate over this [for which you claim to have solved as being false, didn't happen, etc.], that the resurrection belief IS the very cornerstone of Christianity/Christendom [the largest religion in the world]. That without such a belief, the very beginnings of Christianity/Christendom would never have started.

Interesting, eh?

Was Jesus Resurrection an actual event?




seekerof



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unes
Yes Jesus was a real man, a true believer in God, a pure believer and devoted to Judaism, and he was crucified innocently.


He was crucified innocently?

So you believe then that he actually was Christ?

Jesus was crucified for claiming to be the Son of God, blasphemy.

So, he was either crucified justly, and was not the Son of God, or
he was crucified injustly and was the Son of God.

Those are the only two choices.

---Pineapple



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Jesus is a name. Symbolically it can be said that a name is put to death.

Who was Jesus lives on. Since the "I" (see definition), in general, cant die dead enough, there is no point in time where the "I", in general, resurrected.

If you're basing things on the physical boby, rather than the "I", in general, or even the soul, you will be deceived round and about.

Who was Jesus never left existance. So in a true sense you should rather see things as though they morph. The word "was" reveals a paradox to where you, if you're wise, will see it decoded as "words-as-secret".

I could pass away right now and it will be that I was (words-as-secret) Sign Related 2.

Jesus spoke about the secret chamber in Mark 13 or Matthew 24.

Words that have a paradox to them are:

not
no
no man
Nay

Words that have a paralell meaning (or words that appear similar, but mean different) though if not interpreted correctly may leave you with the wrong impression:

left
close

^^^If there are more you'll know them.

Now back to Jesus. Once you rid yourself of the hireling you'll see that word Jesus as much more based on it's sound.



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by pineappleupsidedown

Originally posted by Unes
Yes Jesus was a real man, a true believer in God, a pure believer and devoted to Judaism, and he was crucified innocently.


He was crucified innocently?

So you believe then that he actually was Christ?

Jesus was crucified for claiming to be the Son of God, blasphemy.

So, he was either crucified justly, and was not the Son of God, or
he was crucified injustly and was the Son of God.

Those are the only two choices.

---Pineapple


Actually, there is another choice: he wasn't crucified at all.



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Its all about faith, if people believe in Christianity they believe in the stories of Jesus and his life by the biblical meanings.

So is perhaps to personal opinion as how much of the story they perceive as real and what is not about Jesus.

You can't tell a true believer that something is not real, because they will tell you that you are wrong.

The same way that you can not tell somebody that something is real if they don't believe in it.



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unes
Since the Apostles and others did NOT pay any attention to Mother Mary, and there is no documentation about the life and fate of Mother Mary. Even her tomb is obscure. This lack of interest in Mother Mary made me to conclude that Jesus resurrection story must be a fairytale that was invented later on by the Gospel writers.




Mary is not the center of Christianity. Mary can't save anyone. Mary shouldn't be the focus of salvation. The apostles knew Jesus, and Him alone, is where our thoughts and trust should go.



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 07:27 PM
link   
There is no proof of the ressurection of Christ, it is taken on faith.



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 07:36 PM
link   
I sincerely hope that I never offend anyone or cause any of you to think that I question or trivialize your faith. That has never been my intent.

My only wish is to discuss history - specifically, the history surrounding religion. I am sometimes quite harsh (wihout apology) on organized religion but only in the context of their possible warping of history. History is absolute as fact. Faith is a wholly different subject. As such, I don't pay a lot of attention to posts regarding faith during the course of discussions of history.

Historical discussions belong in a Conspiracies in Religions forum because there is some question of the motives behind the deliberate (if it is deliberate) propogation of "false" historical accounts.

And, that, in a nutshell, is why I participate here.

Peace.

[edit on 19-3-2005 by Al Davison]

[edit on 19-3-2005 by Al Davison]



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Al Davison
I sincerely hope that I never offend anyone or cause any of you to think that I question or trivialize your faith. That has never been my intent.

My only wish is to discuss history - specifically, the history surrounding religion. I am sometimes quite harsh (wihout apology) on organized religion but only in the context of their possible warping of history. History is absolute as fact. Faith is a wholly different subject. As such, I don't pay a lot of attention to posts regarding faith during the course of discussions of history.

Historical discussions belong in a Conspiracies in Religions forum because there is some question of the motives behind the deliberate (if it is deliberate) propogation of "false" historical accounts.

And, that, in a nutshell, is why I participate here.

Peace.

[edit on 19-3-2005 by Al Davison]

[edit on 19-3-2005 by Al Davison]


Hi Al.

I don't know that history is absolute as fact. Unless, of course, I am misunderstanding what you are saying. History is usually written by the winners, and Christians have, to a greater or lesser degree, outlasted the Romans.

I'm more interested in what we see as history. For instance. There are people who read the history of Jesus. Many of these fine folk read of the mysticicsm, the miracles, and the other "strange happenings" and find it all difficult to believe. They then put inference and interpretation in, so that, Jesus becomes an alien clone. All the mystical or occult occurances become alien assisted happenings.


I wonder, if it's possible, that Mary was a more significant figure in Christian history than is now recognized? Unfortunately, the "modern" world is almost , strictly, male oriented. With that in mind, any evidence of strong female control or domination would most likely have been erased or controlled.

I am not as steeped in historical investigation as you are, but would love to hear what you think about this in more depth.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join