They Stole His Body - The Hijacking of Jesus

reply to post by hadriana
Greetings, hadriana, "old pagan witch" your words, not mine.

The Pagans do make sense in this.

What else matters? That's the thing to put the effort in, that's the miracle, that's the wonder.
That's some POWERFUL magick. I can't quite work it. At least I know the spell though. Everyone else is running around trying to recite some verses and some gobblygook and worry worry worry.
Jesus was pretty clear not to do that. How'd everyone miss that?

My theology teaches that, before it ever was, God so loved the world that He gave Himself. He who was, and now is not, is life. Life is the miracle. And it passes on from generation to generation.

reply to post by Logarock

Certainly a resurrection story is not required as part of a philosophy for any religion with machinations toward world domination. In fact while "christianity" and its co-opters with its many forms do maintain power in this world the hard nuts and bolts of living in the real world, the cares thereof will never allow Christianity in its true form to "dominate" the world. There are many in "christianity" that have no use for it in its true nature but have forged out a "christianity" that is a useful tool for some many unrelated goals.

The ascension into heaven to sit on a throne and rule the world as world emperor is the useful part. If you happened to be the spokesperson for the absentee emperor of the world, wouldn't that make you the most powerful man on Earth?

I do understand your point that there do exist Christians who believe the same doctrines as the power hungry monsters yet live a life in accordance with the example Jesus set. They should make clear to the power mongers that they are separate from them, as in, "don't bother counting me as one of that particular political block for poll purposes. Count me an atheist if you please, for I don't worship the power monger that they do, and they don't speak for me."

Originally posted by pthena
What I propose then is a new Docetism. One that states that Jesus was fully human. The "seeming", the "pretend" was the fake resurrected Jesus. The Earth was not created evil by an evil lesser god. The Earth and all life came to be as the result of supreme dissolution or pouring out of a supreme being, so much so that the being does not exist as a discrete entity any more. (God is dead). Yet life itself is the gift from God, who now is not, yet lives in us.

There is no lostness that needs recovery. There is no evilness in physical existence. Existence just is. Life just is. It's natural. Life is not destroyed, it's passed on to the living, therefore the living never die.

I agree with you on some parts as a whole. Entirely as a whole, but not as fact. Why do I say such a thing? Because people have different opinions. IMO, i believe you are trying to smoosh gnostic and christianity(catholic?) together.
I agree that Jesus was fully human. But I believe the resurrection happened as fact (raising from the dead). There are plenty of books such as Nicodemous that explains his(jesus) travels to hell in 3 days before he came back on sunday.
I somewhat agree and disagree with your assumption on the physical body as being evil, I believe it is gray, neither good or bad, (you are in PURSUIT of happiness). Those words are uttered in the bible!

As far as the gnostic take on creation and the (demiruge) as I recall, Lucifer was God's faviorite angel (his best friend) so much so, I assume that lucifer had some influence on God in the creation of earth, which would honestly explain a lot. If this is 100% true fact, the great heaven war makes complete sense now as a whole.

Pain/death/evil/bad are all learning tools for the human soul, so much so that when you learn from soemthing you do not do it again.

Does a child places his hand on a hot stove after he became burnt? No!

This is my take, gnostics have some good points, but I really have a hard time trusting anything that is greek influence

_Yahad!

reply to post by pthena

Have you looked into the Samaritans lately? They're down to about 700 population. They aren't ruling anything. If Christianity hadn't swept the Roman empire, Judaism and its Tanach would be in the same situation. But thanks to Christianity linking itself inextricably with the Old Testament, Judaism lives.

No, I haven't, but there are/were also other branches of judaism (the sadducees, essenes, likely others in addition to the unaffiliated "common" jews) that would increase this number, and I would assume that the jews likely could have better preserved their history & lineage, etc., without engaging in such a conspiracy by way of not engaging in a political rebellion against the romans, which led to the destruction of their nation and dispersion of their people. Supposition either way, of course, but one would assume that if christianity were a vehicle for the continuation of their race/faith and their dominance of things, they would not have sought so strenuously to stomp it out themselves...why consider it a heresy and try to destroy it in this case?

As to the quote from Esther, it also does well to consider that this immediately follows what was almost the extermination of their race from the empire at the time, so this could easily have gone the other way at that point.

The numbers of the Jews are ever swelled whenever worldly power is on their side. So it is today, with Christian Zionism especially in the US providing the "most favored people" status. Thanks to the Christians bringing the Old Testament into the halls of power in the governments of the world.

Perhaps, but then again I would say such a case would likely apply to any group of people. Also, considering that they are now at the peak of their historical population and still number under 20 million globally by most counts, I'm not sure how utterly significant this is, honestly...I would say that as with any set of people, some have ingrained themselves in areas of influence and halls of power to their benefit, and others not so much.

Also, christian zionism (well...zionism in general) is fairly new on the scene, and there have been peaks and valleys of jewish society throughout history. Germany was primarily a christian nation, but while the numbers and specifics are disputed, they were (for political reasons, mainly) very hostile to the jews in the early-mid 20th century. For the bulk of history, jews and christians did not have the best of relationships. The jews otherwise for a good deal of their history over the last 2000 years have lived in dispersion and generally had difficulties with many of their countries, such as their expulsion from Spain and so forth.

I find it interesting that nowhere in the New Testament is there any command for one man to kill another, for any reason. Christians who want to kill always must appeal to the Old Testament to find their "authority" to kill. Maybe they should toss the New Testament away and become full on Jews.

*sigh* Christians who do so, do it to their own detriment. There is nothing christian about what the bulk of those who espouse such today do - they have become part of the world (and its worst parts) instead of merely living in it. I disagree that they should become full-on jews, though, unless they changed their stripes however - but definitely agree that they should at least drop the christian moniker if they cannot live up to it. As he taught, a lot of those who think and call themselves such will be disavowed due to their working of sin.

Anyhow, I'll wrap up. In circling back to your original premise:

1) Keep the followers subservient to the Old Testament and its "god".
2) Distract from seeing natural life as good.
3) Provide the basis for a religion of world domination, corollary to, and subservient to 1).

I just can't get behind it. #2 conflicts with everything I grew up knowing about biblical christianity and what I've learned since, since nowhere am I taught by it that the world or natural life is bad (just that the creation groans under weight of our sin, which I can sadly see in the death and destruction of the living world and humanity around me these days), and #3 has no roots in the christian bible itself, but merely in self-serving people and groups elevating themselves and their unholy aspirations via assuming control of the organized faith as a way of granting themselves power to carry out their wishes, in complete contravention of what the christian bible itself actually teaches about love, violence, judgement, materialism, and the rest.

The faith teaches us to be servants - those who latch on it to be served are merely using it as a false veneer and are by no means acting in accordance with the reality of it.

Take care, friend.

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by Logarock

Certainly a resurrection story is not required as part of a philosophy for any religion with machinations toward world domination. In fact while "christianity" and its co-opters with its many forms do maintain power in this world the hard nuts and bolts of living in the real world, the cares thereof will never allow Christianity in its true form to "dominate" the world. There are many in "christianity" that have no use for it in its true nature but have forged out a "christianity" that is a useful tool for some many unrelated goals.

The ascension into heaven to sit on a throne and rule the world as world emperor is the useful part. If you happened to be the spokesperson for the absentee emperor of the world, wouldn't that make you the most powerful man on Earth?

No it would make you a laughing stock and contemptible. Thats how you know whats real and what isnt. There will come a day according to scripture where this false church will be tossed of by the governments of the world.

Originally posted by pthena
I find it interesting that nowhere in the New Testament is there any command for one man to kill another, for any reason. Christians who want to kill always must appeal to the Old Testament to find their "authority" to kill. Maybe they should toss the New Testament away and become full on Jews.

But there is a parable Jesus where He talks about the enimies of the King, apparently an inference to Himself, will be brought before Him and slain for their treasons.

He also metions some being turned over to tormenters and torments for final dispensation.

Yes there is no command to kill unlike the other well known religion of world domination but then the book wasnt written as a discourse on civil government nor is it a guild book on how to take over the world.

It does say, in the New Testement, that civil governmets have the right to punish evil and that is an idea brought over from the Old Testament. If a Christain has a problem with this then dont work for the government.....but just know that the New Testement was not a treatise on the abrogation of the rights and power of civil government.

reply to post by Jordan River

I agree with you on some parts as a whole. Entirely as a whole, but not as fact. Why do I say such a thing? Because people have different opinions. IMO, i believe you are trying to smoosh gnostic and christianity(catholic?) together.

Just filling a gap I saw in the catalog of heresy(choice). The choice of viewing natural existence as good, as in, not in need of "redemption".

but I really have a hard time trusting anything that is greek influence

Whoops! I do believe that I may have read The Odyssey of Homer before ever I read the Bible.

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by Jordan River

There are catalogs of other books beside the gnostic text which I deemed apocrypha, I'm sure you know. Many gnostic literature was created around the 2nd and 3rd century. I also believe we have a mistranslated our time that makes our current year of 2011, incorrect.

There are gaps, I agree. I've been reading the Dead sea scrolls to fill them in.

beware of greeks bearing gifts

Here is another book that is pretty good stuff. I own it
images.bizrate.com...

edit on 1-9-2011 by Jordan River because: (no reason given)

reply to post by Praetorius
I've got an annoying virus on my computer that keeps re-directing to advertisement. So responses may be rather spotty at times.

Also, christian zionism (well...zionism in general) is fairly new on the scene, and there have been peaks and valleys of jewish society throughout history. Germany was primarily a christian nation, but while the numbers and specifics are disputed, they were (for political reasons, mainly) very hostile to the jews in the early-mid 20th century. For the bulk of history, jews and christians did not have the best of relationships. The jews otherwise for a good deal of their history over the last 2000 years have lived in dispersion and generally had difficulties with many of their countries, such as their expulsion from Spain and so forth.

You can look up Jewish Emancipation and see that until the mid 1800s Jews were not allowed to own businesses throughout Europe. It's been a war over centuries. The war has been over "who gets to interpret the Old Testament" the believers in Messiah or the "chosen people". Why?

RO 3:1 What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2 Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.

The Very words of God! Well that certainly would seem a prize worth having and controlling. But for those who don't consider it "the very words of God", just something that others fight over and drag the world into the conflict.

#3 has no roots in the christian bible itself,

That depends on how you look at it. 99.9% of Christians take it for granted that Yahweh of the Old Testament is God, the unchanging. Therefore:

PS 2:1 Why do the nations conspire
and the peoples plot in vain?

PS 2:2 The kings of the earth take their stand
and the rulers gather together
against the LORD
and against his Anointed One.

PS 2:6 "I have installed my King
on Zion, my holy hill."

PS 2:7 I will proclaim the decree of the LORD:
He said to me, "You are my Son;
today I have become your Father.

PS 2:8 Ask of me,
and I will make the nations your inheritance,
the ends of the earth your possession.

PS 2:9 You will rule them with an iron scepter;
you will dash them to pieces like pottery."

PS 2:10 Therefore, you kings, be wise;
be warned, you rulers of the earth.

PS 2:11 Serve the LORD with fear
and rejoice with trembling.

PS 2:12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry
and you be destroyed in your way,
for his wrath can flare up in a moment.
Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

is seen as a valid world view. The Zionists expect a Messiah to rule the world from an ethnically purified Jerusalem. Others consider the Messiah already ruling from a throne in heaven. Either way, the whole world government is subservient to Yahweh, and his Anointed. How can this not be the basis for a religion of world domination?

As for me, I'm still waiting for someone to produce the Old Testament scriptures mentioned in Luke 24:46 "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,"

And the mantra of Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, "according to the scriptures". That seems a rather empty mantra if he can't produce the actual scriptures.

reply to post by Jordan River
I own a copy of that book myself. I haven't unpacked my boxes from my last two moves though. And I may have to move again soon. It's been years since I've actually had a book shelf.

reply to post by pthena
Sorry to hear about the virus, friend - if I can go off-topic for a moment, I'd recommend downloading Malwarebytes anti-malware and probably Avira antivirus. You can find free copies of each at CNet's download.com, and hopefully they can help get your machine cleared up.

You can look up Jewish Emancipation and see that until the mid 1800s Jews were not allowed to own businesses throughout Europe. It's been a war over centuries. The war has been over "who gets to interpret the Old Testament" the believers in Messiah or the "chosen people". Why? ...
The Very words of God! Well that certainly would seem a prize worth having and controlling. But for those who don't consider it "the very words of God", just something that others fight over and drag the world into the conflict.

Definitely sad stuff, but I'd figure some outright antisemitism plays a role as well and is not necessarily solely over control of the scriptures (as seems like for the most part at this point, christians were wrongly considering themselves somewhat superior to jews as to have superceded them, instead of having been grafted into Israel), given the testimony of Luther and various other handlings of the jews by christendom.

In this split, though, I've *generally* got to give the rights of primary interpretation of OT over to the jews, at least in the modern era. Prior to that, I don't really see a war over it, just disagreements and division (granted, I haven't studied a whole lot of church history, especially as relates to jews, over the centuries).

That depends on how you look at it. 99.9% of Christians take it for granted that Yahweh of the Old Testament is God, the unchanging. Therefore:

PS 2:1 Why do the nations conspire
and the peoples plot in vain?

PS 2:2 The kings of the earth take their stand
and the rulers gather together
against the LORD
and against his Anointed One.

PS 2:6 "I have installed my King
on Zion, my holy hill."

PS 2:7 I will proclaim the decree of the LORD:
He said to me, "You are my Son;
today I have become your Father.

PS 2:8 Ask of me,
and I will make the nations your inheritance,
the ends of the earth your possession.

PS 2:9 You will rule them with an iron scepter;
you will dash them to pieces like pottery."

PS 2:10 Therefore, you kings, be wise;
be warned, you rulers of the earth.

PS 2:11 Serve the LORD with fear
and rejoice with trembling.

PS 2:12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry
and you be destroyed in your way,
for his wrath can flare up in a moment.
Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

is seen as a valid world view. The Zionists expect a Messiah to rule the world from an ethnically purified Jerusalem. Others consider the Messiah already ruling from a throne in heaven. Either way, the whole world government is subservient to Yahweh, and his Anointed. How can this not be the basis for a religion of world domination?

True, and fair enough, but when I (and I would assume the majority of christians otherwise) read this, it suggests nothing more to me than the gathering of armies to oppose Christ and the 'heavenly army' and the initiation of the millenial reign on earth as discussed in Revelation chapters 19 and 20...these verses seem to have been written to draw back specifically to this psalm, and as the jews still await their messiah and his political/physical reign on earth, applies equally well - so this is something based in the future, and having nothing to do with the way christians of the present world should behave, especially when all their commands and instructions speak plainly otherwise of the "christlike" nature in which they are to behave.

Granted, at that time, he will rule the world directly and firmly, according to the scriptures and beliefs of those who subscribe to them.

As for me, I'm still waiting for someone to produce the Old Testament scriptures mentioned in Luke 24:46 "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,"

And the mantra of Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, "according to the scriptures". That seems a rather empty mantra if he can't produce the actual scriptures.

That's a good point, but as I understand it this seems to be (possibly) a combination of issues. First off, I'm wondering if at this point there had already been proto-typical gospels written, or early versions of the gospels we know were circulating and considered to be scripture (then referring to the prophecies of Christ directly)...

reply to post by Praetorius
(danged long posts)

...Otherwise, this seems to refer to various bits of Isaiah 53, Hosea 6, psalm 16, and rabbinical interpretations of these, and/or possibly some of the lost books like Jasher, Nathan, and the others that we don't have anymore (supposition), instead of a directly-available prophecy we still have, and may also not have originally had the 3-day specification - could have just been with emphasis on not letting the holy one see decay, seeing his offspring, etc.

There's a few ways that could have gone, with Paul just primarily mentioning the (possibly inferred?) resurrection as the prophecy with the three days by way of description after the fact.

Regardless, this is all definitely interesting and I certainly appreciate the perspective and input. I still can't get behind the idea of christianity as having been a conspiracy for world domination originally (as they got off to a quite horrible start, almost to the point of elimination with a good chunk of the originators and those following them martyred, as far as we have records), but I can ABSOLUTELY get behind the idea that once it became (perverted - *ahem*, sorry) a institution of power and influence, it was definitely seized upon by those of questionable motive and driven far from its roots and intended purpose to be a vehicle for exactly what you describe.

Thanks kindly for the discussion, and I look forward to your thoughts on this. Be blessed, friend.

Originally posted by pthena
The conspirators are: An angel of the Lord, in appearance like lightning, with clothes white as snow, who rolled back the stone from the tomb(MT 28:2). A young man dressed in a white robe (mk16:5). Two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning(Lk 24:4). Two angels in white, seated where Jesus' body had been(Jn 20:12). And then, of course, the individual, whether man or angel, who posed as, or was taken to be the resurrected Jesus. So, probably three individuals involved. I'll just call them angels for this expose, since whether they are men or demons (of divine origin), they are definitely messengers(angels).

More like time travelers. The fragmentary Gospel of Peter describes the scene this way:

[35] But in the night in which the Lord's day dawned, when the soldiers were safeguarding it two by two in every watch, there was a loud voice in heaven; [36] and they saw that the heavens were opened and that two males who had much radiance had come down from there and come near the sepulcher. [37] But that stone which had been thrust against the door, having rolled by itself, went a distance off the side; and the sepulcher opened, and both the young men entered. [38] And so those soldiers, having seen, awakened the centurion and the elders (for they too were present, safeguarding). [39] And while they were relating what they had seen, again they see three males who have come out from they sepulcher, with the two supporting the other one, and a cross following them, [40] and the head of the two reaching unto heaven, but that of the one being led out by a hand by them going beyond the heavens. [41] And they were hearing a voice from the heavens saying, 'Have you made proclamation to the fallen-asleep?' [42] And an obeisance was heard from the cross, 'Yes.' [43]

You can see that the description of a kind of "assumption" doesn't fit well with the rest of the Gospels, but curiously enough, it might accurately describe what it might look like to enter a localized reality field for travel into a different time construct. Stretching out, as if distorted by a large mass like a black hole or singularity.

Of course, it would be just like some future Christian zealots to use a time machine to go back and "rescue" Jesus from the tomb, thus fulfilling the mythological past, while at the same time creating Jesus's "return" in the future. Very tricky.

reply to post by Blue Shift

it might accurately describe what it might look like to enter a localized reality field for travel into a different time construct.

Actually, it just looks like a window opening in front of you right in thin air.

it would be just like some future Christian zealots to use a time machine to go back and "rescue" Jesus from the tomb, thus fulfilling the mythological past, while at the same time creating Jesus's "return" in the future. Very tricky.

I think I read a science fiction book once about just such a thing. Moorcock maybe?

reply to post by Praetorius

First off, I'm wondering if at this point there had already been proto-typical gospels written, or early versions of the gospels we know were circulating and considered to be scripture (then referring to the prophecies of Christ directly)..

Luke 24:46 "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, " was spoken by the supposed risen Jesus on the very day he supposedly rose from the dead. I don't think it's a proto-gospel then. As for Paul, it's rather atypical for him to write things like "according to the scriptures" without actually quoting the scripture.

The fact that 99% of Christians assume that the angel Yahweh is God, is proof to me that the angelic plot has succeeded. That a large portion of Christians assume the Jews to be "the chosen" is evidence that the plot has succeeded. That many Christians consider the invasion, occupation, genocide, and ethnic cleansing of Palestine to be right and proper is evidence that the angelic plot has succeeded.

If an angel claims to be God, and demands worship, isn't that angel a blasphemer and a liar? Just such a one is Yahweh, the Old Testament claimant to godhead. The same who demands genocide. Isn't that a murderer? What did Jesus say to the Jews of his day?

Jn8:44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

So some angel who claims to be god would have no compunction whatsoever in imitating the risen Jesus. And his book is now enshrined as Christian scripture, with no real justification whatsoever. The plot has succeeded and ethnic cleansing will continue unopposed by Christians because they worship the same angel as god.

reply to post by pthena

As for Paul, it's rather atypical for him to write things like "according to the scriptures" without actually quoting the scripture.

The generally accepted explanation is that he meant Isaiah 53 the suffering servant but did not want to quote it since is really doesn't match up point by point but has a general sort of meaning that might make some sort of sense upon reflection, but not something you could explain (that is, if you were not really Paul but just using his name).

reply to post by jmdewey60
I don't know how far you're willing to go with this. After all, if the physical resurrection of Jesus is denied, all of Christianity comes crashing down in ruins.

Point 1) No one even claims to have seen Jesus get up and walk out of the tomb. Even though the women were close enough to the tomb to see the angel come down and the stone roll away, in Matthew.

Point 2) The resurrection then is based upon the "testimony" of angels, and appearances of some one not readily recognizable as the same Jesus.

Point 3) This "risen Jesus" quotes fictitious scripture and gets people to come up with bizarre concoctions in order to claim "the scripture was fulfilled"

I think that the resurrection is based on "visions" people had of a risen Jesus. Such as Stephen's while he was being stoned and Paul's on the road. As far as that counts, I could counter with my own vision and count it as equally valid, moreso, as far as I'm concerned because it isn't second, third, or fourth hand testimony.

What actually is gained by believing in the resurrection besides a false hope of personal ego continuation.

reply to post by pthena

There is apparently more than meats the eye as far as what we are and what we may have been previously and what we may be in the future.
Jesus died. That is plain enough. There may have been angels to talk about what happened to Jesus, since that person had died and was no longer available.
It may be a dignity thing where being a rotting corpse does not make a just end for a good life.
The idea back then was that your are justified by how you end up like Judas being about the worst, where your guts explode.
I think Jesus being God or some god, previously to being a human made him able to do away with whatever some other god had made with mankind as a sort of enslavement. But that god would have died, never to be a god again. Maybe Jesus started over somehow, like he did when he became Jesus, so now he is able to take up another task but somehow in that same thread of existence that goes back before creation.

reply to post by jmdewey60

I think Jesus being God or some god, previously to being a human made him able to do away with whatever some other god had made with mankind as a sort of enslavement.

This is what happened. The other night I opened up the New Testament to check something out. What I saw was the back sides of the cardboard cut-outs and shoddy stage props and the duct tape and baling wire holding it all together. The whole Biblical delusion is completely blown for me.

These stinking angels did what? They perpetuated the horror of the Old Testament, with its stinking pile of death penalty enforced monotheistic worship of an angel. Oh how wonderful! How many 10s of millions of human lives have perished violently because of that? How much human knowledge and accumulated wisdom got burned up in libraries? How much native wisdom and lore burned up, torn down, and trampled into the dust? Just exactly what enslavement has mankind been delivered from?

I'd be willing to believe that the body of Jesus completely dissolved into its individual molecules and dispersed throughout the world. That would be fitting. We've all got a piece of him. He's with us still. That's my religion.

As for these angels, they're going to get it good, if I ever catch them.

That dead for 3 days thing might be this:

In the cycle of the year the winter solstice has always been important, in the Neolithic and Bronze Age, places such as Stonehenge and Newgrange where built in such a way that large stones created a “line of sight” system so that the day of winter solstice could be observed

I think we in the present day have no idea just how important the winter solstice was to the survival of these early people.

After the longest day (the mid-summer solstice) the sun rises less high by a few degrees each day until about December 21st when the sun reaches the lowest point in its decline and there is then a delay of a few days (think of it as the bottom of an arc) before the sun starts to rises a few degrees again starts on it way back to its mid-summer height
Remember to these early people the sun was very important and was probably thought of as godlike, so its decline, apparent death in mid-winter and resurrection 3 days later would become part of the cultures stories

There’s a whole thing about it here:
en.wikipedia.org...


The point is, if there where some spiritual teacher wondering around Palestine 2000 years ago, his teaching must have become so obscured or corrupted since his day (such as the Romans bolting the sun god myth onto his story) that it would be an impossible task to figure out what his teachings where - I don't think you need angels to account for what happened with Christianity - since the whole thing is probably the work of men