Did Jesus really die?

Wow, what a concept! A 'religion' based on hearsay decades after the fact by people who weren't provably there at the time, and who had their own reasons for writing up what happened, who disagree with each other about the particulars. All of this, seriously edited and mistranslated down over the ages. And historians at the time who prove that say, Caesar was for real, and the eruption at Vesuvius really happened, were mute on this particular topic, even though it was a bit of a game-changer, even then.

In other words, a religion based on a game of Chinese Telephone.

One of the remote viewers Courtney Browne says that Jesus was somewhere else during the crucifixion and a patsy was sacrificed.

Dunno what that does for your religion... 'Bernard died for your sins' just doesn't have the same impact, y'know?

reply to post by AlienBuddha

Has anyone considered that he didn't actually die; that maybe it was only a coma induced by hypovolemic shock from which he recovered a day and a half later?

IF he lived at all, then yes, this is what I believe happened. He recovered and went back to Kashmir. Plenty of literature/websites touching on it.

The Forensic Physical Exam thing is ridiculous. (Sorry, adj, just my opinion. Hug the O-ster for me!)

reply to post by signalfire

One of the remote viewers Courtney Browne says that Jesus was somewhere else during the crucifixion and a patsy was sacrificed.

and you believe a remote viewer?

danielsil18
The story says he died, so what's to argue about?

If a story says he died then there is no arguing. Just like Voldemort died in Harry Potter, there is no arguing about Voldermort's death.

Why am I the only person who has never read a Harry Potter book? I don't know this Voldemort person. But what's funny is that in French (and I never read Harry Potter), Volde means flight and mort means death.

What is Voldemort supposed to be in Harry Potter?

reply to post by WarminIndy

Why am I the only person who has never read a Harry Potter book?

I dunno, Indy...why are you??
Does it scare you to read youth fiction? To think about witches and wizards and such?
I remember years ago finding a book from the 1970s called "The Black Arts" at a used book store - and I bought it. But it was YEARS before I had the nerve to actually read it....

silly of me. One can learn a LOT by reading things that make one nervous to even consider. (Outside the comfort zone, you know).

EDIT: (by the way, I didn't become demon-possessed by doing so - nor did I become demon-possessed when I studied Wicca and practiced it. Nor by reading Harry Potter. Just sayin'.)

reply to post by WarminIndy


He is the evil and most powerful wizard in the book. Ironically he can "fly" and he basically resembles death.

He died in the book, came back and died again. So I used it as an example for the story of Jesus.

reply to post by signalfire


Although the bible has a historical aspect to it ,it was not written by historians .We can even find personal biases in historical documents .Some how though we have today this strange book that is studied and scrutinized more then any other .What up with that ?

signalfire
Wow, what a concept! A 'religion' based on hearsay decades after the fact by people who weren't provably there at the time, and who had their own reasons for writing up what happened, who disagree with each other about the particulars. All of this, seriously edited and mistranslated down over the ages. And historians at the time who prove that say, Caesar was for real, and the eruption at Vesuvius really happened, were mute on this particular topic, even though it was a bit of a game-changer, even then.

In other words, a religion based on a game of Chinese Telephone.

One of the remote viewers Courtney Browne says that Jesus was somewhere else during the crucifixion and a patsy was sacrificed.

Dunno what that does for your religion... 'Bernard died for your sins' just doesn't have the same impact, y'know?

Tacitus, a Roman historian with no Jewish or Christian agenda, says that He was executed by Pilate. Tacitus lived in the first century. It was commonly accepted by the Romans, and they prided themselves on being able to execute people, they were experts.

I think Vlad Tepes borrowed some of their execution styles, that's probably why he was pretty good at executing people.

reply to post by WarminIndy

Why am I the only person who has never read a Harry Potter book? I don't know this Voldemort person. But what's funny is that in French (and I never read Harry Potter), Volde means flight and mort means death.

What is Voldemort supposed to be in Harry Potter?

I'm not surprised you've never read the books. Depending on your zealotry, you might have been among the few who declared it to be a series unworthy of printing, full of Satanic rituals, devil worship, and pagan sacrilege. Given how it teaches the acceptance of death and the drawbacks of immortality, the pitfalls of zealotry and the trials of being caught between living to avenge and dying to protect. It's a much deeper and more intellectually stimulating adventure than the Bible. I wish J.K. Rowling could be given a chance ro revise that pile of rubbish.

Voldemort was a dark wizard bent upon ensuring his immortality and rulership of the known world. He sneered upon those who were not of pure magical stock and despised those who were not magical at all. One could say he had a lot in common with God, although God had the decency to at least pretend he had good reasons for feeling the way he did. They're both arrogant, self-centered, and insecure...but God at least tries to disguise his shortcomings as strengths. Voldemort doesn't care. If you don't like it, you die. If he doesn't like it, you die. If he wants it, it is his and if you have any brains at all, you'll keep hush hush about it.

He ended up dying by his own curse. The funny thing is, had he left Harry alone, he never would have died. Makes me wonder what would happen if God was a little more lax with his judicial policies.

reply to post by WarminIndy


Tacticus was referring to a different group of trouble makers, who followed the ancient myth of "Chrestus". Christians in those days were called "Nazorenes" and didn't adopt the title of Christian until much later. Also, there was no huge movement of trouble making Christians in Rome at the time Tacticus is referring to.

wildtimes
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Why am I the only person who has never read a Harry Potter book?

I dunno, Indy...why are you??
Does it scare you to read youth fiction? To think about witches and wizards and such?
I remember years ago finding a book from the 1970s called "The Black Arts" at a used book store - and I bought it. But it was YEARS before I had the nerve to actually read it....

silly of me. One can learn a LOT by reading things that make one nervous to even consider. (Outside the comfort zone, you know).

EDIT: (by the way, I didn't become demon-possessed by doing so - nor did I become demon-possessed when I studied Wicca and practiced it. Nor by reading Harry Potter. Just sayin'.)

edit on 10/8/13 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

NOOO, I simply refuse to give in to pop culture. Justin Bieber was famous for three years before I knew who he was. Youth fiction and wizards and witches do not scare me. I did grow up with The Wizard of Oz and still go around singing "Ding dong the witch is dead"...lol.

From what I understand, there is a stereotypical image of witches, and then there are people who do call themselves witches. My brother was Wiccan and now says he is Celtic Pagan. I've heard it all from him. But I am simply not a conformist, I refuse pop culture conformity. I've never seen Twilight either. But right now on my cell phone, my ring tone is Breath of Life from Florence and the Machine.

But I am able to study things objectively. I don't have to agree with everything, but I can consider things before making my mind up about a thing. So I considered conformity with pop culture....nope, not for me.

reply to post by WarminIndy

But I am able to study things objectively. I don't have to agree with everything, but I can consider things before making my mind up about a thing. So I considered conformity with pop culture....nope, not for me.

Well, I agree with that - I'm not a 'comformist' either. (I actually go shopping in jammy pants and hoodies - and make pot roasts from time to time - which are all "taboo" for women in my age range - which is "over 50.")

But, BUT! - just because something is 'pop culture' doesn't mean it should be rejected out of hand. I think being AWARE of pop culture and its influence on society is pretty important - like a Litmus test of the culture's general health.

Recently I read all three of "The Hunger Games" books - and 'pop culture' as they are, they had some INCREDIBLY insightful views into humanity and its depravity and cruelty.

windword
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Tacticus was referring to a different group of trouble makers, who followed the ancient myth of "Chrestus". Christians in those days were called "Nazorenes" and didn't adopt the title of Christian until much later. Also, there was no huge movement of trouble making Christians in Rome at the time Tacticus is referring to.

Tacitus wrote what he did about Christians placing them in the time of Nero. He even goes on to accuse Nero of purposely persecuting them. But he called them a "superstitious" group because they didn't worship the emperor, they believed in monogamous marriages and they did something really strange, they got up early to go out to worship. Tacitus even mentions that Nero dressed up like a bride for a sham gay marriage. I am not saying anything against gays here, but that Tacitus says Nero was playing the part of a bride and was wed to a man. He didn't have a very high view of Nero. All of this is found in his writing Annals

He even says the movement first began in Judea then spread to Rome. He even states explicitly that Pontius Pilate was responsible for execution of the "leader of the group". He never seems to imply that it was a myth. And the Nazarenes meant only that they were from Nazareth. The Nazarites were well-known for their vows of not cutting their hair or drinking alcohol, but they were a very old group. While he does not say the name Jesus, he still says "Christus" as the founder. He didn't project any definition onto what Christus actually means, only that there were followers of this man.

The Christians did not take on the name Christian until Paul preached at Antioch. Until that time they simply were known as Believers.

windword
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Tacticus was referring to a different group of trouble makers, who followed the ancient myth of "Chrestus". Christians in those days were called "Nazorenes" and didn't adopt the title of Christian until much later. Also, there was no huge movement of trouble making Christians in Rome at the time Tacticus is referring to.

What? Where do you get your supposed facts from?

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. (Source)

Tacticus seems to have the basic facts of Christianity down there, and he doesn't refer to any "huge movement" in Rome.

Christians were first called "Christians" at Antioch, according to Acts 11, not "much later", and they were, prior to that, known as "The Way", not "Nazorenes" (sic).

wildtimes
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

But I am able to study things objectively. I don't have to agree with everything, but I can consider things before making my mind up about a thing. So I considered conformity with pop culture....nope, not for me.

Well, I agree with that - I'm not a 'comformist' either. (I actually go shopping in jammy pants and hoodies - and make pot roasts from time to time - which are all "taboo" for women in my age range - which is "over 50.")

But, BUT! - just because something is 'pop culture' doesn't mean it should be rejected out of hand. I think being AWARE of pop culture and its influence on society is pretty important - like a Litmus test of the culture's general health.

Recently I read all three of "The Hunger Games" books - and 'pop culture' as they are, they had some INCREDIBLY insightful views into humanity and its depravity and cruelty.

Making pot roasts are taboo for your age?

I did see The Hunger Games and it was pretty good. I am aware of what is going on in pop culture, recently I was an English tutor in a college and they all informed me how to prepare for the Zombie Apocalypse.

But to keep this thread from drifting, I was just pointing out that the OP based this thread on one thing, an article written that included a medical emergency without having an actual body to examine. That's the point we all seem to agree on. If such a shock that requires immediate emergency services to get the patient to the hospital quickly, then that should have been considered by the OP.

I have seen documentaries where people attempt to imitate the crucifixion, but there's no way they could subject the "victim" to the same conditions suffered by Jesus.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Or FlyersFan he could have just swooned/fainted as a result of the intense pain he was in and slipped into a coma.

reply to post by WarminIndy

Well considering that the Roman soldier stabbed his kidney with a spear and saw He was already dead, I am going to say that yes, He was dead.

Was this anonymous Roman soldier also a respected medical examiner? If not, how can his word be taken for it? Furthermore, all we have is the word of some anonymous writer that this anonymous Roman soldier saw that he was dead. Sounds sketchy.

reply to post by danielsil18


Unfortunately, Danielsil18, Voldemort doesn't have a worldwide cult that worships him and has committed violence in his name for thousands of years.

AlienBuddha
According to Jewish standards for measuring days, a new day starts at sunset. So if Jesus was crucified on Friday afternoon, then stayed dead all through Saturday, and then resurrected some time Sunday morning, that would still count as "three days" in accordance with Jewish law.

According to accepted Christian timelines, Jesus died between 2pm and 3pm on Friday. Let's say sunset was at 8pm (it doesn't really matter, though; it's the same amount of hours in total). That's six hours there. Then from 8pm Friday night to 8pm Saturday night is 24 hours. Then the Bible says he resurrected very early in the morning on Sunday and that it was still dark, right before dawn. Let's say 5am for argument's sake. That's another 9 hours.

6+24+9 equals 39 hours. He was "dead" for roughly thirty nine hours.

Has anyone considered that he didn't actually die; that maybe it was only a coma induced by hypovolemic shock from which he recovered a day and a half later?

Haha, wow. You're trying to justify a contradiction in the Bible? Why not choose one of the many other significant contradictions like omnipotence and free will, etc? Come one dude, obviously the whole Christian doctrine is BS, why try to make sense of it? It's like trying to push a square through a circular hole.

reply to post by IamAStrangeLoop


I'm doing none of the things of which you just accused me. My view of the Bible is it was written by a bunch of primitive people trying to explain things that happened to them or their ancestors in their own language the best way they knew how. But that doesn't mean I'm attempting to justify anything. I'm merely asking Christians to think a bit outside of the box and consider that Jesus may not have actually died but instead passed out and slipped into a coma.

Why are you discouraging open dialogue and free discussion?