The Resurrection of Jesus - did it really happen?

I think you first have to establish that Jesus was ever born in the first place and did the things attributed to him in the oft-contradictory biblical (+ apocryphal?) stories before you worry about the death and resurrection bit.

 

in order to believe it happened, one would also have to believe Jesus was stuck in his dead body for 3 days after he died

also the bible contains 2 maybe 3 versions of his last words before dying, those should of all matched unless Jesus pretended to die multiple times

.

 

If we imagine, say, that Lenin had been killed at the Finland Station, can we believe that the Bolsheviks wouldn't have disintegrated - and Lenin was in no way theoretically central - just a very good thinker and tactitian. The speed at which the Chuch grew indicates that something very powerful had happened, a thing that freed people from the fear of the Roman butcherboys - namely that their gruesome execution rituals had, in this case, simply failed. Since dead people don't get up and walk, this suggests that Jesus wasn't dead - a possibility that is there in shadowy form even in the gospel narratives. There was a book called 'The Passover Conspiracy' I read once that fleshed out this idea, but I don't stand by that particularly

 

to iolo :::::::::::::::

i like your reply because of the way in which you speak.

however it seems that i do not agree with you.

no -- the socalled resurection never ever happened; and there was nothing like it.

the creator of the universe is the master of the universe. all life is created by the creator; all death is a part of that same creation. all of the living must at some final point in their lives become the dead. and then the dead do stay dead. because there is a way in which the same biological cells may be recycled. that is it --- the creator did not ever make death into life, except by certain means. all the living forms have descendents, that is the only way that the dead ever come back to life, by the birth of new life.

please do tell me mr. iolo, what do you know about spartacus ???? and the dyonisian cults.

vlad

 

A certain amount. A lot more, certainly, than I know about 'God'. And I was not arguing for resurrection but for survival.

 

Yeah. Religion happened. People didn't need to see the stuff to believe it. Just look at believers today..

 

It's possible that the resurrection story is actually about the second Jewish revolt in 132-135. They lost that one too.

 

I don't see how that's possible since the books of the Bible where already written before that time, as well as various Roman historians and church leaders mentioning it

 

to wyrd ::::::::::
it is possible that only a small part of the jesus storuy is about the second jewish revolt, but only a small part. and then there are the very many additions to the jesus story from the spartacus legend, the dionysian myth, the mithra myth, the zoroastrian religion, the elagabalus cult, and a few more. but in total, the jesus religions all come from the (byzantine) east roman religion established by the emperor konstantin. see my thread at -- http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/265575-konstantin-christian-religion.html --- or find other easyly available sources. ---vlad

 

to Mr. ::::::

your comment shows that you do not understand "wyrd's" comment. see my comment please.

vlad

 

to iolo ::::::::

i was hoping for more content in your reply.

the phrase " a certain amount" leaves me quessing as to what you are trying to say.

i do not understnad what you mean about "arguing for survival" ?? whose survival ??

please do try to tell me what, if anything, you may know about spartacus.

please tell me what, if anything, you may know about the many dionysian cults.

please tell me if you may happen to have read my thread about the emperor konstantin.
you may see my thread at -- http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/265575-konstantin-christian-religion.html --

vlad

 

to durandal :::::::

perhaps you would like to comment on my thread about the real start of the christian religion and the emperor konstantin at -- http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/265575-konstantin-christian-religion.html ----

thanks for the links.

vlad

 

The resurrection was first and foremost a solar allegory. As Thomas Paine once wrote,

"The christian religion is a parody on the worship of the Sun, in which they put a man whom they call Christ, in the place of the Sun, and pay him the same adoration which was originally paid to the Sun."

However, possible connections to the people and events of the time are certainly worth consideration. It's clear, for instance, that Jesus has more than a little in common with the rebel leader Eleazar ben Simon, which is something that The Wyrd of Gawd pointed out to me a while back. Big thanks to him for that Thus, we have classic solar myth + contemporary personage = Jesus. What more might remain to be discovered? I suppose that depends on what information is available outside of the mythology to be compared to it.

 

Christians don't worship the sun. It's a clever English word play trick since son sounds just like sun. Only problem is English is a very new language, and not one that was around at that time. No doubt, December 25th may of been picked because of the winter solstice. The quote in John Chapter 3 from John the Baptist: "I must decrease, so that he may increase." Christianity, along with Judaism are different from the other religions before in the sense that their God was not a part of nature, but above it. In that sense, how can God be the sun, since it is a part of creation?

I really don't see what this Simon character has to do with Jesus. He was a zealot, Christ was not.

 

to stig42 ::::::::::
the truth about the end of the jesus story is that jesus son of mary was stoned to death as an execution ordered by the sanhedrin, in ancient hebrew tradition. jesus was never crucified. spartacus was crucified. after the death of jesus his body was thrown in the gulch near jerusalem as was the tradition. then the jesus gang divided into two main parts; the exclusivly judean poor, the ebonites (under the leadership of brother james) and the mixed groups of jewish greeks, and greek jews (that is to say judeans who were culturaly greek, and greeks and others who were culturaly jewish) the major groups of these were the marcianites and the gnostics. this continued as the various groups mixed with the various neo-pagan cults such as the spartacists, the dionysians, the zoroastrians, the mithrains, the elagabalians, and more. finally the emperor konstantin united all of this into a new neo-pagan religion. and certainly konstantin suppressed all other cults and religions.

please vist and comment on my thread about konstantin at --- http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/265575-konstantin-christian-religion.html ---

vlad

 

to durandal :::::::::

thanks for the good clear and truthful comments. i have been looking for information about this simon whom you mention, is he also known as simon the magician.

vlad

 

Source please?

 

The word play is irrelevant to the issue. There are very many clues to Christ's astrological origin, one being the "Sign of Jonah." When people spoke of signs, they spoke of course of astrology, 'signs' in the heavens. That was considered wisdom back then, along with numerology and such. Such "wisdom" was the bread and butter of the priestly class, and it served as the basis for religion and mythology all around the world in ancient times. You think they built stone monuments such as Stonehenge for nothing? Such structures were scattered throughout the ancient world because of astrology's significance. The Great Pyramid of Giza also has astrological associations in how it's situated, and I don't just mean the three pyramids being arranged like the stars of Orion's girdle.

The sign of Jonah.. He was 3 days in darkness, in the whale's belly. 3 days, like the sun at solstice, when it stops descending for three days before beginning to climb again - all from a northern hemisphere perspective, obviously. No matter which story you look at, the basis for it is the same. The details of the story change, but not the essential facts upon which it's based.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleazar_ben_Simon

Вот он, друг )) There is no mention there of Simon the Magician, however. This man lived and died before Christianity was fully developed by the zealots and, later on, Saul of Tarsus.

Here is the fellow you were thinking of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Magus

 

A guy dies. His dead, decaying body lays in a cave for three days afterwards. He suddenly comes back to life and walks around for a while before "poof" he floats up beyond the clouds to a paradise in the heavens where the streets are lined with gold.

What's so hard to believe about that?

<snicker>

 

Remember, though, it's allegorical.

Incidentally, isn't it amusing how Christians freely declare bits of their holy book metaphorical while getting offended if people like me point out that other parts of it are allegorical? They think they're the sole authority on this stuff because, you know, they believe in it and stuff. You can't be any kind of expert in their mythology if you don't take it seriously, apparently.

 

his name was not Jesus or Christ, people renamed him that later after he died cause they thought it sounded better


.

 

that would indeed confirm what i said if that’s the case

 

Well, it's certainly much more likely than Paul actually being a genuine Apostle - he never even met Jesus in the flesh, you know.

 

According to the gospels when was Jesus crucified because the disciples who attended the execution do not seem to agree .

Paul's Jesus was the one of the Jewish scripture , he even ignores where the guy was burred like it is a big secret ...