The Resurrection of Jesus - did it really happen?

Hey, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, and Mary all have English names.

 

That's only because they are English versions of the actual names. Peter in Latin is Petros, John is Iohannes and so forth.

 

Petros is Greek for stone
Siphas is Hebrew for stone

Jesus although an Aramaic speaker used to call the guy "Petros" , makes you wonder eh ?

 

What's to misunderstand? How can the resurrection story be about something that has not happened yet? And how is Spartacus considered a myth now? Interesting proof of Christianity borrowing from different myths, and the Church created by Constantine. Got any proof?

 

Or rock.

I agree that Jesus was an Aramaic speaker. With that said, I believe he wouldn't of said petros, but kepha, which is the aramaic word for rock.

 

The same self serving fake had this story about getting bitten by a viper and suffering no ill effects, proving he was under 'god's' protection. 'Course, there are no vipers on that island and the story doesnt make sense even if there were.

 

Or, the story of Jonah couid of been a not so subtle forshadowing to the death and resurrection of Christ. I think your theory would make more sense if Jesus was actually born on Dec 25, but no actual proof exists.

I remember seeing a doctumentary on the stonehenge a while back. Apparantly they, scholars believe there was a wooden one, which was for people, and the stonehenge we see today was supposed to be the dwelling of the Gods. Which is why we still have the stonehenge, and not the wooden one. It's supposed to represent the immortailty of the gods.

 

The tendency of ancient peoples to build megaliths is so widespread, it would be interesting to know the common thread.

 

could have, FFS. That mistake comes from 'could've' sounding like 'could of,' but that version is entirely ungrammatical.

Anyway, Jesus is a character whose birth was symbolic of winter solstice.. It's kind of silly to fret over when the man was born when the man was probably entirely made up anyway. The story uses zodiacal motifs, but does not reveal itself as a solar allegory in plain language.. It's just chock full of clues, of elements the "wise" would have known about and been able to identify in the story.

I'm just not sure why the story was invented in the first place. I just know it sprang up in the midst of the war between Israel and Rome, soon after their precious temple had been destroyed. They had no love of Rome and its emperor, but Christianity seems to have helped out there. Maybe it was meant to calm the rabble, or at least maybe parts of it were. I do see it as an attempt by learned people to control the illiterate masses, something religion was terribly good for back in the day. It's only now in the industrial and post-industrial world that we're beginning to shed all of that in favour of science and secularism.

 

Astrology, of course. Tracking the seasons and attributing a lot of religious nonsense to it all.

 

There is a lot more evidence suggesting he did exist than he didn't exist at all. I remember seeing the Zeitgeist film a while back, ad it seems more likely its people wanting to see connections where none really exist. Believing in hisalleged non existence makes the astrological connection easier to swallow.

It is more likely that the synoptic gospels were written prior to the destruction of the temple. Although, some scholars do believe they may of been written after 70AD. Matthew mentions the Sadducees much more often than any of the other gospels. It suggests that Matthew must of been stressing the danger of the Sadducees to his readers. Luke wrote Acts of the Apostles as a part II of his version of the Gospel before the destruction of the temple since he makes no mention of the death of Paul which would make the date of that book the mid 60's. The Gospel of Luke obviously would of been written earlier. Paul himself mentioned several events about Christ that are motioned in the Gospels, and there is literally no dispute that he wrote his epistles prior to 70AD.

 

I remember once, in the NAVY, there were a handful of guys in my B.E.Q. that were into Dungeons and Dragons. They were the same way. Never ending debate, sometimes heated, about the designated powers given to particular game characters. I never played or understood the game so when I would listen to them go at it, it was as if they were speaking an entirely different language, all the while, using words that were common to everyone. Perhaps some people were just not intended to understand. Far be it from me to judge anyone.

 

Oh, the man referred to today as Jesus Christ certainly did exist. Now, I won't get into all the religious debate around the man, but I will address his name.

I seem to remember from past studies some information on this topic. My spelling may be off a bit. It has been several years.

There was an entry in the Talmud, I believe it was, that recorde his name as Y'shua ben Panthera. The son of the Roman soldier named Panthera, (The Panther,) who took Mary as his servant/slave as it was common to do during that era. There is also some history dating back that records his name as J'shua Ben Yahweh. Y'shua and J'shua are geographical words for the same name that can be translated to be "Jesus."

Christ is a title. Not a name. Thinking his name is Jesus Christ would be like thinking Queen Elizabeth's first name is Queen.

But, like I said, it was several years ago when I picked up this info. I can't give or validate the sources because, well, I simply don't remember. I only share it only because it is interesting. It may or may not be true. I certainly have no evidence of it's accuracy.

 

Well, if you are interested, study the Mithra religion. It predates Christianity and the Mithra story, virgin birth, died for sin, resurrection, etc., is very common to the Christian story. Also, virgin birth is popular in many other religions.

Budini shows himself to be well studied and my advice would be to listen to him. My own studies tells me he has done his homework. Did you know that the first christian messianic sect thought that James the Just, (Jesus's brother mentioned by Budini earlier,) was the Christ? It wasn't until centuries later that Jesus was proclaimed the Christ and the Council of Nicea certainly had to negotiate what gospels were to me accepted, which one's were not, which religious myths were to be included and which were not. They had to satisy the Mithran's as well as other old religions when they forged a single, state sponsored, one-catch-all religion. That's an interesting story as well.

The info is out there. Just hit Google and start there.

 

Yes, but then surely the guys who wrote the story knew that. maybe wild pigs? Maybe belonged to some hethen?

So that would make it ok to so confiscate the guys property which may be all he had in the world.

People who think that story shows there really were / are daemons causing mental illness are reason for more than just a chin rub.

 

Here’s what happens when a society rejects God and the morality associated with Him, and replaces that with statism and atheism.

www.180movie.com
www.sovietstory.com

 

It’s funny that instead of debating and bringing some serious arguments, the agnostics and atheists chose the easy way out. I wonder if any of you even read the arguments that I brought for the Resurrection. Because you haven’t addressed any of that. Instead, like all good atheists and postmodern relativists, you ridicule anything that has to do with God and avoid the issues that make you uncomfortable.

Your arguments are a combination of ridicule, jokes from pop culture, and something about pigs.

So much for “educated and open minded” atheists and agnostics.

Secular liberals and agnostics claim to be “free thinkers”.

You believe in free thinking? There’s more free thinking in the book of Job, in the Bible, than in anything ever written by atheists.

Then Jesus answered and said to him: “For this reason I was born and I came into the world, so that I may testify to the truth”. John 18:37

 

Mithraism is a Roman mystery religion that flourished in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD. Unlike the jesus myth there are physical artifacts from this ancient religion. Where as in the case of a jesus you have no physical evidence to prove he ever lived. Now with that said the December 25th birth date is highly unlikely for the myth jesus. Constantine moved the date to the 25th after his so called conversion to christianity. The birth date was moved in the 4th Century:

http://www.religionfacts.com/greco-roman/sects/mithraism.htm

Gerald Berry, Religions of the World
http://www.truthbeknown.com/mithra.htm

Franklin along with Jefferson and others were Deists their idea of a god was not what christians portray today.

http://deism.com/deism_defined.htm

Thomas Paine wrote:

As far as this resurrection the inconsistenies in the NT are many:

Gospels say he was crucified with two theives but the Romans never crucified theives.

In Mark the two theives are mentioned but no conversation.

Matthew 27:44
44, The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth.

Luke 23:39-42
39, And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.
40, But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?
41, And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.
42, And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.

though John and Acts say he did not ascend to heaven until 40 days after his resurrection

John - The two men aren_t described as thieves

Romans never crucified thieves simply because they were not considered a threat to the Empire, basically low lfe. So where or who concocted the thief story?

The Gospels do not even agree on who carried the stick:

Who carries the cross
Mark 15:21
21, And they compel one Simon a Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to bear his cross.

Who carries the cross
Matthew 27:32
32, And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name: him they compelled to bear his cross.

Luke
23:26
26, And as they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out of the country, and on him they laid the cross, that he might bear it after Jesus.

John
19:17
17, And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha:

 

Good question, if you study and ponder prayerfully the stories of the resurrection the Holy Spirit will open your mind to understanding and you will come to see where the man Jesus died physically and that Jesus the Son of God, co-equal with his Father God, also died and was seperated, for the first ime ever, From God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. God the Father resurrected both Jesus the man and Jesus the God from death. You have to believe that Jesus was both man and God to understand anything about Him. Many things written in Scripture refer to Jesus the man more than to Jesus the God. It is impossible for us to truly understand what it meant for the Son of God to be seperated from the Father and the Holy Spirit, but it was tremendously awesome in a negative way. THAT is what the sacrifice was. Jesus the man voluntarily giving up His life to save the lives of billions that did not know Him and Jesus the Son of God voluntarily giving up His life and throne to do the same.

 

Really? Who saw it? The rest is conformation bias.

 

1. Mary Magdalene (mentioned by Matthew, Mark, and John)

2. Mary the mother of James and Joses (mentioned by Matthew and Mark)

3. The mother of Zebedee's sons (mentioned by Matthew)

4. Salome (mentioned by Mark) -- Many scholars think that this is the same person as (3), the mother of Zebedee's sons

5. Mary the mother of Jesus (mentioned by John)

6. Mary the wife of Clophas (who was probably Joseph's brother) (mentioned by John)

7. An un-named sister of Jesus' mother (mentioned by John) -- Many scholars think that this is the same person as (6), i.e., the wife of Clophas

8. The un-named Beloved Disciple (mentioned by John)

BTW, dont ask me to call them to the witness stand as they are all long dead but thousands living at the time believed their testimony and gave their own lives for that believe. Would you give your life if someone told you to renounce your atheism?