• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Jesus: Tales From The Crypt

svart said:
I think it is generally thought that the Shroud of Turin is a fake....

That's possible. But who was the incredibly brilliant genius who faked it? For starters only, he (?) had to teach himself (?) First or Second Century weaving techniques. Then followed a couple of dozen other things just as astounding.
 
Well, it's aired, and the reviews...well review is in:
Lost tomb of Jesus

So, basically, they found some ossuaries with some names that kind of match the "Holy Family". There is no ossuary with Mary Magdalene's name, but there is one with a different name that might be her.

The "DNA evidence" is just that the "Mary Magdalene" bones were not related matrilineally (IE she had a different mother). So she might have been married to the Jesus bones. Or she might have been his half sister. Or his step-mother. Or a cousin. Or an aunt...

And they spent quite some time looking in the wrong crypt.

And it might be linked to the famed fake ossuary of James, brother of Jesus. Assuming that wasn't a fake. Which it was.

In short, a lot of speculation, and not a lot of solid evidence. They have some bones. They probably belonged to people living in the first century in modern day Israel.
 
crunchy5 said:
I won't say much about this as I don't want to offend anyone but I agree we are witnessing a coordinated attack on Christianity, I don't have a clue why though the religion doesn't seem to be causing any trouble compared to the other main religions, maybe they are just too meek and the bullies can't resist an easy target. I'm an atheist but not an evangelical atheist, you believe whatever you want as long as you don't try to force your beliefs or morals on to me.

http://aoreport.com/mag/index.php?optio ... &Itemid=44

Yes, it would appear that a major, earthshaking announcment of historic proportions is about to take place next Monday, (2/26/7) when a news conference will be held to announce the discovery of the Tomb of Jesus Christ of Nazareth as well as that of his family members. The news conference is part of a publicity effort in advance of a TV program that will focus on the archaeological discovery of this tomb and the containers that held the bodies of the family members. It is not clear if any remains have been found or not.



The Attack On Christianity Begins






























It would appear that this story is a set up by the New World Order crowd of Freemasons and the Illuminists. Apparently they're game-plan is to spin-doctor this thing so that the Antichrist can come to power. This reporter had suspected something like this would develop after all the hype and build up from the Da Vinci Code book and movie and the announced discovery of the Gnostic "Gospel of Judas" and the hype over the Gnostic Gospel of Mary Magdalene.

James Cameron is the key man behind the film documentary. Cameron is a 3-time Oscar winning film-make who is known primarily for his blockbuster movie "Titanic" is also reported to be a 33rd degree freemason. If so, he is also, most likely connected with the Illuminati movement, either directly or indirectly.

This impending announcement and revelation about the "coffin" or ossuary of Jesus of Nazareth is probably the last step in the Illuminati's set up process, so necessary before the revealing their "messiah" of the future, i.e. The Antichrist.

Most likely, the "illuminated spin doctors" will try to eventually claim a DNA link between Jesus of Nazareth and a new "messiah" when that "man of sin" (i.e. "man of chaos") is revealed to the public. Most likely the Illuminists will claim the new 'messiah' is a "descendant" of Jesus. IF so, expect these apologists to point to.the Gnostic Gospels and the Knights Templar legends, ala the book "The DaVinci Code," as proof to support their claims. It will be one of the big building blocks that comprise the "Big Lie" of Satan. How many people who claim to be Christians will fall for this fabrication? Is it possible that most of the "Christian" world will fall for this deception? Don't be surprised if that is the case.

Other Theological Repercusions

The claim that Jesus of Nazareth died and never resurrected essentially destroys Biblically-based conservative Christianity and strengthens the "liberal" Christian or "new-age" Christian theology as well as deism and Freemasonry. It also strengthens traditional Judaism and takes the Jews off-the-hook so to speak for killing the 'Son of God" because without a Resurrection, there is no divinity for Jesus. If there was no divinity for Jesus and that he was merely another man with Adam's DNA, not the Creator's, then there is no substitutionary atonement for sin and if no substitutionary atonement for sin, then there is no salvation. This opens up the world for a new, unified one-world religion. A new "Tower of Babel" religion.

If all of the above were the case, then every other theological element in the Bible is called into serious question including the question of who Jehovah is? From this standpoint, the NWO-Illuminists can conclude that Jehovah was but one of the many "elohim" which the Sumerian Royal Library records refer to as "The Anunnaki" - the gods and goddesses from another planet who were space travelers who came to Earth. It opens up the Illuminist argument for the return of the Anunnaki, the "space brothers" who were the gods of Babylon/Sumer. In the Genesis 6 account they were called the "benai hahelohim" or "sons of God." Their hybrid offspring with human women were called = "The Nephilim."

The Illuminist explanation would then unfold as follows. These entities who came down to Earth, established a colony, and created mankind using laboratory genetics. According to Sumerian Royal Records discovered by archaeologists the Anunnaki crossed over some of their DNA with that of monkeys or primates existing on Earth at the time, to create the human race for the purpose of making them slaves to mine for gold. According to the Sumerians (forerunners of the Babylonians) these 'gods' kept humanity enslaved for tens or hundreds of thousands of years as gold mining on Earth progressed. The gold was used to create an environmental shield for the Anunnaki planet, which the Sumerians called Nibiru.

Can you see where this sort of hypothesis leads? It essentially destroys the Bible and sets the stage for an non-human entities (fallen angels) to decieve mankind into accepting the Big Lie to which Biblical Prophecy references as the great "Apostasy." Truly such a scenario would result in a great "apostasy."

IF, indeed this is the case, then we as Believers in Jesus Christ, stand on the threshold of Biblical prophetic fulfillment. Standby for mind-bending events to unfold shortly. Look for dramatic events to unfold with signs in the heavens, in the weather and in the earth.

This developing story is likely the most significant prophetically oriented event since the American conquest of Iraq and as equally important as the re-birth of Israel in 1948.

Look for major coverage on this story by the Mainstream News Media. The MSM will most likely be all over this story. If not, it will be because they fear a backlash from the True Church. If so, the story will be soft-pedaled until the Christians are gone in the Rapture. IF, the NWO crowd believes there will be no rapture, more than likely, the Mainstream Media will be ordered to shove this story down the public's throat. So watch how the mainstream media covers this story, not just the news conference but also the debut of the film on TV. So the next two weeks for media exposure will likely be a tip-off as to what the Illuminists are expecting in the way of a Rapture event


Holy---whatever. :shock:

Is this guy serious? Freemasons, the New World Order, and let us not overlook those minions of Satan, the elusive but all-powerful Illuminati... 8)

Who the hell wrote this screed anyway?

"Sumerian Royal Records"??? :!: The "Annunaki"????

Slaving to mine gold for these alien overlords?? What is this guy--a Scientologist? :lol:

And nice bit about "strengthening traditional Judiasm"--something he clearly sees as a terrible idea--and "letting Jews off the hook"??

Do I detect just a whiff of anti-Semitism here?? :evil:

What nutcase wrote this, anyhow??? :?
 
Quick update here: I followed the link to these folks' website, something called the "Alpha and Omega". Catchy name, huh? Not to mention original!

I took the liberty of sending them an email (hey, they invited me to!) telling them that they're a disgrace to Christianity.

"Letting the Jews off the hook" my big foot!!! :evil:

What religion do they think Jesus practiced?!
 
synchronicity said:
Quick update here: I followed the link to these folks' website, something called the "Alpha and Omega". Catchy name, huh? Not to mention original!
Alpha and Omega? The beginning and the end? Someone's got a case of self importance. :roll:
Maybe they'd be better using the Greek letters on my siggy.
 
The claim that Jesus of Nazareth died and never resurrected essentially destroys Biblically-based conservative Christianity and strengthens the "liberal" Christian or "new-age" Christian theology as well as deism and Freemasonry.

Who's to say that he didn't die, then came back to life, then died again?
They could just add a little bit about his life after resurrection to the story without actualy changing anything. Then everybody's happy. Wasn't he supposed to have lived the remainder of his days in Kashmire After all, to assume that he didn't eventualy die is to assume that he's still around, which kinda messes up the whole 'second coming' thing
 
QuaziWashboard said:
Who's to say that he didn't die, then came back to life, then died again?
Or that he wasn't fictional.
 
There were doubtless loads of self-styled prophets and religious cult leaders around at the time, so it could have been that Jesus was a real chap, but had a lot of popular myth attributed to him after he died. Either that or he was a myth all the time and has really caught on in a big way. Or maybe the Bible was true after all. It's too far in the past to be sure, hence the amount of speculation.
 
The view from http://www.archaeology.org/online/revie ... tomb2.html

An unconvincing case, and an ulterior motive?

Simcha Jacobovici, the filmmaker behind "The Lost Tomb of Jesus," a Discovery Channel special airing at 8:00 p.m. on Sunday, March 4, believes that he knows where Jesus is buried--in a tomb in the southern Jerusalem neighborhood of Talpiot that was discovered by an Israeli archaeologist in 1980 and, mysteriously according to the filmmaker, not publicized.

He has assembled an impressive number of experts to comment upon his theories, from Israel Antiquities Authority spokesmen to forensic specialists and statisticians. It worth noting, however, that none of these individuals, with the sole exception of Jacobovici himself and his statistical expert, seem entirely convinced by the evidence presented. The constant references to the wildly popular and absurdly wrongheaded thriller The Da Vinci Code might explain the reluctance of many scholars not related to the project to buy into these conjectures. But even one of the film's proponent experts, James Tabor of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, has said that the tomb only "arguably" might be connected to the Jesus of Nazareth.

Not one to be discouraged by accusations of fraud and impending legal complications, Jacobovici is now taking the case many leaps forward.

We last heard from Jacobovici when he decided to make a film about the "monumental" discovery of an ossuary bearing an inscription "James the brother of Jesus." Along with Herschel Shanks, who promoted the ossuary and other finds now deemed dubious in Biblical Archaeology Review, and others, the filmmaker is still touting the authenticity of that find in the face of charges of inscription forgery from the Israel Antiquities Authority. (See "The James Ossuary" saga for more on this.) Not one to be discouraged by accusations of fraud and impending legal complications, Jacobovici is now taking the case many leaps forward. In the opinion of the filmmaker and his assembled experts, the James ossuary is a lost--more accurately, stolen--antiquity from what he refers to as "the Jesus Family Tomb."

The film itself is a good deal less frenzied in its treatment of the subject than either the press conference that announced it or any of the subsequent media coverage. It is actually a rather interesting exploration of how one proceeds to reconstruct an archaeological context that no longer exists. That the filmmakers were not entirely successful in this is most because of the nature of the evidence as well as to their own absurd expectations. The tomb has been built over with an apartment block, the bones given a decent Jewish burial as Israel's agreement with its religious authorities requires in the case of skeletal remains, and only the limestone repositories remain as a provocative clue to the sacred relics they might have once housed.

For scholars, however, at least those who are not too busy fulminating on television about the publicity-seeking proclivities of those associated with this project, this case is an eminently flawed one.

The evidence is presented step by step, much as any good attorney might do before a jury, to create a compelling case to the layman. For scholars, however, at least those who are not too busy fulminating on television about the publicity-seeking proclivities of those associated with this project, this case is an eminently flawed one. Aside from the fact that many archaeologists who have recovered such ossuaries have testified to the frequency of the names "Jesus," "Mary," and "Joseph" on the burial equipment from this period, the use of statistical analysis alone, or primarily, to prove an archaeological theory is something that many of us have attempted to get away from.

At one time we archaeologists loved statistics, happily performing complex regression and cluster analyses on our data and spitting out conclusions from our computers that, likely, proved the conjectures we had begun with. In the last two decades, however, we have begun to question these facile validations of our common sense. The problem is with the data. The methods may be perfectly suited to a world in which a representative sample, normal distribution or even an idea of what the population in question might be is possible. Archaeological evidence is precisely the opposite. We do not, in point of fact, know any of these things. In the words of one former statistically enthralled antiquarian, "Even when the odds were good, we knew that the goods were odd."

We know that we have seen these names before and we know that the universe from which [the] results are drawn is a flawed one that no amount of mathematical manipulation can overcome.

Thus, unlike Jacobovici and company's impressively qualified statistician, the assertion that there was a 1 in 600 to 1 in 1,000 chance that ossuaries with the names inscribed on the Talpiot examples might be found in one tomb, has failed to impress archaeologists. We know that we have seen these names before and we know that the universe from which statistical analyst Feuerverger's results are drawn is a flawed one that no amount of mathematical manipulation can overcome.

The other part of the filmmakers' case is less complex--and considerably less compelling. Although there were no bones to be found, a DNA analysis was performed on the residue of two ossuaries purportedly having contained the bones of Jesus and his wife Mary Magdalene. While the fact that scientists were able to perform such a test on mere residues from the boxes was impressive, the results of the tests were not. The DNA samples obtained were determined to be not from closely related individuals. Since it was supposedly a family tomb the assumption was made that the individuals must have been married.

A famous tomb...not only contained ossuaries with inscriptions bearing the names Mariamne (Mary) and Joseph but also ossuaries that contained the bones of several individuals at once--including one inscribed as "the Son of Caiaphas" that contained the bones of a female.

Good assumption--if, in fact, it were possible to state with certainty that the presence of unrelated individuals either by blood or marriage in a supposed family tomb is impossible. The truth is that DNA analyses are seldom done on remains from ossuary tombs of this period so the assumption is, again, based on mere conjecture. A famous tomb found in North Talpiot, not very far away from the one in question, not only contained ossuaries with inscriptions bearing the names Mariamne (Mary) and Joseph but also ossuaries that contained the bones of several individuals at once--including one inscribed as "the Son of Caiaphas" that contained the bones of a female. Pity the poor archaeologists with this kind of record to work with but, at least, we are not often burdened these days with the mandate that we find biblically related artifacts to validate our work.

Despite its unsound premise there are two moments in this film that should speak to the scholar even if the rest of it fails to do so. In one segment Jacobovici argues with an Antiquities Authority official about the identification of an ossuary from the North Talpiot tombs with the high priest Caiaphas of New Testament fame. This is, indeed, a case of Israeli archaeology being, in effect, hoisted on its own petard. If the Caiaphas identification is a valid one--which we doubt--why not the identifications that Jacobici is proposing?

Another telling part of the film is Jacobovici's discovery of the discarded Book of Jonah in his tomb, put there in modern times by rabbis who needed to dispose of them in a consecrated space. Jonah, so the filmmaker tells us, was essentially the world's first true missionary. It is presented as yet another "coincidence" that has led the filmmaker to his inevitable conclusions but one wonders if this particular moment actually explains the motivations of the individuals connected with this project more fully than the supposed scientific evidence.
 
QuaziWashboard said:
Who's to say that he didn't die, then came back to life, then died again?

I mentally played around with that one briefly last week, but it doesn't explain a whole raft of factors, including the Ascension, which Christians believe was witnessed.

Wasn't he supposed to have lived the remainder of his days in Kashmire.

Yep, and in Japan, too!

After all, to assume that he didn't eventualy die is to assume that he's still around, which kinda messes up the whole 'second coming' thing

But Christians DO believe that he is "still around." The Second Coming refers to the big store event, when he appears "in Glory," "with a shout," and surrounded by myriads of angels.

After all, one of the nice things about creating the Universe is that you sort of get to come and go as you please.
 
ghostdog19 said:
Or that he wasn't fictional.

With all respect, I think I can effectively counter that notion:

Nobody denies that "Church Father" Irenaeus existed. We have entire books written by him.

Irenaeus' own teacher was Polycarp.

Polycarp himself studied his theology at the feet of John the Apostle, Jesus Christ's own "Beloved Disciple."

So unless John was making up everything he taught Polycarp out of wholecloth, laughing his fool head off between "lessons," Jesus Christ existed.

Skeptics seem to proceed from the belief that there was this mysterious centuries-long "missing age" between the New Testament and accepted-by-everybody history.

It simply is not there.
 
OldTimeRadio said:
Polycarp himself studied his theology at the feet of John the Apostle, Jesus Christ's own "Beloved Disciple.
According to Eusebius of Caesarea. Polycarp had simply been a disciple of John, leading to theories of which John. So Eusebius weighs in a good century or two later and insists it's John the Evangelist that taught Polycarp and that this was the apostle John author of the Gospel of John. So it shouldn't come as any surprise that there are those who don't simply take Eusebius' word for it. I personally think it probable he knew St. John the Apostle. But probability opens us up to possibility, so who knows.
 
ghostdog19 said:
According to Eusebius of Caesarea. Polycarp had simply been a disciple of John, leading to theories of which John. So Eusebius weighs in a good century or two later and insists it's John the Evangelist that taught Polycarp and that this was the apostle John author of the Gospel of John. So it shouldn't come as any surprise that there are those who don't simply take Eusebius' word for it. I personally think it probable he knew St. John the Apostle. But probability opens us up to possibility, so who knows.

Point taken. But it still shows that there was no great missing period of time between Christ's day and Polycarp's and Irenaeus'.

And Tacitus seems to have accepted Christ's historical existence. True, he regarded "Chrestus" as a common criminal and a thug and good riddance, but that makes a really lousy argument for non-existence.
 
OldTimeRadio said:
Point taken. But it still shows that there was no great missing period of time between Christ's day and Polycarp's and Irenaeus'.
Well, no 'great' missing period of time, but missing time non the less. The worst offenders of missing periods of time, that being of when an event took place and of when an event was eventually recorded is probably historians of the middle ages. I'm sure there's a top ten somewhere.
OldTimeRadio said:
And Tacitus seems to have accepted Christ's historical existence.
from questionable sources unfortunately. Generally Tacitus' view of Christians and Jews is regarded as pretty ill informed. But then it is suggested that he had no particular interest in them which is probably why he writes about them as though they're nothing but a footnote to other more important matters (important to Tacitus). His reference to "Christus" as he refers to him appears in his Annals regarding the great fire of Rome where he also incorrectly identifies Pilates' job title and description. Now... if he'd ensured that the Acts of Pilate hadn't strayed then likely he'd have been better informed. Sadly, Tacitus got his information from historians (to use the term generously) now lost to us.
 
ghostdog19 said:
Well, no 'great' missing period of time, but missing time non the less.

If I grasp the facts correctly, the distance between Christ and Polycarp is about that between the American Civil War and the Great Depression (Slump). And that's within the living memory of man.

from questionable sources unfortunately. Generally Tacitus' view of Christians and Jews is regarded as pretty ill informed. But then it is suggested that he had no particular interest in them which is probably why he writes about them as though they're nothing but a footnote to other more important matters (important to Tacitus). His reference to "Christus" as he refers to him appears in his Annals regarding the great fire of Rome where he also incorrectly identifies Pilates' job title and description. Now... if he'd ensured that the Acts of Pilate hadn't strayed then likely he'd have been better informed. Sadly, Tacitus got his information from historians (to use the term generously) now lost to us.

That doesn't change the fact that Tacitus seems to have had no doubts about the EXISTENCE of "Chrestus." And neither apparently did those "historians" (good, bad and indifferent) upon whom he relied.

P. S. Do we know for a fact that there was an ACTA PILATUS?
 
OldTimeRadio said:
That doesn't change the fact that Tacitus seems to have had no doubts about the EXISTENCE of "Chrestus." And neither apparently did those "historians" (good, bad and indifferent) upon whom he relied. P. S. Do we know for a fact that there was an ACTA PILATUS?
Actually, it doesn't establish that he had NO DOUBTS about the existence of "Christus" (as he refers to him). It just establishes that he didn't really care much for Christians or their beliefs. Even at the time Jesus' historicity was being questioned. Tacitus makes no effort to weigh in on the debate.

The Acts of Pilate I'm referring to are Pilate's official records to Emperor Tiberius. So yes, they would have existed as they were among the governors reports to the Emperor of what was going on in the region and would have been housed at the praetorium where Jesus was allegedly tried and condemned. It is 'suspected' that these are the records Tacitus would have based his 'opinions' on (but given the fact that Tacitus isn't even able to correctly identify Pilate's position, it's not likely he had reference to these records first hand, if at all... which is the difference between hearsay and history). But they're lost to us now. The ACTA PILATI I assume you're referring to is the one that's claims to be based on the official acts but was written in the fourth century. So what you have here is the actual acts as written by Pilate, an official document which would have had details not only concerning Jesus but also Jesus Barabbas and would certainly have cleared up that meaning, and you have a later pseudepigraphically attributed text claiming to be based on the Acts of Pilate (retrofit revisionism, not history).

EDIT: spelling mistooks.
 
I've been following this story with some interest. (BTW, has anyone seen the Naked Archeologist investigating the tomb?) I have some questions, and I was wondering if any of you more learned people could indulge me?

I've always been fascinated by the Bible, if you try to read it, it brings up LOTS more questions than answers... at least it did for me. In my musings, it seems as if the people who wrote it were trying to scare me.

Does anyone know who put it together? How long after Jesus 'went out of the picture' was it compiled? I've heard that certain things were excluded from it, hasn't anyone questioned this? If they were holy writings, who got to pick and choose what went in?

I've always kind of figured that if priests were trying to scare people into coming to church, the Bible and it's message was a good way to do that. Alot of the things I saw in there, once I started reading, turned me away from it. I don't think the Jesus I believe in would think a woman should attend church, but not be allowed to speak. If it was a man's club that did it, it would make perfect sense.
 
NB: This is a potted history of the bible looked at from the viewpoint of a theology student with an intrest in the history of the Bible. I know there may be some errors due to inprecision but if you wanted a precice detailed account I suggest you try a library book. This is just an overview as it is accepeted by MOST of the academic community (as far as I know).


The Bible, or more precicely the New Testament that you speak of was generally considered to be compiled between Jesus' death and 200AD.

The New Testament consists of 27 Books.

4 Gospels. i.e. tales of Jesus' Life
1 Book of Acts i.e. stories of the Apostles after Jesus death
14 Pauline Epistles i.e. Letters written by St Paul
7 General Epistles .i.e. Letters written by various authors
1 Book of Revelation/Apocolypse i.e. a prophecy about the end times


The Gospels are most likely to have come out of early xtian oral tradition. Indeed some very early xtain writings (proto-gospels if you will) are little more than lists of Jesus' sayings, proverbs, actions etc... The gospels were the first time these were put into a narritive form. The gospels authors and approxomate dates are.

Matthew - 70 AD
Mark - 65 AD
Luke - 80 AD
John - 90 AD

These books are considered 'canonical' Gospels - meaning they are accepted by the church as the most accurate accounts of Jesus' life. There were many other Gospels written but they often contained controversial materia that seemed 'out of character' for Jesus. Put it this way - if you have 5 eye-witnesses to an accident and four of them have similar stories and one of them doesn't you are more likely to believe the four.

Of course this brings us to the problem of who wrote what first. It is generally held that Mark was written first circa 65 AD, Matthew and Luke then used Mark as a basis for theirs. These are known as the synoptic Gospels because they collaborate a similar story. John is slightly different, writing later and in his own style he nevertheless includes many synopic features but seeks to give a more 'spiritual' account that isn't as easily reconciled to the first three.

During this period of prolific Xtian writting the early church soon realised that the literary equivilent of chinese whispers had happened and some places were getting the entirely wrong message so they decied to try and work out which books had the best and most relevant teachings in them.

Of the non-canonial works some of the more 'heretical' were actively sought and banned, most were simply left in circulation but ignored, and some which couldn't be decided on were left as the Apocrypha, books that contained good morals etc. but no definite teachings.

These generally became the 'accepted texts' and so because of their use throughout christendom they spread most widely. It it is interesting to note that there was no 'concrete' New Testament ever printed and given Papal blessing until the council of Trent as late as 1545–63.

It is also important to note that the gospels are not the earliest writings in the New Testament. This distinction must go to the Pauline Epistles which were written between 40 and 50 AD.

Hope this helps Gemaki, if you want any more info please feel free to PM me. I'm doing a theology degree and so have quite a good list of books that you could look up.
 
A concise summary from rjm3 there.

It's also important to realise that most of these writings were produced after the fall of Jerusalem, when Roman power was at its mightiest. Since Jesus was executed as a rebel against Roman rule, this aspect of his life had to be 'toned down', and he was presented more as a preacher and a man of peace than was probably the case.

In other words, the Gospels were spin doctoring his biography by editing out much of the anti-Roman activity, although obviously the crucifixion had to be left in as that led to Jesus' (alleged) resurrection.


(I accidentally first spelled crucifxion as crucifiction!)
 
Thanks for that, rjm.

Although I'm not too familiar with the NT, I didn't keep reading after I first attempted the chore... I do remember the repetitive accounts of the same thing being discussed. What I remember is all the bizarre destruction, promises of virgins for the faithful, raping and killing... not what I expected from a holy writing.

I watch quite a bit of religious documentaries on TV, and I saw one a while back where I learned that there was a rival who would stand and preach beside one of the apostles, I think? Maybe someone knows what I mean? I think the program was about when Jesus was younger. Anyway, they kind of had a little clash, and the other man levitated to prove himself, and Jesus caused him to fall and he got hurt. Anyone else heard this story?

That was quite an interesting one, it dealt with all the things he struggled with growing up. There was the time he made birds out of mud, then turned them into real birds and they flew away. Also when he pushed a friend off the roof because they fought, and the boy died, then when he saw how upset everyone was, he brought him back to life?

Funny I've never questioned his actions, as you all do and call them magic tricks. What I question is why they would include all that horrible stuff into the 'holy' Bible.

Oh, and as for the ascension, I assumed after they found his bones that his spirit was what went up to heaven. Someone probably removed his remains for burial, right? Is this really so shocking? Or was it claimed that he physically came back?
 
Whitley's view.

http://www.unknowncountry.com/journal/?id=273

Whether or not Jesus rose from the dead is arguably the most important question in the history of western civilization. It is also irrelevant and based on a misunderstanding of the process of resurrection, and should not be important at all. He both died and remained dead, and was resurrected. After the resurrection, his body remained in the tomb and was undoubtedly taken away to be buried somewhere.
Perhaps the burial place has been found and perhaps not. Certainly, an interesting tomb has been found, as was shown in the recent TV film, the Lost Tomb of Jesus.

However, the fact that Jesus left a corpse behind does not mean that there was no resurrection. That this is even an issue only points to the fact that we do not understand the nature of resurrection.

This is because we have been lied to about it for millennia by men who have sought to use the wonderful good news that Christ brought to us, to their own greedy ends.

If you read the gospels with any care, you will see that the resurrected Jesus no longer functions like a physical body. He functions like something that appears to be physical, but has new powers to appear and disappear at will, and to move about without reference to the constraints of nature. This is because the man who was seen—and he certainly was seen, I think—was no longer a physical body.

The fact that we do not understand this, and that so many of us believe that his conquest of death had something to do with his physical remains is tragic.

Something terrible happened to the Christian religion, and to western society, in the second and third centuries after the resurrection. Specifically, the pagan gods were replaced with Jesus, who was made into an instrument of political power.

This is utterly at odds with his true message, which was that the kingdom of heaven is not the domain of gods and kings at all, but the rightful inheritance of everybody and anybody. It is also within us, it is part of us, it is integral to being human, and he is no different from any of us. So of course he died. We all die. But he also demonstrated, by continuing to appear after death, that the soul does retain consciousness, and a sufficiently powerful and attentive soul can affect the living and actually be seen by them and communicate with them even after the death of the physical body. Anybody can do it. It’s not a miracle, it is an ability natural to conscious beings, or should be.

To get power, evil men set Jesus on a god’s pedestal, and imbued him with special physical qualities quite unlike those of ordinary people. He was supposedly formed out of some sort of divine substance, different from ordinary people, higher, special and unattainable. He wasn’t even conceived via sexual union between man and woman. Not only that, this most sacred of all sacraments, sexual union between a loving couple, was called ugly and profane by these profoundly sinful men. For a human being to reject sex is to reject nature and thus also God. Certainly, it is to reject Christ.

The resurrection was a special and unique event, they told us, its purpose being to draw attention to the importance of the way of worship that Jesus supposedly proclaimed—and coincidentally, to confer power onto a priesthood that managed the salvation that he promised as a sort of process involving subservience to various secular and religious political institutions.

But it’s all a lie—one cunningly fashioned out of truth, but still a lie, and probably the most profoundly evil of all lies. This is because the whole message of Jesus—the Good News—is that each person is whole and complete and has only to look within himself to find the kingdom of God.

The lie is designed to disempower the very person—the ordinary human being—whose true power Jesus sought to unleash, on behalf of this whole species reaching a new and better level of being, of becoming more compassionate, more loving and more joyous by becoming more aware of ourselves and thus also understanding of one another.

Jesus was an ordinary man, conceived in the ordinary way. There was nothing special about him at all, except that he knew himself, and, by extension, everyone. He was not soul blind, and he knew how to live in such a way to gain the help and knowledge he needed to truly understand himself and others.

Resurrection is not mysterious and separate from ordinary life. It’s as much a part of nature as breathing. Because we are soul-blind, though, we do not see it. But it is—or ought to be—a natural outcome of lives lived by creatures like us. That it is so rare here, and the path to it concealed, is testament to the fact that this is a fallen world.

But what does that mean, then? What is a fallen world?

A fallen world is one in which the purpose of conscious life either was known and has been lost or rejected or, as in our case, both. In fact, the purpose of conscious life is to grow a coherent and defined soul, that carries consciousness into energy after the physical body dies.

How do we make our eyes to see, then, if we are blind? Jesus said it: give yourself to your nature: “consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin.” People think that this means that we should abandon our shelter and go out and live in the forest, but it does not mean to give up our humanity. Our fur was taken from us so that we would use our brains and make them grow into what they have become: a machinery for the creation of souls.

I say creation, because that’s what it is. The creation isn’t over, it’s ongoing. Every death is, potentially, an ultimately creative act. When most of us die, we have very little left of ourselves. We are not in any kind of balance and wander a bit, often not even knowing—and often not ever knowing—that we died, then ending up in another physical body again all willy-nilly, drawn by the magnetism of the physical, and just continuing on the wheel of life.

When recently the Tomb of Jesus was broadcast, I saw at once that the mausoleum pictured was that of a family with real knowledge. The reason is that the door to the tomb bears a symbolic inscription of a T-square over a circle that means “the measure of the world.” This was a common but secret medallion of royal families in Judea—that is to say, families who had brought the craft with them from Egypt. Jewish royalty was descended from Egyptian royalty. Moses was an Egyptian royal prince, and all who came of him were of the same blood, too.

Why is this significant? Because there is a way to be born other than willy-nilly. Some are born, like Jesus, as all of us were meant to be born, with intention, to parents who know in advance the task the child has come into the physical world to perform.

If you die in a state of real consciousness, what happens to you then will be your decision. If you come back, it will be with intention and, as soon as your brain is able to process the information, real knowledge of who you are, where you came from, and why you are here.

Going on and not re-entering the physical means joining one’s personal aim to what has been the aim of life from the beginning: to enter a greater consciousness, one that is founded in the life of the earth and is our contribution to the ecstasy of eternal being.

And yet we live in a world that is so turned in on itself that most of us either don’t believe that our souls exist, or, even if we say that we believe this, act as if we don’t. I have had the blessing to be fully conscious outside of my body, and I can bear at least my own small personal witness to the reality of the soul. It is not a dream and it cannot be explained away by the various forms of high-sounding poppycock that are generally used to dismiss it. Life is not mechanical. The soul is not fiction.

Our aim should be to bring intention into our lives, which is to say, to surrender ourselves just as do the flowers of the field.

But how can intention have anything to do with being given over to the whims of nature? Another man who, like Jesus, knew God was Meister Eckhart, and he expressed what it was to be as the lily in a slightly different way: “be as a clear glass through which God can shine.”

You don’t need to make a shelter for your soul, God will make it out of the winds that blow you through life. “Be as the lilies of the field” means to live life—to lie down and be crushed in the fury of the storm, but also to have joy in the sun of the day.

But, how, precisely, do we go about living like this? Does it mean to let life walk over us? When injustice comes, what is really meant by turning the other cheek? It means to accept the energy of the situation objectively as energy, without regard to the way it manifests. “Negative?” “Positive?” Not our business. Our business: accept the energy, trust grace and give our lives to God.

Life has been growing here on earth for hundreds of millions of years, and has many times evolved three-brained beings like us. We are the only ones, however, who have ended up with hands and resonating vocal chords capable of complex speech and thus communication. This means that we can respond to the challenges of nature rather than just accept them. Thus, our minds have grown. When a creature with hands is cold, he can pull down leaves to make a shelter, or cut open an animal and use the body for warmth. He can think about how to take that warmth with him, and make himself a coat. He can make a house, tools, all the rest of it, right up to the internet and beyond. And, if he can speak, above all, he can tell others.

And with the intelligence that has grown in the service of his needs, he can also begin to do what three-brained beings were meant to do, which is to live in inner harmony, to the point that we have the chance to see ourselves objectively, and therefore to affect what happens to our souls.

By three-brained, I mean that we have a reptilian or primitive brain that controls our nervous system and basic impulses, a mammalian, or mid-brain that mediates our emotional life, and a human or higher brain that reasons.

These three levels of the brain form the most energetic and evolutionary structure in the universe: a triad. The negative pole is the lowest level, because it can act only from impulse. The positive pole is the mid level, because it can mediate desires with compassion and love. The harmonizing level is the highest level, the human level, which can balance the needs of the other two and so create a greater, harmonious whole, a fourth level of being that is beyond death and immortal.

This is the energy of resurrection, the Osiris energy, the Jesus energy.

Osiris suffered fourteen cuts from his brother Set, as also Jesus traversed the fourteen stations of the cross during his passion. Normally, a life is expressed as a full octave of seven parts. The reason their lives are expressed as fourteen parts is that they were living two lives at once: the subjective life of their suffering and the objective life of their seeing. Thus the number of a life is seven, but the number of a resurrected life is fourteen.

Near the baptismal place now called the Osirion in Egypt there is an ancient philosophical machine we refer to as the Sphinx. This statue expresses the process of resurrection. It has the strength of a bull, the courage of a lion and the intelligence of a man and can therefore soar aloft like an eagle.

To rise above life is to rise into the second level of being as Osiris and Jesus did. This means that we not only live our lives, but see ourselves living them, and see all around us from above—that is to say, from outside of time.

The need to do this is where the admonitions to turn the other cheek and love the enemy come from. Unless we include our enemy in our love, we cannot be objective about him, and if we do not see his truth, we also do not see our own truth, and in this way hatred clips our wings. The energy uses us instead of us using the energy.

All meditation is, in essence, about finding a way of processing energy in such a way that it feeds objective understanding and leads us down the path to inner truth.

As a species, we have been moving for thousands of years in the direction of this state. The reason that blood is considered important in human affairs is that this state is so potent that something of it literally enters the blood of those who experience it, and is even passed down to future generations. The ability to be objective and taste of resurrection is profoundly of the body at every level, including the physical. Who reaches this state gives the ability to reach it to their children. This is the origin of the symbolic eating of the body and drinking of the blood of Christ, to partake of this state. However, actual eating and drinking mean nothing. What Jesus was saying was that his bloodline was important, that his body was to be spread throughout the world after his death.

How, though? Well, he must have had children or he wouldn’t have bothered to say it. Of course, it’s all stuff and nonsense that one man, believed to be directly descended from Jesus, would have better blood than the next. In point of fact, the blood of everybody who lived at the time of Jesus—him included, through his children—now runs, effectively, in the veins of everybody in Europe and the Middle East and probably everybody in the world, and those who do not bear the blood of Christ within them bear the blood of another such person. So not only was Christ resurrected in his own life, his resurrection is in us, too.

THIS IS WHAT THE DARK SIDE DOES NOT WANT US TO REALIZE.

It’s why we are fed the lie that Christ died “for our sins” when, in truth, he lived for our souls.

Christ did not die at all, and he showed his living presence to prove it, even though his body expired and rotted away. And because we are the body and blood of Christ, he is alive in all of us right now.
 
All those stories are accounts that are found in the non-canon gospels and are generally held as not true by the church although many aspects of these stories have been preserved and carried down in folk-lore. I remember being at a local folk group meeting when someone sang a song about the child jesus making the willow weep using his power.

They are considered irrelevant to the church's teachings though as he is generally considered to have started his active preaching in his later 20s early 30's and it would be unlikely that anyone alive at that time would have documented the life of a young boy from the arse-end of Judeah.

As for the other preachers, there were tons of them about. A prime example being John the Baptsist who some Jews thought was the messiah. Some of Jesus' disciples used to be followers of John and so the early gospels (Mark in perticular) have very strong allusions to 'JESUS WAS MESSIAH, NOT JOHN.' Just to make sure that any Johannites still hanging about quickly converted. There are some very striking paralells between John and Jesus which has led some scholars to argue that they may have been the same person - though this is widely disputed.

The levitating man that you speak of was probably Simon Magus. He gets the sin of 'Simony' (paying money for a holy office - think 'cash for honours') named after him because he offered the disciples money to allow him to do miracles. The Simon story is in The Book of Acts, Chapter 8, lines 9-24. The flying story however is in the Apocryphical Acts of Peter which is generally held to be written in the later 2nd Century.
 
So this Simon guy could actualy levitate himself? And I thought walking on water was impressive. So if Jesus hadn't come along when he did, would we now be celebrating Magusmas every December?
 
Umm, it seems as he could do these things, they killed him.

Simon is specifically said to have possessed the ability to levitate and fly at will. There were accusations that he was a demon in human form, with the story of Simon the wizard as the cultural equivalent of Merlin during the Middle Ages.

The apocryphal Acts of Peter gives a legendary tale of Simon Magus' death. Simon is performing magic in the forum, and in order to prove himself to be a god, he flies up into the air. The apostle Peter prays to God to stop his flying, and he stops mid-air and falls, breaking his legs, whereupon the crowd, previously non-hostile, stones him to death. The church of Santa Francesca Romana claims to have been built on the spot in question (thus claiming that Simon Magus could indeed fly), claims that Saint Paul was also present, and that a dented slab of marble that it contains bears the imprints of the knees of Peter and Paul during their prayer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Magus

Also...

By the time Simon comes into the light of recorded history, he is already an accomplished teacher of extraordinary influence. When Philip brought the emerging apostolic doctrines, which purported to embody the teachings of Jesus, into Samaria, he found Simon with thirty close disciples gathering large followings in every city he visited.

So astounding were Simon's powers to heal and perform wonders – turning stones into bread, travelling through the air, standing unharmed in fire, assuming various shapes, causing heavy objects to move and opening locked doors without contact – that the early Church Fathers made no attempt to deny them. Rather, they argued that since such things could be done only in the name of Jesus – and their own performances often left something to be desired – or through demonic means, it followed that Simon must be in league with the devil.


They could not but agree, nevertheless, that he fully deserved the title Magus, for he was a magician of the highest order. Simon laughed at this ludicrous apostolic rationalization and pointed to its dogmatic core – that Jesus alone in the whole of human history was the exclusive Son of God. Pointing out that Jesus made no such claim, Simon taught that every being who attains divine knowledge through self-discipline and meditation upon the divine is a Son of God and evinces seemingly superhuman powers and knowledge.

Those beings whose consciousness reflects the primordial formless spiritual essences – the source of both the manifest universe and the powers in man – cannot subscribe to a formal material conception of individuation. Thus they are in nature one and in operation interchangeable, however precise and distinct their functions on heterogeneous planes of existence.

Simon therefore taught that in an esoteric sense he had appeared in Palestine as Jesus, in Samaria as the Father – though not as the lower archon who is the Deity of the Old Testament – and in other nations as the Hagion Pneuma, the Holy Spirit.

Simon eventually journeyed to Rome, where he was as enthusiastically received as he had been in his homeland. Tradition holds that he engaged in debates with Peter – recorded in the Clementine Homilies and preserved in Christian literature – in which Peter's orthodox dogmatism was easily outshone by Simon's philosophical genius and esoteric interpretation of Jesus' sayings.


History, on the other hand, offers some evidence that Peter feared to enter Rome while Simon was there. Legend also pretends that Peter challenged Simon to fly through the air, and that when he easily did so, Peter caused him to fall to earth by a prayer. According to one version, Simon broke his legs and retired in shame, dying in ignominy some time later. According to another, Simon was killed on the spot by the fall.


Yet a third version, not favoured by Christian authors but more plausible, given Peter's tendencies to doubts, held that Peter, and not Simon, broke his legs in the attempt to imitate the great Mage. Except for such unreliable rumours and guesses, nothing is known of the latter portion of Simon's life. Some say he was baptized by Philip in Samaria, and the book of Acts asserts that Simon became a Christian and tried to purchase the secret of apostolic healing with money, but it is just as likely that both stories simply invert the truth. For Philip was much impressed by Simon, and the apostles were themselves wanting in the healing arts. Neither story is believable, given Simon's life and teaching.


Simon taught an esoteric doctrine, phrased in the language of mythology, Neo-Platonic philosophy and Oriental aeonology. He left disciples who carried on his work in the ancient tradition of direct and largely oral instruction of the teacher to the pupil, without relying upon the institutionalization of particular formulations, dogmas, rites and customs. And he left the course of history as mysteriously as he entered it – in silence and secrecy.

The written works Simon left behind have been destroyed by clerics who found his gnosis too metaphysical to comprehend and too threatening to tolerate. Nevertheless, so profound was his influence in Gnostic, pagan and even early Christian circles that the central themes of his message to humanity have survived massive and sustained efforts to eradicate them.


http://www.katinkahesselink.net/his/Simon-Magnus.html
 
Back
Top