Did Jesus die?

brucegdc said:
Asking the original question and the 'mainstream' Christian answers is reasonable here (Christianity board) - with the mainstream answer being "Nope. Not the case - contrary to liturgical evidence & belief".

The esoteric answers from wil ... properly belong in a Christian esoterica section. ...
Please to explain and quote me as to where I did not answer just as you suggest is correct above and where I provided 'esoteric' answers instead.

I thought I followed your rules and guidelines, and simply reframed the original question so as to get us back on topic. (The new member Penguin had issues in another thread when the question went off on tangents not in line with the original question and Penguin posted twice about confusion with the discussion v. the questions).

How does one get answers from mainstream Christianity on troubling questions if they are shoved to the Alternative Mysticism board...I suppose we are hoping some thoughtful person will be knocking on their door with pamphlets that contain all the answers...
 
Whew! Thanks, Bruce! :) I knew we were out on a limb (with all acknowledgments to Shirley Maclaine) ... but now I'm comfortable speaking my piece/peace.

For what it's worth, I personally just take for granted that Jesus of Nazareth made the travels alleged - starting with some amount of time spent in Egypt, which was the Beacon of the Eastern teachings, as it were. His travels then took him God-knows where (sic), including Ladakh, and into various parts of India, according to various accounts.

One can gather half a dozen sources for this information easily, and need not rely on the accounts of one author alone - although I think Notovich's testimony has not been disproven, merely challenged. Last I had heard, a lama somewhere just laughed when they asked about Notovich's scrolls (the inspiration behind his tales of Issa) ... but what does that prove? That the good Lama was being careful to guard the records from the overly-skeptical, who would as soon destroy these accounts if that were necessary to "protect the faith."

But as I say, St. Issa's chronicle is well recorded, as his travels were (once) no secret! One might do better in the investigation - of both Issa and Jesus of Nazareth, if the focus is directed at the period 105BC to ~72BC ... since these are the years when the Jesus in question lived and preached, walked and talked. Certainly another Jesus came later, but I think posterity will show that the former was the greater (and the Initiate), not vice versa as so many maintain.

Something I do not find necessary to believe, although it is the actual subject of this thread, is the idea that Jesus survived the Crucifixion. Some accounts support this possibility, others simply tend not to mention it. Few accounts would indicate it as an outright impossibilty. But one should always ask the question, What purpose might be served by bodily survival? I can give several answers to that question, but even if the answers are correct, it doesn't prove that Jesus survived. I just think it matters not one whit whether he died or not, since this has nothing whatsoever to do with my sins, or with Humanity's, imo - save for the general statement of truth that "we all crucified Christ." :( I was reluctant to state that so boldly - but here, it's no big deal, eh?

Thanks, however, to Luna - and to Dondi - for keeping things in line until this thread got shifted. I think you were right on to lean on me like that, Laurie. And I didn't mean to come out guns a-blazin', Dondi. I just feel like the "aberrances" - however deviant (and the deviants, however aberrant :p ) - need their due expression. God knows I sometimes cover two or three bases at once, if at other times, I manage to lose "Home!" :rolleyes:


Anyway, here is a short excerpt from On Eastern Crossroads which I find inspiring:
THE WAY OF CHRIST
t.gif
HUS shall we begin the story of His life, that the unmutilated word shall be inscribed upon earth.
For thirty years He walked repeating the word so as to impart it to those who would not receive it. The Teachings of Buddha, of Zoroaster, and the old sayings of the Vedas, He learned upon the crossroads. Perceiving pure eyes, He asked, “Know you aught of God?” By river barges He awaited the travelers and asked, “Do you bear aught for me?” For it was need that He cross with human feet and ask with human words.
When He was told of the starry signs He asked to know their verdicts; but the alphabet had no attraction for Him; people did not exist for this. “How can I calm the devastating storm? How can I disclose the heaven to men? Why are they rent from the eternal existence to which they belong?”
Such teaching of the essence of life effaced methods of magic because instead of winning the subservience of the minor spirits of nature He razed all obstacles with the sword of His spirit. His teaching guided the people to the possibilities of the spirit. Therefore there were no prophets near Him but only by the stars one knew of Him.
We knew much and He was all-able. Then we resolved to serve His Teaching.

Peace,

taijasi
 
I can't resist. On Eastern Crossroads has so many beautiful stories about the life of Christ, as spoken 1st person by one who was there - and who is yet here still. Here is another short one of his, which references Christ's travels East:
THE ARRIVAL OF CHRIST
o.gif
NE should remember the day of the most joyless offering—Christ who only gave, accepting nothing. This determination from an early age brought Him across a scorching desert. And His Feet burned as those of a simple driver.
We awaited Him. But as usual, the moment of His coming was unexpected. A horse had been brought to Me and I was bidding farewell to My family when a servant noticed a ragged traveler. His slender face was pale, and His hair hung in wavy locks below His shoulders. And only a gray sack-cloth covered His body. I did not even see a gourd for drinking. But My wife went first to meet Him, and when afterwards I asked her why she had hastened, she said, “It seemed as though a star glowed in my bosom, and the heat, even to pain, burst into rays.”
For the Traveler was already exalted as He approached the tent. Then I understood Who had come.
After crossing the desert He partook only of corn bread and a cup of water and soon asked, “When shall We depart?”
I replied, “When the Star permits.”
And We awaited the sign of the Star. He was silent repeating only, “When?”
And marking the Star, I said, “There is blood in Pisces.”
He only nodded.
Thus for three years daily We awaited. And the light of the Star shone over Us. I recall He spoke somewhat of a vision of Light in which a small boy brought Him a sword. And when Light, as a Rainbow, was poured before Him, a soundless Voice bade Him go. I was told to accompany Him, where I Myself was not yet to enter.
On a white camel We set out by night. And by night-crossing We reached Lahore where We found a follower of Buddha, apparently expecting Us. Never have I seen such decision.
Because We were on Our way for three years. We awaited Him and brought Him to Jordan. Again a white sack-cloth covered Him. And again He set forth alone under the morning Sun. And a Rainbow shone over Him.

The text of this book is available freely online, even for full download, at www.agniyoga.org. Several more excerpts provide glimpses into the life of Christ, as perhaps no other text has done. Enjoy! :)

taijasi
 
I'd just like to say that my original question on did jesus die was a genuine one and I am in no way being confrontational or anything. I have come here to learn and I am dumb on various aspects and wish to discuss them with people. If I have offended in anyway I whole heartedly apologise. I thought I would ask the question after watching a documentary and reading some of the website on the tomb of jesus (the link I posted). I wanted to see what the opinion on this was, nothing more. Maybe the questions in this and my other posts have been to direct, but I have always been told "if you don't know son, then ask!" Many thanks.
 
Penguin said:
I'd just like to say that my original question on did jesus die was a genuine one and I am in no way being confrontational or anything. I have come here to learn and I am dumb on various aspects and wish to discuss them with people. If I have offended in anyway I whole heartedly apologise. I thought I would ask the question after watching a documentary and reading some of the website on the tomb of jesus (the link I posted). I wanted to see what the opinion on this was, nothing more. Maybe the questions in this and my other posts have been to direct, but I have always been told "if you don't know son, then ask!" Many thanks.
No, as I said, the original post was quite valid - it's just that this thread has wandered since into a variety of belief that is specifically questionable on the Christian board, so I moved it here to make a fit for where it's wandered... after all, since the answer to the original question given the rules of the Christianity board can only be "of course he did...", the discussion there would be rather shortened. Here, the various dynamics of the question can be wandered off into further without breaking rules.
 
brucegdc said:
No, as I said, the original post was quite valid - it's just that this thread has wandered since into a variety of belief that is specifically questionable on the Christian board, so I moved it here to make a fit for where it's wandered... after all, since the answer to the original question given the rules of the Christianity board can only be "of course he did...", the discussion there would be rather shortened. Here, the various dynamics of the question can be wandered off into further without breaking rules.

My sentiments exactly. The OP's question wasn't the problem. it was the answers that were being discussed in response was my only concern. the discussion could have very well coursed into a discussion of the orthodox views of Christ's death. As it was, it was one that got away.
 
Dondi said:
I suppose anything is possible. The question is: Is it likely? With all these various theories being probagated with the Da Vinci Code, the Gospel of Judas, and the emergence of Gnostic interest, there are undoubtably going to be questions like this. The other day I walked into a book store and saw no less that 8 books out in just out in front near the best sellers shelf pertaining to Jesus and the recent trend to explore alternate Christian views.

I, for one, am one who is influenced by evidence. Evidence that point to the likelihood of a certain event. The fact is that the Biblical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), along with the Pauline and Apostolic epistles of the New Testament are the closest documents we have to the actual events. There are over 5000 manuscripts or partial manuscripts dating back to the early second century which collaborated together lends accuracy to the New Testament document. The New Testament canon has been established and has stood the test of time up until this day.

But now all these aberrant "gospels" pop up and we are now just supposed to believe them? Most of these "gospels" are dated centuries after their supposed occurance and the documented evidence is scant. And we are now to believe that Jesus fathered a child via Mary Magdeline? Or that Judas was a good guy after all? Or that Jesus escaped the Cross and disappeared to India and lived out the rest of His life as some kind of guru? Where is the evidence for this? Why are people suddenly trying to dismiss the evidence as presented in the Biblical Gospels after 2000 years as the accepted Gospel Truth?

Sure, you can believe what you want to, but does your belief really hold water?
I suppose now I am clear? This was the proper direct answer in the Christian forum, lumping his question in with a variety of other recent topics?

We are supposed to be respectful yet it is completely allowable to refer to a new member, new poster with a response that infers his question is aberrant...(when they indicated they were Christian but confused and wanted to know how to consider the topic) "Sure, you can believe what you want to, but does your belief really hold water?"

I'm just baffled. Is this what Jesus would do? "She's an adulter, broke our law, should we stone her?", "Sorry your question doesn't belong here...I'm gonna send you to the Essenes, or maybe you belong in the Roman forum for that discussion"
My sentiments exactly. The OP's question wasn't the problem. it was the answers that were being discussed in response was my only concern. the discussion could have very well coursed into a discussion of the orthodox views of Christ's death. As it was, it was one that got away.
It seems you were an early reply (as shown above) yet that was not the direction you lead our lost soul. I thought for sure my responses were straightforward and within the guidelines but I was chastised for going out of bounds...:confused:
 
Is it not Christian to lead one to the truth of the Gospel? Did not Jesus berate the scribes and the Pharasees for being out of line? If this one is looking for salvation in the Christian forum, then we must be discerning about what Christianity stands for. If the person truly wants to know the truth, as presented in the Christian forum, then how are we to guide him to that truth properly if all he hears are these other abherrant teachings coming from outside the Christain norm? Jesus never deviated from what He believed to be the truth. He never compromised the message. He told things as they were. Surely, you must know that some had ears to hear and some didn't. You don't lead a lost soul into a forest of confusing ideas that has little to do with Christianity, if that is what he is seeking.

If he wants to ask the same question again in the Christian forum, I'd be happy to answer, within a Christian context of course.

On the other hand, if he wishes to seek answers apart from the Christian doctrine, then this is the right place.
 
Yes, sometimes I do hafta just smack myself in the forehead, and remind myself - "yes, they call themselves `Christian'!" Mob rules only applies where might makes right ...

For the record, aberrant is one thing, and abhorrent is another. I'll take the former over the latter any day, when it comes to unpopular beliefs. ;) And if I were to end up the last idiot on earth believing these *gasp* - UNpopular, NON-traditional, dare I say heretical :)eek: :eek: ) notions - :p :rolleyes: ... ya know, it wouldn't phase me one bit.



The "Members Only" club mentality, frankly, is what disgusts me about Christianity - or rather, the churchianity that has run away with Christ's name. Believe this, genuflect like that, say your Our Fathers and Nicene Creeds like this ... and it's back to Jethro Tull (`My God'):
He is the god of nothing if that's all that you can see/
He is the God of everything, He's inside you and me.


A child knows this. S/he doesn't need any outside agency to make, keep, enforce, and jealously guard "the rules." Forums have rules - now let's all abide by them, and stop acting like we have sole ownership of God's own Truth! Again, Christ's image is not copyrighted.

I may have contributed somewhat to the stirring up earlier on this thread, Dondi but let's settle things without getting haughty. I could just as easily hold up a mirror to statements like:

You don't lead a lost soul into a forest of confusing ideas that has little to do with Christianity, if that is what he is seeking.
and respond with Yes, you are correct, and that is why I spoke up!!!

Instead, I simply suggest that there are many approaches to and interpretations of what Jesus taught, how he went about it, where he studied & learned the Wisdom of God, and how his last days, hours & minutes were spent. Notice I did not say, HERE IS THE TRUTH - and beware of these abherrant (sic) voices, these false ones, who distort the official truth!!!

sighhh ... what I perceive, is that we have a vested interest in sticking to the status quo, and quickly relegating any alternate interpretations to the common, dead-letter versions (canons, creeds, TM insignia and the whole nine yards) to the Outsider's Club.

Ahhh, but remember friend (we tell the inquirer), if you want to know what the REAL Christians believe, come talk to us. We run this club, and we have the answers.

No, I am disgusted by that kind of mentality. Dondi, that is not a personal attack aimed at you. I am being a bit direct, but I'm really speaking of something that we have all inherited. I was Lutheran myself, after all, for the first 1/3 of my life, and I know my opponent well enough from direct experience. It has to do with fear - being afraid to question, afraid to "try on" a different robe of beliefs than the one we've grown accustomed to, and a fear that somehow, just maybe - unlikely as we've told ourself it must be - somehow, there might be more to the picture than what we've bought into, lock, stock 'n barrel!

And nobody suggests we discard our Faith and start from scratch, or "throw the baby out with the bathwater," abandoning a ship which by some reckoning could be said to have run aground long ago - now sinking fast. Huh-uh, all's I dare to come out with is that people have (and should use) eyes and ears of their own (as was mentioned), and if one wants to know how the ship arrived at its present location, there are many records available in the captain's quarters. I didn't say anything about mutiny, and I didn't suggest that you go throw yourself overboard - being an unfit crew member to help the rest of us out of the jam. Hmmmm - how readily we rush to force the swabs to walk the plank ... but I will ask you, even if you force me into the water at proverbial swordpoint - have you seen what's in the captain's quarters? And are you so sure that what you've come to believe is "God's only, highest, and Gospel truth?"

At best, I can accept that you simply feel strongly about the tradition you've come to follow and cherish. I can respect that. Can you respect that my own take on things is every bit as important to me, and that I find it every bit as sound as (even more so than) the version which you and the majority uphold? If your concern is that poor, confused Penguin is being misguided with all these strange notions, then let me assure you, I make no bones about my unconventionality. But I will assert with equal vigor that it is what I believe which is the accurate version, and that what you believe, though well intentioned, is actually confusion.

I have but turned the tables, and shown that the mirror can reflect whatever you dish out. Amazing how much we are asked to absorb, to swallow our pride as it were, and simply let things roll off. And we do. Humbling ourselves sometimes, all but throwing in the towel at others, almost lamenting sometimes - that once again, tradition trumps truth. If it be for the right reasons (all in the name of harmony, discussion, and the building of rapport), then no humility is too great to suffer. History bears witness to those whose lives were thick with calumnly and constant accusation, yet who plowed determinedly forward, as if impervious. I assure you, they were not.

And from time to time, if for the right reasons, one is called to stand. And I will stand, saying to Penguin only that I believe something unconventional, but that every fiber of my being tells me that it is so. Jesus traveled East ... and I cannot be sure about his death on, or off, the cross. But it's more important to me to seek, to continue to inquire and be open to all possibilities - than to chase off people who happen to disagree with me (even if they number in the many millions). At least I will no longer be burned at the stake for believing as I do. Chased away, yes, but not burned alive. ;)



Strength comes not always of numbers, nor of our convictions (or faith) alone. Let me share another episode from Christ's life, this time a confrontation with the Sanhedrin:
THE QUESTIONER OF CINEDRION
a.gif
MEMBER of Cinedrion asked Christ:
“Would you come to us if we should ask you?”
Christ answered:
“Better would I go to the cemetery for there is no lie.”
A member of Cinedrion asked Christ, “Why dost thou not acknowledge us if even Thy father was married by one of our members?”
“Wait until your house crumbles; then shall We come.”
“Wherefore shalt thou come—to destroy or to erect?”
“Neither for destruction nor erection but for purification. Because I shall not return to the old hearth.”
“How then, not to respect your forefathers!”
“New cups are given for the feast. Respecting a grandfather, one need not drink out of his cup.”


Respect means not belittling those of other beliefs, no matter how different they are from the `norm.' Let us speak more about our beliefs, and less about the truth. As for rescuing the surviving pearls ... and seeing to it that all is not lost in utter confusion - yes, there are some who labor quite ceaselessly that this may be so.

In Love and Light,

taijasi
 
taijasi,

You seem to think that I don't invite nor am open to other interpretations. the fact of the matter is that I do consider alternatives.

But what happened here was akin to me going into the Islam board and suggesting that Mohommed was God. Or me going into the Judaism board and suggesting that human child sacrifice was acceptable to the ancient Israelite rituals. You just don't go into the specific boards and tear apart the accepted beliefs of that board.

Here on this particular board, have at it! This is a place where one can assert their views on a non-crucified Jesus, if you will.

Now if you don't mind, I hope that we can drop the matter and get on with the question at hand.
 
Penguin said:
I'd just like to say that my original question on did jesus die was a genuine one and I am in no way being confrontational or anything. I have come here to learn and I am dumb on various aspects and wish to discuss them with people. If I have offended in anyway I whole heartedly apologise. I thought I would ask the question after watching a documentary and reading some of the website on the tomb of jesus (the link I posted). I wanted to see what the opinion on this was, nothing more. Maybe the questions in this and my other posts have been to direct, but I have always been told "if you don't know son, then ask!" Many thanks.
Penguin, I'd like to give you a straight answer to the question of the death of Jesus, which is my own synthesized and intuited belief after many years of searching, study, and reflection. I think Jesus did die. Whether or not he happened to enter satori/samadhi temporarily - and feign bodily death - is actually quite secondary.

Let us say he did survive death. This possibility does not change the fact that as far as Rome was concerned, and in the eyes of his own people & the Sanhedrin (the priestly `elite' which wanted him out of the way), Jesus as Messiah had been silenced. As the political threat both to Rome and to Jewish tradition, there was no longer a Jesus of Nazareth. Even his own Apostles - almost uniformly - abandoned him. Peter gets the bad rap, but he was one of the few who had the ... uh, nerve ... to be hanging around at all!!! The other Apostles weren't even there, at Jesus' death, by many accounts! Only the Beloved Disicple was faithful to the very end.

So if Jesus survived, which would have been fortunate in that it would much more easily facilitate his ongoing earthly work behind the scenes (for another 50 years, esoteric tradition indicates), then this is secondary to the fact that publicly, Jesus was dead. I say this, and put the emphasis here, even though I personally do believe in a living, Risen Christ ... even in a physical presence of Jesus for those who have need of contact. All of this just takes a back seat to the "limelight factor," if you'll forgive the expression - the public image of the Piscean Savior. Not for 2100 years has Christ's work in the outer world been possible ... and if the Reappearance is a growing reality now, as I believe it is, then this is where we should really be putting our focus.

Again, I don't mean to detract from the speculation on Jesus' physical survival 2100 years ago, but I would gently suggest that in the investigation of this possibility, part of what some folks might be doing - psychologically - is attempting to resolve one or other of two obvious conflicts. One is the challenge inherent in Christian teachings (although it is actually a common element of every world religion, as ancient as man himself) - that somehow man can rise from the dead, as demonstrated by Jesus. This just plain strains some folks' tolerance for supernatural phenomena ... which amazes me, frankly, given the testimony of millions now upon the subject of Out-of-Body experiences and Near-Death experiences (the Light at the end of the tunnel, etc.). But the hardcore skeptic has a difficult time with non-material realms, and if it can be shown that Jesus didn't actually die, then perhaps that makes his message more credible, since more believable - and less mystical! I can't say more on that; I just disagree.

As for the other psychological need ... well, my guess is that it's similar. Just as Jesus is more approachable to some as an ordinary guy who had learned a few tricks and could "cheat death" :rolleyes: - perhaps it's easier to integrate his Ministry into the picture of evolving world religions, with every bit as much respect as all other Saviors, but without such focus on blood sacrifice as the modus operandi of (vicarious) Atonement. I have more sympathy for this view, since I think the blood is an important symbol, but as so much else, is over-literalized. I mean, c'mon, Christ Himself preached against blood sacrifice at every opportunity, and decried this terrible, unclean practice of his ancestors. Yet theology paints the picture of the same man invalidating every word he said ... if we are then asked to hitch our entire spiritual destiny, inner joy and well-being to Jesus' own blood sacrifice!

Alas, the theology is riddled with inconsistencies, terrible contradictions and logical absurdities ... yet Christ is not to blame for this confusion. Sadly, even his own generation, and closest of followers, did not see to the true heart of the message. But 2,000 years later we are expected to somehow believe that just magically, everything is perfect - and Divine Revelation and understanding are there and ready for the taking if we but turn to "God's word" and "open ourselves?" Well, I do agree with the sentiment, but I insist on a key for deciphering some of the symbolism and allegory. And so, once we understand Christ's death historically and in terms of its impact on his followers and on the Jewish people, and on Rome ... we can begin to tackle the issue of "Did Jesus survive the cross?"

I am as curious and intrigued as ever, and having been sure that this new revelation (for me) was the answer just a couple months ago, now I'm not so sure! :) But do you see, it's less important to have "the bottom line" - than to continue to ask, and to know why it might make a difference? A hint at the latter, might be in the idea that Jesus' physical body, his emotional aura, and his mind - literally represented one of (if not the) purest means of expression, or vehicles, for contact between G-d, the Father ... and outer humanity (Apostles included), at the time - and this would be true for 2 more millennia! To be able to preserve this means of contact, would have been of tremendous value to the Christ, since even God Himself observes an "economy of energy." Do we think God is wasteful? Or that God is so arbitrary that He simply waives his magic wand, and ex nihilo, nihil fit? Yes, I know some believe that (even while nodding at the Latin phrase) ... but I don't.

So there's my 2 cents on it, which might be more helpful to you than a bunch of petty squabbling over who can say what where, and representing whom! :p

cheerio,

taijasi :)
 
Dondi said:
taijasi,

...

You just don't go into the specific boards and tear apart the accepted beliefs of that board.
Agreed ... and mea culpa.

Dondi said:
Now if you don't mind, I hope that we can drop the matter and get on with the question at hand.
Done! :)

Namaskar,

taijasi
 
Thanks tajasi.

As for the other psychological need ... well, my guess is that it's similar. Just as Jesus is more approachable to some as an ordinary guy who had learned a few tricks and could "cheat death" :rolleyes: - perhaps it's easier to integrate his Ministry into the picture of evolving world religions, with every bit as much respect as all other Saviors, but without such focus on blood sacrifice as the modus operandi of (vicarious) Atonement. I have more sympathy for this view, since I think the blood is an important symbol, but as so much else, is over-literalized. I mean, c'mon, Christ Himself preached against blood sacrifice at every opportunity, and decried this terrible, unclean practice of his ancestors. Yet theology paints the picture of the same man invalidating every word he said ... if we are then asked to hitch our entire spiritual destiny, inner joy and well-being to Jesus' own blood sacrifice!

Alas, the theology is riddled with inconsistencies, terrible contradictions and logical absurdities ... yet Christ is not to blame for this confusion. Sadly, even his own generation, and closest of followers, did not see to the true heart of the message. But 2,000 years later we are expected to somehow believe that just magically, everything is perfect - and Divine Revelation and understanding are there and ready for the taking if we but turn to "God's word" and "open ourselves?" Well, I do agree with the sentiment, but I insist on a key for deciphering some of the symbolism and allegory. And so, once we understand Christ's death historically and in terms of its impact on his followers and on the Jewish people, and on Rome ... we can begin to tackle the issue of "Did Jesus survive the cross?"

The Blood of Christ is a sticking point for a lot of folks. I quite frankly do not understand the "mechanics" of how the blood is supposed to cleanse our sins.

But I've come to find in recent years to discover that salvation through the vicarious Atonement of Christ is almost secondary to what God really wants, that is to love Him and love others. Salvation is almost an afterthought. Salvation is not the end but the means toward an end.

I'm convinced that the whole purpose of salvation is not just to avoid hell and gain heaven, but to live a life worth living under the instruction of the Divine. Heaven is really when we all get to that state where we no longer are at each other's throat and can live peacably with one another (a difficult task even in this board). That should be our goal. The sacrifice that Christ made on the Cross is simply one of repair and maintenance. Through Christ and His teachings are we able to incorporate the will of the Father into our lives and become children of God.

On the issue of whether Jesus really died? Certainly He did, whether on the cross or in India or somewhere else, He certainly did die. Maybe the more important question is whether He rose again and is alive forevermore. To answer that question is key to the whole thing for if Christ did rise from the dead, then there is that hope.
 
Dor said:
Jesus died on that cross...to say otherwise is hogwash.

Dor, a very definitive statement. Just out of curiousity, could you please explain why you think that to say otherwise is hogwash?
 
Dondi said:
Dor, a very definitive statement. Just out of curiousity, could you please explain why you think that to say otherwise is hogwash?
Apparently not.

I've read through this thread for the first time. I skipped some parts but read most of it. Very educational. The argument as to which forum was the appropriate one on which to post this thread was confusing until I got the idea that possibly it got moved.

It appears like most of the problems got solved along the way. It also looks like perhaps I need not have posted my thread on the liberal Christianity board about Jesus and Liberal Christianity. Some of my questions are answered here. On the other hand, if questions about Jesus' death can evoke such an educational discussion (and I understand there would have been many other paths it could have taken) then perhaps my questions will bring many interesting ideas to the fore, too. I hope so.

BJ
 
Blue Jay said:
Apparently not.

I've read through this thread for the first time. I skipped some parts but read most of it. Very educational. The argument as to which forum was the appropriate one on which to post this thread was confusing until I got the idea that possibly it got moved.

It appears like most of the problems got solved along the way. It also looks like perhaps I need not have posted my thread on the liberal Christianity board about Jesus and Liberal Christianity. Some of my questions are answered here. On the other hand, if questions about Jesus' death can evoke such an educational discussion (and I understand there would have been many other paths it could have taken) then perhaps my questions will bring many interesting ideas to the fore, too. I hope so.

BJ
Thanks for the update/bump, BJ. I must have ignored the earlier post ... but probably because the thread was on another forum, under conventional Christianity ... and I'm glad it's here.

The only thing that's hogwash, I must say, is the insistence that some people will make - that we not look at alternatives, when it comes to things like Christ's death and Resurrection. Or at least explore the possibiltiies. For me, the jury is out. I'm swayed more these days toward the notion that Jesus of Nazareth died. Period. End of story.

Oh, except for the "Resurrection" bit, which proceeded no differently than was the case with hundreds of Initiates prior, and also a handful since. But the Presence of the Christ - definitely makes the events of 2100 years ago exceptional. And quite relevant today, as we experience the same sort of transition: this time, from Pisces into Aquarius, vs. Aries into Pisces beforehand. (Thank goodness we will not need to witness the Crucifixion again this time ... at least not as such.)

To understand what occurred with Jesus of Nazareth, we should explore what's going on now, and this has everything to do with the work of H.P. Blavatsky, Alice Bailey, and Lucille Cedercrans (as well as other Messengers, or `Prophets,' as Christians term them). These are, today, what the various pre-Christian Forerunners were, who announced Christ's Coming and prepared the Way, 2100 years ago and more.

But in the last analysis, esotericism regards the death of Jesus of Nazareth as a necessary tragedy. This was less for political reasons, than for the maintaining of the status quo, specifically of the Sanhedrin and religious authorities of the day. We see the same death grip being attempted today, as the church wrangles and wrestles to hold onto the one and only truth ... regarding x, y or z.

Owing to superstition, and the tragic distortion of Christ's Message by various ecclesiastic "authorities" ... death has come to matter more than life, and frankly, I'm convinced that a LIVING Christ poses the GREATEST THREAT of all - to a great number of people. Why?

Because He would, and He will - indeed He IS - set(ting) the record straight, about these, and other issues.

Truth shall prevail ... SOL INVICTUS (sic),

taijasi
 
taijasi said:
Penguin,
What I love about CR is that we can just say, What do you think, and we know that de facto, anything said is opinion, and no one here speaks as "an official,"
taijasi

That quote is wonderful. I appreciate it very much.
Thanks
 
inhumility said:
That quote is wonderful. I appreciate it very much.
Thanks
Yes, every now and then I forget, and stand up. But the Zen Master, he seems to carry a big stick ... and he's quick with it, too - ouch! :p

Namaste ... and Salam!

andrew :)
 
taijasi said:
and if the Reappearance ( of Christ Jesus Christ ) is a growing reality now, as I believe it is, then this is where we should really be putting our focus.
......
......
And so, once we understand Christ's death historically and in terms of its impact on his followers and on the Jewish people, and on Rome ... we can begin to tackle the issue of "Did Jesus survive the cross?"

This is important and valid from another point of view also. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has been sent by God as Jesus/Messiah in Reappearance and God has told him that Jesus was though put on Cross, yet he did not die on Cross, he survived and later died in Sirinagar, Kashmir in India and he was informed of arguments inherent from New Testament for Christians and from Quran for understanding of the Muslims, without putting any new verse in these scriptures but by bringing into light irrefutable interpretation from these books. If one does not have a blind-faith, one has belief in rationality, then one can find this truth easily, it is convincingly correct. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was also informed that historical evidences would also usher in from independent sources. For this reason the significance of Jesus survival from Cross and dying a natural death later in India, increases for Jews, Christians and Muslims alike. Solving of this ,hitherto, mystery can unite the Abrahamic and other Revealed Religions.
Thanks
 
Back
Top