The biggest cover up of human history : The revelations that Jesus didn't die on the cross
As I indicated in the last post that Jesus didn't die on the cross. Here are the proofs in very brief. They can be more lengthy explanations, but i have tried to give ref. only from the New Testament. Because of volume and time i reduce them into as brief as possible. I ask God's grace for the realization of the truth.1) Jesus remained on the cross for few hours only (according to New Testament it was approximately 3 hours, from noon till three). The death by crucifixion takes time, as it’s a painful but slow death.
2) The two men crucified with Jesus were still alive when taken down from the cross.
3) The breaking of legs was done to the two criminals, but dispensed with in the case of Jesus.
4) The side of Jesus was pierced and blood rushed out which was a sign of life.
5) Even Pilate didn’t believe that Jesus actually died in so short time. Read here Mark 15:44, Pilate was surprised that he was already dead (because they knew very well that so quickly a person can not die on the cross).
6) Jesus was not buried like the two criminals, but was given into the charge of a wealthy disciple of his, who lavished care upon him and put him in a spacious room hewn in the side of the rock. Very much likely that Jesus was given Essenic healing to recover in those three days before he was again seen in the garden.
7) When the tomb was seen on the third day, the stone was found to have been removed from its mouth, which would not have been the case if there had been a supernatural resurrection.
8) Mary Magdalene, when she saw him took him for gardener (John 20:15), which is only and only because Jesus disguised himself as a gardener. Such disguise would not have been the case if Jesus had risen from the dead.
9) It was in the same body and flesh that the disciples saw Jesus and the wounds were still there deep enough for a man to thrust his hand in. He even told to the disciples in his own words (Luke 24:38-39) Then he said to them “Why are you frightened and why do doubts arise in your hearts? Look at my hands and my feet, its me! (there were sign of wound from crucifixion on hands and feet still then). Jesus continued, “Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones like you see I have.”
10) He still felt hunger and ate with the disciples (Luke 24: 39-43)
11) Jesus Christ undertook a journey to Galilee with two of his disciples walking side by side with him, which shows that he was flying for refuge, for if his object had been to rise to heaven he would not have undertaken a journey to Galilee. Read in Luke 24:14 that Jesus himself was walking in disguise with the disciples who even didn’t recognize him at first.
12) In all post-crucifixion appearances Jesus is found concealing and hiding himself as if he feared being discovered.
13) Jesus prayed the whole night (before his arrest) to God to be saved. Read in Matthew (26:39) Jesus prayed this beautiful prayer to save him, “My Father, if possible let his cup (which symbolize suffering and death) pass from me! Yet not what I will, but what You will.” Ponder carefully about the words. These are the words of total surrender of a devotee to the Beloved and Jesus not having any father used to call God as his father.
14) His prayers were answered by the Lord in Heaven and it was a splendid way Lord saved Jesus.
15) The cry at the cross before Jesus lost consciousness which people took by mistake as death was, My God, my God, why hast Thou Forsaken me?”. Read Heb 5:7 where it is said, “When he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto Him who was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared.”
This is most probably what happened (God knows the best), Jesus was made to carry the cross (John 19:17) and was beaten severely with a whip before prelude to crucifixion, known to the Romans as verberatio mentioned in Matt 27.26, Mark 15:15, John 19:1. As result he became weak from trauma and loss of blood. He didn’t sleep the night before as he prayed deeply to God (and few nights as well as he was moving constantly). And also due to the pain and trauma at the cross Jesus lost consciousness and went into a coma. The enemies of Jesus thought he died. He was taken down by one of the disciple. (This is exactly how the plan of God executed in His grace). But in actuality Jesus was taken care very carefully.
Most Probably he was given healing by the Essenes. The Essenes called themselves Therapeutae, "healers," claiming that their austere lifestyle gave them the power to cast out demons of sickness and even to restore life of the dead. Considering this, Christ raising Lazarus from the dead seems a typical Essenic miracle. And similar method was applied to him to bring him back to consciousness.
He gained back his consciousness. Took disguise as a gardener and this is when Mary Magdalene saw him, she couldn’t recognize him. And after recognition, when Mary wanted to embrace him in clear voice Jesus said, “I have not gone to Father yet”. Going to Father means journey after death. This clearly signifies that Jesus himself said that he didn’t die (offcourse church has its own interpretation).
Jesus most probably left Jerusalem leaving the work to James and Mary Magdalene. And where did he go?
Research shows that Jesus went to India. And it was not for the first time he went to India. Many scholars believe that Jesus went to India even before. The time of his life about which all the gospels are mysteriously silent is the time we are talking about.
Many of the philosophies that Jesus talked as discovered in Gnostic Gospels and other Mystic Gospels, it is more clear that Jesus had influence of Eastern Thoughts. And many believe he learned them from the Buddhist and Vedantis (Hindus) of India where he spent some part of his life.
The second coming of Jesus and how it might happen is also interesting. What Da Vinci give hints (about the blood line of Jesus Christ) may well have relationship with the second coming. But for that part you have to wait for some more days.
I will try put more info about Christ’s going to India in the next post. There are life long researches from many scholars on the topic as well.
Why so little about Jesus’s departure:
In Mark there was no original description of Jesus’s departure. The additional texts were added later. you can see the footnote at the ends of Mark in any standard Bible
The chruch teaches that Jesus ascended to heaven, which if happened in reality would be given in great detail to strengthen the faith of the believers in Jesus. But such a supposedly magnificent event is writteen just in few lines. Thats something to ponder.
In Luke its ends like this:
24:50 Then Jesus led them out as far as Bethany and lifting up his hands, he blessed them. Now during the blessing he departed.
Look carefully in New Testament the following line, “and was taken up into heaven” was not even in the original text and its written in footnote. It was added later on to make false doctrines.
Very significant conversation with Mary Magdalene:From John 20:24-17 : “She turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not know that it was Jesus.”
Now Jesus himself said that he was not ghost (Luke 24:38-39) or spirit in his post crucifixion appearance. Yet Magdalene didn’t recognize him though she was a close companion and a beloved one. What does it indicate?
Jesus was simply taking disguise to avoid re-capture and more chaos.
Now continue reading pls, John 20:16 : Jesus said to her, “Mary”.
She turned and said to him Aramaic “Rabboni (meaning teacher). Jesus replied, “Do not touch me, for I have NOT yet ascended to my Father (this is the most striking proof from Christ’s own word that he confirmed that he didn’t die on the cross)
May God bless Jesus and let you receive the truth in complete submission to the TRUTH. Amen.
(c) Sadiq M. Alam. You are free to share this link but if you quote any part, pls mention the url of the blog post as well. Thanks
# Related Posts:
. Witness the biggest cover up : Seeking for more understanding
. Witness the biggest cover-up in human history ... "only" begotten Son of God?
. Christianity Crucified
Labels: Christ, christianity, Christology, jesus, Jesus Christ
Post to Del.icio.us
| posted by Sadiq Alam @ 12:09 PM
24 comments
links to this post
24 Comments:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuz_Asaf
thanks a lot...
:)
blessings to u.
Sadiq,
I have been following your series of posts with interest.
While I do not posses your eloquence, I will try to get my point across.
I am a Hindu (by birth), my traditions include worship of DasAvatar
When I worship the avatars, is it because I believe that Bhagwan Vishnu "literally" took form of mortal beings to preserve Dharma ? No !
I worship Avatar (for example Bhagwaan Rama or Bhagwaan Krishna) because for me they are projection of the noble and enlightened side of humanity.
By revering symbols which are embodiment of certain values I (and others)seek to recognize (and certain) that certain value system which lead to betterment of civilization and hence should be followed.
And here I come to the point.
I agree with your point about church. However my question is whether it matters that Jesus died or not. Shouldn't his life and his actions be message enough for us.
Regards
Sadiq, there's a novel you may find interesting: it's "the Gospel of Corax", by Paul Park. It's about the period in Jesus' life that you mentioned, before the crucifixion, when he is thought to have gone to India. "Corax" is fiction but it's a very engaging story.
Sadiq,
I, too have been following your posts here and thank you for your time and energy in bringing together people of many faiths.
I must agree with my brother "Doubtinggaurav" here. Does it matter how Jesus actually died....IF and WHEN one understands it is life that defines us, not death.
I take your points well. Yes, many horrors committed in the names of God...and too many pointing fingers at the moon mistaking the finger for the moon.
Each of us "dies" every night and each is resurrected every morning. We die to old self, born to new.
Let it be a conspiracy, a lie, the truth, unanswerable, defined.... it is in the mystery where we are 'lost' that we are to be found.
Blessings to you dear friend and thank you again for your work, words, prayers and brotherhood.
Doubting Gourav,
it didn't matter until some point of time. Now in modern day it matters.
You know why?
Because irrational explanations, the doctrines that goes against science and rational understanding lose their appeal and this is exactly what is happening in the west.
everyday churches are getting more and more empty. people don't care about religion because they find it nonsense. now, why they r sounding nonsense? because of our collective consciousness is getting refined.
1000 yrs from now, the mythical stories sound so fascinating. perhaps that was the best way to call people's attention. now try doing that and u will find people turning churches into night clubs.
by such false doctrines, man made interpretation, import of ideas that was not there, the biggest damage what we r doing to the message of such enlightened human beings ... is simply we r creating paths to ignore their actual message.
this is the point i always want to make. We r missing the big picture because of such areas.
yes, whether jesus died or not .. may not be important to a banker of age 40 living in new york because it doesn't change anything to his mechanical life.
but when his 12 years old son questions the very faith, finds everything as old mythical stories, do we see where we r heading?
do u see how mankind slowly losing the divine? before its too late lets work together to bring back the true message so that to our next genration we can atleast pass down the truth that is given to mankind.
blessings again.
grave insight in your series of posts and very profound and thought provoking comments, Br. Sadiq
they seem to fit this meaningful quote to a "T" :
The Sufis advise us to speak only after our words have managed to pass through three
gates. At the first gate, we ask ourselves, “Are these words true?” If so, we let them pass on: if not, back they go. At the second gate, we ask, “ Are they necessary?” At the last gate, we ask, “Are they kind?”
– Eknath Easwaran
May God Bless and reward you for your good deeds, kind and selfless intentions, and a strong conviction for upholding the Truth for the benefit of humanity at large... Amen.
sf
Sadiq Bhai, i think ur blogspot is getting more and more intense. I actually never thought about the minutes details. I am very surprised that Jesus came to Indian subcontinent! If this is true, then 1) How come this is not widely publicized? as you have mentioned in ur 25 May 2006 that many people have more access to communicate due to the help of internet? 2) Second question is that If really Jesus came to India, he would have behaved, and acted the same way he did in the Arab lab. (I will be using some harsh remarks here, but folks don't get offended.) In Bangla, there is saying, "Dekhi sorge gele o dan bane" which means in English is that if a person preaches religion or anything in some place, if he is moved to another place, he also retains the same characteristics. It is hard to find a sudden change in human. That's why people are put to jail for many years, (e.g., 10, 20 years for serious crimial cases) in a HOPE that he will chage or modify or commonly used "rehabilitate". Now if Jesus really came to India, what are the signs of it? can i assume that at the time, Europeans did not much info about DIRECT route to India...Please feel free to give ur comments.
Sadiq Bhai. balo thaiken...chobi tobi Austia thaika ainen aamder zonno.
Sadiq,
I agree with your reasoning.
However where I disagree with is your methodology.
You attempt to deconstruct incident of crucification citing theological sources.
Not being an expert on Christian scriptures I can not opine what is the exact position of scriptures.
But if you want to inject rationalism (a commendable aim)isn't the premise of resurrection incredible and irrational in itself*.
What then is the need to cite scriptures, who irrespective of the religion they specifically may belong to are not accepted as valid source and authority for scientific query (for good reasons I may add) ?
In case I seem to be splitting hair I apologise but I just wish to make a distinction between rational discussion (a prasieworthy effort) and theological deconstruction (in my opinion semantic hairsplitting).
Regards
* If I offend any christian with this, I apologise. If it is any consolation, even though I am a Hindu I do not hold literal belief in bodily incarnations of God.
Thanks Gourav,
i have some personal philosophy about religion, rationalism and science. many think that religion and science can never come close.
i disagree. The nature created by God through some laws. the study of such laws are called science.
we don't see apple trees already grown up and fruits appear magically. there is a process.
many of the so called supernatural, so called not-rational phenomena in religion can well have scientific rational, but we still just don't know. many of the things that we do thanks to technology excatly sounds like magic to a person from 1000 years from now. we r reading and communicating each other's thought without even seeing or talking to each other. Isn't that sound miracle if u take out the understanding of technology in between.
so for me personally theology and science, then don't seem so far away. Yes we can't see God or soul. so what? we can't see proton and neturino. Science one day discovered them.
i always love common sense approach, cause scholarly discussion is not so suitable for mass. and theological discussion can very well be on a ratioal approach. i don't see any problem there.
thanks tiel and isaiah for the comments.
isiah: pls read my reply immediatelz after ur comment.
thanks to kibria also. i will get back to ur point soon.
The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.
( Albert Einstein - The Merging of Spirit and Science)
sf
Greetings,
(Me treading through already disturbed water)
Though I have been away from reading your post lately, I cant help but notice how it is bringing up 2 very good points..
Obviously there are 2 types of people.
People #1: Those that can accept (within reason and sometimes without) set beliefs with firm faith and
People #2: Those of us that seeks the answers for more....
Just recently a friend ask me on my opinion about the possibility of Jesus having a wife. I told her for me it doesnt matter either way, his way of life doesnt change..but for her, she needed to know more...
My my, the possibilities are endless...
Thats why there are folks like #2..
Sadiq, keep on doing what you doing, and excuse the bad typing, Im typing with henna on my hands!
RUMI's words of wisdom:
A peaceful face twists with the poisonous nail of thinking.
A golden spade sinks into a pile of dung.
Suppose you loosen an intellectual knot. The sack is empty. You've grown
old trying to untie such tightenings, so loosen a few more, why knot! There is a big one
fastened at your throat, the problem of whether you're in harmony with that which has no definition.
Solve that! You examine substance and accidents. You waste your life making subject and verb agree. You edit hearsay. You study artifacts and think
you know the maker, so proud to having figured the derivation. Like a scientist you collect
data and put fact together to come to some conclusion.
Mystics arrive at what they know differently: they lay a head upon a person's chest and drift into the answer.
Thinking gives off smoke to prove the existence of fire. A mystic sits inside the burning.
There are wonderful shapes in rising smoke that imagination loves to watch. But it's
a mistake to leave fire for that flimy sight. Stay here at the flame's core.
doubtinggaurav,
what do you make of these?
http://saif_w.tripod.com/interfaith/hinduism/kalki_avatar.htm
http://www.islamicvoice.com/november.97/OURD.HTM
??
is there any truth to the translations and quotes?
and when were these puranas written?
Silencer,
I have heard of this, however I do not place much importance on this.
As I explained as an individual avatars hold importance for me as a symbol (or place holder)for the qualities we cherish.
Saadiq,
It was not my intention to question the existence of God.
To explain when I said theology I had following in mind (from the link)
"In academic theological circles, there is some debate as to whether theology is an activity peculiar to the Christian religion. If so we should distinguish Christian Theology from others. It is seen by some to be a term only appropriate to the study of a deity (a theos) within a presupposed belief in the ability to speak and reason about the subject (in logia) - and so to be less appropriate in religious contexts which are organized differently (i.e. religions without a deity, or which deny that such subjects can be studied logically).
"
I have no objection (infact I support) to persuit of God.
But I believe that scriptures (of any religion)can not be used as source of historical authority.
Regards
Dear Gaurav,
I was quoting New Testament because the very people (my christians friend) who thought they knew the truth about Jesus, for them New Testament is the best source to quote from.
From a secular point of view, not necessarily you have to take New Testament as a book of theology, u or me can treat it as a historical book. So in that sense i was just trying to point out facts already there in a book, which was used to make us understand something totally different.
thanks a lot again dear friend.
blessings to u.
Honestly, I've read some critiques of why Jesus didnt really die before but this one takes the biscuit as far as being a complete load of rubbish. Have you ever actually read anything at all?
The new testament says that what poured from jesus' side was water, not blood - showing it had seperated because he was dead.
He was not just placed in a tomb, but in a tomb which was guarded by Roman guards whose duty it was to ensure that Jesus' body was not stolen by his disciples. If they failed in this duty they would be sent to the colluseum as lion fodder. Jesus couldnt just walk out, disguise himself as a gardner and wander off.
honestly - some people are so dumb - they'll beleive anything they want to.
go and read something other than what your mosque has told you you may read. open your eyes mate!
While I don't necessarily go with the tone of anonymouspriest's comment, I do understand the frustration and s/he does have a point. I'm afraid a number of your points just don't stand up to close examination.
But first my comment is to address why you feel the need to disprove the crucifixion of Jesus in the first place. By most standards of historical research it is pretty nigh on unassailable. So I can only assume it is because you think that the Qur'an says it didn't take place?
If that is the case, then I would encourage you to think again. I assume that the denial of Jesus' death on the cross is based on Surah 4.157 'they slew him not nor crucified ...'. But in view of the way that a similar phrase is used at 8.17 'Ye slew them not, but Allah slew them'. In other words, the denial is likely to be about asserting that what happened was not about human beings executing a man but was something in the purposes of God and that in a real sense, God was the author of the events and that the Jewish claim to have killed Jesus is not the whole truth, espcially as they don't have a consistent story to tell about it. In any case, it was the Romans who did it. So I would say that setting some rather ambiguous words as a proof against a lot of historical research is a big stretch. Maybe you should check out http://answering-islam.org/Why-not/10history.html and then at least you can start to deal with anonymouspriest's encouragement to read more!
Now to some of the issues you raise. Jesus'time on the cross is irrelevant, and in any case should be set in the context of having his back ripped off by whips resulting in severe blood loss and trauma. That would speed things up considerably death-wise.
Not sure that those crucified with Jesus were alive when taken down: they had their legs broken to make sure they had died by the start of Sabbath. The Roman soldiers who, we can assume, knew what death looked like, realised that Jesus was already dead, so the breaking of legs was unnecessary a fact confirmed by the medical opinion that the separation of blood indicated by the 'water and blood' would be consistent with the death of the victim.
The removal of the stone merely indicates that someone inside could have got out. It does not invalidate a resurrection, on the contrary, it tends to indicate one. Similarly, Jesus being misidentified is more plausibly explained by a combination of people not expecting it to be Jesus and the change wrought by resurrection. More plausible certainly than Jesus engaging in the subterfuge of disguise [and with what materials?].
The stuff about not being a ghost is precisely the point of the Christian belief, and you have completely misunderstood. The point of a resurrection is that it is bodily. In Muslim terms, what is happening here is that Jesus is anticipating in his own body the general resurrection at the day of judgement; he is demonstrating in his own being that there will be a resurrection.
Jesus is not concealing himself, he is however showing himself to the people who knew him best and could attest to the reality of his resurrection. These people were afraid of discovery and were hiding... go figure.
Yes, he prayed 'Let this cup pass from me ...' and then 'but nonetheless not my will but yours be done'; a clear indication that he knew that he had to 'drink of that cup' -there are other parts of the gospels that support this awareness on Jesus' part, so it's not an isolated thing. In any case I should advise you that selective quoting out of context doesn't go down well in the end.
And in any case the whole thing about being saved from death is fulfilled more perfectly, don't you think, by resurrection; by going through death and to life the other side? I can be saved, for example, from drowning either by being prevented from going into the water, or by being drawn out of the water... To use a quote from Hebrews to make a point totally at odds with the intention of the book which clearly presupposes the resurrection, well, that would in and of itself explain anonymouspriest's strong indictment of what you wrote.
As to Jesus being taken care of very carefully having been taken down in a coma; I find it really unlikely that a person having sufferd the trauma that Jesus had would revive from a critical condition [like modern doctors would be struggling to save him in a well-equipped ITU] by being left alone in a cold place with a bunch of poisonous spices dumped on his wounds. Not to mention that thes people were not so primitive that they couldn't feel a pulse, nor so unacquainted with death [quite the reverse] not to recognise the other signs. Remember, the soldiers had orders to execute Jesus, the had to make sure that they had carried out the sentence.
"Going to the Father", should surely be interpreted in the light of what subsequently happened. I suspect that it was not actually a euphemism for death at the time and Jesus used that phrase because it described well the event and meaning of the ascension.
Research does not show Jesus went to India. Only people who have an a priori commitment to theories where Jesus didn't die on the cross ever come up with that, usually on the basis of evidence that doesn't hold up under scrutiny.
Please, please research more thoroughly and carefully. You are a bright guy; you can do better than this.
The Messiah had to die in such a horrible way or he would not have fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah that Messiah would die and rise from the dead. Christ turned the world's idea of honor and shame upside down. The humblest of God's servants did not refuse to be humble, weak, despised, even killed, being God's will.
Have you ever seen someone defend a view that is completely off-the-wall unsupportable, but somehow deep inside of them they *had* to support this view, no matter how impossible it was to support? That is how it is with people saying Jesus did not die. His mother saw him die, along with some other women. The soldiers saw him die, and were executioners who knew how to make sure someone was dead. The soldier stabbed him with a spear to make sure he had died -- and the blood came out mixed with water, a sign of death, and a thrust that would have provoked a reaction if he had been alive, or would have killed him if he had been alive. The soldiers did not break his legs because they saw he had already died. And the disciples buried him. Wrapped him in cloths and laid him in a tomb. The soldiers guarded the body, he was not secrety being tended, he was dead.
Jesus did not hide after his resurrection -- he looked for his disciples, who were hiding in fear. He also met them at a lake when they were fishing; these are not the actions of a man in hiding.
When he walked with the two on the road, he was not fleeing Jerusalem since he came back to Jerusalem later the same night. He was revealing himself to them as they were ready.
Mary didn't recognize him because she was looking down -- and did not expect to see him, knowing that he had died and been buried. The records tell us that when Jesus called her voice, she looked at him -- as if she had not been really looking at him before. Mary was among those who had watched when he was buried. She knew he was dead, that was why it didn't occur to her that it might be Jesus, even though he had plainly prophesied his own resurrection on the third day, they did not believe it.
Death by crucifixion takes hours if someone is conscious (and their legs aren't broken). Without being able to stand up on your legs, it takes a very short time to die. They say that Jesus "breathed his last" my the middle of the afternoon, and was taken down before sunset. This leaves hours when he was not able to stand on his legs and breathe. If he had been simply unconscious at first, he would have been dead very shortly from not breathing.
Why does it matter that Jesus was dead? Because God had long sent word through the prophets that the Messiah would die an innocent death but as if he were a criminal, and that this innocent death would heal the world.
Sadiq-
you are explaining your claims as you know surely that Jesus did not die on the cross. You do not know this, and everything in The Bible can be taken and molded into personal interpretations. Why are you so bent on trying to disprove Christianity? You believe what you want, and we (Christians) shall believe what we want. We all have our own faiths, and trying to disprove one of the most beloved faiths of this world is not something that is beneficial to our Earth. It is more so something that takes away from what one already knows. I've read your writings on Maktub, and you are a very insightful writer. In fact, your writings on Maktub surely sets me forward on my path. However, be careful of what you are trying to disprove.
just wonder... why you think that God is good?
I am a catholic,but I have a open mind. I first read about Jesus not dieing on the cross when I read Sylvia Browne's book "The Two Marys. I don't think there are any Christen religions that believe this. When I start to talk about this people look at me funny.
thank you Calie for your comment and sharing.
To have an open mind is the only pre-requisite for the seekers of the Truth.
Jesus wouln't be Jesus if he didn't have that open mind which was touched and consumed by the Truth Alone. Such is true for all seekers and masters of Truth.
Peace to you!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home