Posts Tagged ‘Crucifixion’

to know why we believe what we believe: “Jesus did not die on the Cross”

July 4, 2013

I visited the blog<http://withalliamgod.wordpress.com/qa/> and commented there.

The relative posts are given below for the viewers. One may join the discussion on that blog or here to find the truth in the matter.

 

Prayson Daniel

December 3, 2012 at 07:03

Hej Matthew.

It is fine to doubt and lose faith. I were in your position when I were 15-22. The best part of this period is that we start searching to know why we believe what we believe.

I wrote a lot of atonement of Christ in my blog, if you would like to find them, I have a search box all the way at the bottom.

A simple answer is no. By Jesus rising from the dead, it showed that God affirmed His atonement, and that what Jesus claim to be is true is true. I think your atheist friend failed to understand the notion of atonement as described in both old and new testament. When Jesus died a cruel death(not just physical death, but away from God’s presence of His grace and love, to God’s presence of justices and wrath), He took away the just punishment to which those who He came to save rightly deserve. Resurrection does not cancel the payment but affirms it. You could reply to your atheist friend by asking if she understands what atonement is and how it works in Jesus of Nazareth.

Matthew, the only way to keep what you believe is to know what you believe and why you believe. Take online classes on critical think(introduction to logic), buy a book or two on philosophical foundations of Christianity and systematic theology. Doubt is a gift that enable you to dig deep. I would be glad to help you help yourself. Just let me know what you need.

Yours,
Prayson

 

paarsurrey

July 3, 2013 at 17:30

Quoting your words “By Jesus rising from the dead”; I would like to state that since Jesus did not die on the Cross in the first place and he was delivered from the Cross in near-dead position; so there is no case of resurrection of Jesus from the dead; hence, there is no reality in the Christian belief of atonement.

Thanks

 

Ephrem Hagos

July 4, 2013 at 14:23

I submit that there is complete misunderstanding concerning Christ’s death on the cross because of confusion in differentiating between the TWO SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT.

In the first, the Scriptures consistently testify about Jesus Christ’s perpetual demo, a.k.a., life-transforming “vision” of his divine identity and absolute authority, which “not even death will ever be able to overcome” (Matt. 16:18), about which Moses and Elijah witnessed in person at the Transfiguration (Ibid. 17: 1-13; Luke 9: 28-36), which were proved beyond doubt on the ground (Matt. 27: 50-56) and widely acknowledged on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2).

In the second, the so-called “near-dead position” is a speculative variant of the miracle of the apostate prophet, a.k.a., Jonah. (Matt. 12: 38-42)

 

paarsurrey

July 4, 2013 at 17:16

@ Ephrem Hagos

@ Prayson Daniel
The “near-dead position” in real terms is not speculative and fulfills the prophecy of Jesus of what was to happen to him and how the message of one true God was to be spread in future among the Israelites by Jesus.

Jonah was not dead in the belly of the fish and came out of it alive and spread the message entrusted to him by the one true God; similarly Jesus was not to die; neither on the Cross nor in the tomb he was put by his friends after the event of Crucifixion. Like Jonah went to his people after the incident of the “in the belly of the fish” and spread the message to his people; so was Jesus to go to the lost ten tribes of the Israelites who were residing in the region that fall in the present Afghanistan. KPK province of Pakistan, Kashmir; and history confirms that Jesus did go to India.

This way the prophecy of Sign of Jonah was fulfilled.

 

Advertisements

Jesus was not to give up the ghost on the accursed wood; was he?

June 26, 2013

Hi

Let it be noted that though Christians believe that Jesus (peace be on him) after his arrest through the betrayal by Judas Iscariot, and crucifixion — and resurrection — went to heaven, yet, from the Holy Bible, it appears that this belief of theirs is altogether wrong. Matthew (chapter 12, verse 40) says that just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the fish, so the Son of Man shall be three days and three nights in the bowels of the earth.

Now it is clear that Jonah did not die in the belly of the fish; the utmost that happened was that he was in a swoon or a fit of fainting. The holy books of God bear witness that Jonah, by the grace of God, remained alive in the belly of the fish, and came out alive; and his people ultimately accepted him. If then Jesus (on whom be peace) had died in the belly of the ‘fish’, what resemblance could there be between a dead man and the one who was alive, and how could a living one be compared with one dead?

The truth rather is, that as Jesus was a true prophet and as he knew that God, whose beloved he was, would save him from an accursed death, he made a prophecy in the form of a parable, revealed to him by God, in which he hinted that he would not die on the Cross, nor would he give up the ghost on the accursed wood; on the contrary, like the prophet Jonah, he would only pass through a state of swoon. In the parable he had also hinted that he would come out of the bowels of the earth and would then join the people and, like Jonah, would be honoured by them.

So this prophecy too was fulfilled; for Jesus, coming out of the bowels of the earth, went to his tribes who lived in the eastern countries, Kashmir and Tibet, etc. viz. the ten tribes of the Israelites who 721 years1 before Jesus, had been taken prisoner from Samaria by Shalmaneser, King of Assur, and had been taken away by him.

Ultimately, these tribes came to India and settled in various parts of that country. Jesus at all events must have made this journey; for the divine object underlying his advent was that he should meet the lost Jews who had settled in different parts of India; the reason being that these in fact were the lost sheep of Israel who had given up even their ancestral faith in these countries, and most of whom had adopted Buddhism, relapsing, gradually into idolatry.

Dr. Bernier, on the authority of a number of learned people, states in his Travels that the Kashmiris in reality are Jews who in the time of the dispersal in the days of the King of Assur had migrated to this country.
http://www.alislam.org/library/books/jesus-in-india/ch1.html
I think it is reasonable and it is fom the Bible

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

I respect your religion.
You are welcome to differ with me with reasaons

Buddha’s teachings were truthful but the Buddhists/Buddhism could not preserve them

June 22, 2013

I wrote following posts on <http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/> under the topic <Buddha believed in the Creator God>; the posts are given below for the viewers of this blog.

To see the context of a post, please, click the post #; that will take you to the full single view of the post in the forum, and then click the thread topic on the right upper corner, that will take you to the discussion that ensued in the forum.

Paarsurrey wrote:

#20  The Creator God is the only ONE reality in existence and attributes; all others have been bestowed existence and life by Him. He only is Immortal; all except Him will die; He makes them die and nobody else could escape death.

#22 I am a Muslim by religion; but I have no claim of any piety or scholarship as I am just an ordinary man in the street. I am on the right/middle path yet finding the path ahead which is endless till I reach the destination of ONE-the INFINITE by His grace and kindness.

Thanks

#23 I think Buddha does not bind one to the Buddhist scriptures in Kalama Sutta.

Does he?

#29 Yes, I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim.

Thanks for your good wishes.

Regards

#30  I never said that.

Buddha’s teachings were truthful but the Buddhists/Buddhism could not preserve them.

#31 I am just doing that, please.

#32  Buddha did not come after Muhammad so taking it in literal terms the question is not valid.

In spiritual terms; yes he could be termed as a spiritual father of Muhammad like Abraham and Adam were.

It is better to state that all the founders of revealed religions were from one source; hence they were truthful persons, perfect human beings, unique as they had conversed with ONE- the Creator God and became an image of uniqueness in their own merits.

They could also be called brothers in faith, joining and shaking hands with one another smilingly and happily saving the humanity and serving it selflessly.

#34 Monks are also human beings; they could make mistakes and they do make mistakes of omission and commission. They cannot be allowed to have any hegemony on Buddha or his teachings.
They should be respected, like any other human beings, but not followed blindly whatever the write or interpret; only Buddha is to be followed while treading on the right/middle path.

Buddha and Jesus spoke against the clergy/priesthood very strongly.

I think you know what Jesus spoke in the temple

#36 Sure.

Then we follow our conscience, reason and brilliant arguments; we don’t have to look to the monks.

#38 I think I did not claim that I have patent on Buddha. Did I?

#43 I don’t necessarily need to quote any Sutta for following reasons:

1. Suttas were not written by Buddha. So why insist on quoting them?

2. They are said to consist on 40/43 volumes; not possible to go through them all for an ordinary man.

3. Buddha himself spoke that scriptures and the monks should not be relied upon with blind faith; I quote from Kalama Sutta in this connection:

“Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing,
nor upon tradition,
nor upon rumor,
nor upon what is in a scripture,
nor upon surmise,
nor upon an axiom,
nor upon specious reasoning,
nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over,
nor upon another’s seeming ability,
nor upon the consideration, “The monk is our teacher.””

4. I understand that some scholars say that little or nothing goes back to the Buddha. Some have has little confidence that much, if any, of surviving Buddhist scripture is actually the word of the historical Buddha.

5. I don’t say they are false and should be rejected; they might contain diluted teachings of Buddha; and affected by the influence of Nāstika schools of philosophies during the times between Buddha and when the scriptures were compiled/written down.

A parallel in this regard could be had from what happened to the teachings of Jesus after when he migrated from Judea after the event of crucifixion in which he survived and came to India.

Value of myrrh and aloe brought by Nicodemus

June 10, 2013

Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad- the Promised Messiah (AS) has written a useful chapter on the above; I give here q  passage from his book “Jesus in India”.

The Promised Messiah says:

Quote

“A piece of evidence of great value with regard to the escape of Jesus from the Cross, which no one can help admitting, is a medical preparation known as Marham-i-Isa or the ‘Ointment of Jesus’ recorded in hundreds of medical books. Some of these books were compiled by Christians, some by Magians or Jews, some by Muslims. Most of them are very old.

Investigations show that in the beginning the preparation came to be known as an oral tradition among hundreds of thousands of people. Then they recorded it. At first, in the very time of Jesus, a little after the event of the Cross, a pharmaceutical work was compiled in Latin, in which there was a mention of this preparation along with the statement that the preparation had been prepared for the wounds of Jesus.

Next, this work was translated into several languages, until, in the time of Mamun-al-Rashid, it was translated into Arabic. It is, moreover, a strange result of divine intervention that eminent physicians of all religions — Christian, Jew, Magian, or Muslim — have all mentioned this preparation in their books, and have stated that it was prepared for Jesus by the disciples. A study of books on pharmacology shows that this preparation is very useful in cases of injuries due to blows or falls, arresting immediately the flow of blood; and as it also contains ‘myrrh’ the wound remains aseptic. The ointment is also useful in plague; it is good for boils and ulcers of all kinds.

It is, however, not clear whether the ointment was prepared, as a result of divine revelation, by Jesus himself after he had undergone the suffering of the Cross, or, that it was prepared after consultation with some physician. Some of its ingredients are like specifics; especially ‘myrrh’ which is mentioned also in the Torah. In any case, the wounds of Jesus healed up in a few days by the use of this ointment. Within three days he recovered sufficiently to be able to march seventy miles on foot from Jerusalem to Galilee.

Hence, regarding the efficacy of this preparation it is enough to say that while Jesus healed others, this preparation healed Jesus! The Books which record this fact number more than one thousand. To mention them all would be too long. As, moreover, the prescription is a famous one among the Yunani (i.e., those versed in ancient Greek medicine) physicians, I do not see any need to state the titles of all these books: I set down below the titles of only a few which are available here.

 

List of books containing a mention of Marham-i-Isa,
and a statement that the ointment was prepared for
Jesus, i.e., for the wounds on his body
http://www.alislam.org/library/books/jesus-in-india/ch3.htmlPlease click the above link to see the list and the rest of the write up.

Value of myrrh and aloe brought by Nicodemus

June 10, 2013

I give here a write-up written on the website <http://www.tombofjesus.com> for the benefit of the viewers of this blog:

Quote

“Aloe and Myrrh

Modern day analysis on the most ancient of herbs. Known for being applied to Jesus once in the tomb and assumed to be part of an embalming process, what role do these herbs play in the world today?

Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he feared the Jews. With Pilate’s permission, he came and took the body away. He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds.Taking Jesus’ body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs.” John 19:38-40

For thousands of years the herbs Aloe and Myrrh have held special relevance in the Christian world. Even modern day encyclopaedias mention the events of the Crucifixion of Jesus in their analysis of the herbs. These herbs are mentioned as being used in the burial of Jesus, for instance we find an entry for Myrrh stating:

“Myrrh is a constituent of perfumes and incense, and was highly prized in ancient times. Myrrh was one of the gifts of the Magi to the baby Jesus in the story told in the Gospel of Matthew. Myrrh was used as an incense in funerals and cremations, a fact alluded to in the Christmas carol We Three Kings”(www.Wikipedia.com – online encyclopedia)

Other sources outline how Aloe was thought to have been used during the embalming process of the Egyptians 1 What becomes interesting, however, is what is actually said about the medicinal properties of the herb. It is often cited that one of its famous occurrences is in the Gospel of John during the burial of Christ and this event may have shaped people’s perceived view of its uses. Upon examination of its documented properties all sources talk about its remarkable healing properties. It is accepted that even the Greeks and Romans as early as 300BC were aware of the healing properties of aloes:

“Aristotle was aware that the healing properties of aloe would be invaluable to soldiers wounded in battle and advised his student Alexander III (“the Great”) to conquer all lands that grew it, especially the island of Socotra off the coast of eastern Africa… Pedanius Dioscorides, a physician in the Roman army, mentioned medicinal aloes in his encyclopedic Greek herbal De Materia Medica (Approximately around 75 BC). ” 2

“The healing benefits of aloe were recognized in the ancient Indian, Chinese, Greek, and Roman civilizations. It is traditionally used to heal wounds, relieve itching and swelling, and is known for its anti-inflammatory and antibacterial properties.” 3

Myrrh also is a herb that although often linked to Jesus and his burial was clearly recognised at the time as a healing agent. Aloe is talked about as having properties that help wounds heal and aid the reformation of skin, where as Myrrh is used more for anti inflammatory and anti bacterial reasons:

“In the past myrrh was used by many cultures for religious ceremonies and as a healing agent. It was mentioned in the Bible as a gift at the birth of Christ. The Egyptians believed in its healing powers: they burned it every day as part of their worshipping rituals. In the Greek culture when soldiers went to battle is was an essential part of their combat gear because of myrrhs extremely high antiseptic and anti-inflammatory properties. It was used to clean wounds and to prevent infection. It was also used to prevent the spread of gangrene in already infected parts of the body. ” 4

Embalming

Were the herbs not used for embalming the body of Jesus? From the sources seen so far the idea of embalming using aloe has only surfaced in the Egyptian world. It is thought that pharaohs were buried along with aloes. Was Jesus being embalmed? The problem occurs when Jewish burial practices are examined. Jewish burial involved simply washing the body and burying it, there was no embalming. For a body to be embalmed incisions needed to be made. This was understood by the people of the time, and for Jews to make such incisions would not be acceptable. Upon the advent of the passing away of Judah, one of the ancestors of modern day Jews, he is recorded as having stated:

“I die this day at the age of one hundred and nineteen years before your eyes. None shall bury me in a costly garment, nor shall ye cut my body to embalm it, but ye shall carry me to Hebron.” Having spoken these words, Judah sank into death.5

It seems unlikely that the aloes present were for embalming, also having myrrh there also in large quantities was not consistent with this hypothesis. If the viewpoint is taken that Jesus could possibly have still been alive at this point, and that Joseph of Arimithea and Nicodemus who were tending to him had knowledge of herbs, then the possible role of these herbs becomes clear.

Could they have been used to treat Jesus and to help him recover from his ordeal?

Modern Day Use

Today there is an increasing amount of usage of Aloes in products. Gillette series shaving foam now contains what the can calls “Soothing Aloes”, and a wide range of aloe-based creams and gels are available mainly for healing of the skin 6.

Perhaps the most definitive answer on the properties of aloes comes from a book written by medical experts. “Aloes: The Genus Aloe (Medicinal & Aromatic Plants S. – Industrial Profiles)” edited by Tom Reynolds represents the most details study yet in to this fascinating herb. Detailed analysis of the herb is presented and an entire part is devoted to exploring “therapeutic activity and includes chapters on aloe’s role in wound healing, skin cancer, and the immune system.7

Diane Gage has chosen to title her book on the subject “Aloe Vera: Nature’s Soothing Healer” and her text discusses the biological properties of aloe vera, explaining its power to heal the human body, and traces the ways the plant has been used throughout history.

Conclusion

Aloe and Myrrh appear to be ideal herbs for treating someone who had suffered an ordeal such as crucifixion. Their reported presence at the crucifixion does arouse some suspicion as to the events that followed Jesus’ removal from the cross.

Were they used simply for embalming or fragrant use as is traditionally understood, or were their excellent healing and antiseptic properties employed instead to help heal Jesus’ wounds and to aid his recovery from an ordeal he survived?”

Unquote

http://www.tombofjesus.com/index.php/en/component/content/article/53-crucifixion/events/76-aloe-and-myrrh

Jesus remained on Earth till his natural death

April 22, 2013

Bryan Says:

Mormon’s believe that Jesus went to America. Call me skeptical but I think these are instances where other religions want “Jesus” to “rubber stamp” their own beliefs. Why should I believe Jesus went to India rather than to America after his life in Israel?

Paarsurrey says:

I don’t understand your stance.

Simply if Mormons claim that Jesus went to America does not make their claim right. You have to look into the arguments one gives. If there are people who say that Jesus went to other places after the event of crucifixion in which he survived and was delivered in a near dead-position; that proves that Jesus did not ascend to the heavens; he remained on Earth till his natural death.

Footprints of Jesus tell Jesus real story

April 15, 2013

Jesus photo shrowd of Turin

Jesu-footprints2

Like I said earlier; Jesus son of Mary was a real and factual person, his footprints on the planet Earth cannot be forgotten. It is very unfortunate that as his real person moved out of Judea to India the facts about Jesus also moved with him there; while a fictional story moved with Paul to Rome via a made-up vision.

I respect the Christians and their blind-faith in Paul’s Christianity; they have a right to believe in anything they want to, out of their own free-will; yet they have also a right to know the facts of Jesus, a real human being, son of the Virgin Mary, this right also cannot be denied to them. They cannot be kept blindfolded by the Church who holds the legacy of Paul; of course none of Jesus.

Jesus moved to India; there were no cameras in those days; but as I told the mother Earth preserved prints of his feet carved in stone in Kashmir, India; in the tomb where he is buried.

The feet of Jesus tell Jesus’ real story.

To know more about the story of Jesus from Judea to India one could view the following link:

http://www.sol.com.au/kor/7_01.htm

Jesus himself revealed his plans he was to follow before he was put on the Cross

March 20, 2013

“I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice.” John 10:16

I think Jesus has not been understood correctly as mentioned in John 10:16.

There were twelve Jewish tribes out of which in Jesus, time only two resided in Judea. The rest ten tribes were in exile and resided in Afghanistan, Kashmir, North West frontier of Pakistan and some other part of India.

Jesus and his follower were being persecuted by Jews in Jerusalem; so Jesus as per the Word Revealed to him from the one true creator God, whom he used to refer as Father; that he would migrate from Judea and set out to meet other ten tribes of the house of Israel to spread the message entrusted to him by the Father.

When he would approach them they won’t oppose him as he was being opposed in Judea. They will listen to him and accept his message in large numbers.

Jesus talked about his future plans in symbolic terms as he was used to talk in parables. Jesus actually fulfilled this divine program; after the event of crucifixion in which he did not die and got revived from the near-death position and secretly travelled outside Judea to these areas.

The rest is already well-known in the history of India that Jesus died a peaceful and natural death and is buried in the Tomb of Jesus in india srinagar mohallah khan yar:

The viewers may verify this point for themselves with a little research, if they don’t mind.

Peter was not a rock to build a church upon

January 29, 2010

http://forum09.faithfreedom.org/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=4657&p=92983#p92983

A Christian says:

Upon this rock (Peter’s faith) I will build my church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.

paarsurrey says:

Hi friends

I don’t think Jesus ever could have said such words for a person who denied him three times. Was this rock made of a mud which got cracked in the first available opportunity? Similarly no Church was erected by Jesus. Please tell us if the first Church was built before the event of Crucifixion or after when Jesus made good his escape to India.

This also seems to be Paul’s clever doing:

1. How many of the twelve did Paul meet? He did not meet them.
2. Peter was only eulogized by Paul for a purpose; to gain a little credence, which was not there.
Peter was not a rock to build a church upon. He was among the first who defected from Jesus and melted like anything; he was not loyal to Jesus. Paul chose him as a natural collaborator, in my opinion.
3. Paul did trade the concepts of Jesus, with mythical creeds of the pagans, all in Jesus’ name.
4. Paul did not meet Mary- the Mother, not even once. If Jesus had disappeared from Galilee, Paul did not meet Mary at least she would be there.

In my opinion, Paul must have smelled that Jesus, Mary and all of the loyal disciples of Jesus were missing from Judea; they were heading towards India.

Paul an enemy of Jesus and his friends changed his strategy. He used Jesus’ name and invented a creed which had nothing to do with Jesus. Paul invented a theological philosophy using Jesus as a scapegoat – which was based on “Jesus dying a cursed death on the Cross”, a mythological faith.

I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran.

Thanks

John never witnessed Jesus’ Crucifixion

January 16, 2010

http://forum09.faithfreedom.org/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=4657&p=90570#p90570
Quran, 4:157

Eagle wrote:

Your gospels are unambiguous to the fact ALL disciples fled when Jesus got arrested and Peter’s fear of arrest caused him to repeatedly deny that he even knew Jesus.

ThereIs1Adonai wrote:

John was that disciple and he is the one who leaned on Jesus’ chest at the last supper. He writes this of himself.

Eagle wrote:

There is absolutely no proof that the unnamed disciple mentioned by John’s Gospel’s writer (mentioned in the 3rd person by the way, why would John mention himself in the 3rd person?) in Jn19:25-27 is John the son of Zebedee. That traditional interpretation is still a matter of dispute among scholars. Also, the other gospels don’t mention a “disciple whom Jesus loved”. They also say nothing about any disciple or any women being near the cross, or talking with Jesus while he was on the cross, not to mention that execution sites were guarded by Romans and surely wouldn’t allow anyone near.
That unknown and unnamed disciple you are referring to could be the author of John’s Gospel as it seems from Jn21:24.

Skenderbeg wrote:

Can you Muslims tell me then who was supposed to write it down for us to know?

Eagle wrote:

Jesus had very little followers in his lifetime.

Can your bible scholars say for sure who wrote the gospels attributed to Mark, John, Luke, Matthew? as 4:157-8 says, Jesus’ enemies claimed to have killed him, others that they crucified him and this grew into a legend which crept into those books whose authorship is questioned by modern scholarship.

Paarsurrey says:

Hi friends

Very scholarly and truthful comments by Eagle; I agree with him.

I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Bible.

Thanks