Posts Tagged ‘resurrection’

Paul faked/forged/copied the idea of dying on the Cross and the resurrection to invent a god for “Christianity

March 30, 2016
Post #31
paarsurrey

Paarsurrey wrote:

So Paul faked/forged/copied the idea of dying on the Cross and the resurrection to invent a god for “Christianity”:

This religion* , cloaked in mystery and secrecy, has captivated the imaginations of scholars for generations. Many facts discovered sheds vital light on the cultural dynamics that led to the rise of Christianity. The National Geographic Society’s book “Great Religions of the World,” page 309 writes; “By Jesus’ time, East and West had mingled here for three centuries. Down columns of boulevards walked Roman soldiersloyal to the Persian god Mithras.” Mithras was a Persian deity. He was also the most widely venerated god in the Roman Empire at the time of Jesus. The Catholic Encyclopedia as well as the early Church Fathers found this religion of Mithras very disturbing, as there are so many similarities between the two religions, as follows:
1) Hundreds of years before Jesus, according to the Mithraic religion, three Wise Men of Persia came to visit the baby savior-god Mithra, bring him gifts of gold, myrrh and frankincense.
2) Mithra was born on December 25 as told in the “Great Religions of the World”, page 330; “…it was the winter solstice celebrated by ancients as the birthday of Mithraism’s sun god”.
3) According to Mithraism, before Mithra died on a cross, he celebrated a “Last Supper with his twelve disciples, who represented the twelve signs of the zodiac.
4) After the death of Mithra, his body was laid to rest in a rock tomb.
5) Mithra had a celibate priesthood.
6) Mithra ascended into heaven during the spring (Passover) equinox (the time when the sun crosses the equator making night and day of equal length).

http://noahide-ancient-path.co.uk/i…iours/mithras/2013/07/mithras-christianity-2/
*Paul’s invented “Christianity”.

Regards

ReligiousForums.com

Thread: “Empty Tomb / Empty Coffin”.

Post: #31

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/empty-tomb-empty-coffin.185566/page-2#post-4693185

“Is the Resurrection the Best Explanation for the Rise of Christianity?”

January 4, 2014

There is a discussion going on the Christian “Reasonable Faith Forums” which could be accessed at the following link:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/resurrection/is-resurrection-best-explanation-rise-christianity-6024196.msg1275224470.html#msg1275224470

Paarsurrey wrote as follows:
« Reply #17 on: Today at 02:13:14 PM »

Jesus did not die on the Cross; so there is no question of Jesus’ resurrection.

Who were these eyewitnesses?

July 25, 2013

Paarsurrey says:
There were no eye-witnesses of the event of the Crucifixion from the sinful scribes of the four gospel writers.;none for the resurrection of Jesus. I agree with you here.

I contributed following post on this topic.

 

 

    1. “But then Mark originally didn’t feature the resurrection either. ”

      Resurrection was later added to the creeds of Christianity by Church; instead of finding where Jesus and Mary had secretly moved from Judea; they preferred to invent resurrection of Jesus. Jesus and Mary journeyed to India; later some of the other disciples also joined them.

            • Hypotheses on how to explain the textual variations include:
              Mark intentionally ended his Gospel at 16:8, and someone else (later in the transmission-process) composed the “Longer Ending” as a conclusion to what was interpreted to be a too-abrupt account.
              • Mark did not intend to end at 16:8, but was somehow prevented from finishing (perhaps by his own death or sudden departure from Rome), whereupon another person finished the work (still in the production-stage, before it was released for church-use) by attaching material from a short Marcan composition about Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances.
              • Mark wrote an ending which was accidentally lost (perhaps as the last part of a scroll which was not rewound, or as the outermost page of a codex which became detached from the other pages), and someone in the 100′s composed the “Longer Ending” as a sort of patch, relying on parallel-passages from the other canonical Gospels.
              • Verses 16:9–20 were written by Mark and were omitted or lost from Sinaiticus and Vaticanus for one reason or another, perhaps accidentally, perhaps intentionally. (Possibly a scribe regarded John 21 as a better sequel to Mark’s account, and considered the “Longer Ending” superfluous.)
              • Mark wrote an ending, but it was suppressed and replaced with verses 16:9–20, which are a pastiche of parallel passages from the other canonical Gospels.
              James H. Charlesworth, repeating Metzger’s descriptions of some of the external evidence, has pointed out that the Syriac Sinaiticus manuscript (from the 400′s), Codex Vaticanus (c. 325), and Codex Bobbiensis (c. 430) are all early witnesses that exclude the Marcan appendix. In addition to these, over 100 Armenian manuscripts, as well as the two oldest Georgian manuscripts, also omit the appendix. The Armenian Version was made in 411-450, and the Old Georgian Version was based mainly on the Armenian Version. One Armenian manuscript, Matenadaran 2374 (formerly known as Etchmiadsin 229), made in 989, features a note, written between 16:8 and 16:9, Ariston eritzou, that is, “By Ariston the Elder/Priest.” Ariston, or Aristion, is known from early traditions (preserved by Papias and others) as a colleague of Peter and as a bishop of Smyrna in the 1st century CE.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16

  • “I am sure that only those people with biscuits for brains still consider this eyewitness claim to be true and even less so that the names tagged on to them were real people.”

    Now this is clearly a ridicule; not appropriate for a humanist; men/women equipped with reason should not do it, in my opinion.

  1. “The fallacious claim that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses is one of those things that has a habit of popping up every now and then and begins knocking. “Hello, Ark..you might like to think about this…””

    It is absolutely correct that the Gospels were not written by eyewitness; “Matthew”- an anonymous writer of Gospel of Bible, mentions very clearly that all disciples had run away from the scene of the Crucifixion in fear; they abandoned him crying/praying in agony on the Cross to Yahweh whom he used to address as God-the-Father who heard his supplications/prayers and Jesus was delivered from the Cross in near-dead position, nevertheless alive as he had prophesied to show the Sign of Jonah.

  2. [Arkenaten

    July 24th, 2013 at 3:41 pm
    “Be my guest. You may know stuff that I have missed and I am never one to shy away from learning something new, believe me.”]

    Thanks for inviting me as a guest. I will thankfully write here in your blog.

    Regads

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

Paul’s theme of Christianity does not owned by Jesus

June 25, 2013

Bryan made a long comments on my post<  Modern Christianity is founded by Paul>. I have given my views on it. The comments deserve a separate post.

Bryan Says: 

The article that you provide the link to is a view of Paul that was popular from 75 to 100 years ago and has been abandoned even by many scholars that still do not hold to historical Christian doctrines. In other words there are still scholars skeptical of historical Christianity, but they do not base their views on this older “history of religions” approach since it was bad scholarship.

Most scholars today, whether they accept or deny historical Christianity, agree that the main source of Paul’s thought was simply the Old Testament viewed in light of what Paul believed was the promised redemptive events centered in the coming of the Kingdom of God and the Holy Spirit through the life, death, and resurrection Jesus Christ.

The consensus today is that the earlier ideas of Paul’s dependence on the “mystery religions’ and on Greek thought were mistaken ideas that have no warrant for support.

Herman Ridderbos wrote: “…surely we can speak of a growing consensus insofar that scholars are more and more finding the point of departure for an adequate approach to the whole redemptive-historical, eschatological character of Paul’s proclamation. The governing motif of Paul’s preaching is the saving activity of God in the advent and the work, particularly in the death and the resurrection of Christ. This activity is on the one hand the fulfillment of the work of God in the history of the nation of Israel, the fulfillment therefore also of the Scriptures; on the other hand it reaches out to the ultimate consummation of the parousia of Christ and the coming of the kingdom of God.” (Paul: An Outline of His Theology, 1975, p.39)

Ridderbos goes on to say that speaking of a “consensus” must be “done with great reserve” because there is much debate regarding the subject of “eschatology and eschatologies”. Therefore the debate today is mainly concerned with “whether Jesus and the apostles quoted Old Testament texts with respect for their broader Old Testament context. Did they refer to Old Testament passages in a way that is inconsistent with or contradictory to the original intention of an Old Testament passage?” (G. K. Beale: The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts”, 1994, p. 7)

Here is a link to a short but adequate critique of the older “history of religions” view of Paul’s sources for his teachings called Paul and the Mystery Religions by Don Closson.

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/mystery.html

Bryan

paarsurrey Says:

I refer to your sentence:

“Paul believed was the promised redemptive events centered in the coming of the Kingdom of God and the Holy Spirit through the life, death, and resurrection Jesus Christ.” Unquote

This is exactly what Modern Christianity is all about, all present denominations of Christianity, in my opinion, are based on this theme which was invented by Paul and has nothing to do with Jesus the Christ.

Sorry, I could not reply earlier.

Jesus never resurrected; he never died on the Cross to start with

May 1, 2013

It is quite obvious that the truthful disciples of Jesus did not believe that Jesus had died on the Cross. It is for this reason that they asked for the body of Jesus, from Pilate, to be handed over to them; and when it was handed over to them they hurriedly took him to the tomb of Joseph of Armethia. What for and why this hurry? If Jesus was physically dead and was to get alive anyhow in some days; no hurry, worry or panic for his friends. It suited them and Jesus to let him be in the open and not be buried; so that the Jews who had demanded of a sign from Jesus and Jesus had promised them to show the sign; the Jews would have seen Jesus becoming alive before their very eyes and believed in him.

But they did not leave Jesus in the open; because they knew that Jesus had not died so they hurriedly took him to a spacious and airy tomb so that he be treated for his injuries as soon as possible.

I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran

Since Jesus never died in the first place; so there is no valid point of any resurrection

May 27, 2009

Layrenewal says:

https://paarsurrey.wordpress.com/2009/05/26/jesus-never-went-to-heaven-rather-coming-out-of-the-tomb-he-went-to-galilee-like-an-ordinary-man-in-normal-clothes-with-a-human-body/#comments

I’m not sure I understand the point of the post?

Paarsurrey says:

Hi friend layrenewal

Welcome to my blog and your participating in the discussion with your valuable comments.

We can deduce following points from the post:

1. Jesus never died on the Cross; he was delivered from the Cross in a near-dead position. His friends hurriedly took him to a spacious tomb, lest Jesus dies.

2. Since Jesus never died in the first place; so there is no valid point of any resurrection.

3. When Jesus got recovered from the injuries with the treatment of his friends, he came out of the tomb, of course with the help of his friends.

4. Jesus’ body, a human body, started normal functions of a human; like eating, drinking and walking.

5. He got clothed like a human being; so he was the same man as he had been before he was hanged on the Cross. There was no difference.

6. Like a normal human person he went to Galilee.

7. God is only an attributive being; needs no spirit or soul. All spirits and bodies are God’s creation.
I think it is not difficult to understand. You are welcome for any questions, if you may like to ask here.

I love Jesus and Mary as described in Quran.

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

Jesus never went to heaven; rather, coming out of the tomb, he went to Galilee; — like an ordinary man, in normal clothes, with a human body

May 26, 2009

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908, the Promised Messiah, the Second Coming says:

In short, the verse I have just quoted shows that Jesus after coming out of the tomb went to Galilee.

The gospel of St. Mark says that after coming out of the tomb he was seen going on the road to Galilee, and ultimately he met the eleven disciples when they were at their meal; he showed them his hands and feet which were wounded and they thought that he was perhaps a spirit. Then he said to them:

Behold my hands and my feet, that it is myself; handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have4

He took from them boiled fish and a piece of honeycomb and ate them in their presence.5

These verses show that it is certain that Jesus never went to heaven; rather, coming out of the tomb, he went to Galilee; — like an ordinary man, in normal clothes, with a human body.

If he had been resurrected after death, how was it that this body of spirit could still have borne the wounds inflicted upon him on the Cross?

What need had he to eat? And if he required food then, he must be in need of food even now.

http://www.alislam.org/library/books/jesus-in-india/ch1.html

Jesus did not die on Cross: some arguments by D.F.Strauss

December 17, 2008

http://books.google.com/books?id=5_A…sult#PPA409,M1
“A New Life of Jesus” By David Friedrich Strauss (1808 –1874),a German theologian and writer.

We might, therefore, refuse to acknowledge in the resurrection of Jesus any miraculous objective occurrence for the following reasons.

The Evangelical evidence, on which the belief of that occurrence originally rested, is far from giving that certainty which it ought to give in order to make such a miracle credible.
2. In the appearances after the resurrection, the accounts of which are given in the Evangelists, the advocates of this view keep exclusively to those features which seem to point to a perfectly natural corporeality;
1. For in the first place it does not come from eye-witnesses,
2. secondly the different accounts do not agree, and
3. thirdly they give a description of the nature and movements of the subject after the resurrection which contains in itself contradictory elements.

Inasmuch, then, as the ecclesiastical view of the matter, as regards the last point, admits only the possibility of a miracle, the essence of which involves characteristics which are, according to human notions, self-contradictory, an attempt is made to take another point of view, and to understand the Evangelical accounts in such a manner that they shall not contain such contradictions.
According to this the Resurrection of Jesus takes the form of a natural occurrence,

1. his condition after it is the same as it was before it.

a. the marks of the wounds,
b. the tangibility,
c. the eating, which is here taken to be not merely a power of eating, but also as a want of sustenance.

3. On the other hand, they endeavour to set aside by an evasive explanation the opposite characteristics which point to something spiritual in the nature of Jesus after the resurrection.
a. The fact of the disciples, as is sometimes stated, being afraid at his appearance (Luke xxvii. 37 ; John xxi. 12) is intelligible,
b. they say, on the supposition that they really believed that he was dead, and thought consequently that what they then saw of him was his shade ascended from the world below.
c. The travellers to Emmaus did not recognise him for some time.d. Mary Magdalene thought he was the gardener.

4. The first of these is explained sometimes by the disfigurement of his features by suffering,

5. sometimes by supposing that he had not marked features;

6. the latter from the circumstance that having risen from the grave unclothed from the sepulchre he had borrowed clothes from the neighbouring gardener.

7. While the doors were shut he stood suddenly in the midst of his disciples.

8. Even Schleiermacher considers it self-evident that the doors had been opened for him before.

9. They see here, they say, a proof of the fact that the body which Jesus brought from the grave was not a glorified one,
a. but severely wounded and hurt,
b. and gradually recovering.

10. And this proof is the improvement shown in his state of health between the morning of the resurection, when he forbade Mary Magdalene to touch him (John xx. 17),

11. and eight days later, when the healing of his wounds had advanced so far that he himself invited Thomas to do so.

12. Again in the morning he stays quietly in the neighbourhood of his grave,

13. in the afternoon he feels already strong enough for an expedition to Emmaus, three hours distant,

14. and some days later undertakes even the journey to Galilee.

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

How salvation of ‘Animism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, or cults such as Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormonism’?

August 15, 2008

Paarsurrey says:

Hi Bud Press!

Thanks for your remarks on my above comments. Sorry, I don’t agree with your following points mentioned by you.

1. “Jesus Christ died for you on the cross (Romans 5:6-9).”
2. “Salvation and eternal life cannot be obtained through world religions such as, Animism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, or cults such as Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormonism. Your salvation and eternal welfare rests in the Jesus Christ of the Bible.”

Firstly, Jesus never died a cursed death on the Cross, in my opinion; and secondly, there is no relationship between the sins one commits and the death of a third person for the sins of another person.

Maybe you like to read my following posts in this connection:

https://paarsurrey.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=163
https://paarsurrey.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=67

I love Jesus, Mary and Muhammad

Regards

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

In response to remarks of our friend Bud Press dated August 15, 2008 at 9:22 am at
http://kimolsen.wordpress.com/2008/08/11/discerning-gods-word-study/

“Jesus Christ died for you on the cross (Romans 5:6-9):”

“Salvation and eternal life cannot be obtained through world religions such as, Animism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, or cults such as Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormonism. Your salvation and eternal welfare rests in the Jesus Christ of the Bible:”