Did Jesus Really Die?

dublinario

I caught a fascinating programme on BBC 4 the other night. It followed a hypothesis that Jesus never actually died on the cross. Among the facts and supposition were the following:

- apparently, it was reasonably common for Budhists from India to travel long distances into Israel in search of a child who may be the next reincarnation of the Dalai Lama. This could explain the 3 wise men happening upon Jesus at birth.
- probably on agreement with the 3 wise men, there is supposition that Jesus then spent many, many years in India studying Budhism. Isus (the guy some people claim was Jesus) is first mentioned in Indian texts as having come from Israel, and spending about 20 odd years in India (or around that region) studying. This would not be contradicted by the bible, as there is pretty much no mention of Jesus's life from about the age of 8 - 28.
- According to Indian texts, Jesus then returned to Israel. Again, this would be in keeping with the bible, as Jesus showed up at the age of 29 - 30, preaching a lot of stuff that sounds, on reflection, eerily close to the teachings of Budhism.
- So he is duely persecuted and crucified. But there are precedents from the time of people surviving crucification. Moreso, the bible explictly states that the two geezers Jesus was crucified with were further stabbed etc to hurry the process. Jesus however, appeared dead, so they left him alone. Also, the Apostles were permitted to place vinegar on a sponge, and hoist the sponge to Jesus on a stick to drink (Vinegar? Sh*t friends if you ask me. Whiskey, now that would be my choice). There is a conspiracy theory that the sponge may have contained a narcotic that would induce the hallmarks of death. Either way, it is generally accepted that Jesus was believed dead, and rather quickly removed from the cross and entombed.
- 3 days later, according to the gospels (which incidentally, between the 4 of them, couldn't agree on the colour of sh*te. They all tell a different tale, and were continually ammended with politically motivated appendages. Most of them were also written 50 - 200 years after the fact), Jesus rose again. The programme examines this claim, with lots of possibilities. The most plausible happening is that Jesus did indeed display the symptoms of death, but subsequently revived, which is not at all uncommon today, but would have been far less common 2000 years ago. In fact, the Hebrew translation of the word we used to get 'Resurrection', actually has more akin to the word 'Resuscitation'.
- if you run with the idea that Jesus was revived in the tomb, it is highly likely that, in keeping with people who have had similar near death experiences today, he would have talked of white lights, and tunnels, and all the usual garbage. His deciples would have been hugely impressed with this, paving the way for the 'miracle' story to propagate.
- However, as a condemned man Jesus would have had to scarper pronto, lest he be re-crucifed (Jaysus, now there's a thought). So where would he go? Well, I think he had always waxed lyrical, or it was believed, that the Messiah would come and reunite the Jews. It was also widely known that of the 9 or 10 different factions of Judahism, all but one had fled Israel (for whatever reason) to the vicinity of India. These factions have become famous as 'The Lost Tribes'. If Jesus truly believed he was the Son of God, he would have believed that it was his destiny to find these people and return with them. This journey would also conveniantly take him out of the realm of the Roman Empire, in which he would never be safe.
- It could further be interpreted then, that as he left for India, he told his Apostles that he would return again (which he never ended up doing), and that this is the true meaning of the Second Coming. That it wasn't an airy fairy notion of descending from heaven, but a quite literal intention to return from India to Israel, which he never actually ended up doing (lousy two-faced, lying Jesus). It is at this point in the bible that Jesus enters the 'Ascension', wherein he ascends to Heaven. It is well known that this, and other relevant parts of the Gospels, were added way, way after the original texts. Essentially, it could be argued that this kind of nonsense was a cover up by the church to glorify the man they had previously persecuted, and cover up his flight to India.
- So now we flip back from the Bible to the Indian texts, and lo-and-behold, this Isus geezer shows up back in India at about the age of 34, roughly the age Jesus was when crucified. He spends the next 50 odd years teaching his religous beliefs, and becomes a famous Budhist prophet. Later in his life, he confides in some people that he is Jesus. When he dies, he is entombed in a fairly modest shrine (i.e. it doesn't look all that grand) with another prophet. However, one of their burials is facing West, in accordance with Budhist law, but Isus's is facing East, in accordance with Judahism.
- The last piece of evidence is that a cast of Isus's feet was taken either before or after his death, and placed by his tomb. It can be clearly seen from the cast that he had scarring on both feet. The scarring is not in the same place on both feet, but would be completely consistent with a single nail been driven through the two feet if they were overlapping each other, which would have been a method used in crucifiction.

What I found interesting is that, the narrator said that if they could exhume the remains of Isus, they could easily tell, even today, if he had been crucified. This in itself wouldn't really prove anything, but it would certainly make for interesting theorising. However, being a site holy to Budhists, and also being a site that would be regarded as heresy by Christianity, it ain't ever going to happen.

Any thoughts?

seamus

Didn't see the program, but sounds perfectly reasonable and plausible. I'd need to see the evidence myself though. Anything about a repeat by any chance?

dublinario

Not sure. Here is the link to the original BBC page for the airing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/did-jesus-die.shtml

aidan_walsh

In case you lost it, here the link to the first time you posted this.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=186857

:rolleyes:

dublinario

Yeah Doodle-sketch, that's what happened, I lost it, you pedantic little runt.

stevenmu

dublinario wrote:

Any thoughts?

Yeh, In your will explicitly state that you want to be buried with an extremely large fire extinguisher .

Sounds interesting though, I would have thought the Buddhists would be willing to let the tomb be opened seeing as how material objects aren't supposed to mean anything and they're not meant to worship/deify people. Especially interesting because Buddhists don't believe in any entities which would constitute God.

Hagar

Does this mean I won't be getting any more Easter eggs? Bollex to that. Are there any other Deities out there associated with the confectionary industry. I know there's the "daily bread" thing but I'm getting sick of toast. I know they lost out on the Good Friday - M&M gig because the sponsor couldn't hold onto the wee sweeties with the holes in the hands and all but surely they could come up with something. Maybe tie in Cadbury's Roses with the crown of thorns. I dunno. What about Doubting Thomas putting the four fingers of Kit Kat in the side idea, did that ever work? I suppose we could always try Judas and the chocolate silver coins thing. What about sachets of water sold for €1.50 to underage teenagers that "miraculously" turn in to wine a little later thus avoiding the grief with the licenced trade.

I going to Hell and all my chocolate will melt......

FX Meister

doodle_sketch wrote:

In case you lost it, here the link to the first time you posted this.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=186857

:rolleyes:

Thats some mighty good detective work, I'm sure you must have had to blow the dudt off that one. How ever did you find it? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

keu

I watched a program made in about 1978 which trecked the path of Iosa through the himalayas and tibet. The stones you refer to are not casts of his feet, they are carvings (very styalised too, barely resemble feet)
The records did not specify if he returned at a later date, but its pretty certain he lived there for many years before returning to "the holy land".

Think you should read the gospels a little better too, you might find something interesting there.
The whole scenario between the high priests who wished him crucified (against pilates better interests) knew exactly what they were doing, they were literally "sacrificing him" for the cause, in a very deliberate fashion.

sceptre

It's an interesting idea - I saw a documentary on one of the documentarian channels about this about a year ago. Don't know an awful lot about it and I'm not religious so I've no more than a passing interest in it. They mentioned the site of Mary's grave (as believed by the locals) somewhere out towards India as well.

dublinario wrote:

Moreso, the bible explictly states that the two geezers Jesus was crucified with were further stabbed etc to hurry the process. Jesus however, appeared dead, so they left him alone.

Doesn't the bible also explicitly state that they ran a lance through his side and wine came out or summat?

Gizzard

dublinario wrote:

I caught a fascinating programme on BBC 4 the other night. It followed a hypothesis that Jesus never actually died on the cross. Among the facts and supposition were the following:

- apparently, it was reasonably common for Budhists from India to travel long distances into Israel in search of a Messiah, or whatever. This could explain the 3 wise men happening upon Jesus at birth.
- probably on agreement with the 3 wise men, there is supposition that Jesus then spent many, many years in India studying Budhism. Isus (the guy some people claim was Jesus) is first mentioned in Indian texts as having come from Israel, and spending about 20 odd years in India (or around that region) studying. This would not be contradicted by the bible, as there is pretty much no mention of Jesus's life from about the age of 8 - 28.
- According to Indian texts, Jesus then returned to Israel. Again, this would be in keeping with the bible, as Jesus showed up at the age of 29 - 30, preaching a lot of stuff that sounds, on reflection, eerily close to the teachings of Budhism.
- So he is duely persecuted and crucified. But there are precedents from the time of people surviving crucification. Moreso, the bible explictly states that the two geezers Jesus was crucified with were further stabbed etc to hurry the process. Jesus however, appeared dead, so they left him alone. Also, the Apostles were permitted to place vinegar on a sponge, and hoist the sponge to Jesus on a stick to drink (Vinegar? Sh*t friends if you ask me. Whiskey, now that would be my choice). There is a conspiracy theory that the sponge may have contained a narcotic that would induce the hallmarks of death. Either way, it is generally accepted that Jesus was believed dead, and rather quickly removed from the cross and entombed.
- 3 days later, according to the gospels (which incidentally, between the 4 of them, couldn't agree on the colour of sh*te. They all tell a different tale, and were continually ammended with politically motivated appendages. Most of them were also written 50 - 200 years after the fact), Jesus rose again. The programme examines this claim, with lots of possibilities. The most plausible happening is that Jesus did indeed display the symptoms of death, but subsequently revived, which is not at all uncommon today, but would have been far less common 2000 years ago. In fact, the Hebrew translation of the word we used to get 'Resurrection', was actually has more akin to the word 'Resuscitation'.
- if you run with the idea that Jesus was revived in the tomb, it is highly likely that, in keeping with people who have had similar near death experiences today, he would have talked of white lights, and tunnels, and all the usual garbage. His deciples would have been hugely impressed with this, paving the way for the 'miracle' story to propagate.
- However, as a condemned man Jesus would have had to scarper pronto, lest he be re-crucifed (Jaysus, now there's a thought). So where would he go? Well, I think he had always waxed lyrical, or it was believed, that the Messiah would come and reunite the Jews. It was also widely known that of the 9 or 10 different factions of Judahism, all but one had fled Israel (for whatever reason) to the vicinity of India. These factions have become famous as 'The Lost Tribes'. If Jesus truly believed he was the Son of God, he would have believed that it was his destiny to find these people and return with them. This journey would also conveniantly take him out of the realm of the Roman Empire, in which he would never be safe.
- It could further be interpreted then, that as he left for India, he told his Apostles that he would return again (which he never ended up doing), and that this is the true meaning of the Second Coming. That it wasn't an airy fairy notion of descending from heaven, but a quite literal intention to return from India to Israel, which he never actually ended up doing (lousy two-faced, lying Jesus). It is at this point in the bible that Jesus enters the 'Ascension', wherein he ascends to Heaven. It is well known that this, and other relevant parts of the Gospels, were added way, way after the original texts. Essentially, it could be argued that this kind of nonsense was a cover up by the church to glorify the man they had previously persecuted, and cover up his flight to India.
- So now we flip back from the Bible to the Indian texts, and lo-and-behold, this Isus geezer shows up back in India at about the age of 34, roughly the age Jesus was when crucified. He spends the next 50 odd years teaching his religous beliefs, and becomes a famous Budhist prophet. Later in his life, he confides in some people that he is Jesus. When he dies, he is entombed in a fairly modest shrine (i.e. it doesn't look all that grand) with another prophet. However, one of their burials is facing West, in accordance with Budhist law, but Isus's is facing East, in accordance with Judahism.
- The last piece of evidence is that a cast of Isus's feet was taken either before or after his death, and placed by his tomb. It can be clearly seen from the cast that he had scarring on both feet. The scarring is not in the same place on both feet, but would be completely consistent with a single nail been driven through the two feet if they were overlapping each other, which would have been a method used in crucifiction.

What I found interesting is that, the narrator said that if they could exhume the remains of Isus, they could easily tell, even today, if he had been crucified. This in itself wouldn't really prove anything, but it would certainly make for interesting theorising. However, being a site holy to Budhists, and also being a site that would be regarded as heresy by Christianity, it ain't ever going to happen.

Any thoughts?

Who cares!

Unpossible

Read "The Templar Revelation", I prefer its theory on who/what jesus was. At the least it will change your view of christianity

netwhizkid

Originally posted by dublinaro
Isus (the guy some people claim was Jesus) is first mentioned in Indian texts as having come from Israel, and spending about 20 odd years in India (or around that region) studying. This would not be contradicted by the bible, as there is pretty much no mention of Jesus's life from about the age of 8 - 28.

That probably what happened and when "he died and rose from the dead" he might have been in a coma for those 3 days and with his Ideology about God and heaven etc. he imagined he was "up there" for that time when he came out of the coma.

Well that my 2 cents worth anywhos.

Regards netwhizkid

drucks

stevenmu wrote:

Yeh, In your will explicitly state that you want to be buried with an extremely large fire extinguisher .

Sounds interesting though, I would have thought the Buddhists would be willing to let the tomb be opened seeing as how material objects aren't supposed to mean anything and they're not meant to worship/deify people. Especially interesting because Buddhists don't believe in any entities which would constitute God.

I was under the impression that Buddhists do have a God figure, Buddha himself is not a God, he is someone that All Buddhists aspire to be like, Buddhists believe they are caught in the wheel of life, Samsara, a cycle of death and rebirth, through mediation and the shedding of desire they attain enlightenment and thus free themselves from the cycle of death and rebirth, they then go to Nirvana (essentially heaven) when the Hindu Supreme God Brahman (not 100% on the spelling there) hangs out,

The original Buddha decided not to go to Nirvana upon enlightenment, rather he chose to stay on earth and teach others to obtain enlightenment.

So Buddhism has it links to Hinduism and the same "Base Deity" if you will, much the same way that Judaism, Islam and Christianity all share the same god, its quite likely that the Brahman has links to this God figure so all the major world religions are linked in some way.



















Bloke down pub said it so it must be true

Stark

I think in Buddhism, the supreme Deity is all-encompassing, ie: we are all part of it and each other, just with the illusion of seperation. The process of seperation and reunification is ongoing. Souls (or soul fragments) break off when gained experience is desired (the whole being like a great big 0, in order to experience negatives and positives seperation is needed). They then come to our realm as base entities, the great unwashed if you will. As they go through the reincarnation process they retain a little spiritual experience everytime, and become lower energies (not sure of the terms). These people will appear a little more spiritual than most and may have some psychic awareness. There's less of these than base entities as base entities tend to get sidetracked after death (the christians would call this purgatory). Reunification with the soul only comes when an entity is ready and willing. Most of us don't want to give up our individuality and become just another part of the whole, so nirvana is some way off for us. Of course because life is all about the experience this doesn't matter.

Buddha was a master - someone who had gone through the process loads of times and ended up fully spiritually aware but remained in our realm.

Doesn't the bible also explicitly state that they ran a lance through his side and wine came out or summat?

No the bible said that blood and water came out. Which is consistent with what you would expect (don't ask me the science of it, I can't remember).

sceptre

Stark wrote:

No the bible said that blood and water came out. Which is consistent with what you would expect (don't ask me the science of it, I can't remember).

Ah, I wouldn't be a picky bleep and ask about the science (besides I was more interested in the lance bit) but thanks for the correction. So the bible says they did stick a pole into his side then?

DEmeant0r

Stark wrote:

No the bible said that blood and water came out. Which is consistent with what you would expect (don't ask me the science of it, I can't remember).

I think the water is called Lymph.

Victor

dublinario wrote:

Essentially, it could be argued that this kind of nonsense was a cover up by the church to glorify the man they had previously persecuted

What a stupid comment. Why would the christian church (not formalised for many years after Jesus died, whatever year he died in) persecute it's founder? EARLY CHRISTIANS DID NOT PERSECUTE JESUS!

elivsvonchiaing

There were actually over 150 gospels. Just 4 were "miraculously" chosen think about 372 ad (could be mixing my dates up here). Gospels of Nicodemus and St Phillip are only ones I can think of right now. I certainly never heard of 140 of them.

All are: in catacomb #42 stashed with ark of the covenant and sacred menorah is my best guess :rolleyes:

The best link I (think the IESUS link is obscure in comparison) between (probably not christianity - but catholocism and buddhism) - is the bodhisatva Kwan Ying: http://www.crystalinks.com/quanyin.html)

dublinario

keu wrote:

The stones you refer to are not casts of his feet, they are carvings (very styalised too, barely resemble feet)

I stand corrected.

keu wrote:

The records did not specify if he returned at a later date, but its pretty certain he lived there for many years before returning to "the holy land".

Well, I would say it is fairly probable that he did return at a later date Keu, considering that his feet carvings lie beside his burial chamber. I think it is traditional in most religions and cultures to bury people in their burial chambers.

keu wrote:

Think you should read the gospels a little better too, you might find something interesting there.

How delightfully condescending of you Keu. I think if you re-read my initial posting you will see that I just wanted to spark a little conversation about a documentary I saw, not about a topic in which I claimed to have any expertise. I have no intention of following this up by reading the Gospels at all, let alone 'a little better'. Tell me, is this always your smug, sanctimonious approach to conversation? When one of your friends makes a casual remark about Christianity, do you usually switch into patronising mode, ruffle his/her hair and say "I think you should read the Bible a little better".

Victor wrote:

EARLY CHRISTIANS DID NOT PERSECUTE JESUS!

Point taken Victor. I should have just said that the early founders of the church may have invented the ascension to cover-up Jesus's flight to India, which would be a desirable cover-up for numerous reasons.

elivsvonchiaing wrote:

There were actually over 150 gospels.

My favourite part of your posting elivsvonchianing, is the part where you try to put one of those stupid f*cking 'rolling eyes' graphics in the subject of your message, and fail miserably, which serves you right for attempting to be such a smug prat. Is it really such a grievous error to think that there are only 4 Gospels? Am I really in such a small, thick, ignorant minority to not know of the existence of another 146-odd Gospels, to the point where you feel compelled to 'roll your eyes'? Or could it be that your entire posting was a pretentious display to lord a single piece of niche information over the ignorant masses. You remind me of one of those people who prefix obscure factual statements with "of course" to feign intellectual superiority e.g. "Of course, Eva Braun married Hitler in his bunker before they both comitted suicide".

skywalker

why are you attacking everyone who responds to you? interesting thread but you kinda spoiled reading it with your rants against everyone..

dublinario

Hold on Skywalker, attacking 'everybody'? That's a bit of an exaggeration. 2 people. I took issue with Keu dissmissively telling me to go off and read the Gospels, and elivsvonchiaing 'rolling his/her eyes' because I didn't know of the existence of any Gospels other than the 4 most famous.

In the same posting I also clearly acknowledged two mistakes that posters had highlighted in my original posting, including one correction brought to my attention by Keu. Not exactly on the rampage now, am I?

stevenmu

Personally I thought Keu was just suggesting a source of information and I thought elivsvonchiaing's rolleyes was more aimed at the general belief in only 4 gospels, not you personally.

As for Buddhism, I am not a Buddhist (or IANAB if you prefer) but I've looked into a bit. There are quite a few different versions of Buddhism but Starks explanation seems more in line with the core beliefs that I've read about. Given the regions that Buddhism and Hinduism (or is it Hindi ?) developed in there's a good chance that some crossover would develop in some forms of Buddhism. Apparently there was a few religions before christianity where a 'saviour' was born to a virgin mother who was then sacrificed to save mankind. I don't have any reference for that at hand but I'll try and dig one out.

Manach

Firstly I would disagree with the initial authors assertion that the gospels were written 50-200 after the facts. Off hand I believe at least 2 of them come from a single source and this source was living at the time of the crucifixion.

Secondly, I have full faith in the Roman legionaires at the time to ensure that someone is dead and not faking it. These people were professions at killing people and I bow to their knowlege in the craft

Unpossible

Just 4 were "miraculously" chosen

they were not only chosen but altered to fit the beliefs of the (small) council chosing them.

what exactly does the term gnostic gospel mean? is it just an alternative? or a different sect of "christianity"

midget lord

I seen an amazing film called willy wonka and the chocolate factory, i wonder if it actually happended?

Mr. CooL ICE

He didn't die, but he started a band called Nickelback.

Unpossible

I seen an amazing film called willy wonka and the chocolate factory, i wonder if it actually happended?

apparantly wonka was originally a student of nestle in switzerland, but decided to go off on his own. Gathering a group of 12 oompa loompas he went about creatign a factory, untill some smart assed kid took it over. Wonka staged a dramatic death sequence for insurance money and sneaked away to switzerland, vowing to return some day

Zulu

Maybe, it's about as believable as the origional story.
Seriously though.... I believe it was the soliders that gave him vinegar, but either way, wine turns to vinegar, and this more than likly was in fact vinegar-wine which isn't half as bad as the malt vinegar we think about today, and would have been an acceptable drink.
As for the ensuring he was dead - they stuck a spear in his side, and no blood came out (just clear fluid). Now I'm sure a soldier from those times wouldn't just pierce the skin, in fact you can be sure he gave him a good lancing. So why no blood? Because he was dead.

Stark

But then Roal Dahl covered it up and told everyone he ascended into the heavens in a great glass elevator

Hagar

See, I knew there would be a chocolate link in this somewhere.