• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Jesus Resurrection

Prometheus85

Active Member
Don't know much about these guys, but my guess would be that the honestly and sincerly belived in the stuff they proclaimed. They did not lie.

Jones knew full well that the faith healing treatments were all fake and very likely hired private detectives to acquire personal info about churchgoers and people in Indianapolis, while also pocketing everything they gave to the Temple. They died for a lie period.
 
No, you should simply avoid using terribly biased sources.

Did you watch the video that I linked? It explains using the history of the time why the Road to Damascus story was likely to be a lie. Paul appears to have lied there. Remember he never saw Jesus and needed an excuse for his "authority". He is not that different from Cartman:

26723760.jpg

Ok, watched the video.

So, paul was not halucinating now, he was lying?
 
Excuse me?

What part of

"Although the work is traditionally attributed to Pope Clement, it is anonymous, and there is no evidence that Rome had a bishop in the monarchical sense at the time"

Am I’m not understanding?

Here's another section of the same article that can help you understand.

"Although traditionally attributed to Clement of Rome,[1] the letter does not include Clement's name, and is anonymous, though scholars generally consider it to be genuine.[2] While Clement is traditionally identified as a pope, there is no evidence for monarchical bishops in Rome at such an early date."
 

Prometheus85

Active Member
Here's another section of the same article that can help you understand.

"Although traditionally attributed to Clement of Rome,[1] the letter does not include Clement's name, and is anonymous, though scholars generally consider be it to be genuine.[2] While Clement is traditionally identified as a pope, there is no evidence for monarchical bishops in Rome at such an early date."

Ok the article still contradicts you. It still says THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR MONARCHICAL BISHOPS IN ROME AT SUCH AN EARLY DATE. Scholars believe the LETTER to be genuine but are unsure of the letters author. I mean it says it in the quote. The letter does not include clement name and is anonymous.
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Ok, watched the video.

So, paul was not halucinating now, he was lying?
It is pretty obvious that at least part of his story was false. I have seen countless Christians lie for their cause. People that think they have a cause go to extremes sometimes.

Of course he could have hallucinated the whole thing too. After watching the video do you find his story at least a bit on the dubious side?

And one thing that I just found. The translations of the Bible have changed a bit over the years. Sometimes the publishers do not like the obvious contradictions in the Bible. The reason that we disagreed about the contradictions between Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9 is that most newer translations "correct" the error. That is not the case with the Catholic Bible nor the King James version both of which preserve the contradiction.

Conversion of Paul the Apostle - Wikipedia

"And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

— Acts 9:7, King James Version (KJV)"

"And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

— Acts 22:9, King James Version (KJV)"

There, we have killed at least two birds with this post.
 

Dell

Asteroid insurance?
Have you ever seen an animal that's been dead for 3 days, or a human in a coffin at a funeral home at the 3rd day? How realistically can a physical body revert to living again with normal memories and physical functions. Ask a doctor if it is possible. Ask a biologist if its possible. Every cell in the body would have to be replaced and that wouldn't happen of it's own. Worse yet the resurrection of Christian's dead for millennia where there is no body to resurrect whose atoms may be in another body. Really? when has it witnessed corrupt dead is made living again.
 
Ok the article still contradicts you. It still says THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR MONARCHICAL BISHOPS IN ROME AT SUCH AN EARLY DATE. Scholars believe the LETTER to be genuine but are unsure of the letters author. I mean it says it in the quote. The letter does not include clement name and is anonymous.

Monarchical, key word.

Heres a piece to read from google

"Over time, the Christian church and faith grew more organized. In 313 AD, the Emperor Constantine issued the Edict of Milan, which accepted Christianity: 10 years later, it had become the official religion of the Roman Empire" ......this is WHEN it became monarchical. Before this, the churches still had leaders. Clement being one.

Even though the letter dont have his name, its called first epistle of CLEMENT.

Also, Paul himself shows he knew clement.

Philipians 4:3 "3And I ask you, my true partner,b to help these two women, for they worked hard with me in telling others the Good News. They worked along with Clement and the rest of my co-workers, whose names are written in the Book of Life."
 
It is pretty obvious that at least part of his story was false. I have seen countless Christians lie for their cause. People that think they have a cause go to extremes sometimes.

Of course he could have hallucinated the whole thing too. After watching the video do you find his story at least a bit on the dubious side?

And one thing that I just found. The translations of the Bible have changed a bit over the years. Sometimes the publishers do not like the obvious contradictions in the Bible. The reason that we disagreed about the contradictions between Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9 is that most newer translations "correct" the error. That is not the case with the Catholic Bible nor the King James version both of which preserve the contradiction.

Conversion of Paul the Apostle - Wikipedia

"And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

— Acts 9:7, King James Version (KJV)"

"And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

— Acts 22:9, King James Version (KJV)"

There, we have killed at least two birds with this post.

Ill reply to yours later. I need to role.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Blasphemy! :p

Luke Skywalker managed to trick an entire group of people half a galaxy away that he was physically with them and then became one with the Force after being separated from it for so long.


Sorry,I didn’t watch the movie.

But given that you lived at a time where the movie was playing, and given that you don’t have good reasons to lie, I will grant your testimony as reliable, and assume that you accuredly describe Luke’s “dead”.

If other independent testimonies, confirm your version I would be almost 100% certain that in the movie Luke became one with the force. Just like you should be almost 100% certain that Jesus was buried on a tomb.

This is how history works, I don’t need to be witness in order to know what happened in the movie, I can trust other witnesses.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Have you ever seen an animal that's been dead for 3 days, or a human in a coffin at a funeral home at the 3rd day? How realistically can a physical body revert to living again with normal memories and physical functions. Ask a doctor if it is possible. Ask a biologist if its possible. Every cell in the body would have to be replaced and that wouldn't happen of it's own. Worse yet the resurrection of Christian's dead for millennia where there is no body to resurrect whose atoms may be in another body. Really? when has it witnessed corrupt dead is made living again.
Jesus did not die on the Cross, he was delivered from it in a near-dead but very much alive. Jesus was laid in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea for treatment of his injuries inflicted on his body on the Cross.
G-d helped him survive, and it was the Sign of Jonah for the opposing Jews against all odds as was prophesied by him. G-d helps his prophets.

Regards
_____________

It is sign for everybody even for the Atheism people.
[40:52]
Most surely We help Our Messengers and those who believe, both in the present life and on the day when the witnesses will stand forth,
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 40: Al-Mu'min
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Jesus did not die on the Cross, he was delivered from it in a near-dead but very much alive. Jesus was laid in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea for treatment of his injuries inflicted on his body on the Cross.
G-d helped him survive, and it was the Sign of Jonah for the opposing Jews against all odds as was prophesied by him. G-d helps his prophets.

Regards
_____________


Wow you described your position in a clear and unambiguous way in just 1 comment. Subduction Zone has much to learn from you.

As for your hypothesis I comment.

1 Romans where experts in crucifixion, it is unlikely that they would fail in killing Jesus

2 But just to make sure, a soldier stacked a spear in Jesus´s chest, to ensure that he was dead

3 multiple independent sources confirm that Jesus was buried, and zero evidence for the medical treatment that you described, your view requires a big conspiracy theory.

4 at least James the brother of Jesus would have been a witness of the “non burial of Jesus” so why was he proclaiming the resurrection of Jesus, if he would have known that Jesus never died.

5 Jesus if he would haved survived, he would have been injured, he would have not fooled anybody, and he would have been unable to travel to Galilee

6 Why would Jesus lie and fake his resurrection?

7 Are we to believe that not a single enemy of Christianity Jew or Roman noticed the fraud?
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Wow you described your position in a clear and unambiguous way in just 1 comment. Subduction Zone has much to learn from you.

As for your hypothesis I comment.

1 Romans where experts in crucifixion, it is unlikely that they would fail in killing Jesus


2 But just to make sure, a soldier stacked a spear in Jesus´s chest, to ensure that he was dead

3 multiple independent sources confirm that Jesus was buried, and zero evidence for the medical treatment that you described, your view requires a big conspiracy theory.

4 at least James the brother of Jesus would have been a witness of the “non burial of Jesus” so why was he proclaiming the resurrection of Jesus, if he would have known that Jesus never died.

5 Jesus if he would haved survived, he would have been injured, he would have not fooled anybody, and he would have been unable to travel to Galilee

6 Why would Jesus lie and fake his resurrection?

7 Are we to believe that not a single enemy of Christianity Jew or Roman noticed the fraud?
"As for your hypothesis I comment.
1 Romans where experts in crucifixion, it is unlikely that they would fail in killing Jesus" Unquote.
  • Is it a fact that Romans were experts to ensure that the one put on Cross always died in a matter of some hours on the Cross, please?
  • Did any Physician certify that Jesus was dead when Jesus was delivered from the Cross.
If not, it is just a guesswork framed by the Pauline Christianity, please.

Regards
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
"As for your hypothesis I comment.
1 Romans where experts in crucifixion, it is unlikely that they would fail in killing Jesus" Unquote.
  • Is it a fact that Romans were experts to ensure that the one put on Cross always died in a matter of some hours on the Cross, please?
  • Did any Physician certify that Jesus was dead when Jesus was delivered from the Cross.
If not, it is just a guesswork framed by the Pauline Christianity, please.

Regards
Would you apply the same level of skepticism in other historical claims regarding other individuals? Would you ask for a medical certificate before granting the death of any other individual from ancient history?

Everybody grants that Julio Cesar died stabbed, nobody would ask for a medical proof for his death.

Besides
They pierced his chest with a spear , if for any reason Jesus survived the crucifixion, the spear would have killed him.
 

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
If other independent testimonies, confirm your version I would be almost 100% certain that in the movie Luke became one with the force. Just like you should be almost 100% certain that Jesus was buried on a tomb.
And both would still just be stories. See how this works?

1 Romans where experts in crucifixion, it is unlikely that they would fail in killing Jesus
People thought it was strange he died "early". He was quickly removed and entombed. I don't see a coroner's report anywhere.

2 But just to make sure, a soldier stacked a spear in Jesus´s chest, to ensure that he was dead
John is the only person to mention that, IIRC. Also, the soldier may have intended to kill Jesus, but if Jesus suffered from some sort of fluid overload in his chest or abdomen (it only says "side"), then ironically it might have saved his life, just like a chest tube is used today to drain the body cavity filled with fluid or air.

3 multiple independent sources confirm that Jesus was buried
But ... he ... wasn't. He ... was ... entombed. Being entombed might be considered burial, but one will have an oxygen-filled room and one won't.

and zero evidence for the medical treatment that you described
Didn't the women do stuff to his body? Who else was there to witness?

at least James the brother of Jesus would have been a witness of the “non burial of Jesus”
Have a verse proving he was there?

Jesus if he would haved survived, he would have been injured, he would have not fooled anybody, and he would have been unable to travel to Galilee
He was supposedly tortured horribly, right? Why are the only wounds mentioned the ones in his hands and feet (and side?)? Where are the thorn marks? The whipping lacerations? He should look like ground meat, not some cute white guy with easily replicated non-fatal holes that aren't even bleeding.

Why would Jesus lie and fake his resurrection?
Resurrection - Wikipedia
There are stories in Buddhism where the power of resurrection was allegedly demonstrated in Chan or Zen tradition. One is the legend of Bodhidharma, the Indian master who brought the Ekayana school of India to China that subsequently became Chan Buddhism.

The other is the passing of Chinese Chan master Puhua (J., Fuke) and is recounted in the Record of Linji (J., Rinzai). Puhua was known for his unusual behavior and teaching style so it is no wonder that he is associated with an event that breaks the usual prohibition on displaying such powers. Here is the account from Irmgard Schloegl's "The Zen Teaching of Rinzai".

"One day at the street market Fuke was begging all and sundry to give him a robe. Everybody offered him one, but he did not want any of them. The master [Linji] made the superior buy a coffin, and when Fuke returned, said to him: "There, I had this robe made for you." Fuke shouldered the coffin, and went back to the street market, calling loudly: "Rinzai had this robe made for me! I am off to the East Gate to enter transformation" (to die)." The people of the market crowded after him, eager to look. Fuke said: "No, not today. Tomorrow, I shall go to the South Gate to enter transformation." And so for three days. Nobody believed it any longer. On the fourth day, and now without any spectators, Fuke went alone outside the city walls, and laid himself into the coffin. He asked a traveler who chanced by to nail down the lid.

The news spread at once, and the people of the market rushed there. On opening the coffin, they found that the body had vanished, but from high up in the sky they heard the ring of his hand bell."[30]

Are we to believe that not a single enemy of Christianity Jew or Roman noticed the fraud?
I thought the accusation by others WAS that the body was stolen or something. It's funny when Christians say that if it were false, they'd be called out on it, but per the stories, they WERE. They were just demonized for doing so.
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
There probably was no tomb. The most common thing done with crucified people was to leave them up as a warning.

and we have no idea what the apostles claim. There are meetings by them on this part of Jesus's life.

Hi, I'm back!

Subduction Zone wrote……. There probably was no tomb. The most common thing done with crucified people was to leave them up as a warning.
and we have no idea what the apostles claim. There are meetings by them on this part of Jesus's life.

The Anointed……. Well atheists like yourself who are incapable of comprehending the truths that are revealed in the scripture, which in their ignorance they attack, might have no idea what the apostles claim, but the believer knows that John the beloved apostle of Jesus, wrote in his memoirs that Joseph of Arimathea, who is believed to be the biological son of Joseph ben Jacob and half-brother to Jesus, having been born of the same womb, buried Jesus in a tomb nearby which had never been used.

Matthew is a disciple of Jesus, also called Levi and a relative of Alphaeus and is generally believed to be the author of the Gospel of Matthew. Matthew 27: 60; Has Joseph of Arimathea, placing the body of Jesus in his own family tomb, which he himself had recently hewn out of a solid rock. Joseph, the son of Mary was younger than Jesus, so we can assume he wasn’t thinking of his own imminent death, but perhaps that of his father.

Mark has Joseph burying Jesus in a tomb, while Luke has Jesus being buried in a tomb that had never been used.

As you don’t believe anything recorded in the scriptures, why would you believe that Jesus was buried in a tomb, and like I have said before, who, but another non-believer gives a rat’s tail what you believe.

It was not uncommon for men of Galilee in those days to carry three names, one in Hebrew, one in Greek, and one in Aramaic. The son of Mark Anthony, ‘Alexander Helios III,/Heli,’ who sired Joseph the biological father of Jesus, would have been seen as a father of renowned. Alphaeus and Cleophas, in Young’ s Analytical Concordance Subject Guide, are said to be one and the same person: From the Subject Guide; where it is written; “Cleophas, husband of Mary, also called Alphaeus.”

Joseph, the biological father of Jesus, was the son of Alexander Helios/Heli a father of renowned, who is said to have been murdered by Herod the Great in 13 BC. Cleophas, the Masculine form of Cleopatra, is the Greek, meaning: “Of a renowned father,” and Alphaeus, is the Aramaic of the same meaning: “Of a renowned father.”

Thomas=Tau’ma, the Aramaic for twin, is also called Didymus, which is the Greek for twin, he is Thomas/twin, Didymus/twin, Jude, the half-brother of Jesus and the son of the carpenter. A local tradition of eastern Syria identifies the Apostle Jude with Jude Thomas who was called ‘The Twin’ also known as Thomas (Aramaic), Didymus (Greek), and Jude (Hebrew.)

Even the opening words of the gospel of Thomas, read; “These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke, and which ‘Didymus Judas Thomas’ wrote down.” Revealing that the COPY of the Gospel of Thomas, which was dated to the middle 2nd century A D, was a copy by later scribes, of the words that ‘Didymus Jude Thomas’ had previously written down.

Knowing that in ART, Thomas Didymus Jude, the son of Alphaeus/Cleophas, is depicted with a carpenter’s rule and square. In "The Acts of Thomas, sometimes called by its full name, "The Acts of Judas Thomas," 2nd-3rd century CE, "The Apostles cast lots as to where they should go, and to Thomas, brother to Jesus fell India. Thomas was taken to King Goddophares the ruler of Indo-Pathian Kingdom as an architect and carpenter by Habban.”

We must now ask the question, "Who is the Carpenter to whom Mary was married at that time, when her family consisted of Jesus, James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Was it Joseph the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah, who was her first legitimate husband, or was it Joseph/Alphaeus/Cleophas the second husband of Mary and the Father of James the younger, the biological son of Mary and the youngest boy in the family, plus Simon and Judas, who is also called Thomas Didymus Jude, meaning twin?

Knowing from scripture that Mary had remarried and had borne James the younger of her three biological sons, to Alphaeus/Cleophas, who it would appear, had sired two sons to a previous marriage and they were Simeon and Jude, the two half-brothers of Jesus, we must now ask the question, did Joseph, Mary’s first husband and Father to young Joseph the second son of Mary of whom we know so little, “DIE,” or was he still alive at the time of the death of Jesus?

If this was the case, and the Joseph of Arimathea, who is believed to be the half-brother of Jesus, who laid the body of his brother in his own family tomb which had never been used, would suggest that his father was still alive, then we would be faced with the fact that Joseph must have divorced Mary at some period, issuing her with a bill of divorce, a copy of which, would have been kept in the filing systems of the scribes in the Temple, and it would appear that Joseph ben Jacob had raised his son and namesake "Joseph the son of Mary" by himself: this being the reason why so little is known of Joseph the son of Mary and why James the younger is always placed before his older brother Joseph.

Because James the son of Alphaeus, who is also named Cleophas, is, according to Paul, the Brother (Of the same womb) to Jesus, and James the brother of the Lord was a young man when Jesus began his ministry at about 30 years of age, it becomes apparent that Mary had married Cleophas/Alphaeus when Jesus was a young boy.

But if Mary had remarried while her past husband was still alive, which was absolutely legal according to the law of Moses as it is today, she would have been seen to be living in a state of adultery according to the new and controversial teaching of Jesus, which stated that anyone who remarries while their current spouse is still alive, they are committing adultery, and the Jewish authorities would have been right onto him.

This of course, is exactly what we see in scripture. The religious authorities of those days were always looking for ways that they might trap Jesus according to his own teaching and then accuse him to the people, and it was after Jesus had been preaching that if a divorced person remarried while their original spouse was still alive, they were committing adultery, it was then that the hypocritical priests who had access to the documents in the Temple, and copies of the bills of divorce that had been issued to the women when divorced by their husbands, thought that they had the means whereby they could make Jesus appear to the people to have one law for himself and another for everyone else. See John chapter 8.

Pointing to his mother, who was with the women who had followed him from Galilee, who was among the crowd that were listening to the great teacher who was setting Israel on fire, they said to Jesus in their most patronising voice, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the very act of adultery.” (This was according to the new teaching of Jesus) “In our law Moses commanded that such a woman must be stoned to death. Now, what do you say?” They said this in order to trap Jesus and accuse him to the people.

Jesus knew what those hypocrites were up to, those hypocrites who thought nothing of stoning the innocent Stephen to death, were bound by the law of Moses to stone this woman to death if she had indeed been caught in the very act of sexual intercourse with a man other than He, too who she was legally married at that time, which was not the case, as she was guilty of no crime according to the temporal laws of the land.

Jesus turned the tables on them by saying, “He who is without sin may cast the first stone.” Then he bent down and wrote something in the dust, perhaps he may have written, “As ye judge, so shall ye be judged.” Most men in those days, who had been given by Moses the right to issue their wives with a bill of divorce, had done so and taken younger wives, and according to the new teaching of Jesus would have been as guilty as the woman that they were accusing, and the hypocrites knowing full well that the woman had not broken the Law of Moses and was innocent of any crime according to their own teachings, they were forced to walk away with their tails between their legs, thereby admitting to the people that they were not without sin.

Jesus then turned to his mother and asked, “Is there no one left to condemn you?” No one Lord she answered. “Well then,” said Jesus, “I do not condemn you either. Go, but don’t sin again,” and it was for this reason that the mother of Jesus chose to remain separate from her husband Cleophas and his children, Simeon, Judas, and James the younger: and this is the reason why, on the cross, Jesus entrusted his mother, “Mary the wife of Cleophas,” into the care of his beloved disciple John.

Her husband Cleophas/Alphaeus and his sons, James, Simeon and Jude, did not abandon Mary, but rather, it was she who abandoned them, in obedience to her firstborn.

It was the custom of the disciples after the death of Jesus, to meet and worship with the mother and family/sisters of Jesus. See Acts 1: 14. Then after Peter was miraculously released from prison, Peter ran straight to the house where he knew the faithful would be gathered in prayer for his safety, straight to the House of Mary the Mother of young John, who had been surnamed "MARK," which, according to Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible, means, "Hammer, or the Hammerer," and John surnamed "Mark," is associated with young John the beloved disciple, who Jesus had surnamed "Son of thunder," who was adopted by Mary the mother of Jesus.

Later on, Joseph the Levite who had come from Cyprus in the land of Macedonia, and was given the surname ‘Barnabas ‘ took his half-sister Mary, who was the daughter of his Father (Heli) and with young John, who was surnamed "Mark," they moved up into the land of Pamphylia, where today, in the town of Ephesus the ancient grave sites of Mary the mother of Jesus and of John surnamed Mark, can still be visited.

[anepsios] appears only the one time in the New Testament: In Young’s Literal Translation its meaning is “Nephew,” and in the King James Version, it is translated “Sister’s son.” Marcus, sister’s son to Barnabas, or Mark the son to the sister of the Levite who came from Cyprus, Joseph/Cleopas/Alpheaus, who was surnamed ‘Barnabas’ by the apostles.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
And both would still just be stories. See how this works?


People thought it was strange he died "early". He was quickly removed and entombed. I don't see a coroner's report anywhere.


John is the only person to mention that, IIRC. Also, the soldier may have intended to kill Jesus, but if Jesus suffered from some sort of fluid overload in his chest or abdomen (it only says "side"), then ironically it might have saved his life, just like a chest tube is used today to drain the body cavity filled with fluid or air.


But ... he ... wasn't. He ... was ... entombed. Being entombed might be considered burial, but one will have an oxygen-filled room and one won't.


Didn't the women do stuff to his body? Who else was there to witness?


Have a verse proving he was there?


He was supposedly tortured horribly, right? Why are the only wounds mentioned the ones in his hands and feet (and side?)? Where are the thorn marks? The whipping lacerations? He should look like ground meat, not some cute white guy with easily replicated non-fatal holes that aren't even bleeding.


Resurrection - Wikipedia



I thought the accusation by others WAS that the body was stolen or something. It's funny when Christians say that if it were false, they'd be called out on it, but per the stories, they WERE. They were just demonized for doing so.

The fact that you have to proclaim wild and unproven conspiracy theories proves that naturalism lacks any valid explanation.

People usually died on the cross, there is only 1 known case of someone who survived. The spear in the chest would confirm his death. The description of water and blood flowing out of his body indicates hypovolemic shock.

Why wouldn’t James witness the burial of his brother? Most brothers witness the burial of his brother. Or in any case why wouldn’t Mary the mother of Jesus tell James that Jesus didn’t die?

And as I said before, an injured nearly dead Christ would have not impressed anybody.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Hi, I'm back!

Subduction Zone wrote……. There probably was no tomb. The most common thing done with crucified people was to leave them up as a warning.
and we have no idea what the apostles claim. There are meetings by them on this part of Jesus's life.

The Anointed……. Well atheists like yourself who are incapable of comprehending the truths that are revealed in the scripture, which in their ignorance they attack, might have no idea what the apostles claim, but the believer knows that John the beloved apostle of Jesus, wrote in his memoirs that Joseph of Arimathea, who is believed to be the biological son of Joseph ben Jacob and half-brother to Jesus, having been born of the same womb, buried Jesus in a tomb nearby which had never been used.

Matthew is a disciple of Jesus, also called Levi and a relative of Alphaeus and is generally believed to be the author of the Gospel of Matthew. Matthew 27: 60; Has Joseph of Arimathea, placing the body of Jesus in his own family tomb, which he himself had recently hewn out of a solid rock. Joseph, the son of Mary was younger than Jesus, so we can assume he wasn’t thinking of his own imminent death, but perhaps that of his father.

Mark has Joseph burying Jesus in a tomb, while Luke has Jesus being buried in a tomb that had never been used.

As you don’t believe anything recorded in the scriptures, why would you believe that Jesus was buried in a tomb, and like I have said before, who, but another non-believer gives a rat’s tail what you believe.

It was not uncommon for men of Galilee in those days to carry three names, one in Hebrew, one in Greek, and one in Aramaic. The son of Mark Anthony, ‘Alexander Helios III,/Heli,’ who sired Joseph the biological father of Jesus, would have been seen as a father of renowned. Alphaeus and Cleophas, in Young’ s Analytical Concordance Subject Guide, are said to be one and the same person: From the Subject Guide; where it is written; “Cleophas, husband of Mary, also called Alphaeus.”

Joseph, the biological father of Jesus, was the son of Alexander Helios/Heli a father of renowned, who is said to have been murdered by Herod the Great in 13 BC. Cleophas, the Masculine form of Cleopatra, is the Greek, meaning: “Of a renowned father,” and Alphaeus, is the Aramaic of the same meaning: “Of a renowned father.”

Thomas=Tau’ma, the Aramaic for twin, is also called Didymus, which is the Greek for twin, he is Thomas/twin, Didymus/twin, Jude, the half-brother of Jesus and the son of the carpenter. A local tradition of eastern Syria identifies the Apostle Jude with Jude Thomas who was called ‘The Twin’ also known as Thomas (Aramaic), Didymus (Greek), and Jude (Hebrew.)

Even the opening words of the gospel of Thomas, read; “These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke, and which ‘Didymus Judas Thomas’ wrote down.” Revealing that the COPY of the Gospel of Thomas, which was dated to the middle 2nd century A D, was a copy by later scribes, of the words that ‘Didymus Jude Thomas’ had previously written down.

Knowing that in ART, Thomas Didymus Jude, the son of Alphaeus/Cleophas, is depicted with a carpenter’s rule and square. In "The Acts of Thomas, sometimes called by its full name, "The Acts of Judas Thomas," 2nd-3rd century CE, "The Apostles cast lots as to where they should go, and to Thomas, brother to Jesus fell India. Thomas was taken to King Goddophares the ruler of Indo-Pathian Kingdom as an architect and carpenter by Habban.”

We must now ask the question, "Who is the Carpenter to whom Mary was married at that time, when her family consisted of Jesus, James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Was it Joseph the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah, who was her first legitimate husband, or was it Joseph/Alphaeus/Cleophas the second husband of Mary and the Father of James the younger, the biological son of Mary and the youngest boy in the family, plus Simon and Judas, who is also called Thomas Didymus Jude, meaning twin?

Knowing from scripture that Mary had remarried and had borne James the younger of her three biological sons, to Alphaeus/Cleophas, who it would appear, had sired two sons to a previous marriage and they were Simeon and Jude, the two half-brothers of Jesus, we must now ask the question, did Joseph, Mary’s first husband and Father to young Joseph the second son of Mary of whom we know so little, “DIE,” or was he still alive at the time of the death of Jesus?

If this was the case, and the Joseph of Arimathea, who is believed to be the half-brother of Jesus, who laid the body of his brother in his own family tomb which had never been used, would suggest that his father was still alive, then we would be faced with the fact that Joseph must have divorced Mary at some period, issuing her with a bill of divorce, a copy of which, would have been kept in the filing systems of the scribes in the Temple, and it would appear that Joseph ben Jacob had raised his son and namesake "Joseph the son of Mary" by himself: this being the reason why so little is known of Joseph the son of Mary and why James the younger is always placed before his older brother Joseph.

Because James the son of Alphaeus, who is also named Cleophas, is, according to Paul, the Brother (Of the same womb) to Jesus, and James the brother of the Lord was a young man when Jesus began his ministry at about 30 years of age, it becomes apparent that Mary had married Cleophas/Alphaeus when Jesus was a young boy.

But if Mary had remarried while her past husband was still alive, which was absolutely legal according to the law of Moses as it is today, she would have been seen to be living in a state of adultery according to the new and controversial teaching of Jesus, which stated that anyone who remarries while their current spouse is still alive, they are committing adultery, and the Jewish authorities would have been right onto him.

This of course, is exactly what we see in scripture. The religious authorities of those days were always looking for ways that they might trap Jesus according to his own teaching and then accuse him to the people, and it was after Jesus had been preaching that if a divorced person remarried while their original spouse was still alive, they were committing adultery, it was then that the hypocritical priests who had access to the documents in the Temple, and copies of the bills of divorce that had been issued to the women when divorced by their husbands, thought that they had the means whereby they could make Jesus appear to the people to have one law for himself and another for everyone else. See John chapter 8.

Pointing to his mother, who was with the women who had followed him from Galilee, who was among the crowd that were listening to the great teacher who was setting Israel on fire, they said to Jesus in their most patronising voice, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the very act of adultery.” (This was according to the new teaching of Jesus) “In our law Moses commanded that such a woman must be stoned to death. Now, what do you say?” They said this in order to trap Jesus and accuse him to the people.

Jesus knew what those hypocrites were up to, those hypocrites who thought nothing of stoning the innocent Stephen to death, were bound by the law of Moses to stone this woman to death if she had indeed been caught in the very act of sexual intercourse with a man other than He, too who she was legally married at that time, which was not the case, as she was guilty of no crime according to the temporal laws of the land.

Jesus turned the tables on them by saying, “He who is without sin may cast the first stone.” Then he bent down and wrote something in the dust, perhaps he may have written, “As ye judge, so shall ye be judged.” Most men in those days, who had been given by Moses the right to issue their wives with a bill of divorce, had done so and taken younger wives, and according to the new teaching of Jesus would have been as guilty as the woman that they were accusing, and the hypocrites knowing full well that the woman had not broken the Law of Moses and was innocent of any crime according to their own teachings, they were forced to walk away with their tails between their legs, thereby admitting to the people that they were not without sin.

Jesus then turned to his mother and asked, “Is there no one left to condemn you?” No one Lord she answered. “Well then,” said Jesus, “I do not condemn you either. Go, but don’t sin again,” and it was for this reason that the mother of Jesus chose to remain separate from her husband Cleophas and his children, Simeon, Judas, and James the younger: and this is the reason why, on the cross, Jesus entrusted his mother, “Mary the wife of Cleophas,” into the care of his beloved disciple John.

Her husband Cleophas/Alphaeus and his sons, James, Simeon and Jude, did not abandon Mary, but rather, it was she who abandoned them, in obedience to her firstborn.

It was the custom of the disciples after the death of Jesus, to meet and worship with the mother and family/sisters of Jesus. See Acts 1: 14. Then after Peter was miraculously released from prison, Peter ran straight to the house where he knew the faithful would be gathered in prayer for his safety, straight to the House of Mary the Mother of young John, who had been surnamed "MARK," which, according to Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible, means, "Hammer, or the Hammerer," and John surnamed "Mark," is associated with young John the beloved disciple, who Jesus had surnamed "Son of thunder," who was adopted by Mary the mother of Jesus.

Later on, Joseph the Levite who had come from Cyprus in the land of Macedonia, and was given the surname ‘Barnabas ‘ took his half-sister Mary, who was the daughter of his Father (Heli) and with young John, who was surnamed "Mark," they moved up into the land of Pamphylia, where today, in the town of Ephesus the ancient grave sites of Mary the mother of Jesus and of John surnamed Mark, can still be visited.

[anepsios] appears only the one time in the New Testament: In Young’s Literal Translation its meaning is “Nephew,” and in the King James Version, it is translated “Sister’s son.” Marcus, sister’s son to Barnabas, or Mark the son to the sister of the Levite who came from Cyprus, Joseph/Cleopas/Alpheaus, who was surnamed ‘Barnabas’ by the apostles.
If you are going to start out a post with an outright falsehood how do you expect anyone to believe any of your post. And you are very mistaken, it was not the "godless" that went after Jesus. He was attacked by those that believed in God. You really have a huge tendency to get everything wrong.


I see that most of your post is unrelated garbage as usual and you did not deal at all with the fact that when people were crucified they were left up as a warning to others. That made the punishment doubly effective. Not only did you punish the offender, it also put fear into the populace as a whole. Taking someone down immediately after they died makes that form of execution rather pointless. Nice dodge by the way, try again.
 
Top