Real story of jesus

[angellous_evangellous]

You mean I've just spent all of my 40+ years devoutly entrenched in a sham of a religion??

It's possible.

 

[Me Myself]

well the serpent told eve 'You positively will not die'

yet where is she today?

God made her die.

Remember when he put them out of the garden and didn´t let them eat of the tree of LIFE never again? I wonder why he did THAt...

 

[Shermana]

what do you think of the scriptures i posted above?

That they are all referring to life in the flesh. Meanwhile, there are plenty of references like the commandment to not commune with the Spirits of the dead, that the immortal soul survives the bodily death, into the "land of shadows"/"land of silence".

 

[Pegg]

That they are all referring to life in the flesh. Meanwhile, there are plenty of references like the commandment to not commune with the Spirits of the dead, that the immortal soul survives the bodily death, into the "land of shadows"/"land of silence".

lets take the scritpure in Ecclesiastes which states that the 'dead are conscious of nothing at all'
how can that be accurate if the dead are conscious in a different state?

Or lets take the scripture which states there is 'no knowledge, nor wisdom, nor devising in sheol, the place to which you are going'
how can that fit in with the account about the prophet samuel being called up and informing Saul of the outcome of his battle against the Philistines?

in both cases, the idea that the dead are still conscious and can communicate or think or act while dead do not harmonize....they are a contradiction.

Does God contradict his own teachings?

 

[Ahsanraza]

You mean I've just spent all of my 40+ years devoutly entrenched in a sham of a religion??

its about ignorance, we believe whatever we have been told, we do not prefer research. if we join rationality and logic in religon we can find truth.

 

[Ahsanraza]

Turin Shroud is not "scientific proof" of anything.

The shroud doesn't prove either way that Jesus was crucified or not, and it doesn't prove that Jesus existed or not, because the shroud is a medieval (or Renaissance) fake.

It is also old news, and long since debunked, as fake.

One thing for certain if this is your "proof" of Jesus not being crucified then I must say it is truly pathetic one. Pathetic because you didn't explain your reasoning with your claim about the Turin Shroud.

Explain your reasoning with your claim and how shroud support your claim.

kindly, read the research on turin shroud by Prof Max Frie, a distinguished crimonolgist and director of the sceintfic lab of the zurich police, he spent years on this research and uses most advanced technologies.
kindly read a book Jesus died in kashmir by Mr Fabar Kaiser, published in 1976. kindly read book Jesus did not die on cross by Kurt Bema.
the twenty eight bloodstains on shroud prove that Jesus did not die on cross .
first u read this stuff then attack on me.

 

[arthra]

"...quickly returned to India to avoid a real death by the romans..."

Jesus "escaped"...

In my view.. the idea that Jesus escaped martyrdom by some kind of device like a drug or was revived later and then travelled to India, Kashmir or where ever is somehow cowardly.

I have read the books about this and mostly the Ahmaddiyih material starts with the assumption that Jesus escaped...

The Notovich book has Notovich break his leg ..get's treated in a monastery and is shown some manuscripts in "Pali" which is odd because this is a Tibetan monastery.. The monk supposedly tells him the story.. Notovich was not a scholar..

Later no body remembers this or attests to it.. It's a romance story..there is no manuscript anyone has found in the years since that can back up this story.

They also have a tomb of Moses and Mary in Kashmir... along with one that is asigned to Issa..so there you are...if you want to believe it that's fine.

You also have stories about Jesus travelling to Glastonbury...

Today Glastonbury Abbey presents itself as "traditionally the oldest above-ground Christian church in the world," which according to the legend was built at Joseph's behest to house the Holy Grail, 65 or so years after the death of Jesus.[45] The legend also says that as a child, Jesus had visited Glastonbury along with Joseph. The legend probably was encouraged during the medieval period when religious relics and pilgrimages were profitable business for abbeys. William Blake mentioned the legend in a poem that became a popular hymn, "Jerusalem" (see And did those feet in ancient time).[46]

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

if you want to believe it that's fine..it's your choice.

 

[Shermana]

lets take the scritpure in Ecclesiastes which states that the 'dead are conscious of nothing at all'
how can that be accurate if the dead are conscious in a different state?

Or lets take the scripture which states there is 'no knowledge, nor wisdom, nor devising in sheol, the place to which you are going'
how can that fit in with the account about the prophet samuel being called up and informing Saul of the outcome of his battle against the Philistines?

in both cases, the idea that the dead are still conscious and can communicate or think or act while dead do not harmonize....they are a contradiction.

Besides the fact that it depends on how you interpret it, I've also mentioned that Ecclesiates's canonicity has been questioned by ancient Jews for a long time, but even then, it's quite clear that there's a commandment to not seance with the Spirits of the dead. Personally I don't think Ecclesiates should be canonical, even though its traditionally accepted as such (I say the same for Ruth) and many Rabbis were of this opinion as well, but it's clear that the Scripture does in fact refer to the afterlife as a real thing, and that dead spirits should not be contacted. You are welcome to believe Ecclesiastes is canonical due to tradition, but it wasn't always the case. I believe I've discussed this issue of Ecclesiastes's dubious history with you before. I like the book, but it was by no means universally accepted as canon until later on. And even then, the Dead not being conscious merely could be interpreted simply to mean that they are no longer alive to sense anything in the flesh.

Does God contradict his own teachings?

It depends on how you interpret them, and what exactly are his teachings. For the record, anyone can look up the issue of Ecclesiastes and see that it was heavily disputed and "tradition" won out for seemingly odd reasons.

Canonicity of Ecclesiastes - BibleWiki

It was basically a battle between the proto-Pharisaic Hillel and Shamai school, and the Hillelists won.

The book probably won its way at last, because as these passages show it had a part of the Pharisaical influence in its favor. It was not a question of Pharisee against Sadducee. The Sadducees would find no fault with the book. The line of cleavage was between the schools of Shammai and Hillel, and ultimately, probably because the work passed under the great name of Solomon, the school of Hillel won and Ecclesiastes became a part of the Scriptures.

http://christianbookshelf.org/mcfadyen/introduction_to_the_old_testament/ecclesiastes.htm

t is not surprising that the book of Ecclesiastes had a struggle to maintain its place in the canon, and it was probably only its reputed Solomonic authorship and the last two verses of the book that permanently secured its position at the synod of Jamnia in 90 A.D. The Jewish scholars of the first century A.D. were struck by the manner in which it contradicted itself: e.g., "I praised the dead more than the living," iv.2, "A living dog is better than a dead lion," ix.4; but they were still more distressed by the spirit of scepticism and "heresy" which pervaded the book (cf. xi.9 with Numbers 15:39).In spite of the opening verse, it is very plain that Solomon could not have been the author of the book. Not only in i.12 is his reign represented as over—I was king—though Solomon was on the throne till his death, but in i.16, ii.7, 9, he is contrasted with all—apparently all the kings—that were before him in Jerusalem, though his own father was the founder of the dynasty. There is no probability that Solomon would have so scathingly assailed the administration of justice for which he himself was responsible, as is done in iii.16, iv. i, v.8. The sigh in xii.12 over the multiplicity of books is thoroughly inappropriate to the age of Solomon.

http://www.bookrags.com/research/ecclesiastes-eorl-04/

Not surprisingly, Ecclesiastes was one of the books about whose canonicity certain rabbis raised questions in the late first century CE, when such issues were being discussed. The shocking nature of a number of the observations of Ecclesiastes provoked some of the opposition. In addition, the book's odd, self-contradictory structure gave pause. As a remark in the Talmud observes, "the sages sought to withdraw the book of Qohelet because its words are mutually contradictory" (b. Shabb. 30b).

The debate went on even in the Talmudic period.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0411/is_n1_v44/ai_17155566/

The mishnah in Yadayim 3:5 elaborates on this:
All books in the Bible defile the hands. Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes defile the hands. Rabbi Yehuda states that Song of Songs defiles the hands and Ecclesiastes is in dispute. Rabbi Yossi states that Ecclesiastes does not defile the hands and Song of Songs is in dispute.(12)

 

[Shades-o-Blue]

its about ignorance, we believe whatever we have been told, we do not prefer research. if we join rationality and logic in religon we can find truth.

For you it's about fear of the unknown. I, on the other hand, believe many things, and it's a culmination of what I've been taught, what I've studied out myself, and what I've learned in communication with the great creator. God lives, and I've seen his influence in many lives, including my own.

 

[Ahsanraza]

For you it's about fear of the unknown. I, on the other hand, believe many things, and it's a culmination of what I've been taught, what I've studied out myself, and what I've learned in communication with the great creator. God lives, and I've seen his influence in many lives, including my own.

ok, good

 

[Ahsanraza]

"...quickly returned to India to avoid a real death by the romans..."

Jesus "escaped"...

In my view.. the idea that Jesus escaped martyrdom by some kind of device like a drug or was revived later and then travelled to India, Kashmir or where ever is somehow cowardly.

I have read the books about this and mostly the Ahmaddiyih material starts with the assumption that Jesus escaped...

The Notovich book has Notovich break his leg ..get's treated in a monastery and is shown some manuscripts in "Pali" which is odd because this is a Tibetan monastery.. The monk supposedly tells him the story.. Notovich was not a scholar..

Later no body remembers this or attests to it.. It's a romance story..there is no manuscript anyone has found in the years since that can back up this story.

They also have a tomb of Moses and Mary in Kashmir... along with one that is asigned to Issa..so there you are...if you want to believe it that's fine.

You also have stories about Jesus travelling to Glastonbury...

Today Glastonbury Abbey presents itself as "traditionally the oldest above-ground Christian church in the world," which according to the legend was built at Joseph's behest to house the Holy Grail, 65 or so years after the death of Jesus.[45] The legend also says that as a child, Jesus had visited Glastonbury along with Joseph. The legend probably was encouraged during the medieval period when religious relics and pilgrimages were profitable business for abbeys. William Blake mentioned the legend in a poem that became a popular hymn, "Jerusalem" (see And did those feet in ancient time).[46]

Glastonbury - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

if you want to believe it that's fine..it's your choice.

ahmadyia community has Quranic, biblical and Historical evidences that Jesus was human prophet, He died normally as other prophets died.

 

[Ahsanraza]

It is notable in the New Testament testimony that Pontius Pilate believed Jesus to be innocent and did not want him executed. One of the influences was a dream Pilate's wife convincing her of Jesus' innocence, and the message she passed on to Pilate was "leave that innocent man alone" (Matthew 27:19).

Pilate eventually acquiesced to the demand of the Jews that Jesus be crucified, as a riot was developing. However he then asked for a bowl of water and washed his hands before the crowd and exclaimed "I am innocent of the blood of this man. The responsibility is yours!" (Matthew 27:24) .
The Plan to Save Jesus

An analysis of the Gospels clearly reveals Pilate had an interest in saving Jesus' life to the best of this ability while trying to maintain official execution procedure as mandated by Roman law. Three key points may be noted:

• He set the crucifixion day just before the Sabbath, as Jewish law specifically prohibits bodies to hang on the cross by the start of Sabbath. Death would be unlikely to ensue within 6 hours (see "Short Duration")
• When the time came to remove Jesus and the two others on the cross, the Jews asked Pilate to break the legs of Jesus (John 19:31). However the centurions acting on Pilate's command did not break the legs of Jesus (John 19:33). It was because he had taken these precautionary measures that Pilate was surprised when he was told that Jesus was "already dead" (Mark 15:44).
• Roman protocol was that body would lie on the crucifixion grounds and be subjected to the elements and animals. However Pilate allowed something quite interesting to take place by deviating from standard practice. He allowed Jesus to be given to Jesus' friends not his enemies.

 

[Ahsanraza]

An important piece of information is mentioned in the Gospel of John which supports the view that Jesus did not die on the cross:

"One of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water" (John 19:34).

Blood pouring out is a sign of intact circulation, with the spear injuring an arteriole. Note the words 'sudden flow' which implies blood pressure. The 'water' was perhaps pleural fluid, present between the rib cage and lungs.

As blood does not rush out of corpses, the quoted verse did present a problem to at least one Church Father, Origen. In his exegesis of John 19:34, he admitted that blood coagulates after death, but the flow of blood in this case constituted a miracle and thus needed no explanation. (Contra Celsus, by Origen, translated by H. Chadwick, Cambridge U).

The spear thrust into the side of Jesus was not meant as a kind of definitive blow, but as a rough (and actually inaccurate) indicator if death had occurred. If the intent were to kill, the soldier would have stabbed into the front of the chest to injure the heart. However, in the event the person was not on the cross for sufficient length of time, death was usually caused by breaking the legs, as was done with the individuals hanging along side Jesus.

 

[Ahsanraza]

When the news of the supposed death of Jesus reached Pilate, he was surprised to learn that Jesus had passed away so soon (Mark 15:44). His testimony is extremely important and revealing. Here was the man who probably had the most knowledge in his time of the nature of the punishment of crucifixion and likely officiated over many such crucifixions.

Though many details of the crucifixion have been lost with the end of the Roman Empire, there are ample records to show this particular punishment took at least two to three days to kill a person. For example, good testimony comes from historian Flavius Josephus in the first century A.D who described survivors of crucifixions. The writer Plutarch (c 75 A.D) mentions some individuals surviving some ten days on the cross.

The New Bible Dictionary also concluded based on the historical facts of crucifixion that "death by this method was usually quite protracted, rarely supervening before thirty-six hours, and on occasion taking as long as nine days" (1962 ed, Intervarsity Press, Page 282).

 

[arthra]

O.K. Ahsanraza,


Now we know you can copy from an Ahmadi site and paste to this forum.

 

[Ketzer]

Interesting: my thread about the Turin Shroud and this thread seems to have very much in common. For me it is not so important, whether Jesus was in India or not - there seems to be evidence that he became very old, and even influenced a buddhist council, what I really can imagine. For me is only important that he had to leave the Roman Empire, because otherwise because of his scars he would have instantely been recognized of the survivor of a failed crucifixion and he and all his friends, who have helped him, would have been crucified (again). The Romans could not take a joke in such things.
After leaving the Roman Empire he had no influence any more to his desciples and the evolving church (no internet yet available). Paul (who did not know him personally) took over in the end.

 

[JacobEzra.]

Ecclesstiasblahblah, Kohelth is not a prophetic book is it? I never thought so, so why bother to use its words as a to justify some belief? If anything it has a more meaning then that, but not on a theological basis.

I always just got from it,"**** sucks, deal with it and praise Gd"

Still my favorite though

 

[Ahsanraza]

O.K. Ahsanraza,


Now we know you can copy from an Ahmadi site and paste to this forum.

just wanted to show u that ahmadis are rich with evidences, evidences which cannot be rejected on logical, rational and historical basis

 

[Ahsanraza]

After the crucifixion, Jesus came under the care of his devoted followers who brought him into a spacious tomb.
If a man survived the death punishment, we would expect such a person to show clear evidence of the wounds. We would expect him to keep a low profile and move away from the place of crucifixion, as there may be the chance of re-arrest. Fear would be exhibited by his followers out of concern for their master.
The Gospel testimony leads precisely to that conclusion.
Jesus shows his wounds to Thomas (John 20:25-7), showing he did not have a supernatural, resurrected body, but a patient's body.

He hurriedly travelled away from the locality of the crucifixion and chose to meet only his closest followers:
"Go tell my brothers to leave for Galilee, and they will see me there" (Matthew 28:10).
The followers of Jesus were frightened to the extent that they decided not to tell anyone about his emergence from the tomb (Mark 16:8).




Not once did Jesus appear before his persecutors or wandered through the center of Jerusalem asking people now to accept him as the resurrected Messiah who had atoned for their sins.

 

[Ahsanraza]

All we have is a man in his earthly body of flesh and bones (Luke 24:39) who suffered pangs of hunger (Luke 24:41) and staying out of the lime-light. In convincing his disciples that he had the same wounded body, he in effect was showing he never died as God saved him from the ordeal just as Jonah emerged alive from the fish (see "Sign of Jonah").