River

damn...whats with you guys ...making me look like some kinda gullible clown or sumthin'


Well anyways there's a tome of information about Jesus's life from several sources [ Nag Hammadi, Aramaic Mathew: Gospel of Perfect Life, and several Kashmiri documents that a Healer by the name St. Issa with a Mother named Maryam traveled to India]....Recently more and more scholars have been putting additional emphasis and gravity on Jesus's Lost Travels....


....but the Truth is ....if you don't believe in Jesus Christ at all ...and you believe the NT is fictitious as a whole then all of this is dramatic comedy for you....

so enjoy.....


---River

River

I'm not convinced that the Book of Mormon is authentic. There are however some traces of truth in it ...that Joseph Smith gathered secret knowledge from the Freemasons. For declaring Prophet hood and "stealing" well guarded secrets, Joseph Smith was murdered by his fellow Freemasons.


---River

Sven

"More and more scholars"? Can you substantiate this in any way?

Magdlyn

The idea that Jesus traveled to Tibet before his Galilee/Jerusalem mission is a huge hoax. Robt Price deals with it in The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, and online, here:

http://www.westarinstitute.org/Perio...bet/tibet.html

River

Jesus Christ was a nomad and ascetic traveller that visited many communities......

The Bible is missing a good" 18 years" of his life......

logic would tell me that Jesus (provided that he exists ) was doing something during....



---River

River

Perhaps he traveled there after his mission to Galilee/Jerusalem..../post-crucifixtion

I am not disagreeing with you...I am just entertaining other possibilities...considering that there is quite a bit of holes surrounding the life and history of Jesus Christ...



--River

River

...author of the "Greatest Story NEVER told", seems to have a slighly different take on whats stated in the URL

When he returned to the western world there was much controversy as to the authenticity of the document. He was accused of creating a hoax and was ridiculed as an imposter. In his defense he encouraged a scientific expedition to prove the original Tibetan documents existed.

One of his skeptics was Swami Abhedananda. Abhedananda journeyed into the arctic region of the Himalayas, determined to find a copy of the Himis manuscript or to expose Notovitch as a fraud. His book of travels, entitled "Kashmir O Tibetti," tells of a visit to the Himis Gonpa and includes a Bengali translation of two hundred twenty-four verses essentially the same as the Notovitch text. Abhedananda was thereby convinced of the authenticity of the Issa legend.

In 1925, another Russian named Nicholas Roerich arrived at Himis. Roerich, was a philosopher and a distinguished scientist. He apparently saw the same documents as Notovitch and Abhedananda. And he recorded in his own travel diary the same legend of Saint Issa.

fallingblood

Here is a site with documents talking about Jesus after the crucifixation
www.tombofjesus.com/Conclusion.htm

Jesus's death could have been symbolic, like much of the Bible. All that Jesus had to do was die symbolically to fulfill prophecy. The part in which Jesus was peirced with the spear is a mistranslation. All that it says is that he was poked, anyways, if he was stabbed and blood had flown from the wound, that in itself is a sign that he was still living as a dead body doesn't bleed.
Jesus never went through anything that other people didn't. The crucifixition was a routine procedure. Jesus also wasn't a small guy. You can tell this by how he lived his life. He wouldn't have died after only 3 hours on a cross (or 6 hours depending on where you read it at). Jesus couldn't hand on the cross to long anyways since it was the day before the sabbath. They couldn't have a man hanging on a cross during that time. Thats why Jesus's crucifixation was planned for that day, so he wouldn't have to hang there to long.

Plus there are many documents talking about Jesus after the crucifixation. These documents have Jesus living after his supposed death. Now unless everyone of those are false, I would have to say he was living after the crucifixation.

Jesus wasn't peirced, it's a mistranslation (either by accident or on purpose). It was acctually just poked. You don't have to stab someone to see if they are alive. You just have to poke them, maybe bring forth a little blood. But if you were poked, your body would show it. But by that time, Jesus was already limp and breathing very slowly so he looked did and didn't respond to the poke. Thats why they didn't break his legs.

If you look at the burial of Jesus, you will see that large amounts of healing herbs were used. They were herbs that weren't used for burial. The Bible gives enough evidence that Jesus wasn't dead. I mean why would there be herbs used to heal you in a burial ceremony? It doesn't make sense. Unless they were trying to be God and raise him from the dead.


John 19:29-30 states: "Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a sponge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth. When Jesus therefore had recieved the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." Now isn't it a little strange how Jesus died immediately after the drink? One notices how the vinegar drink was introduced as if it were brought for a specific purpose. With that said, it is thought that Jesus was given opium dissolved in some fluid when he was on the cross. The effects of opium were well known to Jews at that time. The poppy plant (papaver somniferum) was and still is widespread in Palestine. The main ingredient is morphine, which acts as a sedative, a narcotic and has a breath inhibiting effect. The opium also would have lowered his heart rate, inhibited breathing, and made his body completely limp which would have made him look dead.

The moment Jesus was seen hanging unconscious on the cross, Joseph of Arimathea quickly sought to have his body released. He used his full influence on Pilate in order to achieve the fastest possible release. It has even been said that the wealthy Joseph paid pilate a high sum in bribery. Joseph was pressed for time and anything would have seemed justifiable when it came to the slow bereaucracy of Roman politics. Pilate released the "corpse" and Joseph and Nicodemus quickly took him to the nearby tomb (Everything had been carefully prepared by Joseph of Arimathea up until the lance thrust. But, the man from Arimathea had begun making the necessary preparations much earlier than this. The first thing that had to be done was to purchase a garden in the immediate vicinity of the crucifixition site. With wise forethought, he had a new tomb cut from the estate, where a "alleged" dead body could be taken for safety. It was essential to have an unused tomb ready: to place Jesus in a tomb in which others were buried would have brought legal objections. It was believed that people who were executed would dishonor the bodies of the faithful dead. There would be no objection to a "burial" in an empty tomb, particularly since political criminals (Jesus was one) who were executed by the Romans could be allowed a honorable burial which would be denied to an ordinary criminal. Naturally, Joseph of Arimathea could not say that the tomb was for Jesus. Consider this for a moment. Why would Joseph, who came from Armathea near the Samarian border, build his family tomb in Jerusalem? He certainly had no intention of moving and living there. The Pilate texts state that after the "burial of Jesus, the Jews went to visit him in his home town of Arimathea, to which he had returned. In compliance with tradition, Joseph would certainly have had his family tomb in his home town. The new tomb was intended solely to serve as an alibi, to avoid having to move the seriousl injured Jesus very far).

In the seclusion of the tomb, the healing of Jesus was underway. The opium drink helped him to sleep past the pain, and the medical packing using the huge amounts of herbs (aloe and myrrh, both were well known healing herbs and had no part in a burial) was used to make the wonds heal faster. Jospeh and Nicodemus knew that thy couldn't leave Jesus in the tomb for long. During the Sabbath, then, the helpers had time to take care of Jesus, bat as soon as he came around, they had to move him elsewhere to aviod further problems from Jewish authorities.

The Jews were extremely suspicious and, according to Matthew 27:62-66, they asked for a Roman guard. However, Matthew is the only one who reports this. One can no longer say whether or not there really was a guard, but it does seem that it was added to his text to further dramatize the "angelic apparition." The Jews' desire for a Roman posting at the tomb, indeed, seemed peculiar to the Romans and it is very unlikely that they complied with the request.

When the woman came to the tomb with the oils for anointing on the first day of the week, they found the stone rolled aside and the tomb empty (Lucke 24:1-5, Mark 16:4-6)
After the so-called resurrection, Jesus was said to be constantly entering throught "locked doors" and surprising his followers (John 20: 19-26). Why then, one has to ask, was the massive stone rolled to the side of the tomb? It would surely have been a more astonishing miracle if the stone had to be moved and then the women found that Jesus had vanished.

The garments of the men in the above texts of Luke and Mark show that they were Essenes (Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus were both Essenes and Jesus was close to, if not a part of, the sect of the Essenes). The shocked women, after seeing that Jesus had vanised, recieved clear replies to their questions by the Essenes. Jesus had risen again and was no longer there. Luke's text makes it even clearer: "Why seek ye the living among the dead?" Does that not make one assume that Jesus was alive? That it was possible to save him?

Sorry for the lenght, and for repeating myself, but I hope this helps.

TySixtus

That was very well written, with a lot of info. But it's all speculation. If you had said that Alexander the Great took his armies into Persia, I'd believe you. There are multiple, collaborating sources on the argument. But dead bodies do bleed, and the Romans crucified people all seven days of the week. Those are just a few of the facts that you misconstrued, though I'm not saying you did it on purpose. Read 'The Hiram Key' and 'The Second Messiah', two very good books. They deal with crucifixion as well, though in a different light.

Nice post, but again, nothing in there can be proven to have actually happened, and is simply a whole lot of speculation.

Ty

dado

certainly possible, but seems a bit of a stretch. simpler explanation is found in the cultural context: wine, not water, would have been the transportable drink in Judea as potable water was a problem (wine and beer filled same use in europe for nearly 2000 years afterwards) and precious water was certainly not something to be wasted on a dead man. vinegar is just spoiled wine: by giving him vinegar they were - again - insulting him. it was another slap in the face.

his response may be nothing more than a literary allusion to the "serve the worst wine last" commentary during the water->wine miracle. no worse wine the vinegar -> the party is over.