Freethought & Rationalism Archive

arnoldo · 05-11-2009, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rightwing

. . . What Jesus said to her is most interesting. loosely " woman dont touch me. I have not yet ascended to my father". The question is why did he say this?
an idea I had is that his body lay in death for 3 days while 'He' was elsewhere, and Jesus being of some understandings beyond his contemporaries, knew that Mary may risk exposure to pathogens on him since he was beaten and lanced prior to death. Of course this is all my 'what if' ing but I'd be interested in hearing other ideas about why Jesus said this to Mary.

Edward Chumney in his book entitled, " The Seven Festivals of the Messiah" gives the following explanation. . .

Quote:

Additional Aspects to the High Priest Ceremony

In order to enter the Holy of Holies, the high priest (Cohen HaGadol) was first to bathe his entire body, going beyond the mere washing of hands and feet as required by other occasions. The washing symbolized his desire for purification (Numbers [Bamidbar] 19). The washing was of his clothes and his flesh (Numbers [Bamidbar] 8:5-7; 19:7-9). This was done in conjunction with taking the blood of an animal with the finger and sprinkling the blood upon the altar (Number [Bamidbar] 19:1-4; Leviticus [Vayikra] 8:13-15). This ritual is once again seen in Numbers (Bamidbar) 31:21-24. The spiritual understanding of this is given in Hebrews 9; and 10:19-22. The sprinkling of blood upon the altar is also mentioned in Exodus (Shemot) 29:1-4,10-12, 16,20-21; and Leviticus (Vayikra) 1:3-5,11; 3:1-2,8; 4:1-6; 5:4-6,9. Once again, the spiritual understanding is found in Hebrews 9:11-14,23-25, and First Peter (Kefa) 1:2.

Messianic Understanding

Yeshua is the High Priest (Cohen HaGadol) of G-d (Hebrews 3:1). In John (Yochanan) 20:17, Yeshua said, "Touch Me not; for I am not yet ascended to My Father...." These were the same words that the priest spoke before he ascended the altar. Yeshua can be seen as Priest by looking at some other Scriptures. . .
Source: http://www.hebroots.org/chap8.html#CHAP8

Amaleq13 · 05-11-2009, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rightwing

What I wanted to add to my first post is this: If Jesus was not resurrected, what happened to his body?

Lost in an anonymous mass grave (tomb story is a later legend) or too decomposed after forty days to make identification possible (per Acts).

rcscwc · 05-12-2009, 05:44 PM

It is a set of revelations to me:

That Bible starts with Gen 3.14.

That Adam, perhaps was born of seed of woman.

About God's plans. He has not told you all, has he? Then what makes you think that bible is not incomplete or false? How are you sure god did not hold back the TRUTH.

Doug Shaver · 05-12-2009, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rightwing

I am a devout believer in Jesus, that he lived and was crucified.
These are pretty well documented facts as most would agree.

Yes, most would agree that Jesus really lived and really was crucified.

And therefore he did really live and was really crucified, right? Because most people agree to those facts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rightwing

the testimony regarding his appearance(s) afterward.

Most people agree that that testimony is not trustworthy.

And therefore . . . . ?

IamJoseph · 05-12-2009, 11:30 PM

"Jesus better documented than any other ancient figure"

I'm not sure what is meant here by 'documented'. There are no documents outside the European ones, which are many centuries later. None of the NT figures are provable, despite being numerous apostles and writers; Saul of Tarsus is the only one provable as an historical figure, but his writings cannot be proven as made by him. This is a shocking situation for this period, when writings were commonplace and copious.

I would say that Jesus was the least provable figure in all recorded history, and almost everything from Europe more than a 100 years old cannot be seen with any veracity. The Vatican won't even allow any examination of its archives, which means it can manipulate anything it wants to, and none can affirm or deny it.

Europe created the blood libels and the Protocols of Zion, and let it ride as history for centuries, costing 1000's of innocent lives, till it was overwhelmingly proven as total forgeries. Today, Europe is silent of these same forgeries pervasive in the islamic world - instead of being in the forefront in dismissing these terrible European lies. What does that tell us about the NT & Quran priests and clerics - and the scriptures they rely on?

I think had Jesus been real - he would be aghast at Europe, European Christians, their scriptures, beliefs and deeds. For one thing he would not be a Christian, and never have adopted those beliefs. The situation is that two of the world's biggest religions can be negated in one single stroke from the ground - even as both contradict each other: they can still be negated because the Quran condoned as revelation the imaculate birth described in the Gospels. This is a most precarious situation when it is contemplated.

IamJoseph · 05-12-2009, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by rightwing

I am a devout believer in Jesus, that he lived and was crucified.
These are pretty well documented facts as most would agree.

Yes, most would agree that Jesus really lived and really was crucified.

This is a lie-by-omission. Over 2 million jews were crucified between 25 and 75 CE; over 1.2 Million Jews sacrificed themselves in 70 CE and their country in the greatest defense of a faith in all recorded history. Which Gospel verses describe this?

The sacrifice of jesus does not make sense: he would have lost his life anyway, unless he converted to Romanism, worshipped the Emperor's image, and not violated the Heresy law hovering in that time. This is also the only reason the pre-islamic arabs and nazerites survived. Ignore this reality and anything goes; factor it in and nothing goes as the Gospels tell it.

rcscwc · 05-13-2009, 12:05 AM

Quote:

lpetrich;

Quote:

rcscwc;Lols. Better documented? His year of birth is not known, what to talk date. What documentation is available about his missing 18 years? That when he claimed to be a highly prophecied figure!

That brings to mind -- why wasn't the precise date of his birth or his crucifixion better remembered? Or at least what years those events happened in?

That too about a much prophecied[allegedly] figure. Krishna WAS prophecied, and His birth is recorded in DETAIL.

Quote:

You'd expect such an important event to make a big enough impression to make JC's disciples remember what year it happened in, like the 20th year of Tiberius Caesar's rule or the 8th year of Pontius Pilate's.

Yet it made no impression. Remember, NT claims he was followed by THOUSANDS, yet an informer, Judas, was bribed to IDENTIFY him!! So much for his popularity!!!!!!

Quote:

I don't know about Mahavira, but Krishna and the Buddha are first written about some centuries after they lived -- if either of them had lived at all. Krishna and the Buddha both fit Lord Raglan's Mythic Hero profile suspiciously well, though the Buddha less well than Krishna. Of course, Jesus Christ is also a very good fit, so good that some people have claimed that Lord Raglan's profile was invented to discredit his historicity.

Such profiles are fictious. It was invented to discredit historicity of Krishna, Buddha and Mahavir. If Jesus cannot be proved, damn it, none can be.
It is possible to fit Marx too.

Recall, Krishna, Buddha and Mahavir were born in royal families. The latter two were heir apparents to the thrones they renounced. Krishna's father Vasudev was a noble, but not a king.

The latter two were well known during their life times. Hindu sources attest to that.

Do the Jewish sources attest to Jesus? NO.

Quote:

The four could not even put a coherent account of Jesus death. What color was his clothes? How many at the site of cross? What was written on the cross? No two agree.

Almost as if they various Gospel writers had invented those details independent of each other. Mark, the earliest, has only an empty tomb, and the other Gospel writers added lots of details, including an addition to Mark that described Jesus Christ appearing to his followers at his tomb.

On top of that Mary Joseph did not recognise her allegedly resuurected son. Imagine a mother failing to recognise her son!!

Roger Pearse · 05-13-2009, 01:47 AM

I'm not sure that atheists listening to religious programmes and then sending letters of complaint is a productive exercise, for atheists. Isn't it somewhat headbanging?

I don't think we can say that Jesus is "better documented than any other ancient figure." I would imagine that the claim made is a misremembered version of "better documented than any other comparable ancient figure". The latter is true, but a bit woolly for my liking.

Syoma · 05-13-2009, 02:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I don't think we can say that Jesus is "better documented than any other ancient figure." I would imagine that the claim made is a misremembered version of "better documented than any other comparable ancient figure". The latter is true, but a bit woolly for my liking.

I guess it boils down to what we mean by "documented." The gospels are theological documents. If they had been written by Livy, I think everyone would agree about Jesus being better documented. The objection is really to the reliability of the documentation, not the extent of it. Believers seem to tout the extent, while skeptics bemoan the reliability, but they both use the same terms to do so. It's a classic case of talking past one another, methinks.

Doug Shaver · 05-13-2009, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Yes, most would agree that Jesus really lived and really was crucified.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

This is a lie-by-omission.

No, it isn't. You are failing to distinguish between "Most people believe X" and "X is the truth."

It is a fact that most people believe (i.e. they would agree) that Jesus really lived and really was crucified. It is my own opinion that he never existed, but there is no contradiction between my having an opinion and there being a consensus that my opinion is wrong.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-12-2009, 05:44 PM	#43
rcscwc Banned Join Date: May 2008 Location: New Delhi, India. 011-26142556 Posts: 2,292	It is a set of revelations to me: That Bible starts with Gen 3.14. That Adam, perhaps was born of seed of woman. About God's plans. He has not told you all, has he? Then what makes you think that bible is not incomplete or false? How are you sure god did not hold back the TRUTH.

05-12-2009, 11:30 PM	#45
IamJoseph Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: AUSTRALIA Posts: 2,265	"Jesus better documented than any other ancient figure" I'm not sure what is meant here by 'documented'. There are no documents outside the European ones, which are many centuries later. None of the NT figures are provable, despite being numerous apostles and writers; Saul of Tarsus is the only one provable as an historical figure, but his writings cannot be proven as made by him. This is a shocking situation for this period, when writings were commonplace and copious. I would say that Jesus was the least provable figure in all recorded history, and almost everything from Europe more than a 100 years old cannot be seen with any veracity. The Vatican won't even allow any examination of its archives, which means it can manipulate anything it wants to, and none can affirm or deny it. Europe created the blood libels and the Protocols of Zion, and let it ride as history for centuries, costing 1000's of innocent lives, till it was overwhelmingly proven as total forgeries. Today, Europe is silent of these same forgeries pervasive in the islamic world - instead of being in the forefront in dismissing these terrible European lies. What does that tell us about the NT & Quran priests and clerics - and the scriptures they rely on? I think had Jesus been real - he would be aghast at Europe, European Christians, their scriptures, beliefs and deeds. For one thing he would not be a Christian, and never have adopted those beliefs. The situation is that two of the world's biggest religions can be negated in one single stroke from the ground - even as both contradict each other: they can still be negated because the Quran condoned as revelation the imaculate birth described in the Gospels. This is a most precarious situation when it is contemplated.

05-13-2009, 01:47 AM	#48
Roger Pearse Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 4,370	I'm not sure that atheists listening to religious programmes and then sending letters of complaint is a productive exercise, for atheists. Isn't it somewhat headbanging? I don't think we can say that Jesus is "better documented than any other ancient figure." I would imagine that the claim made is a misremembered version of "better documented than any other comparable ancient figure". The latter is true, but a bit woolly for my liking.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.